Peaceful assembly is one thing, but disturbing the peace is another. Why haven’t the sissified cops arrested these punks when they get loud and distruptive?
This is strictly a 1st Amendment issue, even though we don’t agree with the WBC thugs. The communities are taking care of things locally by turning out to obstruct WBCers’ view, shout them down, etc.
I’d rather not see the SCOTUS rule against a free-speech issue, because the left will use it against those who protest against them.
I hate the freaks at the WBC, but IMO this is the right decision.
Alito, eh? Guess I’ll have to keep an eye on him.
This one was a no-brainer, as evidenced by the fact that the other eight (EIGHT!) got it right.
So verbal harassment, fighting words, stalking, and disturbing the peace are now considered constitutionally protected free speech.
As much as I detest these beasts, I cannot disagree with the decision provided it is public land.
As another poster said, there are various ways to counter it.
I went down to Washington DC last Veterans Day, and stood with the DC Chapter of Free Republic across the street on the road leading to Arlington National Cemetery. On the other side, there were the Westboro Baptist people.
I admit, part of me had a morbid curiousity about it...did they really exist? Could people really be that twisted? I had never actually seen them in person, so...there was something about reality.
There were only about ten of them, fenced in on the other side, and the Patriot Guard stood 3 or 4 deep all the way around their cage with their backs to them, completely blocking view of them to the point you couldn’t even see their signs. Eventually, the police came over and told them they couldn’t stand like that, they had to keep moving, so they began walking the circumfrence of the cage.
As we watched, one of the big biker guys with the Patriot Guard said “Watch this...” and as he and five of his buddies got on their Harleys, the crowd parted on the other side.
When there was a break in the traffic, they all drove directly across the street, straight at the cage at a pretty good clip...looked like they were intent on smashing right through the barricade.
At the last second, they swerved, swung back into the road, and then in unison, all backed their bikes up so all six of them were abreast with their exhaust pointed at the Westboro Baptist people about five feet away.
The began revving their engines, making an unbelievable racket, with the exhaust blowing back over the Westboroids. The cops let it go on for about five minutes, then came over and told them to stop.
It was great.
The smartest thing we could do regarding these loons is simply ignore them.
Doing so would cause them to eventually overstep which will end them for good.
Ohhhhh, goody...
I guess that means that the church down in Florida that is in bed with the WBC, that wanted to burn koran’s last year has a free shot now...
Or anyone for that matter, because of this decision...
This keeps getting better and better...
Roberts claims, "As a nation we have chosen a different course - to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate."
A private funeral for a private citizen is *not* a place for "public debate." The only persons subject to terror by Westboro Baptist are the those without the means to hold the grand, isolated and insulating funerals like a Teddy or a Justice Kennedy can hold.
Since when does exercise of "free speech" protect you from consequences of that speech and make you immune from a civil lawsuit?
Thanks to Justice Alito for not making it a unanimous decision! That would really be just too much!
It’s a good decision in this case. The protesters were 300 yards away, on public property, and the father who brought suit didn’t even see them until the next day, on the news.
In every one of my encounters with this “Church”, they’ve shown themselves to be vile and loathsome creatures.
I would argue that instead of trying to ban them or bankrupt them, what the community should do is come out and support the family, honor the fallen and show common decency.
But we should do this regardless of whether the “Church” shows up or not. Those who have given their loved ones so that we may live free deserve nothing less.
When there is no shred of decency or semblance of humanity left in our nation.. the terrorists have won.
The day will come when this group which abuses their First Amendment rights will encounter somone abusing their Second Amendment rights.
If anyone finds a link to Alito’s dissent (text) please ping. (I am interested in reading his detailed and particular thoughts on this case.)
Wow. Tough ruling. Still, better these jerks go free than we get more government restrictions on speech. Especially with all the PC-speech codes prevalent in the places our future lawyers and judges are schooled. They’d be more likely to be comfortable with banning future “hurtful” speech if this loony group was banned.
I just want to go on record saying that the Supreme Court has a short memory about freedom of speech decisions.
In the late 1980's, I was present at a peaceful anti-abortion protest in the area of a 'clinic' in north Melbourne, FL. In a panic, and with resources on their side, the clinic operators got an injunction against the protests that established a "buffer zone" extending onto public property around the clinic.
The protests were limited to the following:
- brochure handouts
- prayer on the sidewalk in front of the clinic
- side displays
- songs, slogans (which actually came from both sides)
- no physical confrontations, no violence whatsoever (though it was, of course, alleged)
The case made it to SCOTUS, and the clinic won. How this case is different is beyond me: the "interests" of the "patients" are no different from those of the mourners in this case. The speech involved is a political protest -- the same as is alleged by the Westbrook cult.
Now frankly, I believe the Melbourne case wasn't argued correctly -- the context was framed poorly. Nonetheless, this is a diametrically opposite decision for a case in which the facts could be construed as essentially equal.
Also, for the record: I personally believe SCOTUS was wrong on both cases... I see today's case about a private matter, not open for public protest. The Melbourne case was about a group attempting to prevent murder.
Free speech as the Founders envisioned it, concerned political speech. I don’t believe that this is political speech or that the Founders would have approved.
I hate to say it, but I agree with the decision on this. It’d be awful to have policy based on worst of the worst exception. If someone kills the Westboro bunch, I’ll applaud.
“In Denmark, a 15-year-old Danish boy faces prison time for distributing leaflets warning that the country could someday become a Muslim nation and that he thinks that is a bad thing. A Danish prosecutor called the leaflets “hate speech.”
“For instance, Islam teaches that when Mohammed was 52, he consummated his marriage to a 9-year-old girl. But when Austrian politician Susanne Winter said that, in today’s world, Mohammed would be considered a child molester, she was convicted of hate speech.”
http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/2009/September/Islamophobia-Worldwide-Free-Speech-Threat/
“So-called “hate speech” is illegal in Britain, but that depends on who is doing the hating. When the British citizens protested the Mohammad cartoons at the Danish Embassy London in 2006, they expressed their allegiance to terrorists. They called for beheadings and nuclear attacks. British police arrested no one until there was public uproar. Compare that to when a British news program exposed violent rhetoric in local mosques. British police originally decided to arrest not the radical Imams who spewed the hatred and bigotry, but the news program that did the report for allegedly stirring up racial hatred.”
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/906049/can_britain_survive_politically_correct.html
The UK and Europe do not have a 1st Amendment protecting free speech. Do we want to follow their example?