America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 13 years ago by teedubbya. 71 replies replies.
2 Pages12>
Supreme Court Sides With Heartless Bassards....
Jump to Bottom | Previous Topic | Next Topic
DrafterX Offline
#1 Posted: Wed, Mar 2 2011, 10:37 AM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,577
Supreme Court Sides With Westboro Baptist Church on Marine Funeral Protest

Published March 02, 2011

The Supreme Court, in an 8-1 decision, ruled Wednesday that members of the renegade Westboro Baptist Church have a constitutionally protected right to protest military funerals, though their demonstrations are widely despised and deplored.

The case presented the justices with a high-profile question about the breadth of First Amendment speech and assembly protections, with a majority of justices ruling that these fundamental rights outweigh the concerns of grieving family members who would rather not deal with the obnoxious protesters.

For years, the protesters have popped up at tens of thousands of places across the country to voice their displeasure with government policies they think promote homosexuality. They did so in 2006 at the funeral for Matthew Snyder, a marine killed in Iraq. He was not gay.

But the funeral provided the protesters an opportunity to speak out against government policies, though there's little -- if anything -- to connect Snyder to the Westboro cause.

Albert Snyder certainly didn't want anything do with the picketers when he buried his son. "I want them to stop doing this to our military men and women," Snyder told Fox News in October before the arguments. "I want the judges to hear that this case is not about free speech, it's about targeted harassment."

In the days leading up to the funeral, Westboro parishioners, including leader Fred Phelps, notified local authorities of their intention to picket the service. They were kept 1,000 feet away from the church and because of the use of an alternative entrance for church-goers there was no disruption to the memorial. Seven protestors held numerous signs including some that read, "Thank God for Dead Soldiers," "God Hates ****," and "You're Going to Hell." There were no arrests.

Snyder filed a lawsuit against Phelps based on the protest and a subsequent post on the Westboro website about his son Matthew.

A jury awarded Snyder nearly $11 million in damages for the intentional infliction of emotional distress and invasion of privacy. That award was later cut in half and then the Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals set aside the decision in its entirety, ruling that the protests were absolutely protected by the First Amendment.

That decision was upheld by the Supreme Court.

A group of 21 news organizations joined a brief defending Westboro's case. While calling their views "inexplicable and hateful," they expressed concern that a ruling against the church would chill the activities of anyone who wants to speak out on a controversial issue and "threatens to expand dramatically the risk of liability for news media coverage and commentary."

One of the media groups that joined the brief is Dow Jones whose parent company also owns Fox News

Film at 11... Mad
HockeyDad Offline
#2 Posted: Wed, Mar 2 2011, 10:39 AM EST
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,187
Under Sharia Law, this crap would not be tolerated.
DrafterX Offline
#3 Posted: Wed, Mar 2 2011, 10:41 AM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,577
HockeyDad wrote:
Under Sharia Law, this crap would not be tolerated.




Think Think hmmmm....
Nicar Offline
#4 Posted: Wed, Mar 2 2011, 10:46 AM EST
Joined: 03-18-2010
Posts: 14,972
What they should have also went for was slander and defamation.... think he would of had a better chance at something.
richokeeffe Offline
#5 Posted: Wed, Mar 2 2011, 11:18 AM EST
Joined: 12-07-2004
Posts: 7,020
Just curious, but why haven't a bunch of militant gays, sex workers and strippers staged a protest at the Westboro Baptist Church services?
HockeyDad Offline
#6 Posted: Wed, Mar 2 2011, 11:21 AM EST
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,187
richokeeffe wrote:
Just curious, but why haven't a bunch of militant gays, sex workers and strippers staged a protest at the Westboro Baptist Church services?




flyover state nutjob church.
DrafterX Offline
#7 Posted: Wed, Mar 2 2011, 11:22 AM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,577
richokeeffe wrote:
Just curious, but why haven't a bunch of militant gays, sex workers and strippers staged a protest at the Westboro Baptist Church services?




they're out looking for CROS... Mellow
rfenst Offline
#8 Posted: Wed, Mar 2 2011, 12:43 PM EST
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,410
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-751.pdf
ZRX1200 Offline
#9 Posted: Wed, Mar 2 2011, 12:55 PM EST
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,656
I despise these maggots but the decision was the right one. Democracy can be messy....
Lumpa Offline
#10 Posted: Wed, Mar 2 2011, 1:02 PM EST
Joined: 03-04-2009
Posts: 377
^
+1
rfenst Offline
#11 Posted: Wed, Mar 2 2011, 1:56 PM EST
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,410
ZRX1200 wrote:
I despise these maggots but the decision was the right one. Democracy can be messy....



