Posted on 03/13/2010 6:49:06 PM PST by StilettoRaksha
WASHINGTON—The Supreme Court agreed to decide whether the father of a fallen Marine can collect damages from a religious sect that picketed his son's funeral with vulgar placards celebrating the death of American soldiers.
The court also accepted two other cases on Monday, one testing whether vaccine makers are immune from lawsuits under state law and another that challenges government background checks on federal contractors as an invasion of privacy. The cases are likely to be heard in the fall.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Hopefully, SCOTUS will side with Americans and allow the Marine’s family to sue that asses off that so-called “religious sect”. It’s always been unlawful for someone to take their crap and garbage to a cemetery. What makes this “religious sect” any different? They should take their crap and garbage somewhere else.
Westboro Baptist has no decency, and I hope that no Freeper considers them Christian. Still, they are within their constitutional rights to protest on public property. The First Amendment even applies to people as disgusting as WBB members and Obama voters. The Supremes should rule in favor of the vulgar protesters.
I am sorry for their loss and that they had to see the protesters but 'emotional distress' is a can of worms we should not open for speech.
I don’t see how this is a free speech issue for the WBC. It is generally accepted that one entity’s freedom of speech ends where another entity’s freedom of speech begins. My guess is that if the court is sane, it will rule that WBC and similar groups will have to protest very far away from any funeral.
Hopefully, SCOTUS will side with Americans and allow the woman to sue that asses off that so-called “religious sect”. It’s always been unlawful for someone to take their crap and garbage to an abortion clinic. What makes this “religious sect” any different? They should take their crap and garbage somewhere else.
Since their speech is religious/political, courts will be extraordinarily careful in making their decisions. Religious/political content are the most protected types of speech.
Now, they can't come onto private property without permission to spout their mess, but if they are on public property or private property by permission, and aren't impeding traffic or anything like that, they have the right to spout all the garbage they want.
The fact that their speech may hurt other people emotionally or mentally (and I'm sure it does) does not make it any less valid or less protected. If we outlawed all of the speech that someone somewhere took offense to, none of us could utter a word without breaking the law. The first things to go would be religious and political speech.
I cringe at their choices, but if they can't say what they believe to be the truth, no one can.
FTR: I have had met members of WBC. Since that time, I pray for their souls. As Jesus said Father forgive them, for they know not what they do. I believe that to be true for many of them. I have never met people who seemed more desolate, frightened, or angry than they were. They reminded me of hurt animals. Pray for them.
A funeral is a private event even if held at a public cemetery. A valid argument can be made that the family of the deceased is renting the cemetery and space around the grave for a private event.
If you are being married at a public community center, some uninvited stranger does not have the right to come in and disrupt the event.
A person who is verbally attacking, breaching the peace and harassing people at any public area can be made to leave.
Even people who become disruptive during a movie can be forced to leave and it is perfectly legal.
Why would a funeral be any different?
While religious speech has historically been protected, one point completely overlooked in the WBC argument is that the majority of funerals are also a protected act of religious expression.
Why should WBC’s right to religious speech trump the religious speech rights of funeral attendees?
Why should WBC’s right to expression be more protected then those of the funeral party?
Does Rev. Phelp’s have more rights as “clergy” then a member of the clergy asked to officiate at a funeral?
The court should rule that WBC has a right to protest as long as their activities in no way impede upon the ability of funeral attendees to enter the cemetery, to hold their chosen services in peace and leave the cemetery unimpeded by WBC members. To not do so says WBC has more rights of religious expression then other Americans; it would also give WBC a higher right of assembly and protest then is afforded to the privacy and assembly rights of any other group.
And it’s disgusting they are hiding under the label of Baptist.
I’ve been at a funeral where WBB protested, and they stayed just outside the cemetery property on a public sidewalk where drivers could see them from the road. They were loud enough to be heard at the graveside, but not loud enough to be charged for disturbing the peace. Their main goal was to be offensive and to be seen by others, probably by their hateful donors who send money when WBB posts new pictures of their protests. The WBB circus occasionally chooses to get arrested to make the news more prominently, but what I saw was legal and clearly protected as free speech.
What the hell are you doing on our site, liberal? Suggestion: Click this link. You'll feel much more at home.
Pollster1 pretty much said it all in post #11. WBC stays just this side of legal for the most part.
Their 1st Amendment rights don’t trump those of the families having funerals. But the rights of those families don’t trump the rights of the WBC members, either. And as long as they don’t impede traffic, don’t trespass, or make themselves so loud that the funeral can’t be held, they’re within their rights.
Basic human decency dictates that what they are doing is entirely wrong. I think what they are doing is wrong, as wrong as anything else I can think of. The pain that they are inflicting on innocent, grieving people is nothing short of vile.
Morally justified and legally justified are two different things, though. I cannot morally justify what they do and wouldn’t ever try. Putting up with their verbal garbage so that the rest of us aren’t censored is a good thing, though.
We don’t have to look far in our world to see people who will do anything, including imprisonment and violence, to suppress the religious speech of others. This is the price we pay to avoid that, and it has never been more important than now.
We call it “free speech”, but that isn’t entirely true. The price for being able to say what we want, is putting up with this kind of verbal sewage.
Thank you. I was not at all comfortable with my post, particularly since I have seen these evil people first hand, so it’s nice to know that someone sees my point.
Id say if they are loud enough to be heard at graveside then they are in fact disrupting a religious service and have no right to do so. They’d need to move back.
As I pointed our in my post their right to religious expression and assembly is no more of a right then another group right to the same. Their rights end at the nose of those attending the funeral.
To me the moment they disrupt the rights of another group to hold a religious gathering they have surpassed their rights.
Sure, let them protest, hold their signs, and give their twisted version of scripture - as long as it in no way disrupts the rights of others. That includes protesting loudly enough it can be heard graveside. Right there they are disrupting a religious service and the right of assembly/speech of another group. Their rights should not trump any other.
WBC has always pushed the envelope of illegal-protected rights partly because nobody has argued the other side of the coin. The religious rights of other groups.
How fast would Fred Phelps call the police if a group of protesters stood on a street in front of their family church and raised to much hell it disrupted his sermons? We know how fast - very. Years ago that is exactly what happened. A group counter demonstrated Phelps. He was on the phone with the Wichita police demanding they be removed and sued the city when the demonstrators were allowed to remain.
People tend to look at this issue simply as a free speech issue and freedom of religion. They forget there are two sides to this, there is WBC and those gathering for a funeral who also have religious and speech rights.
Wrong link. I was trying to teach you something: free speech restrictions for someone else will come back to bite your pet cause eventually.
And relax, life is too short to get angry over a comment
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.