1st Amendment protects military funeral protesters

[Plinker]

You guys are MUCH bigger folks than I am, because I tend to see red and think vile thoughts when these...people show up, and it's truly hard to turn off. My hat is off to you for taking the high road.

I'd sure like to think they could be banned by the cemetery owners, in the end. Not on the guest list? Go home.

 

[vvvvvvv]

he also didn't decide to sue until he read some poem about himself/wife and their son on the internet that the wbc wrote several days later IIRC.

Correct. And Snyder also dropped the suit about the internet postings during the appeal process.

 

[Werewolf]

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

They are vile, loathsome, foul and despicable vermin.

... protected by the 1st amendment.

Who here hasn't heard someone, somewhere, somewhen describe liberals as being for free speech as long as it is speech they agree with?

Think about it. Double edged sword and all that.

 

[carbon]

I don't agree with SCOTUS on this one. They are targeting individuals in my opinion. I would have no problem with WBC protesting outside of a capital building or other public officials offices on the day of the funeral. A grieving family is in no condition to bring about WBCs political or social change, whatever that is.

This is not a business involved in bad practices or corruption in politics. I'll deal with protesters of wal-marts or anti-meat vegans while I'm shopping or protest at political events and offices all day for all I care. What WBC is doing in my opinion is harrasment.

Why do old ladies holding signs get rubber bullets to the face at political events and these aholes get police guards at funerals?

 

[vvvvvvv]

I think most people who disagree with the SCOTUS ruling can be lumped into two groups:

Those who don't know or understand the facts
Those who disregard the full picture

 

[brazilianboy]

Dura lex, sed lex....
(The law is harsh, but it is the law)

 

[vvvvvvv]

Dura lex, sed lex....
(The law is harsh, but it is the law)

Isn't duralex a condom brand?

 

[Erick]

I think most people who disagree with the SCOTUS ruling can be lumped into two groups:

Those who don't know or understand the facts
Those who disregard the full picture

Or simply have a different opinion other than yours. Maybe instead of lumping people into two negative groups, try and consider their opinion is based on something important to them. Do unto others and such. I would like to know what this so-called church preaches about the word of Jesus and his teachings. Do they read from the Gospel of Luke, then sing How Great Thou Art, then discuss who they are going to harass next?

I agree with Carbon's post. I understand and believe it's important for their right to protest, but what they are doing is fundamentally wrong. They can protest anywhere and be heard, but I targeting a family is morally unjust and the families also deserves to be protected. Common sense meets liberties.

 

[brazilianboy]

Isn't duralex a condom brand?

 

[vvvvvvv]

Or simply have a different opinion other than yours. Maybe instead of lumping people into two negative groups, try and consider their opinion is based on something important to them. Do unto others and such. I would like to know what this so-called church preaches about the word of Jesus and his teachings. Do they read from the Gospel of Luke, then sing How Great Thou Art, then discuss who they are going to harass next?

They aren't a church in the biblical sense.

Also, I am considering that someone else's opinion may be based on something important to them. I admit that at first glance at this case, I say screw 'em and burn 'em. But when I look at what would happen with a ruling in favor of Snyder, I step back and see that the greater implications against the First Amendment.

I agree with Carbon's post. I understand and believe it's important for their right to protest, but what they are doing is fundamentally wrong. They can protest anywhere and be heard, but I targeting a family is morally unjust and the families also deserves to be protected. Common sense meets liberties.

First, how are they targeting a family? They admittedly use military funerals as a platform because it gains the most attention. But how did they specifically target the Snyder family in this case?

Do I agree with the actions of Westboro? No. Do I think we should prohibit them from doing what they are currently doing or subject them to torts because what they do might be remotely offensive? No.

We could argue "morally unjust" if you really want to, but government is not here to define morality.