F'ing SCOTUS does it again

[cajunguy]

Un-freakin'-believable!

"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."

1st Amendment protects military funeral protesters - Yahoo! News


.

[MacLean]

As much as I find the people who do this reprehensible, I think the court made the right call.

[jmur5074]

As much as I find the people who do this reprehensible, I think the court made the right call.

I agree.


Do you think laws created by local governments to prohibit protesting within XXX feet from cemeteries, funerals, processions, etc would withstand a court challenge?

[cajunguy]

I do agree that the 1st Amendment (as ALL) should be upheld.

But in the same breath, something needs to be done to shut Westboro/Phelps down. They pretty much stretch the intent of the Amendment.

But then, there is too much political correctness in this Country.

It's "OK" for Westboro to stomp on the rights of these families, but don't anyone DARE step on their "rights".

Guess that was the gist of my post. Those (Westboro) people realy frost my cookies.


.

[ChesCopPodz]

I say the court did the right thing. However, I also think that one should be able to pop one of those D-bags in the mouth without being sued for it either.

[213th]

As much as I find the people who do this reprehensible, I think the court made the right call.

I have to agree with you, but I also (as others have said) think that restrictions on demonstrations within a certain distance should be upheld.

[Ducky]

I'm wondering if this ruling is going to drive someone over the edge, causing them to take on the WBC problem themselves.

[213th]

I'm wondering if this ruling is going to drive someone over the edge, causing them to take on the WBC problem themselves.

I can't say that would hurt my feelings

[Jks9199]

I do agree that the 1st Amendment (as ALL) should be upheld.

But in the same breath, something needs to be done to shut Westboro/Phelps down. They pretty much stretch the intent of the Amendment.

But then, there is too much political correctness in this Country.

It's "OK" for Westboro to stomp on the rights of these families, but don't anyone DARE step on their "rights".

Guess that was the gist of my post. Those (Westboro) people realy frost my cookies.


.

Ignore them. Media blackout. If need be, put up screns or sheets between them and the graveside. In short, nullify them. They'll go away... They thrive on the attention.

And I also agree that the court made the right call, though the limits on where they can protest might withstand constitutional muster. Freedom of speech isn't limited to what I happen to like.

[MacLean]

We could bring back dueling.

Owning your words would be awesome, however free they might be.

[ms1600]

I'm surprised an ex- or retired sniper hasn't done something yet.

[Aegis]

While I agree that the 1st amendment protects their right to protest, I'm surprised that the internet posting/poem about the parents of the fallen soldier were included under that blanket.

As non-public officials/celebrities I thought the parents would have had grounds for civil action against libel or slander. This ruling could be applied to any libel/slander case as long as the violator has a history of "speaking out" against a cause. If I were to name the parents of a kidnapped child and say they are guilty of molestation and abuse because the U.S. doesn't execute gay people as my religion commands, would they fail in a civil suit against me if I use a 1st amendment defense? Seems like a blur between government response to speech and private/civil remedies to harm.

[Odd]

Rarely has so much damage been caused by so few.

Long after their polluted minds have ceased poisoning the soil as their living words have our air and politics their stench will remain. I read Justice Alito's dissent first thing as I've rarely learned anything by listening to people I agree with. A reasoned and compelling argument was made there. I still disagree.

I don't care what becomes of these people. I do care deeply what harm they're doing to our republic. That it wasn't 9-0 is troubling; that they'll be encouraged by all the press still more so.

Ignore them. Media blackout. If need be, put up screns or sheets between them and the graveside. In short, nullify them. They'll go away... They thrive on the attention.

When your local talk radio/tv hosts jump on this, tell them you respectfully disagree with airing the topic and that if they continue you'll ask their sponsors if they agree. The Wackos live on attention. Media outlets do too. It doesn't matter if they're for or against, so long as they're talking about them the Wackos win.

Rather starve the Wackos or strangle free speech? To encourage commercial media to stop talking about them isn't infringing free speech. It's your choice of commercial vendor. If the host broadcaster you're listening to is being lazy and using this to get easy feedback, you might suggest they take on something else - gun control, abortion and capital punishment being the public response trinity they rely on.

Unseemly? Ok, I'll go that far. I'm perfectly willing to be unseemly to media outlets, even my favorites on the dial, in the cause of cutting aid to disgusting such as the Wackos. Put an end to the era of civility to the Wackos and those who profit from talking about them.

[BigDawg]

I too agree with the decision of the court, but hate the "church" itself and think that its a great candidate for some extra napalm training for the military!

[McCrackhd]

Unfortunately, I agree with the ruling. However, just cause you have the right to do something, does not mean that you should.

Could someone explain to me why they are protesting gay rights at military funerals. I missed the connection. Are the funerals for gay soldiers?

[Captain America]

Could someone explain to me why they are protesting gay rights at military funerals. I missed the connection. Are the funerals for gay soldiers?

The members of this "church" feel that GOD is punishing America by the deaths of service personnel for allowing gays and lesbians in the military and they protest at funerals to make this point or some such f**king nonsense.

Kind of ironic that the people most responsible for protecting the rights we enjoy as a nation aren't entitled to the right to a peaceful funeral and we accept this because we don't want to "violate" anyone's rights.

[Ducky]

Unfortunately, I agree with the ruling. However, just cause you have the right to do something, does not mean that you should.

Could someone explain to me why they are protesting gay rights at military funerals. I missed the connection. Are the funerals for gay soldiers?

The Dipshits say that God is killing our soldiers because we tolerate homosexuals in our country. They picket any high profile event, especially funerals, that they can. They even picketed ComiCon '10, saying that the attendees were worshiping Superman and Spiderman instead of their One True God Who Hates All Things (except WBC.) They even threatened to picket the funerals of the Amish schoolgirls who were murdered a few years ago.

The guys at ComiCon just played with them, then ignored them. I doubt they'll be back, it just didn't get the kind of outrage they were looking for. They like funerals because emotions are already high, and it's incredibly offensive, and the press cover it, so it gets their message of hate out. Kind of like a KKK parade. One of the leaders is a lawyer, and a prime example of a shyster. She knows the law and twists it till it screams in order to get away with what they do. They also like to THREATEN to show up, then bail, because just the threat gets covered in the media. They don't have to use advertising, the publicity does it for them. What I wonder is where they get their income. Do people actually send them money for this BS?

[lewisipso]

I've got plenty of offense right here. I sincerely wish the funerals would be held here.

[Cidp24]

The ruling, however nauseating, is probably right as far as freedom of speech goes.

I just read and re-read the constitution wanting to find something that allowed for freedom from emotional anguish caused by others. I didn't see anything that fits. Somewhere, somehow there should be something that protects grieving families and friends. I mean, how can the right to have a peaceful, dignified service for a loved one be denied? I just don't get it.

[Bob Loblaw]

They like funerals because emotions are already high, and it's incredibly offensive, and the press cover it, so it gets their message of hate out. Kind of like a KKK parade. One of the leaders is a lawyer, and a prime example of a shyster. She knows the law and twists it till it screams in order to get away with what they do. They also like to THREATEN to show up, then bail, because just the threat gets covered in the media. They don't have to use advertising, the publicity does it for them. What I wonder is where they get their income. Do people actually send them money for this BS?

If I may add to this: the "church" is simply an organization of civil litigators. They have identified their ability to go to towns, pickett this event or that, then sue. They sue individuals for A&B, vandalism, etc. They sue cities and municipalities for failure to provide adequate protection because the cities know that the WB"C" presence could cause a massive uprising and they are entitled to protection. And the big one for them..they sue when cities say they aren't allowed to protest (won't issue a permit) or in any way chill their 1A rights. They make a shit ton of money doing this. A shit ton. The attention whoreing helps keep their name in the public eye, thus increasing the potential for disaster.