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: 2ndDivisionVet

Yes I do. A jury would convict them. That is not the argument here.

Not to mention that you are not too clear here.

The decision was not made on the fact Westboro was murdering anyone or that anyone was killing anyone from Westboro.

Make sense please?


41 posted on 03/02/2011 4:04:06 PM PST by dforest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: PapaBear3625

Yep, you hit it the nail on the head. Much to the dismay of Westboro.


42 posted on 03/02/2011 4:05:22 PM PST by dforest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
“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

Dang. What she said is quoted in the article, yet, there are posters here that allowed themselves to be swayed by the misleading headline.
43 posted on 03/02/2011 4:06:02 PM PST by crazyhorse691 (Now that the libs are in power dissent is not only unpatriotic, but, it is also racist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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

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.

I do not need "an example of legal precedent". I gave an example of legal precedent in the form of a Supreme Court ruling on Post 5.

My position is that trite messages on Twitter is not a very good way to prove your point or be taken seriously.

A liberal can easily twist her Twitter messages and say "Sarah Palin is against the Separation of Church and State" and "Sarah Palin is against Free Speech".

By contrast, I have addressed both of those issues on this thread in a way that would leave the Left trying to look up what the heck the "Fighting Words Doctrine" and what the heck the "Free Exercise Clause" are.

44 posted on 03/02/2011 4:11:18 PM PST by Polybius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Polybius
A liberal will twist anything that any conservative says. Most of us have noticed that. Sarah Palin is not limited to one Tweet for the rest of her life. Most of us understand that.
45 posted on 03/02/2011 4:15:11 PM PST by TigersEye (Who crashed the markets on 9/28/08 and why?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Retired Greyhound
headline. my bad

See? ...and we're the SMART ones here at FR...imagine how many casual readers are caught up by this deceptive BS? Not only in this instance, but in many others?

46 posted on 03/02/2011 4:16:03 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 39 | View Replies]

To: indylindy

I was just asking a side question, not commenting on Governor Palin’s remarks on the Westboro decision. Perhaps you should calm down and not see some ulterior motive behind another FReeper’s comments just because you don’t care for Gov. Palin or her supporters.


47 posted on 03/02/2011 4:24:23 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet (All gave some, some gave all.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Retired Greyhound

I think the “keen mind” you should take a look at is your own.

Your mind failed to understand that Palin’s was not a legal statement.


48 posted on 03/02/2011 4:30:28 PM PST by reasonisfaith (Relativism is the intellectual death knell of progressive ideology.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Far be it from me to try to make sense of a nonsensical post. Apparently you are unwilling to make sense of it.

But...it is a good chance to flame those that actually want to hold Palin to any remark she makes.

I am sorry, more for you than for me.


49 posted on 03/02/2011 4:30:57 PM PST by dforest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

I don’t know, but would like to see someone knock the holy hell out of a few of them. Oops, there is only a few of them. And, with no witnesses. The only reason the Phelps do this, is hoping to be harmed so they can sue. They are in it for the money, period!


50 posted on 03/02/2011 4:36:00 PM PST by Jaidyn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

I know how I’d vote. and I’m a Baptist ! I’d volunteer to flip the switch too.


51 posted on 03/02/2011 4:37:48 PM PST by Reagan69 (I went to a shooting-victims' memorial service and all I got was a lousy T-shirt !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Sarah didn’t necessarily say it wasn’t the right decision, she just can’t understand why we can’t mention God in some places. I agree with her.


52 posted on 03/02/2011 4:39:27 PM PST by Reagan69 (I went to a shooting-victims' memorial service and all I got was a lousy T-shirt !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Polybius

I agree. A statement on Twitter is hardly the way to be taken seriously.


53 posted on 03/02/2011 4:40:15 PM PST by JaneNC (I)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye
A liberal will twist anything that any conservative says. Most of us have noticed that.

At least they will try. In my debates with the liberals I know, it is the liberal that ends up twisted in a knot.

There are ways to win debates. Twitter isn't one of them unless you are Tweeting a web link to a well thought out argument.

Sarah Palin is not limited to one Tweet for the rest of her life. Most of us understand that.

Unfortunately, that is what she seems to specialize in: Tweets, preaching to the choir and being thrown softballs on FOX News. She does not seem to be able to take a complex position and defend it. Look at this thread. Even on Free Republic, most posts are against her position. I am playing Devil's Advocate for her position but her very easily twisted Tweet is not helping very much.

54 posted on 03/02/2011 4:43:16 PM PST by Polybius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Polybius

I’ve been attacked on here for simply saying that she doesn’t do a very good job of articulating her positions. Essentially I’m saying the same thing as you that she has a difficult time defending complex issues in an unfriendly environment. I want to see her go onto someplace other than Fox News and defend her position. That would be presidential.


55 posted on 03/02/2011 4:53:46 PM PST by tatown (Obama is a turd)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Polybius
Even on Free Republic, most posts are against her position.

Really? Her position is that SCOTUS contradicts itself on 1st Amendment cases. I haven't seen a single post against that opinion.

56 posted on 03/02/2011 5:08:37 PM PST by TigersEye (Who crashed the markets on 9/28/08 and why?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Polybius

For me, losing an election to Barak Obama constitutes “a time of intense emotional sensitivity.” An event like that is a direct threat to the well being of me and my family. In any case the Contitution makes no mention in the 1st Amendment about emotional sensitivity. It talks instead to Congress making no law ...

And I have Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Megyn Kelly on my side. I’ll settle for that.


57 posted on 03/02/2011 5:23:06 PM PST by InterceptPoint
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
Palin: First Amendment should not protect protestors at military funerals

The title lies. Why not add a comment to the title saying that?

58 posted on 03/02/2011 5:32:01 PM PST by FreeReign
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye
Really? Her position is that SCOTUS contradicts itself on 1st Amendment cases. I haven't seen a single post against that opinion.

Look at the posts that start, "I have to disagree with Sarah on this".

You are doing your very best to clean up her Tweet. What you said can be defended and defended well. What she actually said was this:

“Common sense & decency absent as wacko ‘church’ allowed hate msgs spewed @ soldiers’ funerals but we can’t invoke God’s name in public square,”

Now, allow me to play liberal and show you how such a Tweet can be twisted every which way but loose.

"Sarah Palin claims that her common sense is right and the Constitution is wrong."

"Sarah Palin reserves the right to trample on your Constitutional rights if she decides that doing so would satisfy her sense of 'decency'. Will we have a Saudi-style Decency Police under a President Palin?"

"Sarah Palin trashes the First Amendment Freedom of Religion by deciding herself what Churches are real and which ones are merely false 'churches' (she herself used quotations) not deserving of First Amendment protection. Your Church might be next on Sarah Palin's Religious Police target list!"

"Sarah Palin blatantly lies. Two thousand members of MoveOn.org invoked God's name in a public square, without consequences, to expose her lie."

"Sarah Palin states that her own sense of decency and her own common sense should trump the Rule of Law and the Constitution."

My position stands. Her style of Tweets is not going to get her taken seriously by a majority of voters.

59 posted on 03/02/2011 5:45:19 PM PST by Polybius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: excopconservative
if you read the decision that is what the SCOTUS said. Or to that effect. That the local authorities could designate areas that are protected....
60 posted on 03/02/2011 5:48:25 PM PST by unseen1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | 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