US Supreme Court rules in favor of Westboro

[MillCreek]

http://www.npr.org/2011/03/02/134194491/high-court-rules-for-military-funeral-protesters?ft=1&f=1001

The US Supreme Court ruled today that Westboro is protected by the First Amendment for their protests at funerals.  I wonder if we will now see more of them.

[TommyGunn]

As utterly despicable the Westboro Baptists are, I think this decision was probably inevitable.  Better in the end to preserve a freedom than to stomp it out just because there are some nutcakes around who wish to disrupt funerals for their own jackassed reasons.

[Perd Hapley]

As utterly despicable the Westboro Baptists are, I think this decision was probably inevitable.  Better in the end to preserve a freedom than to stomp it out just because there are some nutcakes around who wish to disrupt funerals for their own jackassed reasons.

So it's better to preserve the freedom of nutcakes to disrupt funerals, even though nutcakes will use it to disrupt funerals? Brilliant!

There's nothing "free" about the "right" to yell mean things about the dead at funerals.

[makattak]

I think they should be free to say whatever they want wherever they want.

I do, however, also think others should be free to voice their displeasure by physically removing them from the location, preferably covered in tar and feathers.

We used to understand social disapprobation and consequences. Now, we're "too civilized" to physically censor malefactors. We now face the results as malefactors are rewarded rather than punished.

[brimic]

The westboro cult, as dispicable as they are, know what they are doing. They are lawyers after all.

[Brad Johnson]

So it's better to preserve the freedom of nutcakes to disrupt funerals, even though nutcakes will use it to disrupt funerals? Brilliant!

No, it's better to protect the freedoms we hold dear, even if it means some nutballs will take advantage of it in ways we despise.

Brad

[makattak]

No, it's better to protect the freedoms we hold dear, even if it means some nutballs will take advantage of it in ways we despise.

Brad

I understand the sentiment, but not the logic.

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

[Fitz]

I think they should be free to say whatever they want wherever they want.

I do, however, also think others should be free to voice their displeasure by physically removing them from the location, preferably covered in tar and feathers.

We used to understand social disapprobation and consequences. Now, we're "too civilized" to physically censor malefactors. We now face the results as malefactors are rewarded rather than punished.

This

The problem will be solved when WBC quits successfully suing those who quit taking their *expletive deleted*it.

They fund themselves by suing people who do things to them.

[Fitz]

I understand the sentiment, but not the logic.

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

But unfortunately its bounds do not include making people feel bad. There's no material harm.

[TommyGunn]

So it's better to preserve the freedom of nutcakes to disrupt funerals, even though nutcakes will use it to disrupt funerals? Brilliant!

There's nothing "free" about the "right" to yell mean things about the dead at funerals.

I was going to respond but this says what I was going to say:

No, it's better to protect the freedoms we hold dear, even if it means some nutballs will take advantage of it in ways we despise.

Brad

[Ned Hamford]

But unfortunately its bounds do not include making people feel bad. There's no material harm.

Well hey, if they show up at your daughter's wedding next, good thing there is no material harm...

Seeing as how they've proven they can successfully run a lawsuit mill based on people responding to the intentional infliction of emotional distress when they are at their most vulnerable states, I expect to start seeing imitators.

[Brad Johnson]

Unfortunately 'Freedom' means some people will use it to be jackholes whether we like it or not.

Brad

[makattak]

Unfortunately 'Freedom' means some people will use it to be jackholes whether we like it or not.

Brad

No, it doesn't. It means we don't use the government against the jackholes.

It should also mean we don't use the government to protect the jackholes beyond defending their life. They should be met with rotten tomatoes and eggs everywhere they go or at least anytime they attempt to inflict emotional harm on private individuals.

OHHHH, but that's right, we reward the jackholes for being jackholes if anyone takes exception to their being jackholes. Cause we're "civilized".

[Perd Hapley]

No, it's better to protect the freedoms we hold dear, even if it means some nutballs will take advantage of it in ways we despise.

Brad

And you hold dear the freedom to loudly, publicly mock the dead at funerals to which you're not invited?    

