Westboro Baptist wins it's case in the Supreme Court

[DarcyB]

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2011/03/supreme-court-oks-anti-gay-churchs-picketing-of-funerals/1

 

https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-751.pdf

 

Keep in mind, the Court ruled on the basis of rights etc, not that they agreed with the message or what they were doing.

[Parrothead]

Sooner or later some crazy so-and-so is going to start snipering those church picketers.

[~Amanda~]

I can't believe anyone would think that is ok. it seems terrible to be glad someone is dead, no matter who they are or how they lived. and to just throw it into the face of the mourners seems crass. I cn't even express the sadnes I feel to think if that was my lvoed one, and I had to listen to and read signs about how people were glad he was dead

[Leav97]

Sooner or later some crazy so-and-so is going to start snipering those church picketers.

 

I think they would consider that a victory.

[Impish]

Does the US not have hate laws? I know here that ppl can have their msg banned if its inciting hatred.

[prairiewindmomma]

We don't have hate speech laws here. There's some guidance about speech designed to incite immediate violence, but that's about it.

[Violet Crown]

 

There's some guidance about speech designed to incite immediate violence, but that's about it.

In theory. As a practical reality, can anyone provide a citation to a case where somebody won on the "fighting words" theory in the last fifty years?

[Mynyel]

While they may have the right to do what they are doing can they not think past themselves to think of the people they are hurting? My Lord, these are supposed to be church people? No wonder people get turned off from churches when this is the stuff they see on TV. <--- Not meant to start a debate just stating what I think here.

[Audrey]

Sooner or later some crazy so-and-so is going to start snipering those church picketers.

 

 

I hope not. It would give Westboro way too much fodder for their martyr cause.

[i.love.lucy]

It's another case of "What's This World Coming To".:glare::confused:

[lamamaloca]

Sooner or later some crazy so-and-so is going to start snipering those church picketers.

 

Here in KS, a man was just recently arrested for planning this very thing. He was lying in wait for them with lots of ammunition, but he was found and arrested before he did any firing.

[MamaSheep]

While they may have the right to do what they are doing can they not think past themselves to think of the people they are hurting? My Lord, these are supposed to be church people? No wonder people get turned off from churches when this is the stuff they see on TV. <--- Not meant to start a debate just stating what I think here.

 

I get the impression that they think they are battling evil, so very likely they think that if they are hurting someone they are hurting their 'evil enemy' and would probably think that a good thing.

 

I agree with you, though, that it would be nice if we at least saw some other images of 'church people' in the media now and then, doing something worthwhile. But I suppose that church people doing good things isn't 'news'.

 

I most emphatically do NOT agree with what the Westboro people are doing, but if we get to the point of saying some people have the right to express their position on any given subject, and others do not, then we also have to pick someone to make the decision as to whose message is "worthy" of being heard and whose must be suppressed. That greatly increases the risk of untoward things happening like someone saying that all religious expression in public is hate speech, especially if you are saying that someone else's behavior is 'sinful'; or that criticism of the public education system constitutes inciting rebellion against the government and its systems; or that criticizing the president is treasonous. If we want to protect OUR freedom to say what WE want to say, then we have to protect everyone else's freedom to do the same. What would happen, I wonder, if the rest of the 'church people' in a town where Westboro was protesting came together and drown out their voices with words of support? They have just as much right.

[awstgs]

It breaks my heart that this church may be the only "Jesus" some people come in contact with. There message is not what Jesus intended. Jesus died for all.

[grace'smom]

I think they would consider that a victory.

 

Sooner or later some crazy so-and-so is going to start snipering those church picketers.

 

 

http://www.kansas.com/2010/12/01/1612740/decorated-vet-arrested-at-city.html

 

The sad thing is, I know this man was wrong to do what he did, but I feel a great deal of empathy for him. I can't imagine having to watch this happen to your fellow soldiers after fighting in a war zone.

Edited March 2, 2011 by grace'smom

[Parrothead]

I hope not. It would give Westboro way too much fodder for their martyr cause.

I didn't say I thought it would be a good idea. You're right about turning them into martyrs. That would be the last thing the world needs.

 

But now that they have the SC "on their side" some who is just a bit emotionally unstable will think the only way to shut the WBC people up sit to do so permanently.

[Spy Car]

I doubt anyone would doubt how I feel about Fred Phelps and Westboro, but I think the Supreme Court made the right ruling.

