US Supreme Court rules in favor of Westboro

[longeyes]

Put up or shut up.  I'm tired of the veiled threats of violence...

Chris

That was not a "threat," that was a prediction.  I assume you understand the difference.  No idea what you mean by "put up or shut up."  It sounds as if you're the one making threats or getting on your high horse.  We both know that certain kinds of public behavior instigate extra-judicial responses when people's buttons get pushed.  And buttons are being pushed, bigtime.  Let's not be naive here.  Having said that doesn't mean I'm endorsing it, just observing the obvious social deteriorations of good faith and reasonable behavior in the culture.  Everywhere around us we see the fabric of responsible citizenship breaking down, starting at the top.  Just today we had to listen to the head of the DOJ basically tell us he doesn't have to prosecute voter intimidation if it emanates from "my people."  No society can hold together with this kind of overt prejudice.

[RoadKingLarry]

I understand the sentiment, but not the logic.

What right is there to disrupt a funeral? The right of free speech is not boundless.

I've been to quite a few funerals with the Patriot Guard Riders where the Westboro bonehead cretins were in attendance.
While what they do is obnoxious, rude, socially unacceptable, cruel and otherwise wrong in many ways they do not actually disrupt the funeral service itself.

[GigaBuist]

The "fix" to the WBC nutters will be extra-judicial, in that it happens outside the legal system.  Fred Phelps will die within a short period of time.

The dude's 81 freaking years old!  Nobody needs to start lobbing 165 grain projectiles at him.  Just give him a double bacon cheeseburger here and there.  This thing will work itself out!

We really don't want to bug the legislative bodies around the country to fix this particular problem.  I don't know if y'all noticed but they're generally inept at solving problems.  Fixing whatever corked up scheme they devise as a solution to this problem will take a heck of a lot more time than waiting for the Grim Reaper to tap 'ole Fred on the shoulder in the men's room of a remote interstate rest stop.

It's not worth our time trying to cook up a legal defense to this crap.  There's like 70 of these nutters living among the 300,000,000 of us that know they're bat crap crazy.  On top of that when you figure the country is 230-ish years old, populations double every X years, carry the 1, account for dips after WWI and WWII, etc. we've probably had 1 billion* people living in the US and protected by the 1st amendment and only these 70 nutters saw fit to do what they do.

Asking anybody to "solve" this problem is like asking for a gun control law that would have stopped somebody like that Cho idiot that shot up VT.  It probably wouldn't work and if it did it'd be reaching way too far into civil liberties.

*:  I did not do my math on that number.

[Perd Hapley]

The dude's 81 freaking years old! 

If he's like some of the other obnoxiously "religious" people I know, he's got at least ten years left. Maybe more. I swear, they are just too cantankerous and self-righteous to die. Besides, his kids will carry on the legacy.

Asking anybody to "solve" this problem is like asking for a gun control law that would have stopped somebody like that Cho idiot that shot up VT.  It probably wouldn't work and if it did it'd be reaching way too far into civil liberties.

Bollocks. I don't see why SCOTUS even needs to decide this case. Time, place and manner. Funeral hate-fests obviously fail that test. How is this even a controversy?

[KD5NRH]

Put up or shut up.  I'm tired of the veiled threats of violence...

Unfortunately, the extrajudicial method that was so effective against problems like this when the First Amendment was penned - shunning - is likely to get a business sued for discrimination now.  If people like Phelps were refused service at the grocery stores, they'd be too busy in the garden to bother anybody else.

[De Selby]

The outcome of this case was so obvious before it even ran that I'd be asking for my money back if I were Mr Snyder. 

The extremely limited doctrine of time, place, and manner restrictions authorise state laws to set rules about where and how protests can be conducted.  The Court in this case correctly noted that the time, place, and manner of the speech had nothing to do with the harm - it was the content of the speech that was at issue.  Their example was having the same group of people with signs that said "God loves you" and "God Bless America".  No doubt that would not have cause the same harm.  Hence, the issue is what Phelps & co said, not how and when they said it.

It has long been established that torts cannot end run around the first amendment.  This case had no chance before it was even filed.

