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

[c.d.]

What does the majority of Americans thinks of that ?

I would tend to think that the majority of Americans are very upset by the decision.

c.d.

[DVV]

"Opportunity" is interesting.

Does that church expect some profit out of this ???

They should be discredited.

[DVV]

I would tend to think that the majority of Americans are very upset by the decision.

c.d.

As God certainly is.

Thanks CD

[c.d.]

Hi Abby,

You have to set emotion aside in this case and it is extremely hard to do. Are the church members scum bags? Yes. Are their speech and actions hateful and vile? Yes, no question about it. Do you really think that the Court actually sympathised with the church members? This is a legal issue. Pure and simple. The question is relatively simple. Is hatefull, vile and even disgusting speech protected under the First Amendment. The Supreme Court said yes. It was an 8 to 1 decision. Now think about that. These are individuals who have completely different judicial and political philosophies. A lot of times they can't even agree on what day it is. But here they were in agreement. They also agreed with the Court of Appeals the second highest court in the land. I believe their decision was also unanimous. Now that should tell you something. The Court's role is to interpret the law and the Constitution. That is what they did in this case. You are under no requirement to like it. But bear in mind that the First Amendment that protects the church members also protects you.

c.d.

[Ally]

The thing to keep in mind of course is that people are moved to desperate measures when they know their time is over. This is a move of desperation. History in this country has shown that gay rights and recognition is inevitable, and that what happens for one group will eventually come round for all, this is just the time for gay rights. It used to be illegal for interracial couples to marry and it was an outrage, but that's considered normal now. The younger generation has grown up with this being considered a regular part of life and Billy has two mommies and whatever. There is no way that Billy and Billy's friends won't vote for his mommies to be recognized legally.

It's all just the bleating of the dinosaurs who see the great big ole asteroid a-coming and need to bleat their denial of their fate. It's best to ignore them as you ignore great-grandpa when he goes off on one of his tirades about how things are "supposed" to be.

[ChainzCooper]

Hi Abby,

You have to set emotion aside in this case and it is extremely hard to do. Are the church members scum bags? Yes. Are their speech and actions hateful and vile? Yes, no question about it. Do you really think that the Court actually sympathised with the church members? This is a legal issue. Pure and simple. The question is relatively simple. Is hatefull, vile and even disgusting speech protected under the First Amendment. The Supreme Court said yes. It was an 8 to 1 decision. Now think about that. These are individuals who have completely different judicial and political philosophies. A lot of times they can't even agree on what day it is. But here they were in agreement. They also agreed with the Court of Appeals the second highest court in the land. I believe their decision was also unanimous. Now that should tell you something. The Court's role is to interpret the law and the Constitution. That is what they did in this case. You are under no requirement to like it. But bear in mind that the First Amendment that protects the church members also protects you.

c.d.

This is not a legal or free speech issue we are dealing with here. Again, this is an issue of timing and venues. The 'church's free speech can be made but it must be done on their own time and cannot interfere with a private event they are not invited to and have no business being at. Seriously,think about this for a second. Lets say I'm having a party at my house. If some people show up outside holding up signs and yelling insults at me I have the right to ask them to leave. If they stay thats trespassing. I really have no idea why this is so hard to understand. This 'church' targets people on the internet and seeks them out at these events they are not invited to. Clearly this is not protected by the Constitution regardless of whatever the 'justices' said today.
Jordan

[c.d.]

Hi Jordan,

Do you think the Court simply missed the point you are making or is it more likely they took it into consideration when making their decision?

c.d.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby,

You have to set emotion aside in this case and it is extremely hard to do. Are the church members scum bags? Yes. Are their speech and actions hateful and vile? Yes, no question about it. Do you really think that the Court actually sympathised with the church members? This is a legal issue. Pure and simple. The question is relatively simple. Is hatefull, vile and even disgusting speech protected under the First Amendment. The Supreme Court said yes. It was an 8 to 1 decision. Now think about that. These are individuals who have completely different judicial and political philosophies. A lot of times they can't even agree on what day it is. But here they were in agreement. They also agreed with the Court of Appeals the second highest court in the land. I believe their decision was also unanimous. Now that should tell you something. The Court's role is to interpret the law and the Constitution. That is what they did in this case. You are under no requirement to like it. But bear in mind that the First Amendment that protects the church members also protects you.

c.d.

CD
I completely disagree with you. You say you agree with their decision-Why?
There is nothing to prevent them from ruling against Westboro without throwing out the freedom of speech altogether. Freedom of speech could still be protected in general-just not in circumstances like this. But your right in one regard-it is a legal matter and it is a simple question: Do you think what Westboro is doing is wrong and should be illegal? I say yes, emphatically.
So did Alito. and if the rest of the judges had the fortitude and wisdom to rule against Westboro like Alito did then guess what: The westboro church funeral protests would not be protected under the first ammendment.