 

Bill

[Parrothead]

Here in KS, a man was just recently arrested for planning this very thing. He was lying in wait for them with lots of ammunition, but he was found and arrested before he did any firing.

 

http://www.kansas.com/2010/12/01/1612740/decorated-vet-arrested-at-city.html

 

The sad thing is' date=' I know this man was breaking a law, but I feel a great deal of empathy for him. I can't imagine having to watch this happen to your fellow soldiers after fighting in a war zone.[/quote']

I surprises me not at all.

[Saille]

I like these guys:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Guard_Riders

 

But no, I don't think you can really think of Westboro Baptist as "church people" in the same way. They have a charismatic leader who is the driving force behind the organization; his children are his most zealous foot soldiers. And I've heard interviews with the adult children who've left him that indicate he is extremely physically abusive. In interviews Westboro Baptist Church members allowed with some of their young children, the indoctrination process was extremely evident...exactly the type of thing people worry about when they think of radical jihadists. He has a son and daughter who've been trained to take over when he dies. They are a cult, and they aren't going anywhere. We just have to wait for them to *actually* violate the law. Which I imagine they would, if they were having trouble getting a rise out of people, but resistance feeds them. It's how they confirm their own actions.

 

Ugh.

[Sebastian (a lady)]

I doubt anyone would doubt how I feel about Fred Phelps and Westboro, but I think the Supreme Court made the right ruling.

 

Bill

 

Sad to have to agree that this lunacy is as much protected speech as other unsavory religious or political speech.

 

(Sad that I think this was a right decision. Not sad to agree with Bill. Doesn't happen all the time, but definitely this time.)

 

I think what this "church" does is disgusting and reflects only poorly on themselves. But we cherish a system that protects even speech that we hold to be vile.

 

I haven't seen one of the patriot pickets to provide a barrier of protection screening a funeral. But I think they sound like a great idea.

 

We flew from HI to GA once on a flight that was returning remains of a soldier killed in Korea. When we landed, the plane load of passengers waited silently while the escort deplaned and the coffin was unloaded into a hearse. There were bikers and other service representatives outside, in the dark and pouring rain. You could see folks at the windows in the terminal standing at attention as they watched through the windows.

 

This is how most of our population treats our fallen dead. They are honored as one of our own, despite how we might feel about the wisdom of sending them on their final missions.

 

Westboro's words and actions speak for themselves. They are beneath contempt.

[DarcyB]

I doubt anyone would doubt how I feel about Fred Phelps and Westboro, but I think the Supreme Court made the right ruling.

 

Bill

 

Not happy with how it's being used, but I agree with you.

[pdalley]

I get the impression that they think they are battling evil, so very likely they think that if they are hurting someone they are hurting their 'evil enemy' and would probably think that a good thing.

 

I agree with you, though, that it would be nice if we at least saw some other images of 'church people' in the media now and then, doing something worthwhile. But I suppose that church people doing good things isn't 'news'.

 

I most emphatically do NOT agree with what the Westboro people are doing, but if we get to the point of saying some people have the right to express their position on any given subject, and others do not, then we also have to pick someone to make the decision as to whose message is "worthy" of being heard and whose must be suppressed. That greatly increases the risk of untoward things happening like someone saying that all religious expression in public is hate speech, especially if you are saying that someone else's behavior is 'sinful'; or that criticism of the public education system constitutes inciting rebellion against the government and its systems; or that criticizing the president is treasonous. If we want to protect OUR freedom to say what WE want to say, then we have to protect everyone else's freedom to do the same. What would happen, I wonder, if the rest of the 'church people' in a town where Westboro was protesting came together and drown out their voices with words of support? They have just as much right.

 

 

They don't think they are battling evil at all. The 'church' is a family of lawyers. They simply do this to incite people into assaulting them and then they sue.

 

I'd of been impressed if the Supremes had said - you have the right to do this but if someone punches you in the face then you don't have the right to sue and profit from it.

[KnitWit]

I think they need to be ignored. No press, no attention when they show up.

 

And as far as calling themselves Christians? Yeah. I stood in my garage this morning. I'm a car.

[Impish]

I think they need to be ignored. No press, no attention when they show up.

 

And as far as calling themselves Christians? Yeah. I stood in my garage this morning. I'm a car.

*snort*

[Aubrey]

I just read about this, & I've been thinking...

