It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that the First Amendment protects fundamentalist church members who mount attention-getting, anti-gay protests outside military funerals. 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.
Originally posted by The Old American
While it is a win for free speech, it does leave a bad taste in my mouth. I absolutely loathe Westboro Baptist Church and everything they do and say, but it is their right to picket peacefully. We'll see how this plays out.
/TOA
Originally posted by rogerstigers
reply to post by The Old American
The biggest test of our resolve is not what we are willing to fight against happily, but what we are willing to fight for even when it hurts.edit on 3-2-2011 by rogerstigers because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Phantom28804
I am still just waiting for them to be attacked by some pissed off family members, and frankly would serve them right.
Originally posted by Phantom28804
Originally posted by The Old American
While it is a win for free speech, it does leave a bad taste in my mouth. I absolutely loathe Westboro Baptist Church and everything they do and say, but it is their right to picket peacefully. We'll see how this plays out.
/TOA
Couldn't have said it better myself. It is one of the bittersweet victories. I mean quite frankly if anyone had there freedom of speech imfringed upon it wouldn't bother me as much if it was against them.
That being said it is there right and I fought for it along with other men and women that served in the military.
I am still just waiting for them to be attacked by some pissed off family members, and frankly would serve them right.edit on 3/2/2011 by Phantom28804 because: (no reason given)
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the opinion for the court. Justice Samuel Alito dissented. "What Westboro said, in the whole context of how and where it chose to say it, is entitled to 'special protection' under the First Amendment," Roberts wrote, "and that protection cannot be overcome by a jury finding that the picketing was outrageous."
Originally posted by AeonStorm
these people SHOULD NOT be protesting at funerals
Originally posted by kosmicjack
www.huffingtonpost.com...
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the opinion for the court. Justice Samuel Alito dissented. "What Westboro said, in the whole context of how and where it chose to say it, is entitled to 'special protection' under the First Amendment," Roberts wrote, "and that protection cannot be overcome by a jury finding that the picketing was outrageous."
While I fully support free speech rights, even for WBC, and understand why the SCOTUS had to make this ruling, I think an argument could and should be made for approaching this from a different angle - why is this not a form of stalking or harassment?. I think dealing with the issue as picketing, a protest or any form of speech is going about it the wrong way.
The fact is that WBC is targeting individuals and their families. Phelps is a civil rights attorney and he knows just what the limits are. They are most definitely trolling and treading the letter of the law, why not do it right back? We need to approach this with some imagination.