Done deal. A wrong has been righted. The judges interpreted the law and the constitution as is their duty. No more Westboro(or anyone for that matter) protesting at funerals. The first amendment still stands, freedom of speech still exists.

[c.d.]

Abby,

That's why they have nine members of the Court. The majority makes the ruling. Alito is only one member of the Court. The rest of the justices saw it otherwise. So did the Court of Appeals. This decision does not simply affect the Westboro church. It sets a precedent for freedom of speech that the lower courts will be bound by. You say freedom of speech would still be protected "in general." True but it would be weakened. That makes the court very nervous as it should. The question is not how you or anyone feels about the actions of the church. The question is whether they HAVE THE RIGHT under the First Amendment to do so. The Court said yes and I agree.

c.d.

P.S. Sorry, I have to go now.

[ChainzCooper]

Hi Jordan,

Do you think the Court simply missed the point you are making or is it more likely they took it into consideration when making their decision?

c.d.

I honestly have no clue what they're thinking nor do I care. This is such an easy case maybe they're just so caught up in their own authority and power that it causes them to shut down intellectually. Its like they're looking down from their ivory towers and somehow can't see things normal people can. I mean most of us haven't gone to school for a hundred years so they develop this arrogant mentality. 'Let them eat cake!'But anyways, I have enjoyed hearing your viewpoint on this and the discussion has been great
Jordan

[Errata]

CD
I completely disagree with you. You say you agree with their decision-Why?
There is nothing to prevent them from ruling against Westboro without throwing out the freedom of speech altogether. Freedom of speech could still be protected in general-just not in circumstances like this. But your right in one regard-it is a legal matter and it is a simple question: Do you think what Westboro is doing is wrong and should be illegal? I say yes, emphatically.

I think the problem is defining the parameters. The old saw about pornography "I know it when i see it" doesn't fly. What are they doing that is wrong, precisely? It can't be what they say. There are very specific parameters. No threats, no inciting violence, no inciting unwarranted panic, no inciting riots. And the WBC is very careful about not doing these things. Is it the venues? There again, they are obeying the law. They are not on private property.

So is it funerals? If an American soldier was a war criminal, did horrendous things while deployed, and then died and was being buried as a war hero, I want to protest that. I feel I have the right to show up at the pomp and circumstance and denounce them all as hypocrites. I think most of us would want to protest that circumstance. And I have known people who were protesting at a funeral on behalf of the deceased. People marching for AIDS research when a friend has died of the disease. Surely we don't intend that to be illegal.

Is it because they are soldiers? Again, people protest on their behalf, or those like them all of the time. Can you protest soldiers if it's not at a funeral? Can you protest at a funeral if it has nothing to do with the deceased? We have chemical plant that just dropped a ton of toxins into a creek, and it all seeped under a local veteran's cemetery. Can you protest outside the cemetery? Do you have to stop for a funeral?

Isn't it just easier to leave the free speech laws as they are, and not pay any attention to the playground bully?

[Abby Normal]

Abby,

That's why they have nine members of the Court. The majority makes the ruling. Alito is only one member of the Court. The rest of the justices saw it otherwise. So did the Court of Appeals. This decision does not simply affect the Westboro church. It sets a precedent for freedom of speech that the lower courts will be bound by. You say freedom of speech would still be protected "in general." True but it would be weakened. That makes the court very nervous as it should. The question is not how you or anyone feels about the actions of the church. The question is whether they HAVE THE RIGHT under the First Amendment to do so. The Court said yes and I agree.

c.d.

P.S. Sorry, I have to go now.

That's why they have nine members of the Court. The majority makes the ruling. Alito is only one member of the Court. The rest of the justices saw it otherwise. So did the Court of Appeals.

So what? The lower court sided with the funeral goer, the public in general probably does too, so not sure what your point is here. If your argument is basically "it is what it is" well then OK. Cant argue against that.

This decision does not simply affect the Westboro church. It sets a precedent for freedom of speech that the lower courts will be bound by. You say freedom of speech would still be protected "in general." True but it would be weakened.

Yes, of course it sets the precedent-I want it to. How is it weakened? It strengthens it by making it more specific and precise.

The question is not how you or anyone feels about the actions of the church.

Yes it is. of course it is. It is important what I think as an individual, it is important what everyone else in our society thinks-we live in a democracy.

The question is whether they HAVE THE RIGHT under the First Amendment to do so. The Court said yes and I agree.

Well then you and the court are wrong in my honest opinion.

[Abby Normal]

I think the problem is defining the parameters. The old saw about pornography "I know it when i see it" doesn't fly. What are they doing that is wrong, precisely? It can't be what they say. There are very specific parameters. No threats, no inciting violence, no inciting unwarranted panic, no inciting riots. And the WBC is very careful about not doing these things. Is it the venues? There again, they are obeying the law. They are not on private property.

So is it funerals? If an American soldier was a war criminal, did horrendous things while deployed, and then died and was being buried as a war hero, I want to protest that. I feel I have the right to show up at the pomp and circumstance and denounce them all as hypocrites. I think most of us would want to protest that circumstance. And I have known people who were protesting at a funeral on behalf of the deceased. People marching for AIDS research when a friend has died of the disease. Surely we don't intend that to be illegal.

Is it because they are soldiers? Again, people protest on their behalf, or those like them all of the time. Can you protest soldiers if it's not at a funeral? Can you protest at a funeral if it has nothing to do with the deceased? We have chemical plant that just dropped a ton of toxins into a creek, and it all seeped under a local veteran's cemetery. Can you protest outside the cemetery? Do you have to stop for a funeral?

Isn't it just easier to leave the free speech laws as they are, and not pay any attention to the playground bully?

I think the problem is defining the parameters. The old saw about pornography "I know it when i see it" doesn't fly. What are they doing that is wrong, precisely? It can't be what they say. There are very specific parameters. No threats, no inciting violence, no inciting unwarranted panic, no inciting riots. And the WBC is very careful about not doing these things. Is it the venues? There again, they are obeying the law. They are not on private property.

Then make the parameters more specific. They are smart, its there job. Figure it out. there are already 40 state and federal laws that protect funeral goers. there is a law that involves timing and venue having to do with free speech and gatherings, I beleive having to do when the president makes a speech. It was the perfect opportunity for the supreme court to tackle this head on, once and for all. they punted unfortunately.

So is it funerals? If an American soldier was a war criminal, did horrendous things while deployed, and then died and was being buried as a war hero, I want to protest that. I feel I have the right to show up at the pomp and circumstance and denounce them all as hypocrites. I think most of us would want to protest that circumstance. And I have known people who were protesting at a funeral on behalf of the deceased. People marching for AIDS research when a friend has died of the disease. Surely we don't intend that to be illegal.

Sure protest the hypocritical war criminal-just not at his funeral.

And I have known people who were protesting at a funeral on behalf of the deceased. People marching for AIDS research when a friend has died of the disease. Surely we don't intend that to be illegal.[/B]

of course not

Is it because they are soldiers? Again, people protest on their behalf, or those like them all of the time. Can you protest soldiers if it's not at a funeral? Can you protest at a funeral if it has nothing to do with the deceased? We have chemical plant that just dropped a ton of toxins into a creek, and it all seeped under a local veteran's cemetery. Can you protest outside the cemetery? Do you have to stop for a funeral?

sure protest the soldiers-just not during the funeral.

In terms of the chemical plant-thats a great question. I would say definitely you can protest that at the cemetary, just not during a funeral. As i said, this is the judges duty to figure these out. They're intelligent. I am confident they could do it. But they need to try at least.

Isn't it just easier to leave the free speech laws as they are, and not pay any attention to the playground bully?[/QUOTE]

Unfortunately, I think the judges took this view also-the easy way out. I say stand up to the bully, before he does any more damage.

Which by the way Westboro plans to do. they said the judges decision has strengthened their resolve and that they plan to do this more. And those previously mentioned state and federal laws about funeral goers protection already on the books?-yup, they plan to start challenging them too.

way to go supreme court.

[Errata]

Which by the way Westboro plans to do. they said the judges decision has strengthened their resolve and that they plan to do this more. And those previously mentioned state and federal laws about funeral goers protection already on the books?-yup, they plan to start challenging them too.

way to go supreme court.

I guess I just don't understand why people are more offended by these loons than they are by the "End Is Nigh" guy on the local street corner. Or the people who start screaming at you that you are a murderer outside a Planned Parenthood. They are clearly as off the charts nuts as apocalypse guy, and clearly as malicious and baiting as the people outside a clinic. But we have no problem ignoring these folks. Are people secretly afraid it's true or something? Do they already doubt the honor of their child's sacrifice?

The funny thing is, there are about 1000 ways to get these guys, and fully half are legal. I don't know why they went with a first amendment argument rather than fraud. It's like they were more concerned with making the WBC take back what it said rather than just crushing them.

[Limehouse]

Personally - I do not think that freedom of speech should permit an individual or a group to oppress another individual or group. We should all learn to be more tolerant and respectful of other people's lifestyles if they are not harming anyone else.