Supreme Court Rules for Westboro. Fairy Throws Up. Film and Eleven.

[Fairy]

http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/03/02/scotus.westboro.church/index.html?hpt=C1#

The video is a mess, but you get the point, and the print story is more than sufficient. Basically, a father sued Westboro "church" for inflicting emotional distress wihle picketing his son's military funeral, and the man lost. Only Sam Alito dissented while all other Justices ruled in favor of Westboro having the first amendment right to free speech in this manner.

I am a big lefty and, of course, support free speech. I still maintain, and I know others disagree (and that's ok;)) that Westboro is not a real church. It's a shroud for their real purpose which is hate toward whomever they want to hate, mostly gays. They picket funerals, inflicting emotional pain on the mourners, because they say God is punishing soldiers (killing them) because they fight for a country that supports gays. Quite a leap. Even if they were a church, I'd debate whether or not picketing a funeral is something that would be protected speech. But assuming it is, I don't consider these people to be a real church, they just play one so they can spread hate.

[DietCokeLover]

Wow. I'm surprised, appalled and disgusted.

[Kindra178]

Thanks for posting. I am pretty left but I generally hate free speech (pornography reasons a la Catherine McKinnon) so this gives me even more fodder for my hatred.

[Nicsmom]

I am also disgusted. This brings out my vengeful side - it's wrong, I know - but I wonder what would happen if the Westboro church 's funerals were picketed. Their members also die, right? So how would they like their own funerals to be picketed?

[katydid1971]

They love the attention. I read somewhere online (so take that for what its worth) that they are all one family with a very crazy dad as the leader. Several of them are lawyers and they want to get into fights so that they can sue people. I hate them and everything they stand for. I saw in one picture one of their sign said "Prey for more dead soldiers." They will burn in hell.

[liamsmom]

I am also disgusted. This brings out my vengeful side - it's wrong, I know - but I wonder what would happen if the Westboro church 's funerals were picketed. Their members also die, right? So how would they like their own funerals to be picketed?

Yeah, I wonder what Fred Phelps' funeral will look like? I don't understand how what this family does is not considered stalking/harassment.

[KDsMommy]

They are absolutely a disgrace to humankind. I think it's a sad state that "free speech" protects this kind of hate mongering.

[larig]

Anonymous is pissed at them too (if you're a geek ;-) you know what that means). Took them down during a live interview. I watched the clip of the interview pretty hilarious.
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2011/02/21/anonymous_westboro_church_hoax

[daisymommy]

Vomit.
And if you ask me, it doesn't matter one bit whether or not they are a "real" church or not. That has no bearing on the situation. If a group of strangers got together and did this, it should still be illegal. What happened to one man's rights ending where another's begin? What happened to the right to privacy?
God is not blind...

[arivecchi]

Well, maybe it is the lawyer coming out in me, but if we value free speech, we have to tolerate speech that seems morally repugnant to some of us. I mean, I can think of lots of people who say and do things that I find morally repugnant, but that does not make said things and actions unconstitutional.

The fact that 8 SC justices agreed indicates that the legal issue at hand was fairly clear-cut for the justices.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/03/us/03scotus.html?_r=1&hp

I would rather have to tolerate some lunatics and keep our freedom of speech intact.

Having said that, I feel so badly for the families that have to suffer through this and think the idea of buffer zones is a good one, although I have not really thought about the legality of buffer zones.

[BabbyO]

Picketing a funeral, regardless of who's funeral and who is picketing is just tactless and distasteful. Is there any human decency left in this world?

Free speech really shouldn't even be part of the discussion, IMO.

[AnnieW625]

Well, maybe it is the lawyer coming out in me, but if we value free speech, we have to tolerate speech that seems morally repugnant to some of us. I mean, I can think of lots of people who say and do things that I find morally repugnant, but that does not make said things and actions unconstitutional.

The fact that 8 SC justices agreed indicates that the legal issue at hand was fairly clear-cut for the justices.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/03/us/03scotus.html?_r=1&hp

I would rather have to tolerate some lunatics and keep our freedom of speech intact.

Having said that, I feel so badly for the families that have to suffer through this and think the idea of buffer zones is a good one, although I have not really thought about the legality of buffer zones.

I am not a lawyer, but I completely agree with this post. I value the fact that we have free speech, and while I don't agree with what Westboro does, it unfortunately is free speech.

