US Supreme Court allows anti-gay church to picket military funerals

[News_Editor]

US Supreme Court allows anti-gay church to picket military funerals

2011-03-03 01:07:56 GMT+7 (ICT)

WASHINGTON (BNO NEWS) -- The US Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that a Kansas anti-gay church has the right to protest at military funerals as part of the US Constitution's free-speech provision.

The court ruled 8-1 in favor of Westboro Baptist Church, which was sued by the father of a fallen Marine, arguing that the protests amounted to targeted harassment and an intentional infliction of emotional distress, CNN reported.

"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.

The case became a major test between the privacy rights of grieving families and the free speech rights of demonstrators. The church, led by pastor Fred Phelps, believes God is punishing the United States for "the sin of homosexuality" through events including soldiers' deaths.

In 2006, church members displaying such signs as "Thank God for dead soldiers", "God blew up the troops" and "AIDS cures fags" appeared outside the funeral for Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder in Westminster, Maryland, outside Baltimore.

Snyder's family sued the church in 2007, alleging invasion of privacy, intentional infliction of emotional distress and civil conspiracy. A jury awarded the family $2.9 million in compensatory damages, plus $8 million in punitive damages, which were later reduced to $5 million, according to CNN.

In 2008, the church appealed the case and a federal appeals court reversed the judgments a year later, siding with the church's allegations that its First Amendment rights were violated.

"Westboro believes that America is morally flawed; many Americans might feel the same about Westboro. Westboro's funeral picketing is certainly hurtful and its contribution to public discourse may be negligible," the chief justice said.

"As a nation we have chosen a different course -- to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate," he added, as cited by CNN.

Justice Samuel Alito dissented alone. He said the church's "outrageous conduct caused petitioner great injury, and the court now compounds that injury by depriving petitioner of a judgment that acknowledges the wrong he suffered".

Several U.S. states have attempted to impose specific limits on the protests. In Wednesday's case, 48 states and dozens of members of Congress filed amicus briefs in support of the Snyders.

The congregation is made up mostly of Phelps, his 13 children and at least 54 grandchildren and seven great-grandchildren.

-- © BNO News All rights reserved 2011-03-03

[Jingthing]

Interestingly, this ruling has absolutely NOTHING to do with the struggle for equal gay civil rights in America, pro or con. It's purely about free speech.

[LaoPo]

There's a documentary* filmed by BBC's Louis Theroux about (family)-members of this Church of Mr. Fred Phelps** and their views and opinions are hard to swallow and hurting families who are burying their beloved son or daughter who died as soldiers......

Now the Supreme Court is allowing this church of Mr. Phelps to continue with their "Free Speech"...

* WESTBORO BAPTIST CHURCH - WORLD'S MOST FAMOUS CALVINISTS (1 of 8)

Very difficult to understand and Free Speech is a great and important Democratic value but to grieve a family who's son/daughter just died and telling/screaming to them "Thank God for dead soldiers", "God blew up the troops" and "AIDS cures fags" is pure torture for these families.

** "The congregation is made up mostly of Phelps, his 13 children and at least 54 grandchildren and seven great-grandchildren."

LaoPo

[HeavyDrinker]

This does create an interesting situation.

What will be the stand of the traditional 'red neck' sector who, while appearing rampantly anti-homosexual, also seem to be extremely patriotic and pro Armed Forces (see Borat)...?

[Jingthing]

It's actually not all that interesting or complicated. I reckon 99 percent plus of all Americans are totally disgusted by the actions of that so called church.

[JohnC]

I wonder how many of Mr Phelps children/grandchildren/great - grandchildren have actually served their country and how many died in the process? He misses the point that its the action of the servicemen and women of the country that continue to protect his right to free speech!

[mca]

Seeing as that old bastard is getting on a bit it'd be better to wait until he kicked the bucket, hire a Lollapalooza type sound system, set it up outside his funeral and get 1000s of gays and servicemen to turn up and sing " Ding Dong the redneck c##t is dead "

[Ulysses G.]

Right on!

[mca]

I'm interested in how far the protection of freedom of speech under the US constitution would go. I mean, would I be allowed to walk around with a placard saying " Hang All Niggers On Welfare" or " I think 3 year old girls are sexy. Lower the age of consent now" ?

[Ulysses G.]

No. That is why this ruling is ridiculous.

[mca]

Cheers. ( BTW to anybody vaguely interested my placards are strictly hypothetical. I'm not a racist paedo).

So there are laws that would make the use of the word " Nigger" an offense but not " fag"? Or is it the action I'm promoting that is the offense?

[geriatrickid]

No. That is why this ruling is ridiculous.

No, it's not ridiculous, but it is uplifting and reassuring. The SCOTUS is often vilified as too right wing and too willing to allow civil liberties to be quashed. However, "conservative" justices along with "liberal" justices found common ground on the basis of preserving the freedom of speech. (Justice Alito dissented.) Yes Westboro is offensive, obnoxious, malicious etc. . A thousand other negative adjectives and pharases do not even sum up the scumminess and evil that is this family cult. Yet, a free society must tolerate these sickies in order to guard its most cherished of civil liberties. The decision speaks to the strength of American legal principles and the importance of freedom.

Keep in mind that in respect to this case, the Westboro gang did not stand in close proximity to the church where the funeral was held. They respected local ordinances on loudness and on distances to be maintained. The protest neither disrupted the funeral nor harassed the mourners. Sorry, but that's the reality. The plaintiffs could not show that. The SCOTUS said Westboro had the right to be in a public area and to express its views. It really is no different than other political or public interest groups being allowed to gather in a public space. Westboro didn't engage in violent activities nor threaten direct physical harm to anyone.

Rather than be depressed, I am overjoyed that freedom is safe for another day in the good ole USofA.

[Wallaby]

Sure during some picket the 'offenders' may have kept their distance, but they don't HAVE to keep their distance, then can be right in there with the mourners and wave the court's decision in the faces of everyone who complains. I'm sure if I was there mourning and some idiots decided it was a nice day to protest I would be quite happy to beat the living crap out of them and cop whatever punishment a court gives me. I'd still feel good about it.

To put it another way, you have a speed limit in your local street of say 40 mph. You know there are lots of kids playing the yards and the occasional ball goes onto the street. Do you still drive at 40mph because you are 'allowed' to, you have a 'right' to. Perhaps you would use common sense and go slowly in case a child runs out.

Same old story of people having all the rights to do things but never the common sense NOT to do it.

Whatever happened to common decency. Some people are all about 'me me me' and don't give a rats about other people.

End of rant.

[JUDAS]

Freedom of speech must obviously be defended but Wallaby sums it up perfectly in my opinion with the comment, "Whatever happened to common decency."

[chuckd]

In nearly all cities and towns in the US, an organization is required to secure a local permit in order to protest or support anything. Local authorities can tell the demonstrators where and when to hold their protests and how loud it can become.

I remember one recent event when this church of clowns had received a permit to protest a US soldier's funeral in a rather small town. This permit specified where, when and how the protest had to be held. Hearing the permit had been issued, a counter protest was formed by the local citizens and concerned citizens from surrounding communities. The counter protesters came early and parked their cars in every available legal parking spot for a mile or so around the protest site.

Phelps' group showed up, drove around for a period looking for parking, gave up and went home.

Belittle the rednecks, folks, but sometimes they can come up with some awfully good solutions to problems.

[Wallaby]

In nearly all cities and towns in the US, an organization is required to secure a local permit in order to protest or support anything. Local authorities can tell the demonstrators where and when to hold their protests and how loud it can become.

I remember one recent event when this church of clowns had received a permit to protest a US soldier's funeral in a rather small town. This permit specified where, when and how the protest had to be held. Hearing the permit had been issued, a counter protest was formed by the local citizens and concerned citizens from surrounding communities. The counter protesters came early and parked their cars in every available legal parking spot for a mile or so around the protest site.

Phelps' group showed up, drove around for a period looking for parking, gave up and went home.

Belittle the rednecks, folks, but sometimes they can come up with some awfully good solutions to problems.

Love it.

[gemini81]

such is life in the free world...gays want all their rights....hey, works both ways.

[Wallaby]

such is life in the free world...gays want all their rights....hey, works both ways.

A free world and having the right to do something doesn't mean you should actually go and do it. Sometimes it isn't in the best interest of society to be so 'free' .

[Jingthing]

I'm interested in how far the protection of freedom of speech under the US constitution would go. I mean, would I be allowed to walk around with a placard saying " Hang All Niggers On Welfare" or " I think 3 year old girls are sexy. Lower the age of consent now" ?

Absolutely. That is EXACTLY what this ruling means. That doesn't mean that people wouldn't try to hurt you though or that there wouldn't be negative consequences, but the SPEECH is protected. The twisted reverend in the case is very famous and when he shows up there is always a police presence. Otherwise, it's pretty clear he would have been physically "inconvenienced" by this time. It also doesn't mean if a public figure said hateful things that they wouldn't be subject to the court of public opinion and also maybe subject to be fired for violating their contract. Those are separate things from the pure free speech ruling int he case. I still don't think you can yell FIRE in a crowded theater though. I think you can see the difference.

Edited March 3, 2011 by Jingthing

[Jingthing]

such is life in the free world...gays want all their rights....hey, works both ways.

The ruling had nothing, and I mean nothing, to do with gay rights, pro or con. If you don't believe that, read the justices published opinions and/or actually think about it. Again, it's all about the constitutional protection of free speech. I support the ruling. BTW, you are correct that gays want "all" their rights, we want EXACTLY the same EQUAL rights as everyone else, why wouldn't we?

Edited March 3, 2011 by Jingthing

[LaoPo]

Justices Rule for Protesters at Military Funerals

March 2, 2011

By ADAM LIPTAK

Members of the Westboro Baptist church regularly protest at military funerals.

WASHINGTON — The First Amendment protects hateful protests at military funerals, the Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday in an 8-to-1 decision.

"Speech is powerful," Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for the majority. "It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and — as it did here — inflict great pain."

But under the First Amendment, he went on, "we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker." Instead, the national commitment to free speech, he said, requires protection of "even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate."

The decision, from which Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. dissented, was the latest in a series of muscular First Amendment rulings from the Roberts court. Last year, the court struck down laws limiting speech about politics and making it a crime to distribute depictions of cruelty to animals.

Story continues:

http://www.nytimes.c...dlines&emc=tha2

LaoPo