Quote:Today's decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to back the right of a small Kansas church to protest outside military funerals is shocking—and not surprising at all.

The shocking part stems from what many Americans no doubt see as the sheer ugliness of the protests of Pastor Fred Phelps and his Westboro Baptist Church. This is a group that has protested homosexuality in American society, particularly in the military, by carrying such signs as "God hates the U.S.A./Thank God for 9/11" and "Thank God for Dead Soldiers."

The church's strategy is to stage protests at high visibility funerals, drawing media attention and gaining a platform for their views. The family of slain Marine Matthew Snyder sued church members for intentionally inflicting emotional distress after they picketed at his funeral. As appalling as most Americans would find these protests, the Supreme Court in an 8-1 decision found that the picketers could not be successfully sued because the protests were protected by the First Amendment.

As it turns out, this wasn't a stretch at all for the Supreme Court. Although Chief Justice John Roberts describes it as a "narrow decision," the Supreme Court merely applied longstanding principles from earlier cases, rendering a verdict that breaks no new ground and merely restates what has been said a number of times.

[ For complete coverage of politics and policy, go to Yahoo! Politics ]


"As a nation we have chosen…to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate," Roberts wrote.

Here were the key factors in the court's decision in the Westboro case:

The protests were on public property and concerned public issues: The church members stood on public land a thousand feet from the church where the funeral was held. As hateful as the signs were, they addressed such topics as homosexuality in society, military policy and alleged misconduct by the Catholic Church. All of those subjects are matters for public debate.

The protest was peaceful: While government can't punish free speech, it does have the power to limit disruptive actions. The picketers never stepped on the church property or engaged in violence. Instead, they sang hymns and read from the Bible.

The protesters followed the rules: Governments cannot limit what we say, but they can control where we say it. Regulations can be put in place to control the "time, place and manner" of protests as long as all points of view are treated equally. This gives states the right to say how closely protesters can come to a military funeral, and a majority of states have passed legislation to do just that. In this case, the picketers notified authorities in advance and followed all police instructions.

Many Americans will be outraged about the Supreme Court's decision, but many also will see it as a reaffirmation by the court that all Americans have a right to express their views, popular or otherwise, about matters of public interest. An overriding commitment to freedom of speech—even deeply offensive speech—is at the heart of the court's decision, and of the First Amendment.

Eosian Wrote:Personally I think the mistake here is that funerals should be protected private spaces. We bury our dead in public communal areas by necessity, not choice. Given our options most people would probably opt to bury their loved ones in their own private burial grounds free from the prying eyes of others intruding on their grief.

While I respect the rights of anyone to say what they want, they should not have the freedom to trample on your grief by insulting your loss in such a fashion. It's not about their right to free speech, it's protecting the respect and dignity of another person's passing and grief of their family during a trying time.

madanthony Wrote:I feel for the families of those who died and have the WBC show up, but in the grand scheme I think it's kinda funny that the WBC is making homophobia and anti-gay rights sentiments look terrible to the average person. It's like they're hastening us toward orientation equality in the Tyler Durdenest way possible. The WBC just wants lawsuit money anyway.

A constitutionally reasonable ruling.

Eosian Wrote:Personally I think the mistake here is that funerals should be protected private spaces. We bury our dead in public communal areas by necessity, not choice. Given our options most people would probably opt to bury their loved ones in their own private burial grounds free from the prying eyes of others intruding on their grief.

While I respect the rights of anyone to say what they want, they should not have the freedom to trample on your grief by insulting your loss in such a fashion. It's not about their right to free speech, it's protecting the respect and dignity of another person's passing and grief of their family during a trying time.

Secun Wrote:I'm curious how Anon will react. They're fed up with the Westboro Baptist Church as it is.

iamflip Wrote:They hacked the front page of the website lol.

Eosian Wrote:Personally I think the mistake here is that funerals should be protected private spaces. We bury our dead in public communal areas by necessity, not choice. Given our options most people would probably opt to bury their loved ones in their own private burial grounds free from the prying eyes of others intruding on their grief.

Phoenix Wrote:Your free speech really should end where it causes physical/emotional harm to others.