1st Amendment protects military funeral protesters

[6shooter]

Can you believe it

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that the First Amendment protects 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 of Topeka, Kan.

Read more on-line

That really makes me mad and a few other things come to mind.

 

[BadBadJohn]

Doesn't surprise me. But there are ways of dealing with WBBC.

 

[vvvvvvv]

That's a good ruling in my book.

 

[Erick]

That's a good ruling in my book.

I don't think the message of hate should be protected by free speech, or at least it shouldn't be protected by tax payer's money by utilizing a police force to protect them. I think "the pursuit of happiness" is involved here somehow.

The protesters may have the liberty to preach hate, but counter protesters need the liberty to beat the hell out of them and serve out the punishment the court gives them.

That's just my opinion.

 

[HMFIC]

here we go again...

I'm for free speech, but I do believe that Westboro has gone beyond free speech.

They are vile, loathsome, foul and despicable vermin.

 

[vvvvvvv]

I don't think the message of hate should be protected by free speech, or at least it shouldn't be protected by tax payer's money by utilizing a police force to protect them. I think "the pursuit of happiness" is involved here somehow.

The protesters may have the liberty to preach hate, but counter protesters need the liberty to beat the hell out of them and serve out the punishment the court gives them.

That's just my opinion.

What qualifies as "hate"?

A ruling in favor of Snyder would have sent us down a rather slippery slope, whether you like it or not. The argument was whether something that could be considered remotely offensive should be subject to the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress. Such speech would include the infamous Muhammad cartoons, flag burning, etc.

Westboro's funeral protests are public and not private because the protests revolve around public issues and not private attacks.

The Court also rejected Snyder's argument of intrusion upon seclusion rather easily, as the protests were too far from the funeral to see anything but the top of the signs, and Snyder was actually unaware of the protest until seeing the news about it later.

In my opinion, a ruling in favor of Phelps in this case is much better than the alternative.

 

[Jack T.]

Good ruling. Any other ruling would be *extremely* dangerous.

 

[338Shooter]

This is good news.

 

[SoonerBJJ]

No doubt about it this was the right decision.

The SCOTUS wasn't asked to determine whether these folks are $hitbags but whether their right to speech is the same as yours and mine.

Restricting unpopular speech is a slippery slope and I'd rather protect their speech now than risk giving up my own down the road.

 

[SoonerBJJ]

I haven't read Alito's dissent yet, but I'm actually a bit concerned that this wasn't a unanimous decision.