[Seenterman]

How much do you want to bet if I started a God Hates N-words protest at some black people funerals I'd get arrested for a hate crime within 10 minutes.

Umm. . . I wonder what could they charge me with, a felony?
It's almost worth doing it to point out the hypocrisy. Almost

[longeyes]

Matters like these are eventually settled extra-judicially.

[mtnbkr]

Matters like these are eventually settled extra-judicially.

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

Chris

[MechAg94]

Unfortunately 'Freedom' means some people will use it to be jackholes whether we like it or not.

Brad

And the courts should remember that next time those jackholes sue someone, they should throw the case out and deny any claim to payment. 

It seems to me there is a double standard at times.  We can't keep them out of the cemeteries even if they are private.  We can't tell them to keep their distance for some reason.  We can't sue them for emotional distress even though it is exactly their intent to inflict it. 

As well, I think their INTENT is to inflict emotional distress and that should open them up for liability.  They can say whatever they want, but they chose the time and place for the express purpose of inflicting emotional harm on others.  IMO, that is not a free speech issue.  It wouldn't be the first time I disagreed with the courts though.

[makattak]

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

Chris

Honestly, it's my fear that because we do not pursue justice against people like this (and many other examples) and, in fact, use government censure against those who would appropriately respond to these people that violence may result.

People agree to give up vengeance and retribution to the government in expectation that justice will result. When the government no longer provides justice, people will eventually revert to vengeance and retribution.

This is why I am pushing for either judicial solutions (civil judgement that should have been upheld) or minimally violent solutions (tarring and feathering, throwing rotten fruit, etc...) that are also are government approved. We have neither and that is a dangerous thing. Of course, this is but a small part of the problem, but not an insignificant part.

[makattak]

And the courts should remember that next time those jackholes sue someone, they should throw the case out and deny any claim to payment. 

It seems to me there is a double standard at times.  We can't keep them out of the cemeteries even if they are private.  We can't tell them to keep their distance for some reason.  We can't sue them for emotional distress even though it is exactly their intent to inflict it. 

As well, I think their INTENT is to inflict emotional distress and that should open them up for liability.  They can say whatever they want, but they chose the time and place for the express purpose of inflicting emotional harm on others.  IMO, that is not a free speech issue.  It wouldn't be the first time I disagreed with the courts though.

And a hearty, "Hear, hear" to this.

[MechAg94]

On other side of that, looking at the article, it sounds like there were some specifics of this particular case that eroded the claim.  

[makattak]

On other side of that, looking at the article, it sounds like there were some specifics of this particular case that eroded the claim. 

I disagree. Simply because they weren't seen during the funeral doesn't detract from their intentional infliction of emotional distress.

If someone libels you and you don't hear it, but only see it on video later, does that mitigate the libel?

[roo_ster]

Seeing as how they've proven they can successfully run a lawsuit mill based on people responding to the intentional infliction of emotional distress when they are at their most vulnerable states, I expect to start seeing imitators.

People respond to incentives, more or less.

Honestly, it's my fear that because we do not pursue justice against people like this (and many other examples) and, in fact, use government censure against those who would appropriately respond to these people that violence may result.

People agree to give up vengeance and retribution to the government in expectation that justice will result. When the government no longer provides justice, people will eventually revert to vengeance and retribution.

This is why I am pushing for either judicial solutions (civil judgement that should have been upheld) or minimally violent solutions (tarring and feathering, throwing rotten fruit, etc...) that are also are government approved. We have neither and that is a dangerous thing. Of course, this is but a small part of the problem, but not an insignificant part.

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

[HeroHog]

I would cheer (and contribute to his defense even though I HATE drunks/drunk drivers) if a drunk accidentaly plowed through the whole mess of them killing them all and got off for not being in control of his own actions because of his disease (alcoholism).

Hey, a guy can dream can't he?

[seeker_two]

No threat made here.....but I am concerned that the next complaint lodged against the Westboro protesters will come at about 2000fps.....I hope the police are out in force at their next showing.....