« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Was The Supreme Court Correct Concerning Westboro Church?

By: PowerToThePeople (Diary)  |  March 2nd, 2011 at 07:29 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

“The First Amendment was designed to protect offensive speech, because nobody ever tries to ban the other kind” Mike Goodwin

“I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write,”
- Voltaire, letter to M. le Riche, February 6, 1770

This is not a subject most conservatives want to discuss or even fall on the side of the first amendment in this matter, but it is a subject we must discuss and then chose a side, the right side. When people bring up the First Amendment, most of us assume the speech is offensive to some, is used to confront the government, or pertains to our everyday dissatisfaction with the way this country is headed. But few realize or want to realize that free speech applies to everyone and is there to ensure our voices can be heard regardless of what another thinks about what was said. But just as with every right, we can not hoard it or prohibit another from exercising their rights just because we do not care for their speech or we ourselves will lose our own rights.

Today the Supreme Court ruled against Albert Snyder in favor of the Westboro Church 8 to 1. The ruling, while expected, was not the way the majority of America wanted the case to be decided. We have all seen the so called church protesting our hero’s funerals and we have seen the vile they spew. I doubt a single person on this site,and so many others, have not had the urge to grab their keys, drive to the protest locations, and part a few members of this cult from their teeth. But the reality is, like it or not, they are protected and the Supreme Court ruled correctly. They ruled correctly and in doing so ensured we will be able to continue speaking out freely. We all want to be able to continue to stand up and speak out against anything we feel warranted to do so but in order to maintain our own rights, which do offend many, we must stand for the rights of those who offend us. To deny one their rights is to deny ourselves what we hold dear.

In the ruling Chief Justice John Roberts, who wrote for the majority, noted that the picketing was conducted in a lawful manner on public property and did not interfere with the service. He added that while the signs were hurtful to Snyder’s family, they mainly addressed issues of public concern, surrounding the church’s long-held beliefs on American morality, and were not strictly an attack on Snyder.

“Because this Nation has chosen to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that public debate is not stifled, Westboro must be shielded from tort liability for its picketing in this case,”

Chief Justice John Roberts will receive grief for this and will have his conservative credentials and ability to rule in an impartial way challenged by many even those on our own side. He and the remaining 7 justices who sided with the Westboro Church will be assailed by those who are unable to look past their own emotions in order to see just how justified the Court members were in defending the right we all hold dear. They were able to swallow the bile that must have rose in their throats and did what was needed to make sure yet another generation of Americans are able to speak freely even when one or more sides do not care for the message.

We as conservatives must do the same. We have to be on the forefront of the battle to protect the rights our constitution granted us. Each and every day, special interest groups and the left wage a war to end many if not most of our rights. They do not want us to own guns, because they do not like them and see no reason for you to own them. They are committed to the cause, and only our side stands in their way. But when it came to this first amendment battle many of us chose the wrong side and did so because of personal feelings, albeit justified feelings, and unwittingly assailed the very rights we are so committed to protect. Now that the court has ruled, we as conservatives must rethink the position so many of us took and go back to defending the rights of all, even the scum who call themselves Westboro Church. We must so that when our own rights are assailed upon, we have strong footing and a past history of doing the right thing even when it felt wrong.

Complete Ruling

Tags: , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • KC

    In this case, the High Court applied the strict interpretation of the Constitution and made the “right” decision is a pure legal sense – even though it is distasteful and offensive to us all.

    If they do the same with Obamacare when it gets there – that is, applying the very strict and narrow interpretation of Constitutional law – then they will HAVE to find the individual mandate violates the Constitution.

    Here’s hoping…….

  • http://theminorityreportblog.com Repair_Man_Jack

    The USSC was correct. I personnally hate it, but it was correct. However…

    1) As free agents, others are free to engage in speech counter to what we hear from the Reverend Fred Phelps. People who protest “Reverend” Fred Phelps have developed the most socially redeemable purpose for the extremely loud motorcycle that I have ever seen.