Would anyone else feel differently if the govt. said we couldn't post messages or hold rallies about the benefits of nursing in public?

IMHO it's a two way street, and if one side can't do it then the other shouldn't be able to do it either.

[ohsara430]

Regardless of how I feel about the message this "church" promotes, the decision was a good one and I would encourage anyone to go read it in full. If you don't want to read the full opinion you can read the syllabus (first four pages) and it will give a good overview.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-751.pdf

[bubbaray]

While I do agree on the above post about the legal issue, as a mother their actions are morally repugnant. They are happy when someone's child is killed. That is not right (even if it is not illegal to say).

[California]

What about the right to peaceful assembly? OK, not a lawyer or familiar with the laws at all but it does seem like the issue of free speech could be dealt with somehow-- private property laws, something. I guess I'm going to have to get a motorcycle and start traveling around with the other group that protects the mourners.

[daisymommy]

But wouldn't you say there is a difference between saying what you want and following people around harassing them? How is this not verbal harassment and hate speech?

[mommylamb]

I find this so total deplorable. But, I have to agree with Arivecchi that it was probably the right decision for the court to make.

My only hope is that this makes people so sick that it makes them less tolerant of bigotry and homophobia in other aspects of life. Fat chance.

[bubbaray]

But wouldn't you say there is a difference between saying what you want and following people around harassing them? How is this not verbal harassment and hate speech?


It doesn't matter what you or *I* think in the legal context. It, frankly, doesn't matter what society thinks either. Supreme Courts in pretty much every Western country make strange decisions -- quite often actually. Looking at the evolution of the common law over time, as it seguays with democratic politics, the courts have done a good job of protecting enshrined rights. But individual decisions often seem morally repugnant. Its just the way the system works.

The alternative isn't very appealing, as hard as those individual decisions can be for society.

[septmama2b]

Well, maybe it is the lawyer coming out in me, but if we value free speech, we have to tolerate speech that seems morally repugnant to some of us. I mean, I can think of lots of people who say and do things that I find morally repugnant, but that does not make said things and actions unconstitutional.

The fact that 8 SC justices agreed indicates that the legal issue at hand was fairly clear-cut for the justices.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/03/us/03scotus.html?_r=1&hp

I would rather have to tolerate some lunatics and keep our freedom of speech intact.

Having said that, I feel so badly for the families that have to suffer through this and think the idea of buffer zones is a good one, although I have not really thought about the legality of buffer zones.

:yeahthat:

I hate them and all they stand for, but I think they have the right to free speech.

[Fairy]

They love the attention. I read somewhere online (so take that for what its worth) that they are all one family with a very crazy dad as the leader. Several of them are lawyers and they want to get into fights so that they can sue people. I hate them and everything they stand for. I saw in one picture one of their sign said "Prey for more dead soldiers." They will burn in hell.

They are all one family almost entirely. He's the apex, it's his children, 54 grandchildren, and some great grand children. Now, I do support religion based in one or a set of families, ala Duggar. This, however, is not one of them.

[Fairy]

Well, maybe it is the lawyer coming out in me, but if we value free speech, we have to tolerate speech that seems morally repugnant to some of us. I mean, I can think of lots of people who say and do things that I find morally repugnant, but that does not make said things and actions unconstitutional.

The fact that 8 SC justices agreed indicates that the legal issue at hand was fairly clear-cut for the justices.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/03/us/03scotus.html?_r=1&hp

I would rather have to tolerate some lunatics and keep our freedom of speech intact.

Having said that, I feel so badly for the families that have to suffer through this and think the idea of buffer zones is a good one, although I have not really thought about the legality of buffer zones.

I only agree inasmuch as morally repugnant free speech must be protected. Here we agree. I am not totally sold on where the line is in when protecting that moral repugnancy outweighs the damage done to the objects of said speech. In this case, I do not know how picketing a funeral of a boy who just died with signs that basically say yay he's dead that's what you get when you piss off God is more important to protect than the it is to protect the people who loved him and just want to bury him. Or when that dead person is, say, the 9yo girl that died when Loughner shot her. That speech is actual inflicting harm, and that's my problem.

But my baseline here isn't even that argument. It's that they're being allowed to call themselves a church. I get why, I know they fit the rules. Blah blah blah potato. They've found loopholes to get them there and are using them to be an allowable hate group. That's my fundamental problem.

[MamaMolly]

It is legal but it is also shameful.

