Supreme Court to hear arguments over 'Thank God for dead soldiers' funeral protest

Originally posted by HomerinNC
Doesnt matter WHOM the'yre directed AT, the FATHER was the one that was emotionally distressed at the protest, him and the rest of the grieving family

Well, yes, it does matter. If the father can prove that the attacks were aimed at HIM, then he can sue.

During Wednesday's argument, the justices seemed to agree that a general protest sign, such as "Stop the War" or even "Thank God for Dead Soldiers" would be protected as free speech. The Phelps family crossed the line when they made clear they were targeting the dead Marine's father with their protest, argued Sean E. Summers, a lawyer for Snyder. "We have personal, targeted epithets directed at the Snyder family," he said.

Source

If the last bit there is true, then the SC might find for the prosecution.

Only Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg took the free-speech side throughout the argument. She noted that protesters were kept away from the funeral in this case, and they were being sued only because of their troubling message.

reply to post by sdcigarpig

The government has to get involved in this case, as the fundamental rights are at stake here. When there is a conflict between differing rights, then it is apon the courts that we as citizens must turn to.

Where is the conflict?

It's a public funeral on public property, is it not?

There are only one set of rights at stake here and it's the right to assemble. As much as it pains me, and as much as i'd like to see these gay bashers get what's coming to them, im still not going to take the stupid way out and say they should be stopped.

Because it's their right to do it.

reply to post by HomerinNC

Okay so you wouldn't mind if people showed up at a family member or your's funeral and started shouting stuff like 'thank god so and so is dead', or start blasting loud music at the funeral, as long as their first amendment rights aren't impinged on.

You're either not reading well enough, or deliberately ignoring the point.

It's not that we would like for it to happen to us. It's not that we would like for it to CONTINUE to happen to these soldiers families.

But the only thing worse than that is to start dismantling the bill of rights in situations you don't agree with.

You agree with the right to assemble on PUBLIC PROPERTY - except when it's for a cause you disagree with.

Not only is that a very simplistic and antique way of thinking, but it's also VERY dangerous.

It starts with gay bashers, and who knows where it ends up.

It's on public property man. I don't condone what they're doing, but i'll be damned if im going to allow a few knuckleheads to dismantle freedoms in this country to serve their own selfish agendas....even if i have to agree with those selfish ideals.

Why can these douchebags not simply be arrested for disturbing the peace? They are breaking the law.

Originally posted by InvisibleAlbatross
Why can these douchebags not simply be arrested for disturbing the peace? They are breaking the law.

....*sigh*

A.) It's not disturbing the peace
B.) Assembling in a public place is not against the law.

You really are doing no justice for your cause with posts like that

reply to post by Snarf


In the state of California it is. Are the other states so different?

Since its creation, the most noteworthy change to California's "disturbing the peace" law pertains to the subdivision dealing with "fighting words." A 1976 amendment changed the statute from punishing "[a]ny person who uses offensive words in a public place which are inherently likely to produce a violent reaction" to "[a]ny person who uses offensive words in a public place which are inherently likely to provoke an immediate violent reaction."4

www.shouselaw.com...

As far as I know, we don't actually know the details of the case. Do we? Does anyone know exactly what happened? Were the Phelps people yelling at the funeral goers? Depending on exactly what happened, the Phelps clan's actions could be considered fighting words, which aren't protected by the First Amendment. So the Supreme Court might rule against them. The history of this protection is confusing to say the least.

Fighting Words

What will probably happen is that Phelps will be found guilty of disturbing the peace or whatever and they'll change their actions slightly (no speaking to funeral attendees and change a couple words on their signs) and continue with their sickening agenda and funeral protests. As long as they are peaceable, they should be protected.

One thing that really bothers me about this is the father's original award. Eleven million dollars! It was reduced to $5 million and then removed altogether by the courts. But what is it that he wants here? The money? Or does he want this to stop happening so others don't suffer?

Secondly, what precedent would this set? Would Phelps have the right to sue for some of the things people say about HIM? If he is found guilty of disturbing the peace because of the signs he carries, is it possible he could sue some of the people who have publicly called him out? I don't see why not. Certainly people have said worse things about HIM than his "church" says about the dead. Think of all the stuff on the Internet about Phelps. He is HATED by a large segment of society. Could he turn this around and make himself the victim of "fighting words"? Could the Patriot Guard be in trouble for interfering in his future protests?

Just something to think about.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


O.k., hell just froze over, I not only agee, I even gave you a star. I think this whole can of worms needs to be nipped by the courts now. I'll bet in some way Phelps went into this looking to lose for those very reasons. He'd be able to sue a whole bunch of people for the same thing.

reply to post by InvisibleAlbatross


the only problem with that California law is you have to define "violent reaction"...nothing like that has happened so how can you call it disturbing the peace?

Some more details of the case:

Snyder's lawsuit accuses the Topeka, Kan., church of invading his privacy and intentionally inflicting emotional distress. He has the backing of his ex-wife and his two daughters, but Snyder insisted on being the only plaintiff.

So, he insisted on being the only plaintiff... Why? Why not work with a few others who have been affected to shut this guy down?

They point to the undisputed facts of the case. Westboro contacted police before its protest, which was conducted in a designated area on public land – 1,000 feet from the church where the Mass was held in Westminster, Md.