I just finished reading the entire Opinion. The reasoning is sound (IMO), no matter how much I detest "Westboro" actions.
DrafterX Offline
#12 Posted: Wed, Mar 2 2011, 1:58 PM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,577
we should make an amendment.... kind of like the yelling fire in the theatre thing... Mellow
rfenst Offline
#13 Posted: Wed, Mar 2 2011, 2:09 PM EST
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,410
DrafterX wrote:
we should make an amendment.... kind of like the yelling fire in the theatre thing... Mellow



There is no Amendment for that. However, dicta did make reference to Maryland having passed a funeral picketing law enacted after the fact.
DrafterX Offline
#14 Posted: Wed, Mar 2 2011, 2:11 PM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,577
I know... and it was the right decision.... I just really hate to see them getting more publicity and declare some sort of victory.... the bassards... Mad
borndead1 Offline
#15 Posted: Wed, Mar 2 2011, 4:47 PM EST
Joined: 11-07-2006
Posts: 5,216
There needs to be a Gay Pride festival set up right across the street from WBC.

A permanent gay pride festival.
rfenst Offline
#16 Posted: Wed, Mar 2 2011, 4:53 PM EST
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,410
borndead1 wrote:
There needs to be a Gay Pride festival set up right across the street from WBC.

A permanent gay pride festival.


Just need sure to coordinate with the police and get a parade permit!
DrafterX Offline
#17 Posted: Wed, Mar 2 2011, 4:54 PM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,577
borndead1 wrote:
There needs to be a Gay Pride festival set up right across the street from WBC.

A permanent gay pride festival.




I bet TW could arrange that.... Laugh
ZRX1200 Offline
#18 Posted: Wed, Mar 2 2011, 5:15 PM EST
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,656
Robert I hope you know I was calling the westborrough wackos maggots not the SCOTUS.
tailgater Offline
#19 Posted: Wed, Mar 2 2011, 5:38 PM EST
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
rfenst wrote:
I just finished reading the entire Opinion. The reasoning is sound (IMO), no matter how much I detest "Westboro" actions.


You deal with the law for a living, so your opinion counts very highly here.
But I find it hard to believe that a decent lawyer couldn't prove that the Westboro church was purposefully provoking the funeral crowd.

Face it, someone couldn't sit outside a church in Harlem holding a sign that said "god loves dead negroes".
Law enforcement would remove that person even without waiting for a local ammendment and they would do so swiftly for the safety of all involved.

The first ammendment allows the Westboro church to state their beliefs, and I would never want my government taking away that right. But it does NOT allow them to do so with provocation and bad intent.

Just like the previously mentioned Fire/Theater example.
JadeRose Offline
#20 Posted: Wed, Mar 2 2011, 5:40 PM EST
Joined: 05-15-2008
Posts: 19,525
richokeeffe wrote:
Just curious, but why haven't a bunch of militant gays, sex workers and strippers staged a protest at the Westboro Baptist Church services?




Actually....this hilariously happens all the time. It does NOT typically happen at the funeral of servicemen, however. These nutbags protest at a lot of different events. When they do it winds up looking like some kinda ho mo circus. It's hilarious.
rfenst Offline
#21 Posted: Wed, Mar 2 2011, 5:47 PM EST
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,410
ZRX1200 wrote:
Robert I hope you know I was calling the westborrough wackos maggots not the SCOTUS.


Never even crossed my mind. Wouldn't have taken offense if you had. But, you can call them whatever you want. That's the true Freedom of Speech we are so fortunate to earn!
JadeRose Offline
#22 Posted: Wed, Mar 2 2011, 5:54 PM EST
Joined: 05-15-2008
Posts: 19,525
The 30 best anti WBC protest signs.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/the-3o-best-anti-westboro-baptist-church-protest-s


I'm proud to live in the only city in the country that passed an ordinance specifically outlawing these pricks. It was, of course, shot down but it is also local lore that Phelps was informed in a way that made him listen that he would do well to stay out of St. Joseph Missouri. He hasn't been back although he's threatened to. I live less than75 miles from Topeka and I've considered going down there to check it out but have decided to keep my distance. He's gonna piss off the wrong person one of these days. This is also the same area of the country that famously shot and killed a local bully about 30 years ago. The dude was gunned down in the street in broad daylight on Main street...and not a soul saw it happen. Even though he was hit (I think) 17 times.
rfenst Offline
#23 Posted: Wed, Mar 2 2011, 7:50 PM EST
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,410
tailgater wrote:
I find it hard to believe that a decent lawyer couldn't prove that the Westboro church was purposefully provoking the funeral crowd.