[daisymommy]

I am not totally sold on where the line is in when protecting that moral repugnancy outweighs the damage done to the objects of said speech.

That speech is actual inflicting harm, and that's my problem.

:yeahthat: Wish there was a nodding your head smiley.

Now, I must have obviously missed something along the way in all of this. Are you saying that because they are deemed a church, there is a loophole that allows for hate speech from religious organizations!? Please tell me that is not the case.

[arivecchi]

While I vehemently disagree with their beliefs and tactics, I do not believe that they won the ruling because they are a church. Please correct me if I am wrong. I believe they won because free speech is a defense to a tort claim when it involves speech in the public sphere. From the holding of the court:

The Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment can serve as a defense in state tort suits, including suits for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U. S. 46, 50-51. Whether the First Amendment prohibits holding Westboro liable for its speech in this case turns largely on whether that speech is of public or private concern, as determined by all the circumstances of the case. "[S]peech on public issues occupies the ‘ "highest rung of the hierarchy of First Amendment values" ’ and is entitled to special protection."

So basically, because their speech involved issues that are discussed in the public sphere - it is protected. While their actions are despicable, I would rather have the SC protect the right of free speech for all of us rather than subvert it because of the abuse of such right by a few.

ETA: Not arguing with you Fairy. I just find these constitutional issues so interesting.

[arivecchi]

This is really interesting. It's the amici curiae brief submitted by the press:

http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publishing/preview/publiced_preview_briefs_pdfs_09_10_09_751_Responde ntAmCuReportersCommitteeforFreedomofthePressetal.a uthcheckdam.pdf

Pages 1 and 2 summarize what was at stake for the press in this case.

Basically, if individuals could sue for intentional infliction of emotional distress with respect to all speech, the press would not be able to report on any stories that affected anyone.

[MissyAg94]

I loathe wbc but I knew the SCOTUS would decide this way.

[niccig]

I also think that because they stand on public property and follow all laws re. public gathering, it's not harassment - they are a certain distance from the funeral as well.

Morally I totally disagree, but legally I can understand why the Supreme Court ruled they way the did.

[Fairy]

So for me there are a few things going on here, and they're not all related, just all equally pissing me off. Add to this that the impacts ont he press weigh heavily on me for this, and I guess upon giving it alot of thought today I'm just terribly conflicted all around. I do think about this alot cuz I have a true hatred of my own for Westboro. When I was in The Laramie Project, it just affected me so much that it's stayed with me how demented this is. The different issues for me, not all of which are at all related:

1. Westboro is allowed to be a church. This is a church based in hating gays, whether their charter or whatever says so or not, they hate gays, and that's their primary goal is to hate them. My belief is that an organization basing themselves in hate should not be allowed to be a recognized church.

2. Because they are a church, they get treated like one, tax-exempt, etc. Hate mongers protected to practice their hate because they're practicing it as a church.

3. I am mortified over anyone being allowed to picket a funeral. These people or any people, picketing a funeral with the signage these people use is protected speech? Yes, I see the ramifications. I do. We need to protect repugnant speech, I am 100% with this. And I suppose you could argue that this is sticks and stones can break my bones but names will never hurt me. But there ocmes a point when you're emotionally fragile due to the death of your loved one when perhaps the words do hurt you. I don't know where the line is.

I don't think a single person on this board would say they agree with Phelps. I just get very worked up over this group being allowed to be called a church and then all the things they do in the name of it.

3.

[liamsmom]

Basically, if individuals could sue for intentional infliction of emotional distress with respect to all speech, the press would not be able to report on any stories that affected anyone.

Ok, that makes sense to me. Maybe someone can explain this for me. Is it because the WBC only uses speech at a far enough distance that they can legally get away with this? It just strikes me as strange that there are so many lawsuits in regards to "emotional distress" but in this case the defendants' First Amendment rights protect them from lawsuits. The Larry Flint case seems like an entirely different issue because Jerry Falwell was a public figure and the issue at hand was a printed parody. If there was any evidence that the WBC didn't actually believe what they were saying, could they be sued for libel? I'm just curious.

[kijip]

It is irrelevant if they are a church or not. This is, per 8 of the top legal minds in the country, protected speech. churches do not enjoy special considerations of speech under the law.

All I would say is that what is legal is not always the same as what is right and moral. And what is right and moral is not always the same as what is legal.

[kijip]

Basically, if individuals could sue for intentional infliction of emotional distress with respect to all speech, the press would not be able to report on any stories that affected anyone.

