THANK GOD FOR DEAD SOLDIER.

Erinfan

Or "God hates Fags" or "America is Doomed" etc....

That's what can be read on placards brandished by Members of Westboro Baptist Church outside U.S Supreme Court on Wednesday October 10,2010 in advance of hearing legal arguments related to the Marines funeral in 2006.

The court heard oral arguments Wednesday on the case of the father of a fallen Marine, who sued the radical Westboro Baptist Church for picketing near his son’s funeral because it believes God is punishing the United States for its tolerance of gays.

The Facts:

“The facts of the case are well known. Matthew Snyder, a Marine lance corporal from Westminster, Md., was killed in the line of duty in Iraq in 2006. The Rev. Fred Phelps and members of his Kansas-based Westboro Baptist Church traveled more than 1,000 miles to Maryland to picket his funeral and draw attention to their view that society and the military are too tolerant of homosexuality. They stood at the entrance of the church where the funeral was held, waving signs that said "Thank God for Dead Soldiers," "God Hates Fags" and "God Hates You."

They followed their protest by publishing a poem on the Internet entitled "The Burden of Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder," which stated that Matthew's parents "taught Matthew to defy his creator" and "raised him for the devil." The connection between the Phelp' faith and their political views may be difficult to understand, but it is not difficult to see how this targeted expression of their views would be particularly hurtful to Matthew's father on the occasion of his son's funeral.”


The members of Westboro church are not at their first protest on military funerals and they did not picketing Sydner funeral because the deceased was Gay.
But they protested at the funeral to express their view that U.S. deaths in Afghanistan and Iraq are GOD’S PUNISHMENT FOR AMERICAN IMMORALITY AND TOLERANCE OF HOMOSEXUALITY AND ABORTION;

Margie Phelps, arguing the case for her family's Westboro Baptist Church, said the message of the protests at military funerals and elsewhere is, "Nation, hear this little church. If you want them to stop dying, stop sinning."

"This is a case about exploiting a private family's grief," said Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who questioned whether the First Amendment should protect the church members.
Could a wounded soldier sue someone who demonstrates "outside the person's home, the person's workplace, outside the person's church ... saying these kinds of things: `You are a war criminal,' whatever these signs say or worse?" Justice Elena Kagan asked.

Justice Samuel Alito wanted to know if the Constitution also would shield someone who delivers a mean-spirited account of a soldier's death to the serviceman's grandmother while she's leaving her grandson's grave. "She's waiting to take a bus back home," Alito imagined and someone approaches to talk about the roadside bomb that killed the soldier. "`Let me describe it for you, and I am so happy that this happened. I only wish I were there. I only wish that I could have taken pictures of it.' And on and on. Now, is that protected by the First Amendment?"

On discussion:
Where are the boundaries limits of the First Amendment of U.S constitution?


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/05/AR2010100503827.html?wpisrc=nl_politics
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_supreme_court_funeral_protests

Denerick

Freedom of speech is a civic, public freedom that protects you from restrictions from the state. I still believe a private individual has an inherent right to sue somebody for slander, if they go out of their way to insult someone (especially a dead relative). Freedom of speech is the freedom to be wrong, not the freedom to do wrong.

Manach

My general understanding of libel/slander laws is there no redress for such an attack on a deceased person.

the_syco

I still can't believe they're still alive. Maybe one day, overcome with grief, someone will mow them down with a belt-fed gun.

Overheal

http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_audio_detail.aspx?argument=09-751

Not very black and white issue; here is the Audio from the Supreme Court hearing, based on OP's article which referred to Snyder v. Phelps, 09-751.

The Plaintiff's case doesnt sound all that cohesive. On the other hand, the Westboro Baptist Church's case seems to rest on the Deceased's Father going on 'Puplic Airwaves' to raise a political question about the war in Iraq, hence becoming a Public Figure. Personally I'd interject that the funeral is not the platform to make a Public Response to such a Public Figure (if deemed a Public Figure). Seems to me that they could have responded to him on Public Airwaves?

oscarBravo

I expect that the SC will uphold the First Amendment right of the WBC to continue to publicly affirm that they are douchebag lowlifes. There isn't, and probably shouldn't be, a law against being a pathetic excuse for a human being and a total waste of DNA.

Erinfan

America is great not because it protects the rights of those who are right, but because it protects the rights of those who are wrong. And these people –Westboro Church members-couldn't be more wrong...both about their message and the manner in which they choose to say it.