Face it, someone couldn't sit outside a church in Harlem holding a sign that said "god loves dead negroes".
Law enforcement would remove that person even without waiting for a local ammendment and they would do so swiftly for the safety of all involved.

The first ammendment allows the Westboro church to state their beliefs, and I would never want my government taking away that right. But it does NOT allow them to do so with provocation and bad intent.

Just like the previously mentioned Fire/Theater example.



Tailgater,

The issues you brought are very complex and detailed- so much so that no one here likely has the time to do them real justice in writing. So, let's just keep "biting off" a little bit at a time. Moreover, it has been 20 years since I elected to take the Freedom of Speech class/symposium while I was in law school and I am, admittedly, just a bit "rusty". And, this is not "my" particular area of the law. Also, as much as some people here (myself excluded) may not care to read whatever Chili has to say, he and Jojoc are both very sharp- so perhaps they will help us out with the discussion- before anyone gets castigated by the minions.

Here goes: There is a lot more to the case than one would think. It was really a case about civil damages for claims based on, among other things, "intentional infliction of emotional distress", i.e conduct specifically designed to provoke mental upset- and whether a particular subdivision of "political speech" known as "public speech", served as an absolute defense to civil damages arising from such speech. The Court ruled that it did.

Here is a summary (citations omitted) of the crux of the Court's legal reasoning, taken directly from the Syllabus:

The Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment can serve as a defense in state tort suits, including suits for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Whether the First Amendment prohibits holding Westboro liable for its speech in this case turns largely on whether that speech is of public or private concern, as determined by all the circumstances of the case.

Speech on public issues occupies the highest rung of the hierarchy of First Amendment values and is entitled to special protection. Although the boundaries of what constitutes speech on matters of public concern are not well defined, this Court has said that speech is of public concern when it can be fairly considered as relating to any matter of political, social, or other concern to the community, or when it is a subject of general interest and of value and concern to the public. A statement’s arguably “inappropriate or controversial character" is irrelevant to the question whether it deals with a matter of public concern. To determine whether speech is of public or private concern, this Court must independently examine the “ ‘content, form, and context, of the speech as revealed by the whole record. In considering content, form, and context, no factor is dispositive, and it is necessary to evaluate all aspects of the speech.

The “content” of Westboro’s signs plainly relates to public, rather than private, matters. The placards highlighted issues of public import—the political and moral conduct of the United States and its citizens, the fate of the Nation, homosexuality in the military, and scandals involving the Catholic clergy—and Westboro conveyed its views on those issues in a manner designed to reach as broad a public audience as possible. Even if a few of the signs were viewed as containing messages related to a particular individual, that would not change the fact that the dominant theme of Westboro’s demonstration spoke to broader public issues.

The “context” of the speech—its connection with Matthew Snyder’s funeral—cannot by itself transform the nature of Westboro’s speech. The signs reflected Westboro’s condemnation of much in modern society, and it cannot be argued that Westboro’s use of speech on public issues was in any way contrived to insulate a personal attack on Snyder from liability. Westboro had been actively engaged in speaking on the subjects addressed in its picketing long before it became aware of Matthew Snyder, and there can be no serious claim that the picketing did not represent Westboro’s honestly held beliefs on public issues. Westboro may have chosen the picket location to increase publicity for its views, and its speech may have been particularly hurtful to Snyder. That does not mean that its speech should be afforded less than full First Amendment protection under the circumstances of this case.

That said, even protected speech is not equally permissible in all places and at all times. Westboro’s choice of where and when to conduct its picketing is not beyond the Government’s regulatory reach—it is subject to reasonable time, place, or manner restrictions. The facts here are quite different, however, both with respect to the activity being regulated and the means of restricting those activities, from the few limited situations where the Court has concluded that the location of targeted picketing can be properly regulated under provisions deemed content neutral.

