Posted on 03/03/2011 3:11:02 AM PST by Scanian
When it comes to repugnant, it's hard to beat the reptiles of the Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kan.
But in America, repugnance is no barrier to the conversation, a point affirmed yesterday by the US Supreme Court in a big win for First Amendment rights.
The high court sided 8-1 with Westboro and its right to picket funerals of slain military personnel.
The church preaches that combat deaths are God's punishment for America's tolerant views on homosexual rights -- and members picket funerals bearing signs that read "God Hates Fags" and "Thank God for Dead Soldiers."
When Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder was killed in 2006, the road show rolled into his Maryland hometown to pull the same stunt. An understandably furious Albert Snyder, the Marine's father, sued for defamation, invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of distress.
After winning a jury verdict in a Maryland court, Snyder lost on appeal.
In upholding that ruling, Chief Justice John Roberts noted that the Westboro group had a right to disgrace itself: "Debate on public issues should be robust, uninhibited and wide-open [and] . . . speech on public issues occupies the highest rung of the hierarchy of First Amendment values."
There's no small irony in the fact that Cpl. Snyder gave his life in service of the First Amendment -- honoring the oath he took to uphold the US Constitution.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
>Those guys in the sheets almost invariably have been Democrats down through history (as has the modern NAACP); no self-respecting conservative would don them even as a goof.
So? It doesn’t address the issue I raised which is that this ruling, like virtually all of the law nowadays in America, is/will-be applied not uniformly but selectively and, arguably, on capricious & petty governmental whim.
“like virtually all of the law nowadays in America, is/will-be applied not uniformly but selectively and, arguably, on capricious & petty governmental whim.”
Sure it is. I just take umbrage when anybody tries to suggest that the KKK in anyway relates to conservatives.
I’d rather prove your point by poking Richard Trumka in the snoot, actually.
>>“like virtually all of the law nowadays in America, is/will-be applied not uniformly but selectively and, arguably, on capricious & petty governmental whim.”
>
>Sure it is. I just take umbrage when anybody tries to suggest that the KKK in anyway relates to conservatives.
Ah, then it was just an innocent/honest misunderstanding.
>I’d rather prove your point by poking Richard Trumka in the snoot, actually.
I’m pretty sure that wouldn’t be covered under ‘free speech’ but would be considered assault.
The illustration I used is better in that it isolates the entirety of the issue the USSC ruled on in such a way so as to make violations of said ruling patently obvious.
My personal exerience with unions as a foreman were that assault and property damage were par for the course for them. Their idea of “self-expression.” I was actually told that by a NLRB investigator. So, I already know what taking a swing at Trumka would bring about: the full double standard brought into play juat as in any other beef between left and right or labor and management.
I recall some examples of lefty rough stuff coming out of Wisconsin. Even a vulgar death threat. I didn’t see anybody being arrested or even questioned by the authorities, did you?
Isn’t Trumka actually a crypto-KKK guy anyway?
Beats me but I’d say that he does match the typical description of a Kluxer: overweight, overbearing, and obnoxious.
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.