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

[Chris]

This is exactly why so many Europeans moved to the US - to get away from the fascist thought police who want to tell you what to do and what to say.

To the home of the brave and the land of the Un-American Activities Committee? How ironic.

[Tom_Wescott]

I agree with Ally here completely. I don't know anything about these soldiers, and it's irrelevant to me. A funeral is a horrible place to picket. I could certainly understand in extreme cases, like that of a terrorist, such as Timothy McVeigh, but generally speaking, anyone picketing a funeral should have their nose smashed. Thankfully, THAT'S still legal. And if these men weren't gay, as I just read on here, why is homosexuality such a theme of this thread? I have no special sympathy for gays. It's their choice, and it's their choice if they want to be overtly public about it, and thus they should agree to live with the consequences. It's stupid for the bleeding hearts to condemn those who deliver the consequences. But no one should picket at their funerals.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[c.d.]

Tom, the issue of homosexuality has to do with the views of the church. They picket the funerals of soldiers who have died (heterosexual soldiers and gay soldiers it doesn't matter to them). They picket because they absolutely hate gay people. Their website is godhatesfags.com. That should tell you something. They believe that God allows these soldiers to be killed because he hates homosexuality. Now that makes no sense whatsoever to the rest of us but that is what they believe.

I think a lot of the trouble people are having in accepting this decision is because they see it in a vacuum as though the only parties affected are the church and the families trying to bury their children with dignity. But the court is trying to protect the right of free speech in general. So if I or any other American wants to make our views heard with regard to the treatment of wounded veterans or abuse of the elderly or the issue of homelessness or advocating for the disabled or world peace we are protected under the same First Amendment that protects these idiots and their church. That is the price we pay for it.

c.d.

[Natalie Severn]

To the home of the brave and the land of the Un-American Activities Committee? How ironic.

Nice one Chris.

[sleekviper]

I will say that freedom delayed, is not freedom denied. No one can ever predict the mental state of anyone that has lost a loved one. If I, as a parent, have spent countless hours watching my child grow,a unknown number of nights tending to them sick and afraid, countless times correcting them to do what is right and explaining why it is so, and all I have left is this last hour before they are forever in a dark hole in the ground, I can not by any stretch of the imagination be totally stable. My child should bury me, my child should see love, stress, turmoil, joy, and every emotion that I have enjoyed and struggled with over years of living. No grandkids, no Christmas, no phone calls, just this hole. I would have told my child, "If anything or anyone bothers you, come tell daddy and he will take care of it." Daddy could not keep you from being alone forever in this dark hole, but as daddy looks over at people degrading your memory, your life as you chose to live it, he can do something about this. Fools spewing hate about my baby; not today, not the last day, the last hour, the last minute before my child is gone completely forever. Someday a parent may snap, and a lot of holes will be dug for the dead. I can not say that it may not be me should the unthinkable happen.They want to picket, do it a week after the funeral. The body is who they have a problem with, it is not going anywhere. I can yell "Fire!" but not in a crowded room, yell "Bomb!" but not in a airport, degrade a soldier(ugh, or anyone), but not at his/her funeral. Freedom delayed, but not denied.

[Errata]

Question : suppose that at the funeral of President Kennedy a handful of people had hurled obscenities as the carriage went past. Would the police not have removed them double-quick? I don't think there would have been any of this "I'm sorry we can't shut them up because it will all end with Professor Smith being unable to write his book on quantum mechanics, and Mrs Jones being locked up for asking her butcher for a pound of sausages."

I think more than a handful of people hurled obscenities at Kennedy's casket. Sadly I am related to a few. But it's a bad example, since the police couldn't get to the unpleasant ones even if they wanted to. Too crowded.

There's a big statue of the founder of the KKK at my interstate exit. Surrounded by all the flags of the confederate states, the rebel flag, and the military flags. Shining silver enormous Nathan Bedford Forrest on a gold steed rampant. Not 20 feet from the interstate. It's appalling. But it's on private property so nothing anyone can do. But the biggest problem is that it's a terrible statue. It looks like Colonel Sanders riding Pokey. And a rampant horse in military statuaria means that the person on the horse died in battle. And Forrest assuredly did not. So it's offensive, poorly executed, AND misleading.

And there was a furor when it was being constructed, and then afterward, I think people were actually laughing too hard to be offended. I mean, a group of young black artists from a local college put up a big poster of a better looking statue of Forrest over the statue. A guy was caught trying to take the statue down, and in court and on television he said he was horrified that visitors might come to town and thing we were all terrible artists. I mean, it's a concrete reminder everyday of the prejudices in the old and current south, but it is rendered banal by it's sheer ugliness.

I mean look at it...

http://chris.quietlife.net/2003/07/14/free-speech/

[Limehouse]

This is what it's come to in this country. Fascism in the not so subtle guise of appeal to emotion.

Honestly, we're ****ed in this country. Utterly brainwashed into thinking only those who tow the equality line are entitled to a voice, conveniently (being kind, more likely it's escaped them because they're devoid of independent thought) forgetting that morals are only ever the accepted norm, aka the voice of the majority.