The “special protection” afforded to what Westboro said, in the whole context of how and where it chose to say it, cannot be overcome by a jury finding that the picketing was “outrageous” for purposes of applying the state law tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress. That would pose too great a danger that the jury would punish Westboro for its views on matters of public concern. For all these reasons, the jury verdict imposing tort liability on Westboro for intentional infliction of emotional distress must be set aside.

I would at least reccomend that you read the Syllabus, but I believe I have accurately summarized it above. Now, let the new discussion begin!
rfenst Offline
#24 Posted: Wed, Mar 2 2011, 7:51 PM EST
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,410
JadeRose wrote:
The 30 best anti WBC protest signs.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/the-3o-best-anti-westboro-baptist-church-protest-s


I'm proud to live in the only city in the country that passed an ordinance specifically outlawing these pricks. It was, of course, shot down but it is also local lore that Phelps was informed in a way that made him listen that he would do well to stay out of St. Joseph Missouri. He hasn't been back although he's threatened to. I live less than75 miles from Topeka and I've considered going down there to check it out but have decided to keep my distance. He's gonna piss off the wrong person one of these days. This is also the same area of the country that famously shot and killed a local bully about 30 years ago. The dude was gunned down in the street in broad daylight on Main street...and not a soul saw it happen. Even though he was hit (I think) 17 times.



I just heard on PBS News Hour that 42 or 43 states have enacted laws to try to prevent this.
Gene363 Offline
#25 Posted: Wed, Mar 2 2011, 8:03 PM EST
Joined: 01-24-2003
Posts: 30,864
On the bright side, the outrageous drivel from this so called church has galvanized many people into a force that has stymied and ridiculed the bass turds.horse

Like the Blues Brothers, "I hate Illinois Nazis!" they should stay off the streets.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2EoOZKjAjlk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jhozx819izU
JadeRose Offline
#26 Posted: Wed, Mar 2 2011, 8:05 PM EST
Joined: 05-15-2008
Posts: 19,525
rfenst wrote:
I just heard on PBS News Hour that 42 or 43 states have enacted laws to try to prevent this.



True, Robert, but St. Joseph SPECIFICALLY simply banned this particular group. It could never work, of course, but these lovable rednecks just figured "to hell with it" and made the WBC illegal in St Joseph. LOL
rfenst Offline
#27 Posted: Wed, Mar 2 2011, 8:06 PM EST
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,410
Gene363 wrote:
On the bright side, the outrageous drivel from this so called church has galvanized many people into a force that has stymied and ridiculed the bass turds.horse

Like the Blues Brothers, "I hate Illinois Nazis!" they should stay off the streets.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2EoOZKjAjlk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jhozx819izU



While calling someone a Nazi usually ends the rational discussion, I definitely see parallels between how Westboro and neo-Nazis (and the KKK) protest and parade.
stogiemonger Offline
#28 Posted: Wed, Mar 2 2011, 8:17 PM EST
Joined: 06-25-2009
Posts: 4,185
It may not be legal to send some local boys and goils out to give them an old fashioned azz whoopin' every time this group shows up to protest a servicemans funeral, but, I'd volunteer if they came anywhere near My town.
stogiemonger Offline
#29 Posted: Wed, Mar 2 2011, 8:18 PM EST
Joined: 06-25-2009
Posts: 4,185
^Having said that, I think the court made the correct decision.
Gene363 Offline
#30 Posted: Wed, Mar 2 2011, 8:23 PM EST
Joined: 01-24-2003
Posts: 30,864
rfenst wrote:
While calling someone a Nazi usually ends the rational discussion, I definitely see parallels between how Westboro and neo-Nazis (and the KKK) protest and parade.



I just cannot get over anyone wanting to disturb a funeral. Anyone with half a brain would know the Mother of the dead that hero never wanted her son to be in harms way to begin with. It's what a Mother does. These protesters don't give a crap about religion, they are just attention whores. As such, they deserve what they get. Like my Father told me many times, "You can say anything you like as long as you can take the consequences."
jojoc Offline
#31 Posted: Wed, Mar 2 2011, 8:27 PM EST
Joined: 03-05-2007
Posts: 6,272
stogiemonger wrote:
It may not be legal to send some local boys and goils out to give them an old fashioned azz whoopin' every time this group shows up to protest a servicemans funeral, but, I'd volunteer if they came anywhere near My town.



