PATRIOT GUARD RIDERS
Posted on 03/02/2011 8:32:21 AM PST by InvisibleChurch
WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that the free speech provisions of the U.S. Constitution protect fundamentalist church members who mount anti-gay protests outside military funerals, despite the pain they cause grieving families.
The court voted 8-1 in favor of the Westboro Baptist Church. The decision upheld an appeals court ruling that threw out a $5 million judgment to the father of a dead Marine who sued church members after they picketed his son's funeral.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the opinion for the court. Justice Samuel Alito dissented.
(Excerpt) Read more at theindychannel.com ...
What ever happened to the old charge of “disturbing the peace” or “inciting violence or a riot”? This is absurd and obscene. - I thought people were counter-protesting and blocking these Clinton buddies with support signs and American flags. Someone or group has to be bankrolling these lounge lizards to give the Christian churches a trumped up bad name. They are damned ungodly reprobates!
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
No problem. Real Americans and Real Christians will defeat the nut cases from WBC. No one expected the courts to get this right.
The ruling that affirms the idiots right to be there also affirms every patriot and Christian right to be there (at the families request) to defend the families of our fallen warriors.
There are far far more of us then the idiots..
There is an answer. Budget cuts will obviously make it impossible for police support at these funerals. Therefore, any bikers who just “happen” to be in the area just might not be noticed when they beat the living **** out of these protestors.
After all, we already a fine Obama-t*rd tradition of the DOJ ignoring civil rights violations.
The cops are then free to come and scoop up the pieces after the Vietnam era bikers clean the clocks of the protestors.
The U.S. Supreme Court got this one right. In fact, I'm surprised it even made it this far in the U.S. legal system because the end result seemed very obvious to me.
Federal prisons are packed with individuals who have demonstrated persuasively a complete and utter disregard for the rights and dignity of law-abiding American citizens, yet who are quite capable of quoting fragments of the U.S. Constitution in defense of their actions. What’s your excuse?
“Federal prisons are packed with individuals who have demonstrated persuasively a complete and utter disregard for the rights and dignity of law-abiding American citizens, yet who are quite capable of quoting fragments of the U.S. Constitution in defense of their actions. What’s your excuse?”
My excuse is that I understand the First Amendment and understand that speech should not be prohibited simply because I find it offensive.
If it were the cast that speech that I happen to find offensive were banned, then there would be someone else who may one day claim that the free speech I exercise is somehow offensive and that my type of speech should be banned.
And what about one day when some people claim that the things that you say are offensive?
Fine.
I guess the kooks will have to deal with getting their arses kicked at every protest.
Put some real fear into them.
This Westboro group is trying to incite riots and violence by pushing the envelope. I think they’re being PAID, being BANKROLLED to do so, because that is what certain elements in this country want. It will kill two birds with one stone and, most especially, those dastardly “Christians” who are SO violent and intolerant will come up “deserving” persecution.
I said whatever happend to “disturbing the peace”?
These hired guns (Westboro so-called “Baptists”) are most certainly disturbing the peace. Is that no longer a valid claim? The SC got it right, eh? Wait until you’re on the receiving end of something similar. - They’re also skating on thin ice and deserve what they get.
Would you apply the same standards if this were a group of law-abiding Americans demonstrating outside a radical Wahabbist mosque?
It's also worth noting that "disturbing the peace" never came into play in this case because there are already criminal statutes that would apply in a case like that. The absence of any such criminal charges in this case is very telling. This was a civil court case involving the defendant's appeal of a jury verdict for the plaintiff.
What about anti-abortion activists who are on public property harrassing the “clinic entrants”? Aren’t they limited?
I don’t know, I was hoping you knew of one. I figured their free speech .....nevermind. sigh
I was relieved to hear the decision. 8-1 is good strong stance for free speech.
Take a check?
:)
Used to be that idiots like this would get their butts kicked and nobody would see a thing.
That’s a good question. My guess is that they’re covered under the First Amendment as long as they don’t impede a public thoroughfare.
That’s what I’m waiting for...hoping for.
I can’t quite put it into words, but surely there’s something about someone accosting a person with words....
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.