[roo_ster]

Why ought wbc hve more leeway to disturb the peace than the obnoxious neighbors partying hearty down the steet and making a nuisance of themselves at 2am?  I can call the cops to adress the latter and break it up if they don't simmer down.  At a different time, during the day, no big whoop, party on.  Same thing with wbc, they ought to be told to be quiet or arrested for disturbing the peace at that time and place.  This id only a federal case to the obtuse.

[Jamisjockey]

Maybe, just maybe, we can be just like France
http://thedailyedge.thejournal.ie/john-galliano-to-check-into-rehab-2011-3/
And charge these people with crimes.
 

There is a reason we should tolerate the Phelps' idiotic behavior.

[De Selby]

Why ought wbc hve more leeway to disturb the peace than the obnoxious neighbors partying hearty down the steet and making a nuisance of themselves at 2am?  I can call the cops to adress the latter and break it up if they don't simmer down.  At a different time, during the day, no big whoop, party on.  Same thing with wbc, they ought to be told to be quiet or arrested for disturbing the peace at that time and place.  This id only a federal case to the obtuse.

Here's why- the disturbance caused by the party has nothing to do with the political message of the party goers.  The disturbance caused by phelps is only because of the political message being communicated.

The government can't make rules based on the content of your message, for obvious reasons.  So cut the content out of the WBC case, and what is there that causes harm?

[makattak]

Maybe, just maybe, we can be just like France
http://thedailyedge.thejournal.ie/john-galliano-to-check-into-rehab-2011-3/
And charge these people with crimes.
 

There is a reason we should tolerate the Phelps' idiotic behavior.

We aren't objecting to "God hates Fags" or "God loves dead soldiers", offensive though they may be.

We are objecting to using a funeral to intentionally inflict emotional distress in order to make your views public.

[MechAg94]

We aren't objecting to "God hates Fags" or "God loves dead soldiers", offensive though they may be.

We are objecting to using a funeral to intentionally inflict emotional distress in order to make your views public.

That is also why I mentioned earlier that this is not the best case to use for the emotional distress argument.  I believe the article mentions that he didn't even see the protesters during the funeral and they were kept 1000 feet away.  He only saw them later on TV coverage.  It is sort of hard to get behind him.  With those facts, the protesters could have done the protest across town and gotten the same TV coverage.  I still don't like what they are doing, but I can see why they ruled as they did in this particular case.

[longeyes]

e aren't objecting to "God hates Fags" or "God loves dead soldiers", offensive though they may be.

We are objecting to using a funeral to intentionally inflict emotional distress in order to make your views public.

From ancient times the profanation of funerals has been considered flagitious, beyond the pale, even in bleakest wartime.  The celebration of funerary rites was honored by all.  Only the most virulent tribal-cum-political enmities--we've seen instances of this lately, unfortunately--have violated this deeply held conviction.  My point was that this is such a viscerally-charged circumstance that one would be surprised if it had no serious repercussions, ruling or no ruling.

[MechAg94]

From ancient times the profanation of funerals has been considered flagitious, beyond the pale, even in bleakest wartime.  The celebration of funerary rites was honored by all.  Only the most virulent tribal-cum-political enmities--we've seen instances of this lately, unfortunately--have violated this deeply held conviction.  My point was that this is such a viscerally-charged circumstance that one would be surprised if it had no serious repercussions, ruling or no ruling.

That is a good point.  Here at least, even a man's enemies usually show respect at his funeral.

[roo_ster]

Here's why- the disturbance caused by the party has nothing to do with the political message of the party goers.  The disturbance caused by phelps is only because of the political message being communicated.

The government can't make rules based on the content of your message, for obvious reasons.  So cut the content out of the WBC case, and what is there that causes harm?

Hogwash.

If my neighbors were WBCers and were making a nuisance of themselves hollering out "God hates Fags!" at 2AM, I'd still call the cops and they'd be treated the same as party-goers.  If my partying neighbors moved their party to the cemetery and started whooping it up during someone's graveside services, it would be perfectly appropriate to quash them. 

Just because someone may have a political motive it is not some talisman that makes whatever they might be doing suddenly immune from any laws or mores.

Would a political motive allow one to libel or slander a private citizen without legal recourse? 

Can WBC drive around neighborhoods at night with a Blues Brothers style bull horn and holler their message without any recourse by the citizens in that neighborhood.

Nah, content is not the issue.