That would be a poor choice --- it is exactly the response they want. The reason they choose the locations they do is they hope someone will cross the line and do something "stupid". The result: 1. lots of free publicity 2. they sue the person and attempt to get civil damages and a means to further finance their "Cause".

rfenst Offline
#32 Posted: Wed, Mar 2 2011, 8:28 PM EST
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,410
Gene363 wrote:

I just cannot get over anyone wanting to disturb a funeral. Anyone with half a brain would know the Mother of the dead that hero never wanted her son to be in harms way to begin with. It's what a Mother does. These protesters don't give a crap about religion, they are just attention whores. As such, they deserve what they get. Like my Father told me many times, "You can say anything you like as long as you can take the consequences."



Please don't mistake that my comment implies I support Westboro or approve what it does. There is just a legal commonality in how Westboro and the others have to lawfully protest.
Gene363 Offline
#33 Posted: Wed, Mar 2 2011, 8:47 PM EST
Joined: 01-24-2003
Posts: 30,864
rfenst wrote:
Please don't mistake that my comment implies I support Westboro or approve what it does. There is just a legal commonality in how Westboro and the others have to lawfully protest.


Not even for a second and I am sorry if my reply implied that. Blushing

The decision was eight to one. I don't disagree with the decision, but I am very sympathetic to the dissenting opinion. I do not believe anyone should be forced to hear or view a protest. It's been that way for years in front of abortion clinics.

The law is the law, humanity and consideration for the feelings of others is an entirely different matter.
JadeRose Offline
#34 Posted: Wed, Mar 2 2011, 9:23 PM EST
Joined: 05-15-2008
Posts: 19,525
Gene363 wrote:

I just cannot get over anyone wanting to disturb a funeral. Anyone with half a brain would know the Mother of the dead that hero never wanted her son to be in harms way to begin with. It's what a Mother does. These protesters don't give a crap about religion, they are just attention whores. As such, they deserve what they get. Like my Father told me many times, "You can say anything you like as long as you can take the consequences."




Gene,

I couldn't agree with you more. What these people do is beyond my comprehension and it sickens me further to watch them do it with seeming impunity. I do, however, have faith that they will get what they deserve eventually. If not in this life that certainly in the next. I can't imagine that this doesn't royally piss God off and he will give Fred Phelps and his ilk some special attention upon their demise. As far as the Supreme court is concerned..it was the right decision. No where does it say that we have the right to be free of outrage or to not be offended. Freedom means freedom. As someone above me said......"Freedom can be messy"
rfenst Offline
#35 Posted: Wed, Mar 2 2011, 9:31 PM EST
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,410
Gene363 wrote:
The decision was eight to one. I don't disagree with the decision, but I am very sympathetic to the dissenting opinion. I do not believe anyone should be forced to hear or view a protest. It's been that way for years in front of abortion clinics.

The law is the law, humanity and consideration for the feelings of others is an entirely different matter.



PBS News Hour's constitutional analyst, who was in the SCOTUS Gallery when the decision was announced and read/explained, said that the Chief Justice went to great lengths to express his feelings for the family and just how wrong he or they felt Westboro's protests are. Her observation was that he was definitely upset. Apparently, the explained analysis was so intricate that she freedom of Speech under the First Amendment.

If you happened to read the Syllabus or the Opinion, how many hours and drafts of work-in-progress drafts were spent and recirculated. Remember, 7 of the 9 joined in the opinion; one concurred and one dissented. Those 7 were in complete agreement with every word, sentence and paragraph in the Opinion- other wise they would have written their own Concurrence. That is why I always explain how "academic" and "artificial" the SCOTUS truly is. Nine great minds with very differing views, politics and styles, who belong to one of the worlds most exclusive clubs. I would not be the least bit surprised to learn that the case took 500+ man hours.
DrMaddVibe Offline
#36 Posted: Thu, Mar 3 2011, 10:08 AM EST
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,550
Sadly, you want there to be exceptions to Free Speech but there are none.

I think this "organization" (it's not a church!) is despicable. Anyone that would do this isn't doing what the Bible commands a believer to do.

I don't like the things they say and do but I defended their right to say and do them so we could all be free. That's the part about being an American that I love.