 

The best solution *I* see, offhand, is to picket their picketing. If nothing else, to show support for the grieving family. Maybe messages could be ones of condolence, not aimed at Westboro at all.

 

Maybe there wouldn't be enough room for everybody.

 

Maybe Westboro would get pushed back a little further.

 

Maybe the families wouldn't have to *see* them at the funeral.

 

It's the best I can come up with. (Well, that's not true. It's the best *legal* option I can come up with!)

[Impish]

Didn't Comic Con respond to them with their own picketers?

[mommaduck]

I just read about this, & I've been thinking...

 

The best solution *I* see, offhand, is to picket their picketing. If nothing else, to show support for the grieving family. Maybe messages could be ones of condolence, not aimed at Westboro at all.

 

Maybe there wouldn't be enough room for everybody.

 

Maybe Westboro would get pushed back a little further.

 

Maybe the families wouldn't have to *see* them at the funeral.

 

It's the best I can come up with. (Well, that's not true. It's the best *legal* option I can come up with!)

 

There is a group of bikers (mentioned earlier in this thread) that pretty much does this. They go to military funerals that WBC plans to attend, surround the area of the funeral to keep WBC away, and (from what I understand) will even hold up flags as a barrier so the family does not have to see the protesters.

[Farrar]

I doubt anyone would doubt how I feel about Fred Phelps and Westboro, but I think the Supreme Court made the right ruling.

 

Bill

:iagree:

 

People have the same right as me to say and do offensive things.

 

Honestly, I think they hurt their causes more than they help them by being so extreme and downright crazy. I think it was on this board that someone once said they were waiting to hear the whole thing had been an elaborate performance piece and I must say, now I try to think of them that way and my heart lightens. You know, like those God Hates Shrimp people - because they're pretty much that level of absurd anyway, at least to me.

[Slartibartfast]

Didn't Comic Con respond to them with their own picketers?

 

 

They did.

 

 

 

Edited March 2, 2011 by Sis

[MamaSheep]

They don't think they are battling evil at all. The 'church' is a family of lawyers. They simply do this to incite people into assaulting them and then they sue.

 

I'd of been impressed if the Supremes had said - you have the right to do this but if someone punches you in the face then you don't have the right to sue and profit from it.

 

Well, as I said, it's the impression I get. I'm not going to claim to know for sure what is going on in their heads. But wouldn't it be nice if someone could PROVE that you are right?

Edited March 2, 2011 by MamaSheep

[Saille]

When other people mention the bikers, and I can tell they didn't click on my link, I worry that they think I was saying "I like these guys" about the WBC. :scared:

[OnTheBrink]

I heard Shirley Phelps on a tv interview (Tyra Banks Show, maybe?) say that they're "trying to spread God's love, and what better way than to point out their sins". I don't know if she actually believes that, or if that is what they just say publicly.

 

The two times they were to come here, they never showed, so I've never seen them in person.

[Rhonda in TX]

I doubt anyone would doubt how I feel about Fred Phelps and Westboro, but I think the Supreme Court made the right ruling.

 

Bill

 

I agree. They sicken me, but I do agree with the SC.

[Mergath]

I doubt anyone would doubt how I feel about Fred Phelps and Westboro, but I think the Supreme Court made the right ruling.

 

Bill

 

According to the Constitution, yes. But the framers probably never saw wingnuttery escalating to such a level, either. I think any of the founding fathers would have had a hard time not dropkicking these jerks into the Atlantic.

 

Though it's not a popular opinion, I do think we need some kind of hate speech laws to prevent this kind of thing. I find it odd that the people who get so upset about moral relativism are the same ones to freak out over the idea of laws preventing extremely immoral behavior.

[vonfirmath]

According to the Constitution, yes. But the framers probably never saw wingnuttery escalating to such a level, either. I think any of the founding fathers would have had a hard time not dropkicking these jerks into the Atlantic.

 

Though it's not a popular opinion, I do think we need some kind of hate speech laws to prevent this kind of thing. I find it odd that the people who get so upset about moral relativism are the same ones to freak out over the idea of laws preventing extremely immoral behavior.

 

The problem is that when your speech becomes categorized as hate speech.

 

When it becomes hate speech to say that the public schools are failing.

When it becomes hate speech to say the government is falling down on the job.

 

It is WAY too easy for the government to use "hate speech" to totally stifle dissent.

