Court to rule in military funeral protest case

The Supreme Court is entering an emotionally charged dispute between the grieving father of a Marine who died in Iraq and the anti-gay protesters who picket military funerals with inflammatory messages like "Thank God for dead soldiers."

Full Story

My knee jerk reaction to reading this was simply to call the protesters some bad names and hope that the court affirmed the decision in the father's case. Then it occurred to me that the same freedom I am afforded to call these people bad names, affords them the right to say these things.

This will truly be a test of our first amendment. As heartless and ill informed as their comments may be, their right to say them should be upheld, as long as they were on public property and not breaking any other laws.

I hope the families that this has affected find peace. I also hope others offended by these protesters remember their right to stand along their street with signs decrying their bad taste and inhumanity.

the most unfortunate thing here is that I think the protesters were so inflammatory, and with their obvious lack of remorse, that the supreme court is going to let them off the hook....

My personal opinion? Who the hell do these people think they are? they go to a funeral for a marine .... to protest gays? What kind of mercury laced kool-aid are they drinking?

I think they deserve to lose everything. Give the father the church building to do what he wants with it. Give him the home from every person holding a sign.
Harsh? Absolutely... but so is antagonizing a grieving father about something that had nothing to do with his son?

Some f'ing people

[edit on 8-3-2010 by conspiracyrus]

reply to post by conspiracyrus


I agree that the protesters are in a league of their own for craziness, but shouldn't their right to freedom of speech trump any bad feelings that it creates? It was not only this funeral that they protested. They also carried signs saying: "America is Doomed," ''God Hates the USA/Thank God for 9/11," ''Priests Rape Boys" and "Thank God for IEDs". Any one of these signs would provoke most to want to kick their teeth in.

Again, the ruling of the court will tell us how far our judicial system will go to protect our rights. Will they be intimidated for either side or make a decision based on what they believe to be too bad to have protection under the law?

The protesters have a right to free speech, but the families at the funerals have a right to privacy and the right to not be harassed by protesters. I suppose it comes down to whose rights are more important. The rights of those who are grieving and just want to be left alone to mourn their loss. Or the rights of those who are using someone else's grief as an opportunity to run their mouths.

Freedom of speech isn't a free pass to say whatever you want, whenever and where ever you want. It has limits. There are hundreds of things that people simply cannot say, freedom of speech be damned. Granted the signs these funeral protesters carried weren't threatening anyone (as far as I'm aware), but that doesn't give them free license to say whatever they want.

Personally, I wish I could've been there when they had the meeting where they decided that protesting funerals were the way to go. I mean seriously, who came up with that brilliant idea? The only people who see them are people who are mourning, want to be left alone, and really don't give a rats behind about their message unless the media show up. If they really wanted to get their anti-everyone-but-them message out there are much more effective ways to go about it than harassing people at a funeral.

Originally posted by Cameoii
as long as they were on public property and not breaking any other laws.

...thats what i was thinking, private property v/s public property - but - look what i found...

www.acslaw.org...

SCOTUSblog's Lyle Denniston writes that in Snyder v. Phelps, the high court will focus on "a significant question of First Amendment law: the degree of constitutional protection given to private remarks made about a private person, occurring in a largely private setting."

...the phelps bunch were holding posters for anyone to see - thats not private, so i dont get lyle's deal at all...

Originally posted by Jenna
The protesters have a right to free speech, but the families at the funerals have a right to privacy and the right to not be harassed by protesters.

Damnit...I don't want to but I agree with you...whole heartedly.

fred phelps and his church are what I consider the antithesis of what it means to be a Christian.

But as much as I hate to say it they have the freedom to be a-holes...and that should not be abridged...

HOWEVER in 2001 disturbed man named Ronald Gay walked in the Backstreet Bar (a local gay bar) here in Roanoke Va. and shot it up injuring several and killing one man...Danny Overstreet.

Well fred phelps and his goons wanted to show up and protest at Danny's funeral and asked the local police for their protection. They refused and consequently they did not show.

Since these people seek police protection for their protests the simplest approach would be for the local police to simply refuse their requests...

These people are cowards and without police protection they will not show.

[edit on 3/8/2010 by iMacFanatic]

Jenna: Although my emotions are right on track with your post, I have to disagree in one regard. Freedom of speech is a free pass to say whatever vile thing you want as long as you are not breaking any other laws or ordinances. There would be no need to protect our freedom of speech if it only covered things that offended no one.

Wyn Hawks: There are few strange things about that argument. The funeral was in a church, and publicly announced in a local obituary. It seems that would take it out from under the private setting heading.