Common Sense is thrown out the window.whip
tailgater Offline
#37 Posted: Thu, Mar 3 2011, 10:33 AM EST
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
DrMaddVibe wrote:
Sadly, you want there to be exceptions to Free Speech but there are none.

I think this "organization" (it's not a church!) is despicable. Anyone that would do this isn't doing what the Bible commands a believer to do.

I don't like the things they say and do but I defended their right to say and do them so we could all be free. That's the part about being an American that I love.

Common Sense is thrown out the window.whip


DMV,
First, everyone agrees that what they say and do is heinous.
But I think we also agree that they have the right to say it, via our free speech that we hold proudly.

The issue I have, and I think most of us concur, is the timing and the place.
They're not marching on Pennsylvania Avenue in mid July.
They're taunting funeral mourners.

The KKK can gather "peacefully" in their home towns.
They can NOT march downtown Harlem.

Nazi sympathizers can meet twice weekly at the library if they want.
But they would never be allowed to set up a tent outside a temple.

What they say is aweful.
Where they do it is illegal, and could easily be stated as such by the courts without the fear of infringing upon their constitutional rights to free speech.
tailgater Offline
#38 Posted: Thu, Mar 3 2011, 10:38 AM EST
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
rfenst wrote:


...The “context” of the speech—its connection with Matthew Snyder’s funeral—cannot by itself transform the nature of Westboro’s speech. The signs reflected Westboro’s condemnation of much in modern society, and it cannot be argued that Westboro’s use of speech on public issues was in any way contrived to insulate a personal attack on Snyder from liability. Westboro had been actively engaged in speaking on the subjects addressed in its picketing long before it became aware of Matthew Snyder, and there can be no serious claim that the picketing did not represent Westboro’s honestly held beliefs on public issues. Westboro may have chosen the picket location to increase publicity for its views, and its speech may have been particularly hurtful to Snyder. That does not mean that its speech should be afforded less than full First Amendment protection under the circumstances of this case.

That said, even protected speech is not equally permissible in all places and at all times. Westboro’s choice of where and when to conduct its picketing is not beyond the Government’s regulatory reach—it is subject to reasonable time, place, or manner restrictions. The facts here are quite different, however, both with respect to the activity being regulated and the means of restricting those activities, from the few limited situations where the Court has concluded that the location of targeted picketing can be properly regulated under provisions deemed content neutral.

The “special protection” afforded to what Westboro said, in the whole context of how and where it chose to say it, cannot be overcome by a jury finding that the picketing was “outrageous” for purposes of applying the state law tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress. That would pose too great a danger that the jury would punish Westboro for its views on matters of public concern. For all these reasons, the jury verdict imposing tort liability on Westboro for intentional infliction of emotional distress must be set aside. [/color]



These last three paragraphs is where I think the courts went wrong.
The timing and place of their hateful assault has EVERYTHING to do with Snyder.
It's simple to prove that they would not be at that place, at that time, were it not for his funeral.

There is no need for the courts to ****-foot around this in fear of toppling the applecart known as free speech.
That would be like saying a sniper had no more intent then a simple guy firing into an empty field with a rifle.
The two are COMPLETELY seperate.
DrafterX Offline
#39 Posted: Thu, Mar 3 2011, 10:48 AM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,577
stogiemonger wrote:
It may not be legal to send some local boys and goils out to give them an old fashioned azz whoopin' every time this group shows up to protest a servicemans funeral, but, I'd volunteer if they came anywhere near My town.



not as easy as it sounds... they hide behind the local law enforcement like a little kid on his front porch.... I don't think you could get close enough if you really tried.. and besides, they send women and children to these protests...

here is my encounter with them..
http://www.cigarbid.com/...-this-weekend-Westboro-
teedubbya Offline
#40 Posted: Thu, Mar 3 2011, 11:23 AM EST
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
I am in Topeka right now. When I drive by their compound later this afternoon I will express all of your love to them verbally and with a nice physical gesture. Any (legal) ideas.
DrafterX Offline
#41 Posted: Thu, Mar 3 2011, 11:30 AM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,577
teedubbya wrote:
I am in Topeka right now. When I drive by their compound later this afternoon I will express all of your love to them verbally and with a nice physical gesture. Any (legal) ideas.




show them your tits!!! Laugh
jojoc Offline
#42 Posted: Thu, Mar 3 2011, 1:02 PM EST
Joined: 03-05-2007
Posts: 6,272
tailgater wrote:
These last three paragraphs is where I think the courts went wrong.
The timing and place of their hateful assault has EVERYTHING to do with Snyder.
It's simple to prove that they would not be at that place, at that time, were it not for his funeral.