[Aubrey]

Though it's not a popular opinion, I do think we need some kind of hate speech laws to prevent this kind of thing. I find it odd that the people who get so upset about moral relativism are the same ones to freak out over the idea of laws preventing extremely immoral behavior.

 

I know it's a slippery slope, so I'm not sure there's a good way to do it, but IF we could figure that part out, I *absolutely* agree. Whoever said words don't hurt--was suffering from the absence of a brain, I'm afraid. Poor guy.

[Spy Car]

According to the Constitution, yes. But the framers probably never saw wingnuttery escalating to such a level, either. I think any of the founding fathers would have had a hard time not dropkicking these jerks into the Atlantic.

 

Though it's not a popular opinion, I do think we need some kind of hate speech laws to prevent this kind of thing. I find it odd that the people who get so upset about moral relativism are the same ones to freak out over the idea of laws preventing extremely immoral behavior.

 

Wingnuttery was hardly unknown in the Federal period. And in the early years of the Republic they did try curtaining speech with the passage of the "Alien and Sediction Acts." These acts chilled political speech and came to be seen as a disastrous threat to our future and were clearly unconstitutional.

 

One crazy family abusing the freedoms and responsibilities of American citizenship is not cause for me to support limiting our liberty, or our freedom of speech.

 

Bill

[tex-mex]

They may have the right to free speech. But, what someone needs to do is sue that church similar to how the Southern Poverty Law Center sued certain hate groups. It worked quite effectively and drained the $$$ group and they disbanded. Hit 'em where it $$$ hurts.

Edited March 2, 2011 by tex-mex

[lamamaloca]

I think they need to be ignored. No press, no attention when they show up.

 

I absolutely agree. They are all about the publicity, and getting worked up about them only makes it worse.

[hana]

Wingnuttery was hardly unknown in the Federal period. And in the early years of the Republic they did try curtaining speech with the passage of the "Alien and Sediction Acts." These acts chilled political speech and came to be seen as a disastrous threat to our future and were clearly unconstitutional.

 

One crazy family abusing the freedoms and responsibilities of American citizenship is not cause for me to support limiting our liberty, or our freedom of speech.

 

Bill

 

:iagree: I'm really loving the word "wingnuttery."

[freeindeed]

As the mom of a soldier, I pray that I never have to face his funeral. If I do, though, then I pray that these people will stay far away. While I believe in free speech, I am sickened at the thought of this church group showing up & tarnishing what would be my last tribute to my son.

[FaithManor]

Wingnuttery was hardly unknown in the Federal period. And in the early years of the Republic they did try curtaining speech with the passage of the "Alien and Sediction Acts." These acts chilled political speech and came to be seen as a disastrous threat to our future and were clearly unconstitutional.

 

One crazy family abusing the freedoms and responsibilities of American citizenship is not cause for me to support limiting our liberty, or our freedom of speech.

 

Bill

 

I agree here with Bill! :D

 

But, Megath SOOOOOOOOOO has a point about the Founding Fathers. :001_smile:

There was a time and a place in this nation when one might end up feeling the consequences of one's actions at the hands of the neighborhood and didn't go running to the sheriff or a lawyer about it because you'd have been lucky if the sheriff and his men weren't involved in helping to clean your clock.

 

I don't have any desire to see free speech restricted. But, the constitution guarantees our rights to speak out against the government, not insult and slander our neighbors at will. The fundamental issue that these nut jobs do not seem to embrace is that their rights only go so far as they do not trample the rights of some one else. They most certainly do trample the rights of those families attempting to lay their love ones to rest. So, I weep today because while the Supreme Court did protect our constitutional rights to speak out against our government, it did so at the expense of the citizenry's rights to not be slandered, villified, and publicly humiliated at something as basic as our loved one's funerals.

 

Some times the only decision to be made is to choose the lesser of two evils which is exactly what happened. Boy, sometimes that Old Wild West mentality of, "Them there's Fightin' Words!", doesn't suddently sound all that uncivilized or the fists that flew immediately following their utterance.

 

Faith

[MamaSheep]

According to the Constitution, yes. But the framers probably never saw wingnuttery escalating to such a level, either. I think any of the founding fathers would have had a hard time not dropkicking these jerks into the Atlantic.

 

Though it's not a popular opinion, I do think we need some kind of hate speech laws to prevent this kind of thing. I find it odd that the people who get so upset about moral relativism are the same ones to freak out over the idea of laws preventing extremely immoral behavior.

 

I agree with what Bill said. (And with hana's delight over the word wingnuttery too, btw.)

