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

Syllabus

The picketing took place on public land approximately 1,000 feet from the church where the funeral was held, in accordance with guidance from local law enforcement officers. The picketers peacefully displayed their signs

I'm not sure what the problem here is. I approve of this ruling.

Just......WOW! <shakes head>

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/80698342/

I may not be a lawyer but what they are spreading is something that, whether we know or not, is happening, so why bother harassing us about it? Their entire argument is they have the right to voice their warnings, yet nothing in their preaching is "Hey this is how you undo it".

Goddam If I had an hour with this women, I would disown her.

[video=youtube;OZJwSjor4hM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZJwSjor4hM[/video]

The way things are going. Their will be a price on her head

Back to the subject of how them being 1000 feet away is still an invasion of privacy:

http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/03/03/us.west...tml?hpt=C1

"When my son died, I knew two days ahead of time that they were coming," Snyder said. "I had other children that I had to worry about that didn't know what was going on."

"Because of (the protesters') presence, I had police coming out of the woodwork, I had sheriffs. I had a SWAT team. I had emergency vehicles. I had media coming in," Snyder said. "All I wanted to do was have a private dignified funeral for my son.

"They turned it into a three-ring circus," Snyder said.

If that's not clear and obvious intrusion, what is?

Thats my problem with it eos. As a parent, I would imagine that having to bury your own child as being the most difficult thing to deal with. I would never want or wish that upon anyone.

I believe in the constitution and yes it needs to be upheld at all cost. So if they wanted to protest, fine, they can do so in silence just as well. Doing so and shouting the way they were is wrong though. If they were going to be allowed to do it then they should have been made to be further away because believe me when I say this, 1000ft is not very far and can be heard quite clearly especially since they were in mass and saying the same thing together. Hell they could even pick a more appropriate venue to voice their views and possibly get a better response.

Typically a protest is done to get attention to your cause and gain support for said cause. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesnt. They dont seem to be trying to gain support though. They seem to just want to be antagonistic. If that is the case then pretending to protest is a clear abuse of the system and should not be tolerated.

Look at it from this example. We have the right to bear arms. Because of that right we are allowed to have weopons without any conditions. Yet we are forced to go through "hoops" in order to get said weopons and then we have to register them. Then if you amass too many in the eyes of the government then the ATF comes in and takes them from you anyway because you had too many and became a "threat". Thats a clear violation of that right. Well allowing these people to do what they are doing is much the same, but because we have become such a tolerent society we dont feel it isnt ok and dont bother to challenge the ruling. I just think it is a sad day when people like this just absolutely abuse the system just to be a public nucese.

Typically a protest is done to get attention to your cause and gain support for said cause. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesnt. They dont seem to be trying to gain support though. They seem to just want to be antagonistic. If that is the case then pretending to protest is a clear abuse of the system and should not be tolerated.

It sounds like you want people to justify their speech before it's protected... which is not how the Constitution works. Paraphrasing the court: Their protest addresses a public manner, so it's protected. They're not calling out Snyder in particular. He knew they were going to be there. They called ahead and talk with the police about being there.

If people are that upset about the issue, they should look at their local governments and not at the Federal.

Westboro’s choice of where and when to conduct its picketing is not beyond the Government’s regulatory reach—it is “subject to reason-able time, place, or manner restrictions.”

It sounds like you want people to justify their speech before it's protected... which is not how the Constitution works. Paraphrasing the court: Their protest addresses a public manner, so it's protected. They're not calling out Snyder in particular. He knew they were going to be there. They called ahead and talk with the police about being there.

If people are that upset about the issue, they should look at their local governments and not at the Federal.

Basically, attack the law men, not the law followers. If you feel the law doesn't limit people from doing something wrong you should change the law. Not try to say what those people are doing is wrong.

I personally can't wait for the day a driver swerves off road during one of these events and takes out the whole lot of them and gets away with it on the grounds of temporary insanity at having had the memory of their loved one violated.