Exactly. I have a physiological and emotional reaction to news coverage about rapes. I have seen commercials and ads that give me flashbacks to my assaults. That is harm. But it is not, nor should it be, illegal for that coverage or those materials to be made and distributed where I might happen to see them.

[bigpassport]

Well, maybe it is the lawyer coming out in me, but if we value free speech, we have to tolerate speech that seems morally repugnant to some of us. I mean, I can think of lots of people who say and do things that I find morally repugnant, but that does not make said things and actions unconstitutional.

The fact that 8 SC justices agreed indicates that the legal issue at hand was fairly clear-cut for the justices.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/03/us/03scotus.html?_r=1&hp

I would rather have to tolerate some lunatics and keep our freedom of speech intact.


My thoughts EXACTLY. It's disgusting, but it's protected.

[Smillow]

Fairy, I completely get where you are coming from & agree 100% - these are a bunch of arrogant mean people who suck. It makes me so angry when I hear about them on the news, etc. The fact that they hide behind a "church" is despicable & I hope there is a special place in hell for them because clearly the devil is their god.

[arivecchi]

Constitutional issues are rarely black and white. Here's a primer on protected speech:

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Protected+speech

[Indianamom2]

Well, maybe it is the lawyer coming out in me, but if we value free speech, we have to tolerate speech that seems morally repugnant to some of us. I mean, I can think of lots of people who say and do things that I find morally repugnant, but that does not make said things and actions unconstitutional.

The fact that 8 SC justices agreed indicates that the legal issue at hand was fairly clear-cut for the justices.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/03/us/03scotus.html?_r=1&hp

I would rather have to tolerate some lunatics and keep our freedom of speech intact.

Having said that, I feel so badly for the families that have to suffer through this and think the idea of buffer zones is a good one, although I have not really thought about the legality of buffer zones.

I agree with this. I have absolutely no respect or love for the Phelp's "church" and I 100% disagree with what they are doing, but I don't think it's unconstitutional...just incredibly unconscionable. (did I spell that right?)

[Fairy]

As usual, katie is wise, arrivecci is knowledgeable, and everyone is disgusted. There is, indeed a special place in hell for him. May he live his eternity as a contestant on the demonic version of rupauls drag race.

[kijip]

As usual, katie is wise, arrivecci is knowledgeable, and everyone is disgusted. There is, indeed a special place in hell for him. May he live his eternity as a contestant on the demonic version of rupauls drag race.

Well the other, less thoughtful, part of me says, you hold him and I will kick the snot out of him. Make him pay in this life for his sorry self.

[sunshine873]

What about the right to peaceful assembly? OK, not a lawyer or familiar with the laws at all but it does seem like the issue of free speech could be dealt with somehow-- private property laws, something. I guess I'm going to have to get a motorcycle and start traveling around with the other group that protects the mourners.

Legal? Maybe. But I'm offended. What about my rights? I'm disgusted that our country is protecting these hate mongers. DH has a motorcycle & I'm proud to say is joining the Patriot Guard referred to above to help return a little dignity to the funerals of those who have sacrificed their lives for all the rest of us.

[VClute]

Well, maybe it is the lawyer coming out in me, but if we value free speech, we have to tolerate speech that seems morally repugnant to some of us. I mean, I can think of lots of people who say and do things that I find morally repugnant, but that does not make said things and actions unconstitutional.

The fact that 8 SC justices agreed indicates that the legal issue at hand was fairly clear-cut for the justices.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/03/us/03scotus.html?_r=1&hp

I would rather have to tolerate some lunatics and keep our freedom of speech intact.

Having said that, I feel so badly for the families that have to suffer through this and think the idea of buffer zones is a good one, although I have not really thought about the legality of buffer zones.

I agree to ALL of this. And I'm an Army wife and daughter, from a military town! The military funerals I have been to have been attended, too, by the Patriot Guard Riders, an honor guard that shows up with LOTS of people and LOTS of flags, so no one can see protesters. Of course, the deaths didn't receive enough attention to get the protesters out. They only come if they know they can get camera time. Now that Americans are BORED with the war on terror and soldiers' deaths, the Westboro folks have moved on to the new front page deaths.

[daisymommy]

Hypothetically speaking, *I* think there is a big difference between freedom of the press, TV, movies, books, etc. for free speech, but when you are at someone's PRIVATE funeral, and you are verbally attacking them, that's a whole other ball of wax that should not legal IMO. Same goes for anytime you are following someone around spewing hate speech. That is not what our forefathers were trying to protect.