    2) Phelps has publically stated he supports the Democratic Party. Make the local Democrats who live near his church own the “Reverend’s” behavior. The first time he hurts them politically, they will shun the man and serverely curtail his money and influence.

    3) Make Fred Phelps and his followers own this. Make them own all of it. Point the WBC churchmembers out in public. Ask them conversationally if they really teach their adorable, little daughters that US soldiers die in Iraq because of God’s hatred of homosexuality.

    We cannot and should not expect the state to destroy WBC without that destruction coming at the price of our civil liberties. We have to tolerate Fred Phelps, but that doesn’t preclude us from dissenting from and humiliating the man.

  • runner12

    While I detest what these people do, I agree with the ruling.

    The 1st Amendment is one of our most cherished amendments and we must protect it, even when it allows the most vile of human beings to spew their hate.

    It is difficult, but protecting freedom always is.

    P.S. You may want to add a question mark at the end of your title. Punctuation, you know :) . Even so, I am still recommending your diary.

  • Doc Holliday

    the first Amendment applies almost exclusively to hateful speech. If the speech is not offensive, no need for the amendments. However, local laws should protect the mourners. Free speech doesn’t mean one can say anything, anywhere. I would support laws that do everything to foil these Westboro scum. And yes, we should get off our asses and block, and confront this human waste.

  • powertothepeople

    and question mark added.

  • powertothepeople

    protecting ones right to free speech does not mean laying down and allowing such vile intrusion to be freely done. I am all for teeth removal and local ordinances that prohibit any type of protest at a funeral, especially that cult.

  • aesthete

    Whenever I strain to think of someone who is “inoffensive” (as opposed to good or noble), I never think of anyone who’s worth my time to listen to or to spend time with. Inoffensiveness is in itself offensive, as it suborns truth and what is right in favor of placating mere men. Anything worth saying will be offensive to someone, and what needs to be said the most is often that which is offensive to a large group of people. What WBC was saying definitely doesn’t fall under the categories of “truth” or “what needs saying”, but I’d rather have scum like that free to wallow in their own filth than paint with a broad brush and find myself silenced, or others who are saying hard truths.

  • AceInTX

    in this case the Court protected the right of these scum to be disgusting while in other rulings they have blocked pro life demonstrations in front of Abortion Clinics and allowed the creation of fenced in “Free Speech zones” which implies it’s ok for everything else to be a “No free speech zone” if it is outside the confines of the cage thus created

  • AceInTX

    ,

  • ffc99

    is inconsistent with the abortion clinic line of cases you’re referring to, Ace. The court today addressed the narrow issue of whether the marine’s father could recover damages for emotional distress, etc. allegedly caused by the protestors. The Court’s decision today does not appear to affect the laws in over 40 states that seek to keep the protesters away from military funerals. In the past, the Court has held that officials may regulate where marches and protests take place, as long as they do not ban them or their message entirely.

  • powertothepeople

    over the years, but hopefully as we move forward all speech will be protected as long as it falls under what the constitution defines as protected speech.

  • AceInTX
  • AceInTX

    in any case…I’m for free speech…everywhere….and don’t like it when it’s restricted by laws like Campaign finance, or rulings about free speech zones and buffers around abortion clinics…or funerals for that matter

  • aesthete
  • hoosierteacher

    The father will now be paying the Phelps cults’ legal bills. Nice.

  • aesthete
  • hoosierteacher

    As Scalia points out in his dissent, this wasn’t a matter of free speech, rather it was targeted harrasment.

    According to Scalia’s dissent, the Westboro church goes to individuals (such as the grieving father of this marine, or the parents of the girls slain in the Amish school massacre) and theaten them that Westboro will disrupt their funerals unless a local radio gives Westboro advertising time. This is blackmail.