Since pacific protests are protected under U.S constitution every person is allowed to protest because he is dissatisfied with something. It is guaranteed in the U.S Constitution pure and simple, as well it should be.

And as long as he is not inciting any kind of violence (calling some someone to be assaulted, killed, etc.) he can say whatever he wants as loud as he feels like saying. The way some exercise their rights isn't exactly classy, but that isn't the point. And his right to do so insures the other person right to do so.

KyussBishop

The best way to deal with the WBC is to ignore or ridicule them really, they are ****wits, but they aren't physically harming anyone; giving them media attention or actually taking them seriously in any way, just means it'll take longer for them to disappear.

Erinfan

On march 2th,2011 by 8 to 1 vote , the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of hateful demonstrations by Westboro Baptist Church in front of burial ceremonies of U.S services men for the sake of 1st Amendment .


sources:http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2056613,00.html

liah

Good result. As much as I hate the WBC, I love free speech too much to want to see it done away with.

No one takes them seriously anyway. They just make fools of themselves.

Amerika

I think the Supreme Court was sickened that their ruling empowers the lowest of lowlifes in America. And I think Alito pretty much "took one for the team." And by that I mean he said what the other justices felt in their hearts.

Justice Alito made a strong point in his dissent regarding free speech and the First Amendment issues. His dissent is excellent reading.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/09-751.ZD.html

Here is the opening passage from his dissent that I strongly agree with.

Our profound national commitment to free and open debate is not a license for the vicious verbal assault that occurred in this case.

Petitioner Albert Snyder is not a public figure. He is simply a parent whose son, Marine Lance Corporal Matthew Snyder, was killed in Iraq. Mr. Snyder wanted what is surely the right of any parent who experiences such an incalculable loss: to bury his son in peace. But respondents, members of the Westboro Baptist Church, deprived him of that elementary right. They first issued a press release and thus turned Matthew’s funeral into a tumultuous media event. They then appeared at the church, approached as closely as they could without trespassing, and launched a malevolent verbal attack on Matthew and his family at a time of acute emotional vulnerability. As a result, Albert Snyder suffered severe and lasting emotional injury. The Court now holds that the First Amendment protected respondents’ right to brutalize Mr. Snyder. I cannot agree.

I

Respondents and other members of their church have strong opinions on certain moral, religious, and political issues, and the First Amendment ensures that they have almost limitless opportunities to express their views. They may write and distribute books, articles, and other texts; they may create and disseminate video and audio recordings; they may circulate petitions; they may speak to individuals and groups in public forums and in any private venue that wishes to accommodate them; they may picket peacefully in countless locations; they may appear on television and speak on the radio; they may post messages on the Internet and send out e-mails. And they may express their views in terms that are “uninhibited,” “vehement,” and “caustic.”

It does not follow, however, that they may intentionally inflict severe emotional injury on private persons at a time of intense emotional sensitivity by launching vicious verbal attacks that make no contribution to public debate. To protect against such injury, “most if not all jurisdictions” permit recovery in tort for the intentional infliction of emotional distress (or IIED).

I'm wondering... because of this ruling, shouldn't "hate crime" laws now be stricken from the books?

SamHarris

Amerika wrote: »

I think the Supreme Court was sickened that their ruling empowers the lowest of lowlifes in America. And I think Alito pretty much "took one for the team." And by that I mean he said what the other justices felt in their hearts.

Justice Alito made a strong point in his dissent regarding free speech and the First Amendment issues. His dissent is excellent reading.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/09-751.ZD.html

Here is the opening passage from his dissent that I strongly agree with.



I'm wondering... because of this ruling, shouldn't "hate crime" laws now be stricken from the books?

Hate crimes relate to the motivation of crimes already perpetrated, not really anything to do with freedom of speech.

Really this ruling is exactly right - there is no other country in the world that allows such repulsive, ill informed groups to make their voices publicly heard, on a regular basis without persecution.

The KKK, Black Panthers, and incredibly firey Imams do and should fall under the same blanket as my right to express my views on, say, the war in Iraq.

It is difficult, but then it is the only way if you support freedom of speech - a right that even we here in Ireland do not have to the same extent (much less other Western European nations).

I wonder if the plaintiffs could have made the argument that the Westboro church were putting themselves (andby proxy others) in direct and immediate risk by protesting here? Then not being allowed to do it in the same way I can't shout "Fire!" in a crowded building.Definitly a stretch, but I wonder if the argument could be made.