Thread: 8-1 USSC Ruling in Favor of Kansas Anti-Gay Church

Anti-gay church's right to protest at military funerals is upheld - CNN.com

A Kansas church that attracted nationwide attention for its angry, anti-gay protests at the funerals of U.S. military members has won its appeal at the Supreme Court, an issue testing the competing constitutional rights of free speech and privacy.

The justices, by an 8-1 vote, said Wednesday that members of Westboro Baptist Church had a right to promote what they call a broad-based message on public matters such as wars. The father of a fallen Marine had sued the small church, saying those protests amounted to targeted harassment and an intentional infliction of emotional distress.

"Speech is powerful. It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and -- as it did here -- inflict great pain. On the facts before us, we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority.

At issue was a delicate test between the privacy rights of grieving families and the free speech rights of demonstrators, however disturbing and provocative their message. Several states have attempted to impose specific limits on when and where the church members can protest.

The church, led by pastor Fred Phelps, believes God is punishing the United States for "the sin of homosexuality" through events including soldiers' deaths. Members have traveled the country shouting at grieving families at funerals and displaying such signs as "Thank God for dead soldiers," "God blew up the troops" and "AIDS cures fags."

Damn Fred Phelps to the seventh circle of hell... but it's free speech. This is a good sign, I think, it shows the Court is going to protect free speech no matter how offensive and outrageous it is. For those curious, Samuel Alito was the lone dissenter.

I don't think that the first amendment or the right to free speech should trump the right to privacy or the funeral of a fallen soldier..

I agree with free speech.. But I do think it should have limits..

Originally Posted by MajikMyst

But I do think it should have limits..

See from what I can tell this is the question the court considered and ignored everything else, which was probably the right thing to do.

In the end, the Supreme Court's job is to interpret and enforce the Constitution. The justices here looked at the first amendment and asked, is this assembly? Is this part of their religion? Yes and yes, so its clear what we have to do, however morally painful it may be.

Originally Posted by Singularity

See from what I can tell this is the question the court considered and ignored everything else, which was probably the right thing to do.

In the end, the Supreme Court's job is to interpret and enforce the Constitution. The justices here looked at the first amendment and asked, is this assembly? Is this part of their religion? Yes and yes, so its clear what we have to do, however morally painful it may be.

See.. I think the point has been missed.. Does someone have the right to hurt someone else?? No constitutional right was meant to be used to cause someone else pain..

We can't go into a movie theater and scream fire, when there is no fire.. That is against the law.. Why is that not covered by the 1st amendment?? Their religion is irrelevent to the issue.. But if you want to bring it up?? At one point it was part of the Mormon religion to have more than one wife.. That practice is illegal.. Why is that not covered?? What about slavery?? Religious sacrafice??

I agree with Alito on this.. While everyone has the right to free speech religion.. Nobody should have the right to excercise those rights at the expense of someone else.. A mother and a father should have the right to bury their child in peace.. What about their right to a peacful and private furneral?? Without the interference and protests of some whacked out religious group..

The supreme courts job is to insure that nobodys rights are violated and that all rights are equally enfoced.. Not at the expense of someone else's rights.. Freedom of religion doesn't mean that people can do anything they want and claim it is their religion.. What if it was someone's religion to have sex with 4 year old girls or boys?? Does the supreme court uphold that right at the expense of the children??

The supreme court totally fucked up in my opinion.. The constitution gives us all rights.. We all have the same rights.. Which also means that our rights can't be used to trample on the rights of someone else..

That family has a right to bury their child in peace.. The Phelps morons do not have the right to violate and infringe upon that peace.. Well.. That is how it should be.. No accounting for intelligence I guess..

I think Alito is a moron.. But Kudo's for him on making the right call on this issue..

As much as I agree with you in spirit, MM, you can't protect speech about political/public issues without protecting someone's right to harm someone in a non-physical way. Shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater isn't commenting on a public issue, and it can lead to physical harm.

I don't think this ruling will prevent states from passing laws that limit where obnoxious speech like this takes place. There could be a law that prevents demonstrations within 1000 feet of a funeral, for example. That way the Phelps gang could hold their protest in the same town, but now within earshot of the mourners.

Originally Posted by Rassales

you can't protect speech about political/public issues

There is the problem with your arguement.. A funeral is not a political or public issue.. Using your arguement, someone could protest a wedding, or a birthday party.. I don't care what their religious beliefs are.. They do not and should not have the right to protest in any way shape or form a private event.. Such as a funeral.. That soldiers funeral is of no consequence to any politcal or public issue.. Their interests are strictly religious.. And as I showed above.. Their religion should not be used to cause harm to someone else..

What if they wanted to protest the birth's of children?? How is that any different??

Originally Posted by MajikMyst

There is the problem with your arguement.. A funeral is not a political or public issue.

In most cases, including this one, the Phelps were barred from picketing the actual funeral. The Supreme Court didn't strike that down here, and in fact you can expect that states will react to this ruling by passing legislation that defines the location at which the protests may occur.

Originally Posted by Singularity

In most cases, including this one, the Phelps were barred from picketing the actual funeral. The Supreme Court didn't strike that down here, and in fact you can expect that states will react to this ruling by passing legislation that defines the location at which the protests may occur.

Well good.. No less than a 2 mile radius works for me..

Originally Posted by MajikMyst

There is the problem with your arguement.. A funeral is not a political or public issue.. Using your arguement, someone could protest a wedding, or a birthday party.. I don't care what their religious beliefs are.. They do not and should not have the right to protest in any way shape or form a private event.. Such as a funeral.. That soldiers funeral is of no consequence to any politcal or public issue.. Their interests are strictly religious.. And as I showed above.. Their religion should not be used to cause harm to someone else..

What if they wanted to protest the birth's of children?? How is that any different??

They could protest the birth of a child, so long as they did it on public space. The problem here, as I recall, is that Phelps & Co. didn't do their protest in the church or on the church's property. They were on the sidewalk nearby. The fact that a private event was going on within earshot was not a reason to prevent them from doing what they were doing. Again, I think a state or local area could pass an ordinance requiring them to do it more than x feet from a funeral--or a birth, or whatever.

I agree with you and I wish there were a better way to decide the case (if you look, you'll find that I tried to come up with some arguments against Westboro's case when we discussed this months ago), but public discourse has to be construed very broadly.

EDIT: According to the SCOTUS ruling, these were the circumstances of Westboro's protest:

The picketing took place within a 10- by-25-foot plot of public land adjacent to a public street, behind a temporary fence. That plot was approximately 1,000 feet from the church where the funeral was held. Several buildings separated the picket site from the church.

Originally Posted by Rassales

They could protest the birth of a child, so long as they did it on public space. The problem here, as I recall, is that Phelps & Co. didn't do their protest in the church or on the church's property. They were on the sidewalk nearby. The fact that a private event was going on within earshot was not a reason to prevent them from doing what they were doing. Again, I think a state or local area could pass an ordinance requiring them to do it more than x feet from a funeral--or a birth, or whatever.

I agree with you and I wish there were a better way to decide the case (if you look, you'll find that I tried to come up with some arguments against Westboro's case when we discussed this months ago), but public discourse has to be construed very broadly.

Yeah... I just find it sad that our civil rights are being perverted in this manner..