Posted on 10/07/2010 3:34:48 PM PDT by SandRat
WASHINGTON - Supreme Court justices, in a rare public display of sympathy, strongly suggested Wednesday they would like to rule for a dead Marine's father against fundamentalist church members who picketed his son's funeral - but aren't sure they can.
Left unresolved after an hourlong argument that explored the limits of the First Amendment: Does the father's emotional pain trump the protesters' free speech rights?
The difficulty of the constitutional issue was palpable in the courtroom as the justices weighed the case of Albert Snyder. His son died in Iraq in 2006, and members of a family-dominated church in Topeka, Kan., protested at the funeral
--snip --
(Excerpt) Read more at azstarnet.com ...
Wishing it would be 9-0 against the protesters.
I really hate how the media keeps refering to this cult as fundamentalists church or a Christian church. Exactly what is their foundation? It certainly isn’t the Bible.
The free speech issue is total BS. Nobody has to harass people at a funeral to explain their point of view.
It should be overturned. The First Amendment protects people from government restrictions on their speech. The underlying case was a private individual suing the Phelps mob. This is not a First Amendment case.
Obviously Snyder wins in that case.
Or, alternatively the Court can suggest that it's lawful to commit violence against those who use fighting words and reinstitute the Code Duelo.
In that case we all win ~ and we don't have to put up with any more Leftwingtard cr*p.
Imagine the verdict if it was a muslim funeral that was being attacked........
This is about free speech. I’m not willing to give up mine for the sake of some simpleton masquerading as a Christian screaming vile things at our beloved fallen. Free speech is the first thing to go in a totalitarian regime.
Soviet Russia-
Nazi Germany-
Hungary-
Czechoslovakia-
Cuba-
etc., etc.
We need to fight for the right for these stupid people to say their stupid ideas in public. If we don’t, the next thing they will be after the ‘misguided’ on the FreeRepublic.
AMEN! These freaks need shutting down.
> “ Exactly what is their foundation? It certainly isn’t the Bible.”
.
In that assumption you are wrong!
Yes the Phelps gang is crude, and abrasive, but their assertions are straight out of the Bible. (Romans Ch 1)
This case could be exactly what the left has been hoping for: a chink in the first ammendment’s armor.
.
> “This is not a First Amendment case.”
.
The first judge that heard it turned it into one, and all the others have followed like sheep.
Phelps would have no access if the funeral had been private, rather than making it a public forum.
.
The problem, of course, is that Mr. Phelps doesn’t seek to merely exercise his right to express an opinion in public, but to do it in a fashion which unreasonably disrupts the exercise of their religion by families of servicemen.
Your link doesn’t work.
Uhh, sympathy is not a legal argument.
1st Amendment means free speech even if rude and annoying.
I agree. Even if it were a First Amendment case, where would the line be drawn.
Much to my surprise the Attorney Phelps really did a good job aruging the case.
I still think that the Phelps are a bunch of nutcakes, and that their pickets are way over the top.
> “where would the line be drawn.”
.
If any line is drawn, the first ammendment is history.
.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.