SCOTUS: Westboro protected

[dragon]

Well on one side crap and the other side damn. Yes a victory for 1st amendment but still seems a hollow victory as they deserved to be shot of shomthing.

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that the First Amendment protects fundamentalist church members who mount anti-gay protests outside military funerals, despite the pain they cause grieving families.

The court voted 8-1 in favor of the Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kan. The decision upheld an appeals court ruling that threw out a $5 million judgment to the father of a dead Marine who sued church members after they picketed his son's funeral.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the opinion for the court. Justice Samuel Alito dissented.

Roberts said free speech rights in the First Amendment shield the funeral protesters, noting that they obeyed police directions and were 1,000 feet from the church.

"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," Roberts 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."

Alito strongly disagreed. "Our profound national commitment to free and open debate is not a license for the vicious verbal assault that occurred in this case," he said.

Matthew Snyder died in Iraq in 2006 and his body was returned to the United States for burial. Members of the Westboro Baptist Church, who have picketed military funerals for several years, decided to protest outside the Westminster, Md., church where his funeral was to be held.

The Rev. Fred Phelps and his family members who make up most of the Westboro Baptist Church have picketed many military funerals in their quest to draw attention to their incendiary view that U.S. deaths in Afghanistan and Iraq are God's punishment for the nation's tolerance of homosexuality.

They showed up with their usual signs, including "Thank God for dead soldiers," "You're Going to Hell," "God Hates the USA/Thank God for 9/11," and one that combined the U.S. Marine Corps motto, Semper Fi, with a slur against gay men.

The church members drew counter-demonstrators, as well as media coverage and a heavy police presence to maintain order. The result was a spectacle that led to altering the route of the funeral procession.

Several weeks later, Albert Snyder was surfing the Internet for tributes to his son from other soldiers and strangers when he came upon a poem on the church's website that attacked Matthew's parents for the way they brought up their son.

Soon after, Snyder filed a lawsuit accusing the Phelpses of intentionally inflicting emotional distress. He won $11 million at trial, later reduced by a judge to $5 million.

The federal appeals court in Richmond, Va., threw out the verdict and said the Constitution shielded the church members from liability.

Forty-eight states, 42 U.S. senators and veterans groups sided with Snyder, asking the court to shield funerals from the Phelps family's "psychological terrorism."

While distancing themselves from the church's message, media organizations, including The Associated Press, urged the court to side with the Phelps family because of concerns that a victory for Snyder could erode speech rights.

Roberts described the court's holding as narrow, and in a separate opinion, Justice Stephen Breyer suggested in other circumstances, governments would not be "powerless to provide private individuals with necessary protection."

But in this case, Breyer said, it would be wrong to "punish Westboro for seeking to communicate its views on matters of public concern."

Margie Phelps, a daughter of the minister and a lawyer who argued the case at the Supreme Court, said she expected the outcome. "The only surprise is that Justice Alito did not feel compelled to follow his oath," Phelps said. "We read the law. We follow the law. The only way for a different ruling is to shred the First Amendment."

She also offered her church's view of the decision. "I think it's pretty self-explanatory, but here's the core point: The wrath of God is pouring onto this land. Rather than trying to shut us up, use your platforms to tell this nation to mourn for your sins."

link

[ShadowDragon8685]

Words fail me.

Oh wait, no they don't.

Would it really significantly erode free debate to criminalize speech which is intended solely for the purpose of being used as a weapon to psychologically traumatize and degrade other people?

If for no other reason than to protect the Phelps family! Sooner or later they're going to pull this shit on the funeral of the wrong Marine or Ranger or someone, whose buddies are going to be just unhinged enough to do something violent, and I don't mean a nice suit-able case of assault, I mean some furious bastard is going to take a rifle and pick one or more of them off from a thousand yards away or something.

[Akhlut]

Words fail me.

Oh wait, no they don't.

Would it really significantly erode free debate to criminalize speech which is intended solely for the purpose of being used as a weapon to psychologically traumatize and degrade other people?

Arguably; the WBC followed the law in this case (1000 feet from the funeral, etc.) and otherwise did everything within the limits of the law. Sure, they're complete assholes and they deserve every ounce of spite and contempt any sane person can muster, but the issue, ultimately, is not about them. I'm pretty sure no one outside their little clan of freaks would care if they disappeared in Guantonomo for a few years, but the thing about SCOTUS cases it that they have wide ranging effects on everything. It would set extremely bad precedent to have someone sued over what amounts to an opinion, if for no other reason then self-interest (as well as rational reasons for maintenance of free-speech); wouldn't want a Teabagger suing you because you dared to say Glen Beck was a fascist dipshit, right?

[ShadowDragon8685]

Arguably; the WBC followed the law in this case (1000 feet from the funeral, etc.) and otherwise did everything within the limits of the law. Sure, they're complete assholes and they deserve every ounce of spite and contempt any sane person can muster, but the issue, ultimately, is not about them. I'm pretty sure no one outside their little clan of freaks would care if they disappeared in Guantonomo for a few years, but the thing about SCOTUS cases it that they have wide ranging effects on everything. It would set extremely bad precedent to have someone sued over what amounts to an opinion, if for no other reason then self-interest (as well as rational reasons for maintenance of free-speech); wouldn't want a Teabagger suing you because you dared to say Glen Beck was a fascist dipshit, right?

I don't think it's nearly that binary. The WBC are not merely expressing an opinion. They could be shouting out the script to My Little Ponies episodes and if they're doing it the way they're doing it, they're still using that speech as a weapon to harm another person.

I think they're the douchebag scum of the earth for holding the beliefs and opinions they hold, but there's a lot of douchebag scum of the earth out there. I have a problem with the ones who flaunt their douchebaggery in a manner specifically designed to provoke pain and anger from other people.

Like that time those Neo Nazis held a rally through a town full of Holocaust survivors, or this nonsense. That's not about expressing an opinion or vehemently disagreeing with someone else's opinion, it's specifically about "We are going to hurt you and use the freedom of speech as a shield to get away with it, and please do punch us so we can further your pain and suffering by having you thrown in jail and sued."

That is what I believe should be criminalized. I feel dirty that the only member of the SCOTUS to agree with me is Samuel Alito, but this wouldn't be the first time I've found myself standing by his lone dissenting opinion. Most of the time he's a heinous douchenozzle with his righttarded nonsense about trying to interpret the Constitution as the founders intended it, but sometimes (times like this,) he's spot-on-the-money, for reasons wrong or right.


This isn't about debate, because they're not debating anything. It's not about the right to disagree with the government, because they're not disagreeing with the government. It's about attacking people, to cause them harm and grief, and using the law as a shield - and furthermore, with the explicit intent to provoke a hostile reaction from those people that crosses the line into something they should sue.

[Kanastrous]

They're protesting what they perceive as the government's wrongful accommodation of...well, everybody that the WB'ers dislike (ie US soldiers die as a result of God's displeasure over US domestic policy). How do you figure that's *not* political speech?

Yeah, I was startled to find myself at heart agreeing with Alito, too, but the principle seems crystal clear and the test is frequently the repellent-ness of the people and opinions whose expression is being protected.

Best solution: counter-rallies to occupy the protest space and drown the WB'ers out/screen them from view.

[Simon_Jester]

The real problem with agreeing with Alito in this case is that Alito is the guy who's most likely to say "First Amendment rights don't really matter when it's inconvenient."

The fact that this would be a case where it would be convenient to ignore the First Amendment from my own point of view is a reason for me to be more careful, not less, about crossing lines.

[Kanastrous]

I agree with his sentiment, not with his dissent from the ruling. Maybe I should say I *feel* him on this one but I still think he's wrong.

[RedImperator]

Absolutely no one should be surprised by this ruling. SCOTUS has erred on the side of protecting political speech for the last fifty years.

[Count Chocula]

I agree with the verdict...the Westborough Baptists have the right to be despicable wastes of oxygen, much as I wish their behavior could be equated to yelling "Fire!" in a movie theater. Darn.

[Akhlut]

I don't think it's nearly that binary. The WBC are not merely expressing an opinion. They could be shouting out the script to My Little Ponies episodes and if they're doing it the way they're doing it, they're still using that speech as a weapon to harm another person.

I think they're the douchebag scum of the earth for holding the beliefs and opinions they hold, but there's a lot of douchebag scum of the earth out there. I have a problem with the ones who flaunt their douchebaggery in a manner specifically designed to provoke pain and anger from other people.

And? It ain't nice, but that's irrelevant. As long as it's not 'fighting words,' it's legal, and given the Phelps clan is full of lawyers, they know how to skirt that line better then nearly anyone else in this nation.

Like that time those Neo Nazis held a rally through a town full of Holocaust survivors, or this nonsense. That's not about expressing an opinion or vehemently disagreeing with someone else's opinion, it's specifically about "We are going to hurt you and use the freedom of speech as a shield to get away with it, and please do punch us so we can further your pain and suffering by having you thrown in jail and sued."

While the slippery slope argument is usually a poor one to make, in this case it is prudent to bring it up, as the law makes no difference between someone holding an absolutely abhorrent and vile opinion and the most inoffensive opinion on earth; if it can be used against one sort of opinion, it WILL BE USED against another. If it's used against the WBC or Neo-Nazis wanting to parade in Skokie today, it will be used against pro-union protestors tomorrow, sure as shit rolls downhill.

This isn't about debate, because they're not debating anything. It's not about the right to disagree with the government, because they're not disagreeing with the government.

Technically, they are disagreeing with the government. They believe that because the US government is so 'accomodating' to gays and lesbians (as in, not actively killing them), God is lifting his veil of protection from the US and its citizens and soldiers.

It's about attacking people, to cause them harm and grief, and using the law as a shield - and furthermore, with the explicit intent to provoke a hostile reaction from those people that crosses the line into something they should sue.

There is no explicit intent for them to provoke a violent reaction from people.

[Kyler]

I wish all the members in WBC would die in a plane crash or something. Even with my complete distaste for them, it doesn't not change my opinion that they have the right to protest funerals. I knew WBC was not going to lose this opinion, though I was surprised it was so much in their favor.

Shadowdragon you are exactly right. Someone will become unhinged and do something violent against them eventually. It is suprising it hasn't happened already with them protesting the funerals of combat soldiers full of active duty soliders, vets, and family members.

[Kyler]

I think someone posted this story last year, but here is a link of a story of an armed Army Vet stalking the WBC.

http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.s ... ollow.html

[JME2]

I respect the right to free speech, but I still hate these scumbags and their funeral protests.

[mingo]

Words fail me.

Oh wait, no they don't.

Would it really significantly erode free debate to criminalize speech which is intended solely for the purpose of being used as a weapon to psychologically traumatize and degrade other people?

If for no other reason than to protect the Phelps family! Sooner or later they're going to pull this shit on the funeral of the wrong Marine or Ranger or someone, whose buddies are going to be just unhinged enough to do something violent, and I don't mean a nice suit-able case of assault, I mean some furious bastard is going to take a rifle and pick one or more of them off from a thousand yards away or something.

Probably the only thing that will stop these shit-bags, and if I'm on the jury, they'll never be convicted. That said, the concept is constitutionaly sound, if repelenat.

[LaCroix]

Why isn't the stuff they do considered hate speech? As far as I know, there are laws against such. Or are they toeing that line, as well?

[Gandalf]

Why isn't the stuff they do considered hate speech? As far as I know, there are laws against such. Or are they toeing that line, as well?

The US has very few laws in this area. Mainly due to the first amendment prohibiting the creation of laws abridging speech.

The Phelps family knows the lines, and they know them well.

[Iroscato]

WBC seems to have a special place in their dark hearts for gay people, don't they?
In my opinion, there is nothing, nothing anyone can do that deserves an ETERNITY in hell, burning and being tortured and beaten and so on, not Hitler, not murderers, or paedos, or rapists. No-one deserves to suffer absolutely without end, and most certainly not homosexuals. There is nothing wrong with it, and it is certainly not anyone's business.

I read on their website that it's the one sin God absolutely does not forgive, and considering the above sins and sinners mentioned, I'd say the WBC are either stoned off their faces, or insane, or just really, REALLY evil.

[Broomstick]

What it comes down to is that you have a right to be wrong - the government can not coerce you to change your opinion or interfere with your right to express your opinion, provided there is no imminent danger. As repulsive as the Westboro crowd is, their beliefs are (apparently) sincerely held and it is their right to protest that which they find objectionable. Ordinances where they are forced to stay at a certain distance are considered acceptable as they do minimize the chances of violence breaking out. Counter demonstrations are also perfectly acceptable. What is not acceptable under the US constitution is restricting the right of the Westboro idiots to believe as they do, and to express their beliefs provided they do not break any law in doing so.

The real test of ethics is that you are consistent when it is hard to be consistent. This is one such case. Permitting them to continue without harm is the ethical choice, even though it's distasteful and difficult.

[eion]

The problem with free speech is that sometimes people say things that you don't agree with, and sometimes find downright hurtful and repulsive.

In the long run, the WBC is going to fade away to nothingness, hopefully soon after Fred Phelps ill-deserved long life is over, but give government the power to decide which speech is inappropriate and you've got a problem for decades. Baring the imminent endangerment of the public's physical safety (e.g. Yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded, and otherwise not on fire, theater) speech is only as dangerous as we allow it to be.

I also think it is very important to let the crazies yell as loud as they want because protesting at a soldier's funeral because you think God killed the soldier due to America's "fag enabling" policies is a great way to make people sympathetic to gay rights, even if it’s only to piss off this crazy asshole protesting at a soldier’s funeral. They are literally working against themselves, and I for one hope they keep up the good work. There are even some wingnuts who think that WBC is a left-wing creation to make "reasonable" homophobia look bad.

I think Alito's heart was in the right place, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if his mind knew he should join the majority, but decided that to make it emphatically clear that the court in no way endorse this crazy asshole's right to cause people lasting pain at a moment of great personal tragedy he should dissent.

[ShadowDragon8685]

The real test of ethics is that you are consistent when it is hard to be consistent. This is one such case. Permitting them to continue without harm is the ethical choice, even though it's distasteful and difficult.

I'm sorry, I can't believe that anymore.

The Phelps clan needs to be muzzled. This whole "1,000 yards from a funeral" nonsense just isn't sufficient, because it's still close enough to cause harm and grief.

When speech is turned into a weapon to cause hurt and pain, then like all weapons it needs to be regulated, same as if they liked to take knives and cut up the bereaved as their protest method.


I can no longer believe that the freedom of speech is so sacred - and so fragile - that we must tolerate absolutely abhorrent, morally-bankrupt assholes like the Phelps clan flagrantly abusing that right not for debate, nor to express a belief, but to do so in a manner calculated to cause emotional harm and significant grief, just like the aforementioned instance of Neo-Nazis marching through Skokie.

They tried to take this shit abroad and then backed down because they realized that anywhere else in the world they'd be flung in prison and rightly so. It's about damn time we made it clear that they'll get the same here. They can claim that god hates homosexuals all they want, but not when they're doing it in the place calculated to cause the most harm and grief. If they want to shout that message at the government, they can go to the Hill and protest there. Not where it's calculated to cause harm and grief to people.

[Kanastrous]

If you can identify a clause in or amendment to the US Constitution that offers citizens protection against hearing things they might find painful, this would be the time to quote it to us, chapter and verse.

[ShadowDragon8685]

Feel free to stop being a cumguzzling douchenozzle, Kanastrous.

These assholes are going out of their way to cause harm and grief. If you do that to someone with your fists, you will be prosecuted. Why, oh why, should doing it with your mouth be kosher?

The freedom of speech was implemented to disallow the government from silencing its critics, not to enable the Phelps clan to cause people emotional harm. If the laws as written permit that as a loophole, the loophole needs to be plugged.

As far as I'm concerned, that the laws-as-written enable the Phelps clan to get away with their shit is a bug, not a feature. They are patently not engaging in any form of debate, and they're not airing their reprehensible opinions in any venue for opinion-voicing, but in a venue where it is designed to cause the maximum amount of harm to those they're targeting.

[Kanastrous]

They could just as easily argue that they have chosen the venue because it affords the opportunity for maximum media coverage, and people's *feelings* are a side-effect (in fact, I think that *is* their basic position and while they're lousy bastards, alas the position itself is defensible even if it's lousy bastards who are defending it).

You really don't see a problem with banning speech simply because someone else finds it hurtful? How do you think devout Christians, Muslims, Jews, etc feel when they hear other people denigrating their beliefs and ambitions? Do we all now have to walk on eggshells because *their* precious feelings might be hurt? Or will we all just rely upon ShadowDragon's personal judgment as to which beliefs deserve airing, and whose feelings are important enough to suppress expression, to protect? Fuck that.

If you really are unable to distinguish between hurt feelings caused by talky-talky and physical injury caused by battery, your V.I. title is well-deserved.

[General Trelane (Retired)]

Why isn't the stuff they do considered hate speech? As far as I know, there are laws against such. Or are they toeing that line, as well?

The US has very few laws in this area. Mainly due to the first amendment prohibiting the creation of laws abridging speech.

No other country enshrines "free speech" as does the USA. Other democratic countries have free speech too, but they allow for reasonable limits on it. Take Canada (my home), for example, which has a Charter of Rights and Freedoms in which Section 1 states:

1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

Right in the opening section, it allows for "reasonable limits" as can be "demonstrably justified". Conversely, in the USA, the First Amendment of their Constitution has no such leaway:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That's pretty explicit.

[Mr. Coffee]

See, these guys hyave the right idea.

Generals' complaint targets Phelps lawyers

By Tim Carpenter
THE CAPITAL-JOURNAL

Nine retired U.S. Air Force generals have filed a complaint with state regulators to seek disbarment of 10 lawyers who are members of the Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka.

The military group, led by Maj. Gen. Larry Twitchell, of Ann Arbor, Mich., submitted a massive file to the Kansas Board for Discipline of Attorneys in an attempt to prove four broad violations by lawyers in the congregation that attracted attention by picketing funerals of soldiers and celebrities.

The objective of the complaint is to compel an inquiry into allegations lawyers tied to the church failed to maintain standards of professional conduct required to hold a law license in Kansas. The preferred outcome is disbarment of each individual, they said.

Action is necessary, the group said in a statement, given the lawyers’ “decades-long pattern of uncivil and unprofessional conduct.”

Shirley Phelps-Roper, among individuals named in the complaint, said in an interview Monday the ethics filing was ludicrous.

"That's entertaining," said Phelps-Roper, who wasn't aware the generals had taken an interests in the church's protests. "It's so pathetic."

Nearly 900 documents associated with the complaint were sent to Stanton Hazlett, administrator for the Kansas Board for Discipline of Attorneys. His office reviews complaints against lawyers, conducts investigations, convenes hearings and recommends discipline to the Kansas Supreme Court.

Disciplinary office staff can’t comment on allegations submitted to the board before an investigation and, if appropriate, a finding of probable cause that violations occurred and an official case was moving forward.

Ron Keefover, spokesman for the Kansas Supreme Court, said about 1,000 letters alleging misconduct are received annually by the disciplinary office. Each year, he said, around 300 are investigated and approximately 30 advance to a formal hearing.

The coalition of retired officers — there are three lieutenant generals (three stars), five major generals (two stars) and one brigadier general (one star) — takes offense at the independent church’s practice since 2005 of picketing funerals for U.S. troops killed in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Church members decided to stage protests at military funerals to condemn the nation's purported tolerance of homosexuality. Members have been involved in anti-gay protests for about 20 years. In recent years, dozens of states adopted laws limiting funeral picketing in response to the Phelps' crusade.

Phelps-Roper said the First Amendment afforded church members the freedom of religion and speech they rely upon to carry their message to outsiders. The ethics complaint will be another failed attempt to silence the church's message, she said.

"Marginalize, demonize and vilify," she said. "They're going to take away the righteousness of the righteous?"

In the statement from Twitchell and other generals, the group claims the "grievance has nothing whatsoever to do with the WBC lawyer members' so-called religious beliefs or First Amendment rights."

"The conduct of the lawyer members of the Westboro Baptist Church named in this grievance certainly dishonors and disgraces all members of the Kansas Bar and the American Bar," they said.

A summary of the grievance:

— Failure to maintain integrity of the profession by engaging in dishonest, deceit or misrepresentation, "regardless of whether it is directly connected to a legal proceeding."

— Violation of a rule forbidding lawyers from abusing legal procedure by not making good-faith arguments and engaging in activities to harass or maliciously injure a person.

— Neglect of a provision mandating lawyers observe standards of conduct, "professionally and personally," whether or not the acts or omissions occurred in the course of an attorney-client relationship.

— Failure to report instances of professional misconduct of peers in Westboro Baptist Church.

Targets of the ethics complaint are Topeka residents Phelps-Roper, Rachel Hockenbarger, Betty Phelps, Elizabeth Phelps, Fred Phelps Jr., Jonathan Phelps, Margie Phelps, Tim Phelps, Rebekah Phelps-Davis and Brent Roper. The majority of the group are children of Fred Phelps Sr.

The retired Air Force officers filing the complaint dated Feb. 4 are Lt. Gens. Brett Dula, Arlen Jameson and Thad Wolfe; Maj. Gens. Twitchell, Christopher Adams, William Davitte, Hugh Forsythe and John McBroom; and Brig. Gen. Joseph Shaefer.

The Westboro Baptist Church is subject of a pending case before the U.S. Supreme Court that centers on balancing the Topeka church members' right to demonstrate on important public issues and the expectation of privacy for families attending a funeral. That case stems from a picketing trip in 2006 for U.S. Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder's funeral.

See, you already know you're dealing with a pack of sue happy trolls that make a lot of money suing the shit out of people that get pissed off over the church's activities. Counter-protesting doesn't work and state local laws say you can't simply beat the hell out of them, so why not go after their lawyers? Shit, if that ends up working you could put Westburough Baptist out of commission.