U.S. Supreme Court Rules on Anti-Gay Funeral Protesters

[c.d.]

I support the Court's decision. Every American citizen has the right to free speech however repugnant that speech may be. The same First Amendment that protects these scum also protects me and every other American who contributes to these boards. The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeals decision so they are not alone in their thinking and both liberal and conservative judges were in the majority.

c.d.

[Limehouse]

I can understand picketing gay marriages or pride marches, but I can't conceive of anybody picketing a funeral. Never heard of it before.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Why would one want to picket someone else's marraige ceremony? People are entitled to disapprove of homosexuality but it is unchristian to show that disapproval at such a special event in their lives.

The Westboro Baptist Church claims to hold Christian beliefs but it is not any kind of Christianity I recognise. To picket a funeral and use the terminology they use is wicked to the core.

They are not Christians. They do not feed the poor. They do not pray for peace. They do not love their neighbours.

They cannot stand up and say they'll know we are Christians by our love.

[c.d.]

Hi Julie,

You are right that the members of the Westboro Baptist church are not Christians. They are scum. Human garbage. But they are still entitled to the right to free speech. That is the issue that the Court had to decide. I am sure that it was extremely distasteful for the judges to have to rule in their favor. But it is their job to see that the rights of every American are protected.

c.d.

[Chris]

I don't understand why this isn't behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace. I gather that exists in US law as it does in the UK.

[Abby Normal]

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.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the opinion for the court.

Justice Samuel Alito dissented.

It was a huge victory for a group whose antics have outraged many, including veterans groups, according to NBC News' justice correspondent Pete Williams.

While the protests were painful, the majority wrote that the Constitution protects even hurtful speech on public issues.

"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."

"Speech is powerful. It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and — as it did here — inflict great pain," Roberts added.

Matthew Snyder died in Iraq in 2006 and his body was returned to the United States for burial. Members of the Westboro Baptist Church, who have picketed military funerals for several years, decided to protest outside the Westminster, Md., church where Snyder's funeral was to be held.

The Rev. Fred Phelps and other family members who make up most of the Westboro Baptist Church have picketed many military funerals in their quest to draw attention to their incendiary view that U.S. deaths in Afghanistan and Iraq are God's punishment for the nation's tolerance of homosexuality.


The church members drew counter-demonstrators, as well as media coverage and a heavy police presence to maintain order. The result was a spectacle that led to altering the route of the funeral procession.

Several weeks later, Albert Snyder was surfing the Internet for tributes to his son from other soldiers and strangers when he came upon a poem on the church's website that attacked Matthew's parents for the way they brought up their son.

Soon after, Albert Snyder filed a lawsuit accusing the Phelpses of intentionally inflicting emotional distress. He won $11 million at trial, later reduced by a judge to $5 million.

The federal appeals court in Richmond, Va., threw out the verdict and said the Constitution shielded the church members from liability.

Forty-eight states, 42 U.S. senators and veterans groups sided with Snyder, asking the court to shield funerals from the Phelps family's "psychological terrorism."

While distancing themselves from the church's message, media organizations, including The Associated Press, urged the court to side with the Phelps family because of concerns that a victory for Snyder could erode speech rights.

c.d.

wimps

[Abby Normal]

It is ridiculously distasteful and morally repugnant. And it is protected under the first amendment. Always has been. To a certain extent I have to wonder about all of the moral outrage this has produced. Not that it doesn't warrant moral outrage, but theres a little part of me that says "Where have you been?". The Klan? fine. Neo-Nazis? sure. Phelps demonstrating at the funeral of Matthew Shepherd, a gay child murdered by his peers? ok. But Soldier's funerals? Somehow that's sacrosanct? Only NOW it becomes a national issue?

I am genuinely sorry any parent has to be exposed to these bigots, and listen to them deride the military as they bury their son. It is an absolute tragedy. But let's face it. When they tell you that God killed your son as a punishment to an evil government because God hates fags, they're not insulting YOUR kid. They are persecuting gay kids. Of course you shouldn't have to deal with it at a funeral. Of course you shouldn't have to deal with it at all.

We decided long ago that the Klan was protected, and everyone saw it as a necessary evil. Well what is worse? Having someone protest a third party at a funeral, or someone on the sidewalk telling you to your face that they will never rest until you and your kind are erased from the earth? I don't know. I've only experienced the one not the other. And there was no outrage then. And that's fine. It really is, I am a huge supporter of the first amendment. But I wonder what it says about society that it was a necessary evil until it targeted people they could relate to?

3 wrongs don't make a right.

