SCOTUS: Westboro protected

[Kanastrous]

And yet in the US we have managed to enact and maintain laws against slander, libel, certain forms of false advertising, and the ever-popular shouting 'fire' in the crowded room when there's no real fire a-burning.

Maybe the dodge is that - so far as I know - most such laws come out of state legislatures rather than the US Congress, and the US Congress has decided to let them slide.

[Thanas]

What the Phelps family did would be illegal in Germany. And yet we still manage to have free speech.

I hate to say it, but I agree with Ailto on this one.

[jcow79]

Here's a link to the ruling and dissent for those that are interested in reading all the specifics.
Link

[Broomstick]

I'd love for there to be a legal way to stifle the Westboro crowd but unfortunately both the law as written and legal precedent in the US makes that impossible.

Unless someone can come up with a consistent way to discriminate between hurtful speech such as Westboro's and legitimate if unconventional/unpopular opinion and which does not violate the document that grants citizen rights that's the way it's going to be. Note that you could propose a constitutional amendment to capture such a distinction. It would be quite difficult to pass such a thing, however.

[Kanastrous]

I don't see the utility in a nation using the force of law to restrict 'hurtful' speech. Just about any speech can be construed as 'hurtful' by someone, somewhere, and who's to say what someone else must or must not suffer being 'hurt' by hearing? I don't think it's expecting very much for grown-ups to develop just a little thickness-of-skin when it comes to merely *hearing* something that hurts their *feelings.* It's really a pretty ridiculous idea that mere upset at the sound of someone's speech calls for legislative action...

...after all any true religious believer might well find some of the conversations held around here to be 'hurtful.' Would you like SDNet shut down or censored because people here like to talk smack about religion and the religious? What about *their* precious feelings?

[Iroscato]

Don't be so insensitive. People who lose their children, or their parents, or their friends feel completely devastated, a part of them gone that can never be replaced, and an evil religious group insulting their memory is just beyond horrific for them.

I think we are evolved enough as a civilisation to know the difference between freedom of speech and spiteful hate-mongering, don't you?

And there is a huge gulf between some rough banter on a forum, and a group of evil little shits like the WBC invading what should be a time of grief for a family just to spread their malice.

[Kanastrous]

I very much want to see the WB'ers prevented from creating trouble for bereaved families, but undermining the protections for freedom of expression isn't the way to do it. Are you volunteering to create a standardized scale on which we can evaluate what speech is hurtful enough to a group whom we value and want to protect that the speakers should be prosecuted, versus what speech is not *quite* hurtful enough to *another* group whom we maybe don't feel we need to protect *quite* so much, with consideration given to what speech is just all-in-good-fun and people who don't like it should just STFU? What metric would you propose we use? And what about speech that you or I might not find problematic, but some third party finds just devastating, to hear?

Don't be so sensitive to people's internal emotional states that the law of the land has to change, to prevent their being discomfited. Because as soon as you do, everyone who finds there's talk out there that they just don't want to hear will be clamoring for the same consideration. And why shouldn't they? *Their* claimed internal hurt and offense can be just as great as the next person's, and who are you and I to say otherwise?

[jcow79]

I don't see the utility in a nation using the force of law to restrict 'hurtful' speech. Just about any speech can be construed as 'hurtful' by someone, somewhere, and who's to say what someone else must or must not suffer being 'hurt' by hearing? I don't think it's expecting very much for grown-ups to develop just a little thickness-of-skin when it comes to merely *hearing* something that hurts their *feelings.* It's really a pretty ridiculous idea that mere upset at the sound of someone's speech calls for legislative action...

...after all any true religious believer might well find some of the conversations held around here to be 'hurtful.' Would you like SDNet shut down or censored because people here like to talk smack about religion and the religious? What about *their* precious feelings?

We're not talking about petty name calling here or even offending people’s sensibilities on subjects that are important to them. This is literally a about targeting specific people and families at their most vulnerable for harrasment as a means of garnering a larger pubic audience. Alito's dissent really does sum it up nicely. Westboro can choose to picket millions of locations across the country but they pick funerals and target the families of the deceased because they know the trauma they are causing the families will garner media attention. The SCOTUS opinion seems to suggest there is not enough evidence that Westborro targets the specific families or deceased but they are merely protesting broader public issues and only use these events to more broadly disseminate their opinions. But I think, as Alito points out, Westboro’s press release is pretty specific.

“God Almighty killed Lance Cpl. Snyder. He died in shame, not honor— for a fag nation cursed by God . . . . Now in Hell—sine die.”

There was also some stuff posted on their website referred in the case as the "Epic" but the court didn't consider it in their decision. Alito's dissent mentioned it more thoroughly.

“God blessed you, Mr. and Mrs. Snyder, with a re-source and his name was Matthew. He was an arrow in your quiver! In thanks to God for the comfort the child could bring you, you had a DUTY to prepare that child to serve the LORD his GOD—PERIOD! You did JUST THE OPPOSITE—you raised him for the devil.
. . . . . “Albert and Julie RIPPED that body apart and taught Matthew to defy his Creator, to divorce, and to commit adultery. They taught him how to support the largest pedophile machine in the history of the entire world, the Roman Catholic monstrosity. Every dime they gave the Roman Catholic monster they condemned their own souls. They also, in supporting satanic Catholicism, taught Matthew to be an idolater. . . . . . “Then after all that they sent him to fight for the United States of Sodom, a filthy country that is in lock step with his evil, wicked, and sinful manner of life, putting him in the cross hairs of a God that is so mad

I think there's plenty of evidence that these protests are not just about public protest and they DO specifically target and harass these families by addressing the deceased and families by name.

[Kanastrous]

Isn't harassment chargeable as a criminal offense, at least in some states? I should think that if the WB craperoo meets the standard it would have been brought as a charge, by now. Maybe someone with better knowledge of that law could expand upon that.

[ShadowDragon8685]

At the very least, I would make it absolutely illegal to protest or create a disturbance at a funeral for any reason (no matter who the deceased is their families deserve the time to put them to rest in peace.)

And forget this thousand yards bullshit. Try two or three miles - and you can add an exception to allow protests to go on if they were scheduled prior to the scheduling of the funeral, so no "but then people could use funerals to forcibly cancel protests they don't like" counter-arguments.


Unfortunately, this is the kind of thing that would fall under state jurisdiction (though county might have something to say about if if county decides to be harsher than state, and same for municipality,) and about the only way that would get passed if is Congress mustered the testicular fortitude and spinal integrity required to outright blackmail all the states into doing it in the same way they blackmailed them into establishing a uniform drinking age.

[jcow79]

Isn't harassment chargeable as a criminal offense, at least in some states? I should think that if the WB craperoo meets the standard it would have been brought as a charge, by now. Maybe someone with better knowledge of that law could expand upon that.

Well that actual terms used in the case were

intentional infliction of emotional distress, intrusion upon seclusion, and civil conspiracy.

I used "harass".

At the very least, I would make it absolutely illegal to protest or create a disturbance at a funeral for any reason (no matter who the deceased is their families deserve the time to put them to rest in peace.)

And forget this thousand yards bullshit. Try two or three miles - and you can add an exception to allow protests to go on if they were scheduled prior to the scheduling of the funeral, so no "but then people could use funerals to forcibly cancel protests they don't like" counter-arguments.


Unfortunately, this is the kind of thing that would fall under state jurisdiction (though county might have something to say about if if county decides to be harsher than state, and same for municipality,) and about the only way that would get passed if is Congress mustered the testicular fortitude and spinal integrity required to outright blackmail all the states into doing it in the same way they blackmailed them into establishing a uniform drinking age.

The opinion addressed this by pointing out that laws were passed AFTER this particular incident and will likely suffice as protection in the future but also warned that these very laws may be put under Constitutional scrutiny as well.

[Broomstick]

Isn't harassment chargeable as a criminal offense, at least in some states?

Yes. But it can be very hard to prove, particularly when it is a one-time event. WBC is also savvy enough to stay out of jurisdictions where they can be charged with criminal offenses due to their customary conduct.

I should think that if the WB craperoo meets the standard it would have been brought as a charge, by now. Maybe someone with better knowledge of that law could expand upon that.

The problem is that Westboro breeds its own lawyers. Civil suits might be easier, as the standard of proof is much lower, but so far they've avoided pissing off rich people who can afford to take them on.

[Chris OFarrell]

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.

Good ole Flag officers, always thinking strategiclly and looking for the weak point...

[Mr. Coffee]

Ok, y'all a bunch of illiterate motherfuckers. I posted that on the first page.

[General Trelane (Retired)]

I don't see the utility in a nation using the force of law to restrict 'hurtful' speech. Just about any speech can be construed as 'hurtful' by someone, somewhere, and who's to say what someone else must or must not suffer being 'hurt' by hearing? I don't think it's expecting very much for grown-ups to develop just a little thickness-of-skin when it comes to merely *hearing* something that hurts their *feelings.* It's really a pretty ridiculous idea that mere upset at the sound of someone's speech calls for legislative action...

Speaking from Canada, our laws don't ban speech that may hurt someone's feeling; they ban speech that advocates genocide of or spreads hate towards an "identifiable group", and the standards of proof are high. See sections 318 and 319 of the Criminal Code of Canada.

An "identifiable group" is defined as "any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation." That last one (sexual orientation) was added in 2004 amid a hue and cry of conservatives and religious fundamentalists, but it passed anyway, and despite their fear-mongering, the state has not been dragging pastors out of their pulpits for preaching against homosexuality*. In fact, there is a specific religion-based loophole for section 319, subsection 2 "Wilful promotion of hatred", which has four specific exemptions including, "if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text".

So in Canada, even the Phelpses wouldn't be charged provided they didn't run afoul of section 319, subsection 1 "Public incitement of hatred" (which has no such exemption) or of section 318 "Advocating genocide".

[RedImperator]

I don't see the utility in a nation using the force of law to restrict 'hurtful' speech. Just about any speech can be construed as 'hurtful' by someone, somewhere, and who's to say what someone else must or must not suffer being 'hurt' by hearing? I don't think it's expecting very much for grown-ups to develop just a little thickness-of-skin when it comes to merely *hearing* something that hurts their *feelings.* It's really a pretty ridiculous idea that mere upset at the sound of someone's speech calls for legislative action...

Speaking from Canada, our laws don't ban speech that may hurt someone's feeling; they ban speech that advocates genocide of or spreads hate towards an "identifiable group", and the standards of proof are high. See sections 318 and 319 of the Criminal Code of Canada.

An "identifiable group" is defined as "any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation." That last one (sexual orientation) was added in 2004 amid a hue and cry of conservatives and religious fundamentalists, but it passed anyway, and despite their fear-mongering, the state has not been dragging pastors out of their pulpits for preaching against homosexuality*. In fact, there is a specific religion-based loophole for section 319, subsection 2 "Wilful promotion of hatred", which has four specific exemptions including, "if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text".

So in Canada, even the Phelpses wouldn't be charged provided they didn't run afoul of section 319, subsection 1 "Public incitement of hatred" (which has no such exemption) or of section 318 "Advocating genocide".

I think this here is important to remember. The justification for hate speech bans in Canada and Europe is not "it might hurt someone's feelings". The view of lawmakers and courts in those countries is that the harm caused by restricting speech is less than the harm caused by advocating hatred of an "identifiable group".

In short, in Canada and Europe, it's illegal to incite hatred. Being an asshole, on the other hand, is still protected. That's not a bug in the system; it's a necessary cost. If you want free speech, you have to put up with assholes, even the kind of assholes who'd deliberately upset a grieving family for a political cause.

[Thanas]

I would however have no doubt that the Phelps would easily clear the hurdle for inciting hatred in most, if not all, European countries.

[Kanastrous]

I guess given the events of the 1920s-40s (and the underlying history) Europeans would be particularly sensitive to anything smelling of incitement.

Take that fashion designer who's facing criminal charges in France for having vented anti-Jewish sentiments at a dinner party - in the US he might be regarded as an asshole, but he certainly couldn't be charged with anything criminal.

[Aaron]

I would however have no doubt that the Phelps would easily clear the hurdle for inciting hatred in most, if not all, European countries.

They were barred entry from Canada for this reason IIRC.

[RedImperator]

I would however have no doubt that the Phelps would easily clear the hurdle for inciting hatred in most, if not all, European countries.

I don't doubt it either. But that's separate from what Shadownumbers et al are arguing.

[Molyneux]

What the Phelps family did would be illegal in Germany. And yet we still manage to have free speech.

I hate to say it, but I agree with Ailto on this one.

There's a logical contradiction between your first two sentences up there. I would go so far as to say that if what the Phelps family did is illegal in Germany, then Germany cannot have free speech.

[Kanastrous]

Free speech here in the USA isn't absolute. Why should it be, anywhere else?

[Iroscato]

What the Phelps family did would be illegal in Germany. And yet we still manage to have free speech.

I hate to say it, but I agree with Ailto on this one.

There's a logical contradiction between your first two sentences up there. I would go so far as to say that if what the Phelps family did is illegal in Germany, then Germany cannot have free speech.

I'd say it's all relative. Germany has free speech up to a certain point like all countries, but where that point lies differs from nation to nation.

We do need a limit to how 'free' free speech should be, but deciding that limit, getting the balance just so, is a bitch. Then, like almost every social parameter, there's the 'slippery slope' argument...
What I think, however, is that the limit of freedom should be very, very low. But even then, the WBCunts manage to skip way past the (blurry) line seperating free speech and outright hatemongering on a frequent basis.

[LaCroix]

What the Phelps family did would be illegal in Germany. And yet we still manage to have free speech.

I hate to say it, but I agree with Ailto on this one.

There's a logical contradiction between your first two sentences up there. I would go so far as to say that if what the Phelps family did is illegal in Germany, then Germany cannot have free speech.

Try standing in front of congress and telling people to take guns and kill everyone inside, or to shoot the president. We'll see how free your speech is, then...

[Spoonist]

What the Phelps family did would be illegal in Germany. And yet we still manage to have free speech.

There's a logical contradiction between your first two sentences up there. I would go so far as to say that if what the Phelps family did is illegal in Germany, then Germany cannot have free speech.

Your observation is flawed, care to back it up with an argument? Preferably with your personnal definition of free speech, given that it seems to deviate from the norm.
If one would see any censorship or limitation to free speech as in having no free speech. ie a binary model. Then there are no countries on Tellus today that have free speech. All countries that consider themselves to have it have an inner and outer definition of free speech. With those boundaries being non-binary and multifold.

The obvious example which even the most inbred redneck would know of would be the "cry fire" exemption. Some related examples are libel and threats.
When it comes to the US there is lots of censorship that other countries allow; cursing and sexuality being the obvious ones. So by your inane view vs Germany one could pose the equally inane argument that the US does not have free speech until a court protects my right to curse on national TV.
Stupid isn't it?
Or that the courts should protect my free speech right of showing whatever content I wish regardless the audience's age.

Do I need to continue?