[egoldber]

but when you are at someone's PRIVATE funeral

I think the problem is that they are technically on public land and always obtain the proper permits.

[arivecchi]

Yes, they were on public land.

Today's NY Times editorial on the issue:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/03/opinion/03thu2.html?_r=1&ref=opinion

I am actually in awe of our legal system in this instance. While the SC may not always do what is popular, they do their best to uphold the ideals of our democracy.

[ohsara430]

Hypothetically speaking, *I* think there is a big difference between freedom of the press, TV, movies, books, etc. for free speech, but when you are at someone's PRIVATE funeral, and you are verbally attacking them, that's a whole other ball of wax that should not legal IMO. Same goes for anytime you are following someone around spewing hate speech. That is not what our forefathers were trying to protect.

But they weren't at the funeral, they were 1,000 feet away on public land with buildings between them and the church where the funeral was held. The father didn't even see the signs until after the funeral when he was watching the news.

ETA: This is from the overview of facts given in the Supreme Court's decision.

[wendibird22]

We deal with a similar situation on the campus I work at. There's a "reverend" that travels the country going to colleges and spewing hate for gays, people of color, etc. His only true intention is to either be assaulted or asked to leave so that he can sue the campus or the assailant. He has actually earned a living off of lawsuits because some campuses have violated his free speech rights. As a public campus we can restrict "time, place, and manner" of speech but not prohibit the speech entirely. So, this "reverend" shows up at least once a year, sets up shop in a high traffic area of campus and does his hate spewing. Students are encouraged not to engage him in debate and we actually have a student group that will form a large circle around him with their backs to him to form a sort of barrier for other students to easy just walk by. His speech is deplorable, but it is legal.

Groups like this man and Westboro know exactly how to walk right up to the "free speech" line but not cross it.

[daisymommy]

Oh, okay. I see. I just wish there was some way to put a stop to awful people like that :nodno: . Wish there was a loophole to deny them a permit.

[Toba]

Anonymous is pissed at them too (if you're a geek ;-) you know what that means). Took them down during a live interview. I watched the clip of the interview pretty hilarious.
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2011/02/21/anonymous_westboro_church_hoax

Big geek here too!! :)

I agree they have the right to protest (and I'm a forward thinking conservative and still believe in free speech ... although I think I'm leaning more toward independent, especially if Palin is nominated in 2012 ... but that's another thread altogether). But I would still like to know why they wanted to picket and protest that little girl that was killed when the assassination attempt on Representative Giffords (she's EATING today ... amazing) was all about. HOW could they have rationalized that?

Anyway, here's a link to the best anti-Westboro signs ... it made me chuckle even through the deep, way deep, disgust I have for the WBC. My favorite one is "Just drink the Kool-Aid already!!!"

Warning: some racial/sexuality slurs (obviously) ... http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/the-3o-best-anti-westboro-baptist-church-protest-s

[MMEand1]

I am Active Duty military and have actually gone to funerals and lined the route by standing at attention in horrible heat in full uniform while the Patriot Guard rode in front of the procession.

While I understand that some of my fellow Soldiers, Sailors, Marines and Airmen are dying so that the WBC can have their "free speech" it doesn't make me want to support this right. I know that we are employed to uphold the Constitution of the United States so that the members of this great country have their rights, but there are some people that I wish we could use as human shields on the front line...not very PC of me to say, I know, but since I have 2 brothers and 1 sister currently serving overseas and in harms way, it doesn't make me feel better to know that my siblings are fighting for the WBC's rights to spew hate towards them...

[rlu]

Fellow Bay Area citizens, head's up - they are coming back here in the South Bay because, as a local writer snarked, "The Phelpses are frequent visitors to the Bay Area, especially when its wintertime in Topeka."

I agree pretty much with everything everyone else wrote and wanted to quote a local columnist (previous quote is also hers). "Just because we despise the Westboro message, under the First Amendment, the high court ruled, we cannot silence it. The decision was absolutely right on the money. In a free society, even those with absolutely nothing of value to say have a right to say it. We have the right to look away, cover our ears or try to shout them down. We don't have the right to shut them up, much as we wish we could."

Emphasis on the "nothing of value to say" part.

column here http://www.mercurynews.com/patty-fisher/ci_17532430?source=rss