Supreme Court weighs arguments over.....

**MajikMyst** · 6th October 2010 10:06 AM

Supreme Court weighs arguments over 'Thank God for dead soldiers' funeral protest

WASHINGTON — Supreme Court justices Wednesday struggled with the free-speech question of whether fundamentalist church members have a right to picket funerals for dead soldiers.

The justices heard arguments in the emotion-laden case of Albert Snyder of York, Pa. His son, a Marine, died in Iraq in 2006. Members of the Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kansas, protested the funeral to make their point that U.S. deaths in Afghanistan and Iraq are punishment for Americans' immorality, including tolerance of homosexuality and abortion.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the question is whether the First Amendment must tolerate "exploiting this bereaved family."

Lawyers for Snyder are asking the Supreme Court to reinstate a $5 million verdict against members of the fundamentalist church, who picketed his son's funeral with signs like "Thank God for Dead Soldiers" and "God Hates the USA."

Court hears 'Thank God for dead soldiers' case - Politics - msnbc.com

Should the first amendment be used to protect these people??

What say you??

**Devil505** · 6th October 2010 10:19 AM

While it's a reprehensible thing to do (picketing a funeral) I can't see how the state can violate 1st amendment rights and prohibit it, as long as the protesters keep their disatnce. There are no laws against being a moron!

**Hollyw00d** · 6th October 2010 11:45 AM

Are not most cemetaries private property? Is there anything preventing the owners of a given cemetary ordering the Westoboro Church nuts off their property and then having them arrested for trespass if they refuse? Are there not perfectly legal, altough slightly unethical,ways for local authorities to make life difficult for the Westboro Church nuts? An observant cop can find a way to give just about anyone driving down to or from a "protest" a ticket for SOMETHING.

**USA-1** · 6th October 2010 11:57 AM

I don't see any current law but government governs on the consent of the governed. I think this Pastor has all day and night and all year to voice his idiot opinions, the time and place being this soldiers funeral is what should be illegal, I think it's a privacy issue. I would think discretion would have to be used as we make barriers concerning language in public places, other human decency laws. This isn't limited to speech, it's behavior as well when specifcally targeting such an event.

**Hollyw00d** · 6th October 2010 12:35 PM

Originally Posted by Oldschool

I don't see any current law but government governs on the consent of the governed. I think this Pastor has all day and night and all year to voice his idiot opinions, the time and place being this soldiers funeral is what should be illegal, I think it's a privacy issue. I would think discretion would have to be used as we make barriers concerning language in public places, other human decency laws. This isn't limited to speech, it's behavior as well when specifcally targeting such an event.

At least there is one thing we seem to agree on.

katiegrrl0 · 6th October 2010 01:03 PM

Though it is very bad form they have the right to make the protest. As was mentioned by Hollywood if the cemetery is private property the director may toss them out at his of her discretion. If it was a military funeral in public property I would think the law even protects bad form.

**Twister** · 6th October 2010 01:08 PM

Originally Posted by Devil505

There are no laws against being a moron!

True, dat! Yet, there is nothing stopping the public from shaming them for being morons.

**Hollyw00d** · 6th October 2010 01:11 PM

Originally Posted by Twister

True, dat! Yet, there is nothing stopping the public from shaming them for being morons.

True that, the public can express THEIR freedom of speech by loudly expressing the opinion the Westboro Church group are a pack of freakin' morons.

**Singularity** · 6th October 2010 01:33 PM

Freedoms should extend only to the point where they do not infringe on the rightful freedoms of others. One should have the freedom to bury one's child without being molested by emotional terrorists. Fred wants to picket anywhere else he can, but stay away from funerals.

**MajikMyst** · 6th October 2010 02:20 PM

Originally Posted by Devil505

While it's a reprehensible thing to do (picketing a funeral) I can't see how the state can violate 1st amendment rights and prohibit it, as long as the protesters keep their disatnce. There are no laws against being a moron!

To play devils advocate here.. No pun intended.. lol

We are not allowed to say fire in a crowded building.. So there are limits freedom of speech.. I guess my concern is, does the constitution protect malicious intent?? Their sole purpose is to cause pain to the already grieving family.. Is emotional or psychological terrorism a protected right?? Is this not abusing the constitution and using it beyond it's intent..

If they want to protest the war they need to go to the Whitehouse or the Pentagon.. A family gets to bury their loved one once.. These burials need to be protected.. The constitution does not give others the right to hurt others..

While I see your points, obviously.. This isn't just a case of being stupid.. They are also causing someone a great deal of pain.. They should not be allowed to hide behind the constitution and not be held liable for that pain..