    Further, the speech is not about public policy but is targeted at an individual. Again, Scalia points out that before the protests, the church (which is in fact a family cult – my words) spokespeople for the church singled out the father of the marine, saying he raised his son to die for a “fag nation”.

    Again, Scalia points out that if this was supposedly “free speech” about public policy, no matter how vile, the group could have protested at any public venue they wanted. The fact that they chose a private funeral, especially after threatening the father for radio air-time, makes this speech harrasment.

    Some intellectual types will respond that no matter how vile speech is, it is protected by the First Amendment. However, as Scalia clearly pointed out in his well written dissent, this was targeted hate speech against an individual, and it was preceded with threats (“We’ll protest your son’s funeral if we can’t get radio time to air our grievences”). Blackmail made the speech about a single, private individual. And thanks to the majority (majorities have given us abominations before, such as Roe and emminent domain for private interests), we have now empowered this hateful group to disrupt any private individual’s funeral.

    Targeted harrasment isn’t free speech. While the court’s majority opinion focused on the importance of protecting hateful speech, Scalia focused on the facts of this individual case – pointing out that this wasn’t a discourse about policy, but the hateful attack on a private individual.

    I’m sure that the parents of dead servicemen, as well as the parents of dead school children (the Phelps also target the funerals of children killed in school shootings) appreciate the support this ruling has received in some quarters. Thanks to this ruling, the Phelps will be abusing the first amendment more often as they blackmail other familes with threats of “protest or air time”.

  • powertothepeople

    but Scalia was wrong on this one, he ruled with his emotions.

    I hate those people and I hate few in this world. If I were the parents of those kids, I would kill them. But setting aside all that, what they say is vile, it is hurtful, it causes the family to hurt (not physical), but it is legal. I do not like that it is legal, but I love, and I repeat Love, that they can say this in this country and not be thrown in jail or worse. I love it because it means I am free to speak as I please. And in order to keep this right, we have to defend theirs.

    But the key reason this was the right decision is the fact that it now puts the law making into state and local hands.

    While I could never support squelching their speech, I absolutely do support local and state ordinances that prohibit their protest around a funeral, lets say no protests within 10 miles of a funeral or its procession. Yes that is a wee bit of an exaggerated distance, but my point is states and local law enforcement need to set the rules. They should not impede on their free speech but they can set rules and those rules can be a safety net for the grieving families so they can bury their loved one in peace.

    I also believe that we need to get involved just as the freedom riders do. Imagine 10,000 people surrounding the fools singing hymns so loudly that their vile can not be heard or Harley mufflers drowning out their nonsense. Imagine tons of us protesting their church every day it meets so the service is interrupted. Fair is fair.

    But they have the right to speak and the court was right, Scalia was wrong. It now puts the law making back into state hands and they need to take action.

    And as far as what you call threats, it can not be defined as threats (physical) towards the family, it is nothing more that what happens every day in business, law, and a host of other things. For example, you concede and settle this case or I sue you for everything you have and expose you to the public………threat, yes but not an illegal one.

    It was a tough ruling, one that is hard to swallow, but it was the right one. And I grieve for the father as this must have been the worst period in his life, but he knew the risk when he filed suit and his gamble lost. He knew up front he was facing an uphill battle but luckily all the payments that will result from his loss have been covered and not a dime is coming from his pocket.

    We need to go after this church, but not the way Mr Snyder did. They are vulnerable, but not when it comes to free speech.

  • aesthete

    Speech is a right that you have, and it should not be taken away simply because the content of the speech is objectionable (and in this case, it’s highly objectionable). Phelps’ “blackmail” is not actionable anymore than your wife withholding sex until you buy her new pearls is: in both cases, there is a right to freely using what is being withheld or misused. Phelps’ speech is the equivalent of a temper tantrum; those are still legal in this country, regardless of their worth. Phelps and co protested legally, on public property, and their speech was of a generalized nature. Such speech cannot, and should not, be liable for damages; otherwise every political rally becomes an opportunity for profit as “victims” of everything from smoking to the war in Iraq can sue for emotional damages for people speaking honestly on issues.

  • powertothepeople

    got to be careful claiming targeted speech should not be protected or that will come back to bite you in the butt. Here is why:

    Obama is a socialist loser who wants nothing more than to destroy this country. His ideas are moronic and he is a moron who needs to be kicked to the curb asap.

    Speak it, type it, stand at his speech and proclaim it. Take away the right to free speech when it comes to a specific person and we lose the right as well.

    Free speech has to be protected and looked upon with neutral eyes. We have to be able to look past what the speech is and see how speech needs to be protected. There are limits to speech, but those limits should not extend to things we do not like or it will extend to our own speech down the road.

  • hoosierteacher

    … for I have no intentions of using my freedom of speech to disrupt private funerals. When pro-life protestors can’t demonstrate on public property, but a private funeral (for a non-public figure) can be disrupted by demonstrators, our definition of “rights” is clearly skewed. You yourself admited to the inconsistency of this upthread.

    Protests on public property are a protected right, but when such protests are intended to disrupt a private event and wrongly besmirch the deceased (as Alito points out, the signs about “Fags” and “gay soldiers” can easily be inferred as meaning the deceased, who wasn’t gay), they are not within the bounds of the First Amendment as it has been interpreted before (as with cross burnings on public property just outside the home of an African American family). But I guess that’s just more justifiable inconsistency.

    BTW, I apologize for listing Scalia as the dissenter (and causing you to go along). It was Alito that dissented.

    And with respect, I don’t think the dissention (or my opposition) is emotional. In a purely cognitive process devoid of emotionalism, I just happen to believe that the facts of the case show that the Phelps threatened to disrupt his family’s funeral for Snyder’s son (fact) unless the local radio station granted air time to the Phelps. Such threats were used to provide radio time to the Phelps to prevent demonstrations at the funeral of the little girl killed in the recent AZ shooting spree, as well as the case of the Amish girls slain at their school house. Because the speech was targeted at the Snyders, it was a personal attack and a disruption of a private event. Alito’s dissent recognizes this.

    I’m sorry my friend, but in anyone’s book that sound like a threat. This isn’t a case of intellectuals versus “emotional” neanderthals. Thinking people can read the oral arguments and come to a different conclussion.

  • powertothepeople

    it was Alito who dissented.

    Look, I understand your disgust with the whole thing and it is a shame we have come to the point in this country where people would protest the funeral of a fallen soldier. But you keep referring to the whole funeral thing and the disruption it causes.

    The reality is, they do not disrupt the actual funeral. Had they done that, they would have already broken laws. The issue lay in the fact that they were present near the funerals and their speech was quite offensive. Regardless of that fact, where do we draw the line. If we can have people arrested or sued for speaking out near a funeral just because we despise their speech, will you be willing to be arrested or sued because you protest at a union rally, an Obama speech, at a democrats pander session, etc? Are you willing to limit your speech and mine just to stop what you do not like?

    And while I respect Alito, he was and is wrong. The purpose of free speech is not to ensure we can all say nice things, it is there to ensure we can speak. And we really need to work on your threat definition. Stating I will protest an Obama speech with 20 other loud people unless radio 98.3 the Z allows me time on their station may loosely define a threat, but it is not a personal threat in any way shape or form and is not defined as a criminal threat on any law nor does it fit any law which would make it eligible for civil damages. They wanted air time and used what they had to try to make it happen.

    Their speech is no less offensive than a KKK rally. Their speech is only slightly less offensive that half of what our president says in public or his minions as well.

    We have talked time after time after time the need to protect right defined in the constitution and how we need to get the feds out of lawmaking and give it back to the states. And this is what this decision did whether or not we like the plaintiffs and what they say. Now states will have the power not to stop the speech, but define where it can be and how close they can be to an event. But even here, we need to make sure we fight any unreasonable restriction because the next time the same law will be used to stop us from speaking out near an abortion clinic, at a democratic rally, at a union thug fest, etc. But at least it moved in the right direction.