This is exactly why so many Europeans moved to the US - to get away from the fascist thought police who want to tell you what to do and what to say.

There's a lot to be said for tolerance, though not at the expense of freedom of expression.

So what sort of country do you want? One in which people sat whatever they wish - where ever they wish? Do you want people to have the freedom to be offensive to others just because they don't like the colour of their skin or their religious beliefs or their sexual preferences?

How about this story - a mother was living alone with her two teenage children after the death of her husband. Her daughter had physical and mental disabilities and the family became the target of a gang of local residents who bombarded their house with dog mess and bricks. They were verbally abused because the gang thought they had the right to call the daughter offensive names because of her disabilities. They didn't like disabled people you see. They thought she should have been drowned at birth because her appearance offended them and they said so. After years of abuse the mother drove herelf and her daughter to a quiet layby and burnt them both to death in the car. Now this happened in a country where the behaviour against the family was illegal but permitted to continue. What on earth might happen if complete freedom of speech was allowed?

[c.d.]

Hi Julie,

That is a tragic story to be sure. But you also stated that some of what was done was illegal not just hurtful. You can't change mindsets just by disallowing people the ability to voice hatefull speech. On the other hand (here in the U.S.), you have the right to speak out in favor of the disabled, to advocate for better treatment for them and increased funding for their care. If someone tries to prevent you from doing so, you have the First Amendment and the Supreme Court on your side. If the facts in your situation are analogous to the Westboro Baptist Church case, then the Court has already decided in your favor. "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," (Chief Justice) 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.

Hopefully this case will help protect the rights of those attempting to do good in this world not just those intent upon inflicting great pain.

c.d.

[Limehouse]

Hi Julie,

That is a tragic story to be sure. But you also stated that some of what was done was illegal not just hurtful. You can't change mindsets just by disallowing people the ability to voice hatefull speech. On the other hand (here in the U.S.), you have the right to speak out in favor of the disabled, to advocate for better treatment for them and increased funding for their care. If someone tries to prevent you from doing so, you have the First Amendment and the Supreme Court on your side. If the facts in your situation are analogous to the Westboro Baptist Church case, then the Court has already decided in your favor. "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," (Chief Justice) 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.

Hopefully this case will help protect the rights of those attempting to do good in this world not just those intent upon inflicting great pain.

c.d.

Thanks CD. That makes a lot of sense. I am in favour of free speech in general - but where the speech promotes any kind of oppression I feel it should be challenged strongly - by protest as you suggest - but in law if all else fails.

I can understand why and how the First Amendment came about - but it has not always worked in the favour of all Americans.

Warm regards.

Julie

[Robert]

Yes Julie, that case was terrible, and action should have been taken long before the tragic end. But oh wait : that might have infringed the perpetrators' "human rights."

Re gays, I don't see why gays should have to take any "consequences" just for saying they're gay. I would only ask the gays to try to be entertaining about it. Quentin Crisp was very funny, but Elton John is a bit of a pain in the neck.

[The Good Michael]

Re gays, I don't see why gays should have to take any "consequences" just for saying they're gay. I would only ask the gays to try to be entertaining about it. Quentin Crisp was very funny, but Elton John is a bit of a pain in the neck.

SIR Elton John, thank you very much. Two things that annoy me that aren't Hutchinson related: Knighting people and giving people honorary doctorates. If you want to be knighted, pay homage to your liege lord and lady, have tenants that you take tazes and crops from and mistreat from time time, and prove yourself in a joust. If you want a Ph.D., go to school, spend so much time there that you have lost all reality, and do a dissertation that is nothing but 100 pages of circular argument that proves a 1 paragraph point and then defend it.

Mike

[Robert]

I can't really see SIR Elton on a horse, but maybe that's what he meant by Saturday Night's All Right For Fighting.

[Natalie Severn]

Quentin Crisp was very funny, but Elton John is a bit of a pain in the neck.

But it was very lovely ,Robert ,to see Elton and his partner so overjoyed with their beautiful baby!

[Robert]

I missed that, Nats, though it rings a bell somewhere.

[mariab]

If you want a Ph.D., go to school, spend so much time there that you have lost all reality, and do a dissertation that is nothing but 100 pages of circular argument that proves a 1 paragraph point and then defend it.

100 pages? That would be a Master's, not a Ph.D. Mine is about 500 pages, and most definitely not “circular“. I still need to do some polishing of the manuscript for publication, and the mere thought of it bores me to death...
But yes, I find Dr. honoris causa titles ridiculous too. In academics noone takes them seriously, anyway. Here in Germany the latest gossip talk has been about our minister of defense (zu Gutenberg: what a lame name, it sounds more like the name of a restaurant) who was caught in grave plagiarism in his Ph.D. thesis, and he had to quit both his job and his Dr. title. Not too surprisingly, he was a casebook example of a “poor little rich boy“ with a huge sense of entitlement.