There is no need for the courts to ****-foot around this in fear of toppling the applecart known as free speech.
That would be like saying a sniper had no more intent then a simple guy firing into an empty field with a rifle.
The two are COMPLETELY seperate.


From the OP:

DrafterX wrote:
They were kept 1,000 feet away from the church and because of the use of an alternative entrance for church-goers there was no disruption to the memorial.


They had there permit and were gathered at the location that were told to be at. They are very careful to stay within the bounds of the law. you are correct that they choose the time and location in hopes of controversy, and they got it. The problem is, if the court allowed the prohibition of demonstrating at the same time of the funeral, what else would be exempted? Ban protests at the same time as political speeches?
ZRX1200 Offline
#43 Posted: Thu, Mar 3 2011, 1:13 PM EST
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,656
The part of the decision I didn't like was the majority reference to the protestor (maggots) fallowing POLICE INSTRUCTIONS ........
ZRX1200 Offline
#44 Posted: Thu, Mar 3 2011, 1:17 PM EST
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,656
The part of the decision I didn't like was the majority reference to the protestor (maggots) fallowing POLICE INSTRUCTIONS ........
tailgater Offline
#45 Posted: Thu, Mar 3 2011, 1:37 PM EST
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
jojoc wrote:
From the OP:



They had there permit and were gathered at the location that were told to be at. They are very careful to stay within the bounds of the law. you are correct that they choose the time and location in hopes of controversy, and they got it. The problem is, if the court allowed the prohibition of demonstrating at the same time of the funeral, what else would be exempted? Ban protests at the same time as political speeches?



jojo,
that's not relevant.

Political protests are not designed to provoke a reaction so much as to make a point.
The Westboro Baptists have no point other than to provoke a reaction.

And if a political protest DID cross that line, then it SHOULD be disbanned. In fact, it would be.
Because people DO understand the difference between free speech and taunting.

The problem with these westboro lunatics is that if they were ever shut down it would be PERCEIVED to be because of their message. So the courts are afraid.

Shame on them.
DrafterX Offline
#46 Posted: Thu, Mar 3 2011, 1:40 PM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,577
Think
I think if I were gonna bury my son and these bassards planned to attend I'd change the date of the funeral as soon as they got their permit...
HockeyDad Offline
#47 Posted: Thu, Mar 3 2011, 2:38 PM EST
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,187
The ACLU sucks. (I'm not sure they were even involved in this because they hate Christians but we haven't ripped on them lately.)
rfenst Offline
#48 Posted: Thu, Mar 3 2011, 2:41 PM EST
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,410
JadeRose wrote:
True, Robert, but St. Joseph SPECIFICALLY simply banned this particular group. It could never work, of course, but these lovable rednecks just figured "to hell with it" and made the WBC illegal in St Joseph. LOL



Banning a specific group based upon the unpleasantness of their message is not "content neutral" and represents a preemptive "freeze out". I wouldn't be surprised if they tried to come to your town just to push/test the rule. Could result in a damage award in their favor.
rfenst Offline
#49 Posted: Thu, Mar 3 2011, 2:43 PM EST
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,410
jojoc wrote:
That would be a poor choice --- it is exactly the response they want. The reason they choose the locations they do is they hope someone will cross the line and do something "stupid". The result: 1. lots of free publicity 2. they sue the person and attempt to get civil damages and a means to further finance their "Cause".



Don't be so sure they won't have weapons for self-defense. Ever been to one of their rallies to counter-protest? Surrealistisk and not fun.
rfenst Offline
#50 Posted: Thu, Mar 3 2011, 2:45 PM EST
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,410
HockeyDad wrote:
The ACLU sucks. (I'm not sure they were even involved in this because they hate Christians but we haven't ripped on them lately.)


was the ACLU involved in anything other than an amicus curiae brief?
If so, can you imagine how much they hated what they felt compelled to do- just like the Justices must have?
Users browsing this topic
Guest
2 Pages12>
Back to Top