[CNYCacher]

Hogwash.

If my neighbors were WBCers and were making a nuisance of themselves hollering out "God hates Fags!" at 2AM, I'd still call the cops and they'd be treated the same as party-goers.  If my partying neighbors moved their party to the cemetery and started whooping it up during someone's graveside services, it would be perfectly appropriate to quash them. 

Just because someone may have a political motive it is not some talisman that makes whatever they might be doing suddenly immune from any laws or mores.

Would a political motive allow one to libel or slander a private citizen without legal recourse? 

Can WBC drive around neighborhoods at night with a Blues Brothers style bull horn and holler their message without any recourse by the citizens in that neighborhood.

Nah, content is not the issue.

Are you under the impression that the WBC goes to funerals and shouts things loudly and uses bullhorns?

[Jamie B]

Toss into the mix the perception that the law system is a racket set up to hose regular folks.

I'll stand shoulder-to-shoulder with you folks on this one.

WBC is pure scum. If they are ever in my area, I dam sure will exercise my right to free speech towards them.

While they are all lawyers, they are an inbred, slimy bunch who give real lawyers a bad name.

[De Selby]

The Supreme Court covered this in detail.  Try to imagine he signs had different content, like "God bless patriots".   

Now, if he signs had said that, an emotional distress lawsuit would have been unthinkable.  Thats how you know it was he content of the speech at issue.  In contrast, you don't need to refer to what people are saying if the issue is noise late at night.

[makattak]

The Supreme Court covered this in detail.  Try to imagine he signs had different content, like "God bless patriots".   

Now, if he signs had said that, an emotional distress lawsuit would have been unthinkable.  Thats how you know it was he content of the speech at issue.  In contrast, you don't need to refer to what people are saying if the issue is noise late at night.

No. It wasn't the content of his speech. It was the content of the speech, in the place that it was.

For example, you can shout nearly anything you want in a movie theatre, but if you shout "FIRE!" you'll be arrested.

Conversely, if you're outside and shout "FIRE!" people will look at you strangely, but you're unlikely to be arrested.

It's a matter of place AND content, not merely content.

[Jamie B]

It's a matter of place AND content, not merely content.

Common sense -  very good!

[De Selby]

No. It wasn't the content of his speech. It was the content of the speech, in the place that it was.

For example, you can shout nearly anything you want in a movie theatre, but if you shout "FIRE!" you'll be arrested.

Conversely, if you're outside and shout "FIRE!" people will look at you strangely, but you're unlikely to be arrested.

It's a matter of place AND content, not merely content.

Yeah, that's covered- laws must be content neutral.  Laws against inciting panic can't ban saying "fire" anymore than another word.  There's no way you could have this lawsuit without the content.

You should read the actual decision- it considers the arguments in this thread and so thoroughly defeats them that you'd be hard pressed to respond.  That is, with any argument that prohibiting WBC protests would be consistent with the first amendment.

[RoadKingLarry]

Are you under the impression that the WBC goes to funerals and shouts things loudly and uses bullhorns?

My sarcasm detector may be broken but you do realize that that is exactly what they do, right?

[Waitone]

So now that SCOTUS has said there is no implicit jackass exclusion in the first amendment, can we now look forward to the demise of hate speech laws?   

[makattak]

Yeah, that's covered- laws must be content neutral.  Laws against inciting panic can't ban saying "fire" anymore than another word.  There's no way you could have this lawsuit without the content.

You should read the actual decision- it considers the arguments in this thread and so thoroughly defeats them that you'd be hard pressed to respond.  That is, with any argument that prohibiting WBC protests would be consistent with the first amendment.

You mean, like a law that prevents intentional infliction of emotional harm on someone at a funeral for a relative?

It's not the specific content, it's the intent of the speech. You know, kind of like inciting panic, it's the intent, not the content.

And I'll go with Justice Alito, rather than the majority.

[CNYCacher]

My sarcasm detector may be broken but you do realize that that is exactly what they do, right?

No.  I thought that they just stood around holding signs.  I can't find any video of them doing anything but.

[RoadKingLarry]

DOn't know about any video but I am an eye-witness to some of it. I'll look through my pics and see what I can come up with.

I don't have all that many pics of the ones I attended but I know we would fire up the bikes to drown out their chants and shouting.