See other Dead Constitution Articles
Title: Westboro Funeral Pickets Are Protected Speech, High Court Rules
Source:
Fox News
URL Source: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201 ... ected-speech-high-court-rules/
Published: Mar 2, 2011
Author: Lee Ross
Post Date: 2011-03-02 11:14:03 by Phant2000
Keywords: None
Views: 122
Comments: 8
The Supreme Court, in an 8-1 decision, ruled Wednesday that members of the renegade Westboro Baptist Church have a constitutionally protected right to protest military funerals, though their demonstrations are widely despised and deplored. The case presented the justices with a high-profile question about the breadth of First Amendment speech and assembly protections. A majority of justices ruled that these fundamental rights outweigh the concerns of grieving family members who would rather not deal with the obnoxious protesters from the Kansas church. In doing so, the judges upheld a lower-court decision to invalidate a $5 million judgment in favor of the father of a dead Marine whose funeral was targeted by the protesters. In its opinion, the Supreme Court wrote that the United States protects "even hurtful speech" on public issues so that "public debate is not stifled." It ruled that the First Amendment shields the church from being held liable for picketing. "The 'content' of Westboro's signs plainly relates to public, rather than private, matters," they wrote. "Even if a few of the signs were viewed as containing messages related to a particular individual, that would not change the fact that the dominant theme of Westboro's demonstration spoke to broader public issues. "Westboro may have chosen the picket location to increase publicity for its views, and its speech may have been particularly hurtful to (the father). That does not mean that its speech should be afforded less than full First Amendment protection under the circumstances of this case," they wrote. Justice Samuel Alito was the only one to dissent, writing that the church protests simply go too far. "Our profound national commitment to free and open debate is not a license for the vicious verbal assault that occurred in this case," Alito wrote. "In order to have a society in which public issues can be openly and vigorously debated, it is not necessary to allow the brutalization of innocent victims like petitioner. I therefore respectfully dissent." For years, the Westboro protesters have popped up at places across the country to voice their displeasure with government policies they think promote homosexuality. They did so in 2006 at the funeral for Matthew Snyder, a Marine killed in Iraq. He was not gay and had no connection to the Westboro cause, but the funeral provided the protesters an opportunity to speak out against government policies. Father Albert Snyder certainly didn't want anything do with the picketers when he buried his son. "I want them to stop doing this to our military men and women," Snyder told Fox News in October before the arguments. "I want the judges to hear that this case is not about free speech, it's about targeted harassment." In the days leading up to the funeral, Westboro parishioners, including leader Fred Phelps, notified local authorities of their intention to picket the service. They were kept 1,000 feet away from the church and because of the use of an alternative entrance for church-goers there was no disruption to the memorial. Seven protesters held numerous signs including some that read, "Thank God for Dead Soldiers;" "God Hates Fags;" and "You're Going to Hell." There were no arrests. Snyder filed a lawsuit against Phelps based on the protest and a subsequent post on the Westboro website about his son Matthew. A jury awarded Snyder nearly $11 million in damages for the intentional infliction of emotional distress and invasion of privacy. That award was later cut in half and then the Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals set aside the decision in its entirety, ruling that the protests were absolutely protected by the First Amendment. That decision was upheld by the Supreme Court. A group of 21 news organizations joined a brief defending Westboro's case. While calling their views "inexplicable and hateful," they expressed concern that a ruling against the church would chill the activities of anyone who wants to speak out on a controversial issue and "threatens to expand dramatically the risk of liability for news media coverage and commentary." POSTER'S COMMENT: It is hard for me to understand this decision.
11110.jpg)
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 8.
#1. To: Phant2000 (#0)
Excellent...
You see who got their way? "A group of 21 news organizations joined a brief defending Westboro's case. While calling their views "inexplicable and hateful," they expressed concern that a ruling against the church would chill the activities of anyone who wants to speak out on a controversial issue and "threatens to expand dramatically the risk of liability for news media coverage and commentary." The media, owned by the same joos who have taken over this country!!!
The Supreme Court would have a different ruling if the Westboro nutters were picketing synagogues.
I can't dispute that statement, abraxas. Sad, but that's the way it is until WE do something about it.
The Court ruled Nazis could march through the neighborhoods of Holocaust survivors in Skokie a few decades back (though the Nazis chickened out and never did march in Skokie). I don't think this Court today would rule otherwise.
SCOTUS decision on Westboro Baptist Church
Seems like they're saying: "Look at it this way. It's just a Military funeral for cannon fodder -- not like those Westboro harrassers turned their backs to protest a privileged Secretary of State's speech or anything over-the-line like that." Ray McGovern Discusses Brutal Arrest at Secretary Clinton's Internet Freedom Speech: What had he done to elicit this treatment? He stood in "silent witness." Hillary Clinton interrupted by protester 15.02.2011
There are no replies to Comment # 8. End Trace Mode for Comment # 8.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#2. To: Cynicom (#1)
#3. To: Phant2000, Cyni (#2)
#4. To: abraxas (#3)
The Supreme Court would have a different ruling if the Westboro nutters were picketing synagogues.
#6. To: Phant2000 (#4)
I can't dispute that statement, abraxas. Sad, but that's the way it is until WE do something about it.
#7. To: All (#6)
#8. To: TooConservative, All (#7)
Replies to Comment # 8.