I'm getting the understanding that this will pit freedom of speech against freedom of religion. The phelps claim that these drastic protests are an expression of their religious beliefs and thereby protected by law.

“How these soldiers are living and dying is a topic of substantial public interest and dialogue, at least nationwide, probably worldwide. The prevailing view is that the soldiers are heroes, and that God is obligated to bless America,” (.pdf) Phelps’ lawyers wrote. “Those views clash with the Bible, in respondents’ sincerely held religious opinion, and when these funerals are used to express those viewpoints, respondents feel duty-bound to provide a countervailing message, to wit, if you want God’s blessings, you have to obey him, and if you want the soldiers to stop dying, you have to stop sinning in this nation.”

source

When viewed from that prospective, wouldn't this be akin to abortion protesters with vicious signs and displays in front of clinics during an emotional time to young women?

Originally posted by Cameoii
The funeral was in a church, and publicly announced in a local obituary. It seems that would take it out from under the private setting heading.

...uh, no, i dont think so... i'm not really sure what was being referred to by the "largely private setting" phrase... if it was referring to the church the funeral was held in, that's privately owned property... a public announcement / invitation wouldnt change the church's ownership to public... the phrase could be referencing the cemetery - but - i doubt its public property either... maybe thats why they're using "largely" in the phrase... i'm not sure who that phrase is meant to benefit but i got a feelin' its the cretins...

Originally posted by Cameoii
I'm getting the understanding that this will pit freedom of speech against freedom of religion. The phelps claim that these drastic protests are an expression of their religious beliefs and thereby protected by law.

When viewed from that prospective, wouldn't this be akin to abortion protesters with vicious signs and displays in front of clinics during an emotional time to young women?

...yeah and that truly sucks... if the supreme court rules in the phelps bunch's favor, the only legal recourse is to protest in front of their church and at their funerals but they'd love that because they're sicko mental deficients...

...i wouldnt mind a bit if this case backfired on the phelps bunch and those like them by the scotus making a stricter determination on just how far a religious group can go... if churches want to make a political statement using the guise of freedom of religion, i think those churches should be taxed just like the rest of us...

Actually free speech is limited, especially when it comes to harassment. Now I know they didn't single out this guys son ... but he was a Marine and if you read the article one of the protesters had a sign that combined the Semper from "Semper Fi" with the term that used to mean bundle of sticks....

"Harassment covers a wide range of offensive behaviour. It is commonly understood as behaviour intended to disturb or upset. In the legal sense, it is behaviour which is found threatening or disturbing"

From

en.wikipedia.org...

and further more .... their protesting against gays.... why not go hang out in front of a gay bar and wave your signs about...

Sorry all, I had some things to do. I hope I don't miss anyone here.

iMacFanatic: I believe you are correct that the group won't go anywhere without police protection. So it would be great if police departments nationwide were made aware of this and blackballed this group from having protection. IMO you are free to say what you want, but be prepared when someone wants to kick you butt for it.

Wyn Hawks: I think by largely public they are referring to the funeral itself rather than a specific place, that's why I added the bit about the public obituary announcing the time/place/etc. As far as the right to freedom of religion goes, the people should have that protection, but your right, if the churches want the protection, they should have to pay taxes like the rest of us.

conspiracyrus: Exactly as I said, it is protected until it breaks another law, in this case harassment. One of the articles told of a sign reading Matthew is in Hell. That does seem to single out this young man. If there is any way possible to make these people pay for the things they have said without compromising free speech, I am all for it. I personally think the Marine's father and a few of his friends could settle it out of court quicker, but whatever works.

Originally posted by iMacFanatic

Damnit...I don't want to but I agree with you...whole heartedly.

I have that effect on people sometimes.

Originally posted by Cameoii
Jenna: Although my emotions are right on track with your post, I have to disagree in one regard. Freedom of speech is a free pass to say whatever vile thing you want as long as you are not breaking any other laws or ordinances. There would be no need to protect our freedom of speech if it only covered things that offended no one.

One person's rights can't trump someone else's rights. Many states have laws preventing picketing within a certain distance of funerals because they've recognized this. It doesn't appear that Maryland does, not that I've found anyway, but other states do. Then there's also the matter of hate crime laws. All it takes is one person at one of these funerals to be gay while this group is spouting their ignorance and they're flirting with being charged with a hate crime.

Personally I'd like to see them put in stocks in the town square so people can take turns throwing tomatoes at them. A little bit of public humiliation would do them some good. Alas I don't see that happening anytime soon, so I'll have to be content that they'll one day face a lawyer who nails them with the law well enough that they can't weasel out of it.