The protesters – Phelps and six family members – broke no laws. Snyder knew they were present, but he did not see their signs or hear their statements until he turned on the newsat his son's wake.

So, WBC obeyed ALL the laws, were 1000 feet away from the funeral and Mr. Snyder didn't even see or hear them during the funeral! What was he doing watching TV at his son's wake? This sounds strange to me...

Jonathon Turley is one of my favorite lawyers. And his law class stresses my concerns.

Jonathan M. Turley, a George Washington University law professor, asked his constitutional law class to grapple with the case. At first, the entire class was sympathetic to Snyder. But after they dug deeper, they concluded that Westboro's speech was protected by the First Amendment.

"Once you get down to trying to draw the line between privacy and free speech, it becomes clear that a ruling against Westboro could create the danger of a slippery slope for future courts," Turley said.

This is exactly my concern.

Source

reply to post by Snarf


It says "inherently likely to provoke." I can see that happening. I'm surprised it hasn't yet. I can see the argument for free speech, but there must also be a point where others' rights must also be recognized and respected.

I imagine this church would have a differant opinion of the right of free speech if a bunch of athiests stood across from their church yelling god is a lie during their Sunday morning service.

What church in their right mind would picket a funeral? Those who are defending their right to do this disgust me and I am glad that I don't know them personally.

Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should do it.

reply to post by Snarf

You are correct and incorrect. Consider there, there are alot of places that are open to the public, however, sometimes such places, will rent out spaces for private meetings, such as a hotel or a confrence room, park, church and even a cemetary. During that time frame, as part of the business agreement, those spaces would be closed to the general public, making it a private event. A funeral would be considred to be a private assembly and event.
Now here is where it will get sticky, if the protestors were in front of the building where the funeral was taking place, or as with most cemetary places, where the chappel is on the grounds of the cemetary, and are along the roads leading up to the building where the services are taking place, then it should be considered harassment. From what I had read, the WBC was infront of the place where the funeral was happening, and holding up the signs we all know about. Thus it would be considered an intrusion of the individual privacy, and the speech being considered disrespectful and hateful, and thus subjecting those attending to additional distress.
The questions that I can only imagine that the judges will ask in this case could summed up as following:
For the WBC: Was it necessary to be there at that time frame, that close to where the funeral was happening, and what was the purpose of doing such? If the response of religion is brought up, another possible question would be, it is right to force your views on other people who may not share them in such a manor as to appear to be harrassing and deragatory, if not slanderous in nature?
The justices will want to know about the layout of where this happened, the position of the WBC in relationship to the funeral. They will want to know at what time the WBC showed up, and when those attending were to show up and what routs both were taking.
Questions as to the layout, and roads should be brought up. If there is only one road to and from, then there is no real way that people can get to the funeral without finding seeing such.
The grief of the father will only be mentioned, as the question should also be asked, if his son had not died, would the emotional distress be the same if say the son had been wounded in the line of duty?

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

There you are wrong on a the public property bit. In the cases where a piece of public property, such as a park, hotel or even a church, there are times when parts or even the whole part is closed to the general public for private events. Most large hotels have confrence rooms, and they are closed to the general public for private meetings. Parks are often rented out by the cities for private parties and events. Weddings are considered private events, and when held on public property, are often closed to the general public. So thus a funeral, on what would be considered public property, though most cemetaries are privately owned, are not open to the public, at the bequest of the family and those attending should remain respectful of the proceedings.
The right of privacy is one that affects us all, non of us would want the general public coming into our private lives to say anything hateful. Just as the right of free speech, to assemble and of worship should also be respected. But when those rights come into conflict, then it is the courts duty to determine who has the greater claim and have their rights upheld.
However, when a case goes to the Supreme court of the United States, then this one ruling, no matter how it goes, will effect all laws passed there after and all court cases that deal with: Privacy, and what is considered a private event. Assembly, protests, freedom of speech and freedom of religion.
Now the reason why these 4 specific rights are mentioned, is that is the arguments that will be used in this case. On the side of the father, the right of privacy, and that a funeral, even at a public place such as a church or a cemetary is a private event, and people can not just go and crash it, as those who are there, are already under emotional stress.
On the side of the WBC, the arguments should consist, that this is the right to freedome of speech, assemble, religion, and protest as a part of the freedom of speech.
Both sides will use different cases from prior court decisions to make the argument, but as this is the Supreme Court, then the cases will have to revolve around court cases, and specifically that of Supreme Court decisions where the cases or ideas are relavent to this specific case.

Originally posted by sdcigarpig
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

 

There you are wrong on a the public property bit. In the cases where a piece of public property, such as a park, hotel or even a church, there are times when parts or even the whole part is closed to the general public for private events.

Phelps and his protesters were on public property, one thousand feet away from the funeral. They were not in the church or in the cemetery or on the property of either.

More helpful in constitutional terms are the facts that the Phelpses held their protest on public property, completely obeyed local laws and police directives, and were not even visible or audible to Snyder. The Phelpses did not obstruct the funeral, did not enter the church, and ceased their demonstration before the funeral service began.

Source

These people make me sick but the first time you start to censor one person then the doors are open to everyone. Someone should take them out.