[Abby Normal]

I think you're confusing the issue here and overthinking this just like these 'justices' are. They are showing up at a private event and making a scene. This is not protected under the first amendment nor has it ever been. This is a case of timing and venue not that they have right or don't have the right to say what they want. They can obviously hold whatever religion or moral values they wish, can hold up signs, and say certain things but it has to be done on their own time. This ruling is giving the go-ahead to people in this country to show up at funerals,birthday parties, graduations, worship services, business events, etc. and say whatever they please with no action. I mean why stop there right? Just show up outside someones house you don't like holding up signs and yelling things. The opinion of the court gives the okay for all of these things to happen with no one stepping in to stop it. This could in turn create a chaotic situation where law abiding citizens are put in danger because the police can not move in tell people to leave.Therefore citizens will take the law into their own hands and begin confronting the event crashers which ,in all likelihood, will turn deadly. That is scary.A sad day for America and true patriots would weep
Jordan

bingo

[Limehouse]

Hi Julie,

You are right that the members of the Westboro Baptist church are not Christians. They are scum. Human garbage. But they are still entitled to the right to free speech. That is the issue that the Court had to decide. I am sure that it was extremely distasteful for the judges to have to rule in their favor. But it is their job to see that the rights of every American are protected.

c.d.

Thanks cd. I suppose that sometimes it is very important to have the right to freedom of speech. In the case of the WBC - every right-thinking citizen can work out that they are a bunch of fantatics and decide to ignore them. However- it must be very difficult to have them at the roadside shouting 'fags' and waving highly offensive banners when you are burying a loved one.

[Tom_Wescott]

Why would one want to picket someone else's marraige ceremony? People are entitled to disapprove of homosexuality but it is unchristian to show that disapproval at such a special event in their lives.

Is it 'un-Christian'? I don't now if it is. But I honestly can't relate to that sort of behavior. By that I mean picketing anything.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Abby Normal]

Hi Julie,

You are right that the members of the Westboro Baptist church are not Christians. They are scum. Human garbage. But they are still entitled to the right to free speech. That is the issue that the Court had to decide. I am sure that it was extremely distasteful for the judges to have to rule in their favor. But it is their job to see that the rights of every American are protected.

c.d.

What about the right for the funeral goers privacy. The supreme court has the obligation to interpret the constitution any way they see right.
They screwed this up big time. As Chainz put it-where does it end? I'll make a prediction right now. With the ridiculous proliferation of reality TV/papparazi/ twitter/you toob/ "15 minutes" of fame mentality ther will be groups springing up now to pull this sort crap just to get the notoriety. Its going to take an inevitable tragedy to finally get this sort of behavior illegal. Uneccessary because the Supreme Court could put an end to it now, its in there power, but they don't have the balls.



"The right to swing my fist ends when where your nose begins."

[c.d.]

My advice would be, get yourselves a new Constitution, or a new Supreme Court, or both. Over here it is illegal for a landlady to refuse to let a room to two gay men, and I think that's ridiculous. But I also think it's ridiculous that turds should be allowed to say what they want, anywhere they want.

Hi Robert,

Who is it then that has the right to say what they want?

c.d.

[Tom_Wescott]

Why would the law require someone to move in people they don't like? I don't get it? Surely if you're renting a room you have the right to choose who you live with? Political correctness will truly be the death of us all.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Limehouse]

Is it 'un-Christian'? I don't now if it is. But I honestly can't relate to that sort of behavior. By that I mean picketing anything.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Hi Tom

If a person set out to ruin a couple's special day by standing outside the place where the union is to take place waving banners with offensive slogans on them I would say that is an unchristian act. If they are worried about homosexual souls they should stop worrying and let God make the judgements.

Perhaps you are right about picketing in general. It is a waste of time picketing a wedding or funeral and trying to change the views of people who have already made up their minds.

However- picketing the local town hall to protest about public sector cuts is a very good use of time because it lets the public servants know how people feel and reminds them who puts them in office!

Julie

[c.d.]

What about the right for the funeral goers privacy. The supreme court has the obligation to interpret the constitution any way they see right.
They screwed this up big time. As Chainz put it-where does it end? I'll make a prediction right now. With the ridiculous proliferation of reality TV/papparazi/ twitter/you toob/ "15 minutes" of fame mentality ther will be groups springing up now to pull this sort crap just to get the notoriety. Its going to take an inevitable tragedy to finally get this sort of behavior illegal. Uneccessary because the Supreme Court could put an end to it now, its in there power, but they don't have the balls.



"The right to swing my fist ends when where your nose begins."

Hi Abby,

What do you mean when you say that the Supreme Court doesn't have the balls? They are appointed for life so it is not like they can be voted out of office and I am sure that they didn't think that this would be a popular decision.

c.d.

[Tom_Wescott]

If a person set out to ruin a couple's special day by standing outside the place where the union is to take place waving banners with offensive slogans on them I would say that is an unchristian act.

Many would say that. And many would say that a homosexual union under God's name is an un-Christian act, so from that perspective, the picketing is not necessarily un-Christian. If anything, it's political since they're picketing the law and not the specific couple. As you said, it lets the public servants you put in office know how you feel.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott