The supreme court ruled 8-1 (with Alito dissenting) on Wednesday in favor of Phelps affirming his groups right to protest military funerals. Roberts wrote the majority opinion and Alito wrote the dissenting opion which can both be accessed here http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-751.pdf The most telling line about the trial comes in Roberts last paragraph Alito wrote Obviously there's a lot more legalese going on in the case, but those are the two major opinions affecting the outcome. If you're interested in reading up on the specific issues of the case The Yale Law journal did a pretty good write up prior to the decision, which can be accessed here http://www.yalelawjournal.org/the-ya...onsiderations/ . Personally I think the West-Boro guys are disgusting and go further then they should be allowed to in expressing their views in public venues. I will most definitely be writing my representatives about this issue (amicus briefs were filled by 42 Senators, and 48 state attorney generals on behalf of Snyder, so it's something that should already be on their radars) and the possibility of enacting further legislation to protect the rights of the families being attacked by the Church. For those of you unfamiliar with the Westboro baptist church, they as well as the case are google able and have detailed wikipedia articles about them. Basically they are a radical church that hates gay people and equates all the problems of the world to gay people, and every major institution outside of their church is conducive and supportive of gay people. They're known for protesting funerals of American service members with signs like "god hates fags" and "thank god for dead soldiers".
I am also disgusted with the speech produced by Westboro Church. I am, however, a firm supporter of free speech. That binds me to agree with the court's decision. DISCLAIMER- I DO NOT AGREE WITH THE WESTBORO BAPTIST CHURCH!
I don't know that anyone really does; even racist organizations like the KKK have standards. Anyways, despite the viciousness of the speech, it's protected speech. It's not intended to incite anyone, so it's protected. The last thing we want is to take away free speech and enforce PC like our friends to the north.
I agree. The speech, no matter how utterly repulsive, is rightly protected. Uhh.. that was hard to say. I'd rather that the precedent of taking away free speech be set under a oppressive regime, not the one today.
That's not the only kind of speech that isn't protected. There's also time place and manner restrictions, commercial speech restrictions, libel restrictions, and obscenity restrictions of which in my (and Justice Alito's) opinion fits the case of the Westboro baptists. I contend that a group of people launching a personal attack on a private individual is not protected speech, and while they are well within their rights to protest the government or the Catholic church, they are not allowed to infringe upon someone else religious expression via the form of a catholic funeral.
Obscenity law is already a can of worms; by its very definition it's vague and open to debate. Still, I can see how the defamation argument might be made, but I don't think it's the intent of the WBC to slander the name of the person they attack; rather they make a very broad statement of hatred towards homosexuals. It's the same thing with racists—a racist can hate an individual because of their race, but any hateful speech regarding race isn't considered a personal attack.
Well it became a tort argument, and for much of the court the preponderance of evidence wasn't there to make the church liable for damages, but both sides agreed (the church didn't even content the point) that the intent was to cause personal harm to the Mr. Snyder.
Hate Speech should not be protected, and the WBC should be considered a terrorist group because there trying to use fear to get people to change political lines. Fear of hell.
Eh, you've obviously looked into this a lot more than I have. In any case I don't feel that we should restrict speech unless it puts someone in immediate danger, financially or otherwise, and can be proven false. Communities should suck it up and avoid falling into propping up obscenity laws.
I hate the Westboro Baptist church, but I do think that they have the right to say whatever despicable things they want
The West-boro Baptist church tried to come and protest here in Canada and we tossed them out instantly. Personally, I am glad we did.
Are they banned from Canada? I know they're not even allowed in England. I don't really understand your legal system or constitution but it looks like you're not allowed to engage in hate speech there? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._v._Keegstra
For those of you interested, the BBC did a documentary about the Church. You can check it out here: [yt:1gozdqbg]bOrz5k0jWdU[/yt:1gozdqbg]
I love that! they should be banned from Canada, but they are a product of our country and it should stay that way! Allow me a zen moment: grasshopper, When you pour your tea you've made a drink to quench your thirst. When you drink you're tea, you may say it's too cold, but your afternoon beverage was your own creation and hence you have a choice: Drink the tea cold or don't and be thirsty. I understand Canada has problems with gangs. In America, it's educating(I know i need to back that up but my post is long already). One of the reasons the Baptist Church has followers is because of the poverty levels in rural areas of the midwest and right leanings of the Baptist Church in those areas. The Westboro Baptist Church is not a product of the first amendment and abolishing the people's unalienable first amendment rights would not solve the problem. Taking away the churche's rights are a whole nother ball game IMO. To prove my point, if you took the Baptist out of the equation you'd get an ignorant bigot without a party, possibly without an opinion, and far less noticable symbol of our countries educational issues. The U.S. Constitution offers everyone the same unalienable rights allowing me to protest what the government is doing about our educational system. Do I feel bad for the Baptist protester? No. But it does have me worried about their kids and (hopefully) mine. The Baptist Church was a division of the Puritan Seperatist Movement, and like many protestant religions have undergone large (sometimes devastating) splits of members taking new positions or sticking with the old but usually having to do with political rather than theological precedents. The Baptist church tends to bring more conservative types to it and when a societies/civilizations choose to accept everyone it is intense, but the saving graces are usually the fringes. They are what really characterizes a society. An undefinable mass of human thinking, art, and criticism. The Fringe is able to absorb the madness of the inclusion the center needs to keep working and at the same time maintaining to diffuse it while absorb the lunacy of the outer layers and ground it. So what has happened to them? Are they attempting to move the fringe farther out or closer in?
