[barsikjal]

I'm not sure how I feel about this decision. I'm curious to see how others veiw it.

-------------------------------------------

Westboro Funeral Pickets Are Protected Speech, High Court Rules

....

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.........

Westboro Funeral Pickets Are Protected Speech, High Court Rules - FoxNews.com


-------------------------------------------

On one hand these people sicken me.

They make Christianity look pretty ..... fill in the blank.

On the other hand, if we say these people have no right to do this what kind of precedent does that set for future issues/rulings ?

[AromeWahmaron]

I see this as a win for the First Amendment.

To be clear - I loathe everything Phelps and his inbred "church" stand for. I've spent many hours standing the flagline with the Patriot Guard to make sure when these turds show up to protest a funeral, the family is shielded from their vile messages.

However, it's easy to protect popular speech. But upholding the right to free speech even when that speech is repulsive is the true test. Rationally, I believe the Court ruled properly on this issue. Emotionally, I'd have loved to see Phelps and his inbred little family business lose everything they have paying the judgment Mr. Snyder won in the lower court.

In the end, the WBC will keep doing what they do - and the PGR will keep doing what we do. And we're way more successful at what we do.....

Matt

[Breevereurl]

High Court Rules in Favor of Funeral Protesters - WSJ.com

WASHINGTON—The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that the First Amendment protects a fringe religious group that protested at the funeral of a U.S. Marine killed in Iraq.

The court, on an 8-1 vote, ruled that the soldier's father couldn't sue Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kan., for celebrating his son's death with vulgar funeral pickets and an online attack.

"As a nation we have chosen...to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court. "That choice requires that we shield Westboro from tort liability for its picketing in this case."

The Westboro church believes that any misfortune America suffers is divine punishment for the nation's failure to follow the sect's doctrine, which condemns gays, Catholics, Jews and others. The tiny church, whose membership largely consists of the founder's family, pickets military funerals to get attention for its message.

In March 2006, the church's leader, Fred W. Phelps Sr., and several of his relatives selected the funeral of Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder, who was killed in Iraq, at St. John's Catholic Church in Westminster, Md., as a vehicle for their cause. And I agree. As long as you are on public land (or your own private land), the govt cant stop you from assembling and speaking. Freedom means all viewpoints are free, not just the ones we agree with. Compare this to countrys with hate speech laws. That is not freedom.

[leyliana]

I'm not sure how I feel about this decision. I'm curious to see how others veiw it.

-------------------------------------------

Westboro Funeral Pickets Are Protected Speech, High Court Rules

....

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.........

Westboro Funeral Pickets Are Protected Speech, High Court Rules - FoxNews.com


-------------------------------------------

On one hand these people sicken me.

They make Christianity look pretty ..... fill in the blank.

On the other hand, if we say these people have no right to do this what kind of precedent does that set for future issues/rulings ?

I think most people would agree with you and the ruling. One of the prices we pay to live in an open democratic society, is having to listen to ugly people espousing their ugly ideas.

But of course, we are free to ignore them as well---in the hope they will just go away!

[Greapyjeory]

Eh... I disagree with the ruling, but I can see where they were coming from.

[Mugflefusysef]

Yeah, as much as I find that church distasteful, I think those folks ruled correctly.

[Breevereurl]

(d) Westboro addressed matters of public import on public prop-erty, in a peaceful manner, in full compliance with the guidance of lo-cal officials. It did not disrupt Mathew Snyder’s funeral, and itschoice to picket at that time and place did not alter the nature of itsspeech. Because this Nation has chosen to protect even hurtfulspeech on public issues to ensure that public debate is not stifled, Westboro must be shielded from tort liability for its picketing in this case. Pp. 14–15.
580 F. 3d 206, affirmed This is the key part. They were on public property assembling, expressing an opinion. They did not physically assault anyone, they did not physically prevent the funeral. They broke no laws. The debate comes down to whether someone is free to say "i hate you." In this country it should be obvisou that you are.

What is sad is we will now have a parade of posters saying they disagree with the ruling and that the govt should prevent people from expressing their opinion. Thats about as anti-american as you can get.

[Greapyjeory]

This is the key part. They were on public property assembling, expressing an opinion. They did not physically assault anyone, they did not physically prevent the funeral. They broke no laws. The debate comes down to whether someone is free to say "i hate you." In this country it should be obvisou that you are.

What is sad is we will now have a parade of posters saying they disagree with the ruling and that the govt should prevent people from expressing their opinion. Thats about as anti-american as you can get.

Call it whatever you like, but I'm pretty sure the majority is actually on your side, not mine.

I take more of a European view of the freedom of speech. I support most forms of free speech, but I think there are rational limits to speech that should be enforced. One of them involves harassing people during funerals. That violates common decency, IMHO.

[bomondus]

I see this as a win for the First Amendment.

To be clear - I loathe everything Phelps and his inbred "church" stand for. I've spent many hours standing the flagline with the Patriot Guard to make sure when these turds show up to protest a funeral, the family is shielded from their vile messages.

However, it's easy to protect popular speech. But upholding the right to free speech even when that speech is repulsive is the true test. Rationally, I believe the Court ruled properly on this issue. Emotionally, I'd have loved to see Phelps and his inbred little family business lose everything they have paying the judgment Mr. Snyder won in the lower court.

In the end, the WBC will keep doing what they do - and the PGR will keep doing what we do. And we're way more successful at what we do.....

Matt

Patriot Guard have a website I can volunteer?

[AromeWahmaron]

Absolutely!

PGR Website

You don't have to ride a motorcycle, you don't have to be a veteran, you just have to support the mission :-)

Matt

[barsikjal]

I see this as a win for the First Amendment.

Yeah, it's hard to see but that's what it is.

To be clear - I loathe everything Phelps and his inbred "church" stand for. I've spent many hours standing the flagline with the Patriot Guard to make sure when these turds show up to protest a funeral, the family is shielded from their vile messages.

It would seem that maybe a different tactic may be called for though. It wouldn't be too difficult to make signs of quotes taken directly from scripture to show what hypocrites and fools these WBC people are.

While scriptures clearly teach that homosexual acts are an abomination and not something we're to encourage people to take part in, they also teach that we're ALL guilty of sin.

To make a big spectacle like this at a fallen soldiers funeral is as abominable as any homosexual act or behaviour. So Phelps and his twisted crew are as dirtyfilthy as any Sodomite the world has ever encountered.

However, it's easy to protect popular speech. But upholding the right to free speech even when that speech is repulsive is the true test. Rationally, I believe the Court ruled properly on this issue. Emotionally, I'd have loved to see Phelps and his inbred little family business lose everything they have paying the judgment Mr. Snyder won in the lower court.

As I was saying, we're all guilty of sin. These arrogant antagonists will face the same judgement as the rest of us. I'm not so sure they will be rewarded in the way they are hoping to be.

In the end, the WBC will keep doing what they do - and the PGR will keep doing what we do. And we're way more successful at what we do.....

Matt

Maybe they will come to their senses, maybe they'll have a 'vision' and decide that what they're doing is of no value, has no purpose. Stranger things have happened ... though it wouldn't actually be that strange, if they actually open and read their Bibles, they will find that what they are doing is wrong.

[Kiliunjubl]

Could the "demonstrators" be guilty of inciting violence, or would the mourners actually have to attack them?

[bomondus]

Absolutely!

PGR Website

You don't have to ride a motorcycle, you don't have to be a veteran, you just have to support the mission :-)

Matt

Thanks, I went and send a email to the state captain for updates, and will donate some money to the cause

[Gedominew]

This is the key part. They were on public property assembling, expressing an opinion. They did not physically assault anyone, they did not physically prevent the funeral. They broke no laws. The debate comes down to whether someone is free to say "i hate you." In this country it should be obvisou that you are.

What is sad is we will now have a parade of posters saying they disagree with the ruling and that the govt should prevent people from expressing their opinion. Thats about as anti-american as you can get.

As much as jviehe and I disagree on so much, we agree very much on this one. Very well said, sir.

[Gedominew]

Could the "demonstrators" be guilty of inciting violence, or would the mourners actually have to attack them?

They would need to be making statements that clearly are designed to incite violence - direct calls for violence, calls to action, etc. The fact that people don't like the message is not sufficient to justify suppression of the message.

[vladekad]

I agree with the decision and think the best course of action when it comes to the Westboro Baptist Church is to simply ignore them. I know that's easier said then done but I think if we take away their forum, they'll eventually go back to the hole they crawled out of.

[usatramadolusa]

Woody Allen put it quite succinctly when he said;

I think you should defend to the death their right to march, and then go down and meet them with baseball bats (on the KKK).

[cjOTw7ov]

I've spent many hours standing the flagline with the Patriot Guard to make sure when these turds show up to protest a funeral, the family is shielded from their vile messages.

I haven't spent hundreds of hours doing it, but I've spent a few.

I think that in this respect the WBC actually provides a service to the families of our fallen servicemen and women.

When you've got hundreds of people showing up to block out the bullshit caused by 6 or 8 radicals it sends a message of how much ordinary Americans actually appreciate the sacrifices our troops are making.

If there were no radical yahoos playing the role WBC plays there would be no real need for hundreds of ordinary Americans to show up to those kids' funerals and wave flags and just generally show support.

It sucks that there's a need, but it's gratifying to see how overwelmingly the need is being filled - and I think the parents and loved ones of our troops see that.

[Mugflefusysef]

I see this as a win for the First Amendment.

To be clear - I loathe everything Phelps and his inbred "church" stand for. I've spent many hours standing the flagline with the Patriot Guard to make sure when these turds show up to protest a funeral, the family is shielded from their vile messages.

However, it's easy to protect popular speech. But upholding the right to free speech even when that speech is repulsive is the true test. Rationally, I believe the Court ruled properly on this issue. Emotionally, I'd have loved to see Phelps and his inbred little family business lose everything they have paying the judgment Mr. Snyder won in the lower court.

In the end, the WBC will keep doing what they do - and the PGR will keep doing what we do. And we're way more successful at what we do.....

Matt

Yep Matt, I have to agree with you. So, what you said...

[Breevereurl]

Call it whatever you like, but I'm pretty sure the majority is actually on your side, not mine.

I take more of a European view of the freedom of speech. I support most forms of free speech, but I think there are rational limits to speech that should be enforced. One of them involves harassing people during funerals. That violates common decency, IMHO.

But so what? What if it were you who were uncommon? You dont think you personally should have the right to express an opinion that others dont like?