    Speech must be protected, even when the speech is theirs, yours, Obamas, the KKK, etc because the moment we side against speech just because we do not like the speech or it is vile speech, our speech will be taken as well. We all must recognize that and accept it even when we do not want to.

  • hoosierteacher

    Threatening to withhold sex from a spouse is just a threat. Demanding that a radio station broadcasts air time for the Phelps is a completely different matter.

    In the latter case, one party is threatening an actual harm. You may note, if you read Alito’s dissent, that the Phelp’s legal team did not even attempt to contest that real harm was inflicted on the Snyders. In fact, after oral arguments, the Phelps attorney said he had the significant emotional distress coming to him.

    The only way to mitigate this real harm against a private individual would be for a radio station to broadcast material they wouldn’t otherwise broadcast. Snyder had no power to stop the harrasment against his son’s funeral, but the radio station did.

    The kicker is that the Phelps (in their pre-protest comments demanding air time) admitted that the protests were going to be against a father that (according to the Phelps) raised his son to get killed for a fag nation. This was private harrasment, not free speech about government policy.

    I suppose that the Phelps (under your reading of the constitution) may burn a cross on the public sidewalk of a black family’s home after a similar threat to a radio station. Because, oddly enough, the SCOTUS says in previous rulings that the Klan CAN’T do that. Nor can you protest on public property within range of abortion clinics. AHHHH, but make it the funeral for a marine and it is just fine. Last, let’s not forget to make the father pay the legal bills of the cult.

    It sounds high and mighty to declare the freedom of speech to be “ubber alles” and absolute (as the ACLU claims to do). However, reasonable people may object, pointing out that there are exceptions that this very court has made. Intentional harrasment of a private individual, accompanied by threats unless a third party intervenes with air time – a resource that can be assesed a monetary value – is not a right.

  • hoosierteacher

    ..they own it and are proud of it. You can’t shame them.

    The counsel for the Phelps (the daughter of the cult leader) spoke plainly when she said that the father of the deceased marine deserved all of the emotional distress he got, because he failed to raise his son for God and handed him over to the fag military to die.

    These people say outragous things in public, and are proud to raise their children this way. These aren’t clowns hiding behind sheets and hoods.

    As for the democrat party, it won’t stick. No democrats in public office that I know of support the Phelps cult.

    The way to cut this cult down to size is to do what we do to other hate groups. We allow them to use public space to spread their message of hate, and people ignore them. We DON’T allow such groups to target individuals and to harrasss private, family events.

    The Phelps have said they’ll use this ruling to go after even more fag lovers. Great. I imagine that groups like the Klan can put 2+2 together, and will now start protesting at the funerals of dead african americans. Court rulings have consequences.

  • ffc99

    this case is in no way inconsistent with the line of cases which restrict where abortion protestors can protest. This case dealt with the narrow issue of whether Mr. Snyder could recover tort damages from the WBC for intentional infliction of emotional distress, etc. The court said nothing about time/place restrictions on military funeral protests (restrictions that I believe over 40 states have already enacted).

  • hoosierteacher

    But you raised two points I’ll quibble with.

    You are certainly free to protest an Obama speech. That speech is aimed against a public figure, and is at a public event. Don’t be surprised though if the First Amendment gets set aside. Plenty of demonstrators (both right and left) get carted off by authorities when a protestor pipes up at a president’s speech.

    But if you put a cross on the public sidewalk in front of a black family’s hone, that ISN’T protected speech. You might claim “where do we draw the line”. The Supreme Court in that case said the speech is directed at private individuals and is hate speech intended to harrass. I don’t see a real difference between that case and this one.

    Second, while only the tops of the signs where visable, the protestors shouts were audible and within range of the protest. The harrasment leading up to the protest itself (the communications before the protest) were intended to make the funeral as stressful as possible as well.

    Still, I wouldn’t categorize my objection to this ruling as “disgust” or emotional at any rate. I would call myself “dissapointed” and my objection, like Alito’s, “respectful[fully]“.

    Best,
    HT

  • hoosierteacher

    Counsel for Phelps did not contest the intentional infliction of emotion distress in their briefs or in arguments (according to Alito). Counsel for the Phelps went further (after oral arguments) and said the father deserved all of the emotional distress that they inflicted.

    The issue the court adressed wasn’t the inflection of distress (which was never argued by Phelps), but whether the speech was directed at the family.

    Given the threats against the family before the protests, and the comments made by the Phelps after the protest, the protest itself was about the Snyder family.

    Again, the case is similar to a case where the Klan burns a cross on a public sidewalk just outside the home of a black family. For some reason, that speech is different than what happened here.

    Bringing up the abortion protests (which I didn’t do, but I’ve carried it past the original commentor) is a way to show that free speech -

    1. Isn’t absulute, and
    2. Isn’t a matter of whether or not I agree with the content of the speech.

  • ffc99

    how your post is responsive to mine, h’teach. I was simply pointing out that the case did not address time/place restrictions on military funeral protests, and that bringing up the abortion protestors issue was a red herring.

  • ffc99

    that the narrow issue in this case was whether the 1st Amendment shielded the WBC from tort liability for their picketing at Mr. Snyder’s funeral.

  • hoosierteacher

    ..and I quote…

    “This case dealt with the narrow issue of whether Mr. Snyder could recover tort damages from the WBC for intentional infliction of emotional distress…”

    I refer you to the last 6 words of your statment. Again, Phelps side did not admit emotinal distress, in fact they bragged / revelled in it. This part of the claim was not even contested.

    And there’s no red hearings invloved. Sometimes people hid behind the veil of free speech, and sometimes it isn’t an excuse. I claim to be only as ignorant of the law as justice Alito.

  • ffc99

    I have no idea what you’re saying, though it does appear to me that you erroneously believe that you’ve found some sort of mistake in what I wrote above. So let me repeat, the narrow issue in this case was whether the 1st Amendment shielded the WBC from tort liability (to be specific liability for intentional infliction of emotional distress, intrusion upon seclusion and civil conspiracy). It makes no difference whether in your words, the Phelps family “bragged/revelled(sic) in” their infliction of emotional distress.

    I’d urge you to read the opinion (as it appears you have only read the dissent).

    http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-751.pdf

  • rightwingmom52

    First, I’m not an attorney and I don’t play one on TV. Second, I’m not that familiar with tort law, but from what I have read, I thought the question before the court was whether or not the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress (tort section 1.2.4), i.e., speech or conduct specifically intended to inflict emotional distress, can co-exist with the First Amendment. In this case, did Westboro do just that? My answer, as a reasonable person which is the general standard for tort, is that they did. It seems to me like the court just threw out the tort law.

    I agree that just hurling an insult like “I think Phelps and his followers are scum sucking parasites,” doesn’t meet the standard, but if their actions don’t, I’m not sure anything ever will. At least not until they actually protest at the funeral of a homosexual or other most favored minority of the liberals.

  • hoosierteacher

    You keep saying “again” and “I repeat”. Circular arguing does nothing to move the point forward.

    I read the entire opinion, which includes Breyers concurance and Alito’s dissent. I’ve also read the oral arguments. Your points have been asked and answered. I stand with Alito’s view of the constitution.

    You may stand with the court’s inconsistent view if you choose. I hope you enjoy the consequnces of this ruling, though I pray your family never has to endure harrasment by the Phelps at a funeral.

  • ffc99

    because it’s clear you don’t have the foggiest idea what you’re talking about. While I find myself siding with the majority here, my issue is not with your defense of Alito’s opinion. My issue is with your emotional posts that are full of factual errors.