Posted on 09/30/2010 10:46:37 AM PDT by jazusamo
York, Pa. (AP) - One thing Al Snyder wants to make clear: His boy fought and died for freedom in Iraq, but not for the right of some "wackos" to spew hate at soldiers' funerals under the protection of the Constitution.
"It's an insult to myself, my family and the veterans to say this is what our military men and women died for," Snyder says, barely concealing his anger.
Yet more than four years after the death of his only son, Matthew, Snyder is in the middle of a Supreme Court case that raises almost precisely that issue.
The court is set to decide whether members of a fundamentalist church in Kansas who picketed Matthew's funeral with signs bearing anti-gay and anti-Catholic invective have a constitutional right to say what they want.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...
I’m for allowing protestors at funerals... I’m also for allowing the mourners use rifles, shotguns, and general violence to convince them their presence isn’t welcome.
Funerals should be considered private events unless perhaps the deceased is being given an official state funeral.
We don’t allow protests at weddings. Anyone who ran into a wedding with some huge disruptive sign would be shown the door, or arrested with disturbing the peace. This should be treated the same way, as a private event.
Protesters are "harrassing"...no matter how you cut it.
It seems many are worried about what this could lead to if SCOTUS does limit protesting at funerals and I believe that’s a genuine concern.
It also seems to me Mr. Snyder is correct when he says:
“If the courts don’t stop it, believe me, someone is going to.”
I my son came back from Iraq, in a box. His funeral would be the last one protested. At least by the ones that protested his. I’m amazed a grieving father hasn’t turned on this group of vultures. But one day, it will happen. And when it does, I will protest their funeral….
>I[f] my son came back from Iraq, in a box. His funeral would be the last one protested. At least by the ones that protested his.
*nod, nod* — You see what I meant then.
That said, I don't want the Supreme Court monkeying around with their First Amendment rights.
First it's the WBC, then the pro-life demonstrators, then the tea partiers....I think history shows the courts & government never know when to stop once that door is opened.
this fundamentalist church in Kansas - Westboro Baptist is not acting like a Christian organization - in protesting at funerals of fallen soldiers. This particular church should have its doors shuttered and its pastor neutered. The soldiers are being treated as victims and scapegoats for America’s moral lapses. Moral lapses are the responsibilities of the individuals whom have committed them. Unless you believe in the collective or cultural christianity, than the nations moral sins of the individuals is responsible for the nation’s falling from God. Come now the soldier served and died serving their country. The family is grieving and suddenly a bunch of wacked out friutcakes show up claiming that the son/daughter is responsible for the problems in America and it is a judgement against the fallen soldier and his/her family. These people need to be informed that their so called expression of freedom of speech has limits. The freedom of speech is desirious to give freedom. But what about grieving the deth of a soldier whom served and died, where is the protection of their rights
Media organizations, including The Associated Press, are urging the court to side with the Phelpses despite what they call the church's "deeply offensive" message.
The groups said that "to silence a fringe messenger because of the distastefulness of the message is antithetical to the First Amendment's most basic precepts."The Associated Press would want us to judge it that way; after all they specialize in distasteful messages.
Their motto: if it bleeds, it leads.No news is good news because good news "isn't news."
It's positive messages that they think should be censored . . .
Well said...I imagine if SCOTUS does turn out a ruling limiting speech at funerals the enemedia will go ballistic. I doubt they will rule that way but believe if they do it can be limited to just funerals.
Going to interesting to see how this turns out.
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.