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.
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.
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...
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?
Ah, the keen legal mind of Sarah Palin.
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.
LYING title -what she actually said.
After dailycaller’s Tucker Carlson MILF remark about Palin the other day, this is surprising???
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.
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.
Chris Moody is a liar, and owes the Governor and his reader (s) an apology.
This should not have been a Federal issue to begin with.
The public/private designation of these funerals is a local matter.
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.
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?
Yes.
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.
In the South: Nope.
In Massachusetts: Yep.
So harassment is ok? How is this not harassment?
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."
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
headline. my bad
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.