And then everyone protests at their funeral shouting that this has happened because they presumed to speak for god or something to that effect.

This would be the best.

And then everyone protests at their funeral shouting that this has happened because they presumed to speak for god or something to that effect.

This would be the best.

lol
I'll start building the "God Hates Haters" signs.
Maybe we should start protesting their protesting

lol
I'll start building the "God Hates Haters" signs.
Maybe we should start protesting their protesting

There was actually a community that went to one funeral that WBC was protesting and held American flags up in front of the protesters to shield the funeral. I tried finding the news story but I just found a lot of people requesting it happen at other funerals after they heard about the initial one.

There was actually a community that went to one funeral that WBC was protesting and held American flags up in front of the protesters to shield the funeral.

Pretty sure that was the Patriot Guard Riders.

There was actually a community that went to one funeral that WBC was protesting and held American flags up in front of the protesters to shield the funeral. I tried finding the news story but I just found a lot of people requesting it happen at other funerals after they heard about the initial one.

Video:

[video=youtube;-DZbix25Oy0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DZbix25Oy0&feature=related[/video]

This whole situation saddens me. I hate that our democratic system protects these groups. Unfortunately democracy does not allow us to pick and choose :\

It sounds like you want people to justify their speech before it's protected... which is not how the Constitution works. Paraphrasing the court: Their protest addresses a public manner, so it's protected. They're not calling out Snyder in particular. He knew they were going to be there. They called ahead and talk with the police about being there.

If people are that upset about the issue, they should look at their local governments and not at the Federal.

Ok, lets break it down just a little bit here. The first amendment reads as follows:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The key part here is the last portion. It says they have the right to assemble peacefully and to petition the government for a redress of grievences. This means that protesting should be aimed at the government. Their aim is at the people not the government. That is where they are wrong. Just because it is a "public issue" does not mean that they can in fact protest the public. That was not the intention of the founding fathers, hense the reason they added that last line. Otherwise the word and would have been the word or.

"Democracy" just doesn't work sometimes.

I'm actually really surprised nobody has lost temper and bombed/shoot them.

There was actually a community that went to one funeral that WBC was protesting and held American flags up in front of the protesters to shield the funeral. I tried finding the news story but I just found a lot of people requesting it happen at other funerals after they heard about the initial one.

I was just thinking this might be a good idea.

Yeah, these guys are assholes, but even though they're ignorant jerks if every time somebody was protesting when the people didn't want them to then where would we be? Would there have been a civil rights movement?

I apologize for the comparison between these asshats and probably the most justified and important series of protests in American history, but the principle allowing them to do it is the same. They have a right to say what they want as long as it is within the confines of the law.

They have a right to say what they want as long as it is within the confines of the law.

Hate speech is generally exempted from that in all reasonable cases, and there is no interpretation under which what these people are saying is not hate speech considering their specific message is "God hates _____".

Do you honestly think that if they were holding up a sign with a more crude variant of "Black People Gotta Die" at the funerals of african american soldiers and vets this would have the same ruling?

Read that guarantee again:
"right of the people peaceably to assemble"

There is nothing peacebly about assembling to harass a grieving family, regardless of your context. There is not peaceably about assembling to preach hatred.

Would there have been a civil rights movement?

MLK Jr. largely preached non-violence - he took a page from Ghandi's book in his protest against the then British Empire. It was only Malcom X and the Black Panthers (and their followers) that attempted violence. Those that were with MLK Jr. did peaceful protesting - sit-ins, marches, and picketing.

By the way, the meaning of peaceably means without violent force. Although WBC preaches hatred, they are never violent toward the people they disagree with. Sticks and stones.

By the way, the meaning of peaceably means without violent force. Although WBC preaches hatred, they are never violent toward the people they disagree with. Sticks and stones.

Inciting violence by others is just a cowardly way of doing it yourself.
Just because they're too spineless to act on their own message doesn't change the violent purposes of their message.
Law is interpreted, therefore my interpretation is just as valid as yours if a court would uphold it.