Snyder v Phelps
Offline http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-751.pdf
I just thought I would throw this up here since we had a spirited debate about it a few months ago and it hasn't seem to have attracted much attention in the 24 hr news cycle. SCOTUS has ruled in favor of the Westboro church. For those not familiar with the case the question was whether or not the Snyder family could sue Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church for picketing the funeral of their son who died in war.
The majority opinion ran along the same lines as the lower court. They ruled that the protest was free speech, although Chief Justice Roberts did point out that the government could regulate the time and place but at the time of the protest the members of the protest were within compliance of the law.
Simply put, the church members had the right to be
where they were. Westboro alerted local authorities to its
funeral protest and fully complied with police guidance on
where the picketing could be staged. The picketing was
conducted under police supervision some 1,000 feet from
the church, out of the sight of those at the church. The
protest was not unruly; there was no shouting, profanity,
or violence.
The record confirms that any distress occasioned by
Westboro’s picketing turned on the content and viewpoint
of the message conveyed, rather than any interference
with the funeral itself. A group of parishioners standing
at the very spot where Westboro stood, holding signs that
said “God Bless America” and “God Loves You,” would not
have been subjected to liability. It was what Westboro
said that exposed it to tort damages.
Given that Westboro’s speech was at a public place on a
matter of public concern, that speech is entitled to “special
protection” under the First Amendment. Such speech
cannot be restricted simply because it is upsetting or
arouses contempt.....
The vote on the case was 8 to 1 with Justice Alito being the only dissenter. I have been extremely concerned with Justice Alito's judgement in free speech cases. This is not the first time he has been the sole dissenter in a free speech case with little to back up his decision other than the offence he personally takes to the speech in question.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
- Login to post comments
Well, I don't want to burst your bubble or anything but you must have missed this thread:
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/28998
=
Beyond, you scare me. On the one hand you masturbate over a poster of Donald Trump, then you say stuff like this and it makes me want to masturbate over a poster of you. And I am not gay.
What bothers me more than anything is how much BOTH sides today don't know our diverse our founders really were.
Jefferson and Adams were at each other's throats politically and the media was vicious to the other. And for a time before they died they had a falling out. But patched things up in the end.
This is one thing that is refreshing to hear from you and it IS surprising to me as well to have this judge out of all of them be the dissenting opinion. I would have expected a judge from my camp to do this, although I still would have disagreed with them if they had.
THE GOOD THING, is that both sides win in the long term. Free speech is simply something you don't fuck with.
So as much as I enjoy being a thorn in your side, I also enjoy that the rare times we do agree.
Don't make me love you. I CANT I WONT NANNY NANNY BOO BOO!
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog