Court's ruling in funeral protest case restates First Amendment principles

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.

Source : [URL=]"http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_exclusive/20110302/pl_yblog_exclusive/courts-ruling-in-funeral-protest-case-restates-first-amendment-principles;_ylt=Aiwx0rUlzBLANAUsnA.XcGWs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTVtMW5vaWt2BGFzc2V0A3libG9nX2V4Y2x1c2l2ZS8yMDExMDMwMi9jb3VydHMtcnVsaW5nLWluLWZ1bmVyYWwtcHJvdGVzdC1jYXNlLXJlc3RhdGVzLWZpcnN0LWFtZW5kbWVudC1wcmluY2lwbGVzBGNjb2RlA21vc3Rwb3B1bGFyBGNwb3MDMgRwb3MDOARwdANob21lX2Nva2UEc2VjA3luX3RvcF9zdG9yeQRzbGsDY291cnRzcnVsaW5n"[/URL]

This is such bullpomegranate. You know, I dont have a problem with people and whatever religion they decide to follow, but dont try to push it of on others. This is exactly why I am not a religious person. Those people are just ignorant. How would they feel if one of them had a funeral for a loved one and there were a bunch of protesters intruding on that private ceremony?

Ugh, I'm a little disgusted with their decision, but it only makes logical sense sadly.

I just wish people know a thing or two about manners these days.

I wish we had less freedom.

US is really fucked up. Tons of people with different nationalities, culture, religions, who knows what else and they can't accept/tolerate each other...
A place that's so multicultural or whatever and you're living in "a series of worlds closed on themselves, ignorant from each other".
Why can't people just gather, talk, learn and compare?
(Oh, right: people hates arguments/discussions/conversations when either side has a different position because "THEY'RE ATTACKING ME D:")

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.

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.

Agreed, whole-heartedly. Too much of a good thing is a bad thing.

Though the actions are constitutional, it does not mean it is right. There are just arrogant di'cks and shi'twads that exist, and unfortunately this is one of those instances where you can not do anything about it. If they had any dignity they would respect the funeral, and allow for proper grieving, but alas they are completely worthless, base, and demoral beings. It disgusts me that they spread that "God hates XXX" when God would love all of us unconditionally as we are all born of the same. Sin is the result of improper actions, but that never removes God's love for you.

While it is true that they had the right to protest under the First Amendment, at least the justices could've added something to their ruling to indicate that these types of disruptive, disrespectful protests would not be tolerated or something along those lines.

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

Wish we could drop Westboro Baptist Church in the border of Israel and Jordan/Syria/Egypt/whatever.

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.

It was expected... but still, fucking cults.

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.

Sad thing is though, WBC actually gets little to no money from what they do. They're actually hemorrhaging money into all of this because they fully believe that they are doing the right thing.
Watch their bbc documentary, their kids are so fucked up, you kind of feel sorry for them for having such shitty perants..

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.

I agree as well. You definitely said that perfectly Eos. My heart truly aches for the poor families having to endure such things.

Are there no laws about Hate Speech. I'm pretty sure Canada has some...

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

As disgusting as this is, I'm glad they came to this decision. As was once said, "he who gives up freedom for security deserves neither". They are total asses for doing this and I hope they are shunned by their community and peers for the rest of their lives, but we MUST protect their right to speak, at least. Every small step away from freedom (which has been happening all too often lately, I am sad to admit) is a step too far, even if a group of idiots gets away unscathed because their right was not restricted.

Do I then deserve the right to stand in your home, against your will, preaching to you the immorality of your lifestyle choices because my right to speech outweighs your freedom of privacy from my invasion?

Explain how this balances the two rights, in any way shape or form?

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

They hacked the front page of the website lol.

They hacked the front page of the website lol.

We already had that conversation.

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.

I was thinking about citing privacy as a solution to preventing asshats from ruining funerals. But then I thought about your third statement too. Then I started thinking about what exactly makes public places public, and private places private. Would it be possible to have a funeral business, complete with burial plots, but still have it private? Just things I'm throwing out in the blue.

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

Goodbye politics! It was nice knowing you!