 

For me, though, there's something else involved here. In my opinion, suppression of free speech is also immoral, and has great potential for harm in a society. To me, it is not justifiable to engage in the immoral and damaging action of suppressing free speech as a response to the kind of immoral behavior you're talking about. Their immorality does not justify immoral behavior on my part.

 

Part of me does wish there were a better way to deal with hate speech. I've definitely had some directed my way, and I know from first-hand experience that it isn't fun. But I'd still rather cope with that than establish a political power that gets to pick and choose what people can say. I like that people can express differing religious viewpoints without fear of being jailed for doing so. I like that we can express disagreement with a Supreme Court ruling without getting taken from our homes in the middle of the night and never seen again. I like that I can hear both (or all) sides of an argument before voting so that I can vote in a rational, informed manner in accordance with my own conscience, and not just base my thinking on the 'party line' because I've never been allowed to be exposed to contradictory viewpoints that might not be "good for me", or that some people with different value systems might consider "immoral" and therefore inappropriate for public expression. I think open dialogue is vital to all other kinds of freedom.

 

Anyway, I think one reason people who get upset about moral relativism also "freak out" about the idea of laws suppressing free speech is that they recognize that such suppression is a form of oppression, which they view as immoral.

[LidiyaDawn]

Seems to me these people tried to get up here (Canada) one time and weren't even allowed across the border or something. We've got hate speech laws and you can't just run around here doing what those folks do.

[Sebastian (a lady)]

Wingnuttery was hardly unknown in the Federal period. And in the early years of the Republic they did try curtaining speech with the passage of the "Alien and Sediction Acts." These acts chilled political speech and came to be seen as a disastrous threat to our future and were clearly unconstitutional.

 

One crazy family abusing the freedoms and responsibilities of American citizenship is not cause for me to support limiting our liberty, or our freedom of speech.

 

Bill

 

Don't rule out the effect that dueling had in maintaining public civility.

[lionfamily1999]

Wingnuttery was hardly unknown in the Federal period. And in the early years of the Republic they did try curtaining speech with the passage of the "Alien and Sediction Acts." These acts chilled political speech and came to be seen as a disastrous threat to our future and were clearly unconstitutional.

 

One crazy family abusing the freedoms and responsibilities of American citizenship is not cause for me to support limiting our liberty, or our freedom of speech.

 

Bill

:iagree: In addition, one person's wingnuttery is another's valid issue. I don't agree with them, at all. At the same time, I have a lot of views that others do not agree with. I would like to keep my right to demonstrate.

[SweetBean]

I doubt anyone would doubt how I feel about Fred Phelps and Westboro, but I think the Supreme Court made the right ruling.

 

Bill

Me too.

 

The problem is that when your speech becomes categorized as hate speech.

 

When it becomes hate speech to say that the public schools are failing.

When it becomes hate speech to say the government is falling down on the job.

 

It is WAY too easy for the government to use "hate speech" to totally stifle dissent.

:iagree:

[Aubrey]

:iagree: In addition, one person's wingnuttery is another's valid issue. I don't agree with them, at all. At the same time, I have a lot of views that others do not agree with. I would like to keep my right to demonstrate.

 

Maybe the location of the demonstration would be a reasonable thing to limit? Not at someone's home; not at places of worship.

[vonfirmath]

Maybe the location of the demonstration would be a reasonable thing to limit? Not at someone's home; not at places of worship.

 

I believe it is already limited on private property -- note abortion protestors and how far they have to stand away. But maybe that is not federal?

[Abigail4476]

Freedom of speech should apply to all or none. Even if someone is using their freedom to express something disgusting or disturbing, unless they are committing a crime, they have the same freedom we do.

 

We should be cautious in our desire to remove freedoms from people we find despicable, lest we remove our own freedoms in the process.

 

WBC is a terrible group. No doubt. They're also American citizens, with certain rights that must be respected.

[Abigail4476]

Wingnuttery was hardly unknown in the Federal period. And in the early years of the Republic they did try curtaining speech with the passage of the "Alien and Sediction Acts." These acts chilled political speech and came to be seen as a disastrous threat to our future and were clearly unconstitutional.

 

One crazy family abusing the freedoms and responsibilities of American citizenship is not cause for me to support limiting our liberty, or our freedom of speech.

 

Bill

 

Is there a Post of the Day Award? :iagree: :iagree: :iagree: