Free Republic
Browse · Search
GOP Club
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Palin: First Amendment should not protect protestors at military funerals
The Daily Caller ^ | March 2, 2011 | Chris Moody

Posted on 03/02/2011 3:00:58 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet

Sarah Palin criticized Wednesday’s Supreme Court decision that upheld a Kansas church’s right to protest at military funerals, a sign of where the potential 2012 presidential contender draws the line on free speech.

“Common sense & decency absent as wacko ‘church’ allowed hate msgs spewed @ soldiers’ funerals but we can’t invoke God’s name in public square,” Palin said via her Twitter account shortly after the Supreme Court announced the decision.

The Topeka-based Westboro Baptist Church, which has no affiliation to any other Baptist organization, sends members to picket funerals of military servicemen who were killed in action. The group’s members believe that the deaths are a punishment from God’s wrath, and carry offensive signs that read, “Thank God for dead soldiers” and “God Hates the U.S.A.”

Justice Samual Alito was the only justice to submit a dissenting opinion, saying that the First Amendment does not protect those who launch “vicious verbal attacks that make no contribution to public debate” during “a time of intense emotional sensitivity.”

In response to the ruling, the group is planning to “quadruple” the amount of protests held at military funerals.


TOPICS: Campaign News; Issues; State and Local
KEYWORDS: kansas; military; obama; palin; religion; sarahpalin; scotus; supremecourt; westborobaptist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-78 next last
To: indylindy; Retired Greyhound
I agree. That is what the Westboro knows. They want so called Constitutional conservatives to come out against the Constitution. Then they gotcha!

How can we be Constitutional conservatives if the Left is entitled to define what the Constitution means in any way they please and then accuse us of violating the Constitution if we disagree with their interpretation?

That is how we got to the point where the "Free Exercise" Clause of the First Amendment has been so trashed that anti-Christianity has become a de facto established religion at your local high school graduation: "Jesus must NOT be named in your valedictorian speech! It's against the Constitution!" .

Bravo Sierra. The "Free Exercise" Clause of the First Amendment guarantees a student's right to mention Jesus or Mohamed or Buddha or Krishna or Thor the God of Thunder if the student wishes.

The ruling of Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 1942 (Post 5) has already addressed this issue.

The problem with Palin's position is that this issue requires serious discussion and the citing of legal precedent .... not trite comments on Twitter.

21 posted on 03/02/2011 3:37:21 PM PST by Polybius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Bigtigermike
You notice that too? All she said is Common sense and decency is missing as this church is allowed to spew their hate but some can’t invoke Gods name -— what the problem is I don’t know.

They know EXACTLY what they are doing when they craft these misleading headlines...they know a good segment of people will see the headline but not follow up by reading the actual quote appearing in the story. Ergo; the impression that Palin has a problem with the First Amendment is created...

22 posted on 03/02/2011 3:38:25 PM PST by who knows what evil? (G-d saved more animals than people on the ark...www.siameserescue.org.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: InterceptPoint; who knows what evil?; Retired Greyhound; uncle fenders; Polybius; agere_contra; ...

Do you think the average jury would convict someone who assaulted or even killed one or more of these Westboro types at their relatives’ funeral?


23 posted on 03/02/2011 3:38:34 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet (All gave some, some gave all.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Retired Greyhound

Ah, the keen legal mind of Sarah Palin.


We’ve had enough lawyers as POTUS thank you. We need someone with both a brain and a heart. Since the military cemeteries are public property, the demonstrators can’t be kept out. What needs to change is the designation of private events on public property. If I rent a city facility for a wedding, I can keep others out. If I can’t, then why am I paying to rent it. The same situation needs to apply to a military funeral. The area around the event should be able to be secured from non-participants. Maybe the attorneys didn’t argue this case properly. You may have the right to say what you want without restriction, but I’m not required to hear it just because you want me to.


24 posted on 03/02/2011 3:39:58 PM PST by excopconservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Retired Greyhound

As do I. What they’re doing is protected speech, as disgusting as it is.

Nonsense. They are many things that are not protected speech. Seems only certain special interest groups get protected.
Besides they can say their vile crap all they want. That was never the issue. The issue is does their intrusion in to a private citizens funeral violate that persons rights and there can be no question in common sense and common deceny that it does.


25 posted on 03/02/2011 3:40:17 PM PST by SECURE AMERICA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

LYING title -what she actually said.

After dailycaller’s Tucker Carlson MILF remark about Palin the other day, this is surprising???


26 posted on 03/02/2011 3:41:39 PM PST by Freddd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: InterceptPoint
Justice Samual Alito was the only justice to submit a dissenting opinion, saying that the First Amendment does not protect those who launch “vicious verbal attacks that make no contribution to public debate” during “a time of intense emotional sensitivity.” ******************************************************* Unfortunately this argument would outlaw The Daily Kos.

Not really.

There is a world of difference between telling you that your favorite politician is a (insert the vilest language you can here) and telling you that your loved one deserved to die and will roast in Hell at your loved one's funeral.

Reading the Daily Kos while having your morning cup of coffee does not constitute “a time of intense emotional sensitivity.” Your loved one's funeral does.

27 posted on 03/02/2011 3:43:40 PM PST by Polybius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
I have to disagree with Sarah on this. However offensive the speech is, the government has no right to prohibit somebody from speaking it.

On the other hand, neither should the government be under any obligation to provide security to the Westboro idiots. See how vocal they are when a thousand pissed-off funeral attendees converge upon them.

28 posted on 03/02/2011 3:43:45 PM PST by PapaBear3625 ("It is only when we've lost everything, that we are free to do anything" -- Fight Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TruthBeforeAll
The headline is a lie.

Chris Moody is a liar, and owes the Governor and his reader (s) an apology.

29 posted on 03/02/2011 3:44:57 PM PST by who knows what evil? (G-d saved more animals than people on the ark...www.siameserescue.org.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: excopconservative; SECURE AMERICA

This should not have been a Federal issue to begin with.

The public/private designation of these funerals is a local matter.


30 posted on 03/02/2011 3:45:35 PM PST by Retired Greyhound
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Polybius

Her position is that SCOTUS contradicts itself when deciding 1st Amendment cases. If you want an example of legal precedent that contradicts this decision I give you Judge Roy Moore.


31 posted on 03/02/2011 3:46:18 PM PST by TigersEye (Who crashed the markets on 9/28/08 and why?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: who knows what evil?

Sarah has no problem with first admendment, this a non story and I bet that Sarah might have a Facebook note on this later on tonight - if somebody were to actually read her tweet, she is saying that there is no common sense or decency in allowing these hateful guys to be allowed to spew their hate but a guy can’t say the name GOD in a public arena without getting hell for it.

Am I not right?


32 posted on 03/02/2011 3:47:05 PM PST by Bigtigermike
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Yes.


33 posted on 03/02/2011 3:47:32 PM PST by TigersEye (Who crashed the markets on 9/28/08 and why?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Retired Greyhound

Did you read her quote, or just the terribly misleading headline? You can disagree with her statement; but she did NOT say what the headline claims she did.


34 posted on 03/02/2011 3:47:51 PM PST by who knows what evil? (G-d saved more animals than people on the ark...www.siameserescue.org.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
Do you think the average jury would convict someone who assaulted or even killed one or more of these Westboro types at their relatives’ funeral?

In the South: Nope.

In Massachusetts: Yep.

35 posted on 03/02/2011 3:50:58 PM PST by Polybius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Retired Greyhound

So harassment is ok? How is this not harassment?


36 posted on 03/02/2011 3:53:29 PM PST by jackv (The darkness hates the light!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Polybius
The Supreme Court could have ruled against the Westboro Baptist Church on the basis of the "Fighting Words Doctrine".

As Mark Levin just said when commenting on this case, the Supreme Court has applied a number of tests for various types of speech in - as Levin said -- "making a mess" of the first amendment over the years.

Yet in this case (except for possibly Alito), they took a purist's approach to the first amendment. Levin wondered why. As he said, in this case "I sure as hell would have looked for one."

37 posted on 03/02/2011 3:58:24 PM PST by Al B.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: jackv

Any protest could be called harassment. You don’t want your Federal govt. telling you when and where you can speak. Trust me.

They should have been a local issue


38 posted on 03/02/2011 4:01:33 PM PST by Retired Greyhound
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: who knows what evil?

headline. my bad


39 posted on 03/02/2011 4:01:53 PM PST by Retired Greyhound
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
Justice Samual Alito was the only justice to submit a dissenting opinion, saying that the First Amendment does not protect those who launch “vicious verbal attacks that make no contribution to public debate” during “a time of intense emotional sensitivity.”

You could drive a semi through the loophole in free-speech rights that this sort of reasoning would create. Speech requires protection precisely when people don't like it. I think this picketing group is beyond contempt, but what they're doing is legal. Alito's judgment in this makes me more than a little nervous about what he's going to do in future "hate-speech" cases.
40 posted on 03/02/2011 4:03:31 PM PST by AnotherUnixGeek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-78 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
GOP Club
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson