Court To Rule In Military Funeral Protest Case

[charlou]

From CBS News

(AP) WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court is entering an emotionally charged dispute between the grieving father of a Marine who died in Iraq and the anti-gay protesters who picket military funerals with inflammatory messages like "Thank God for dead soldiers."

The court agreed Monday to consider whether the protesters' message, no matter how provocative or upsetting, is protected by the First Amendment or limited by the competing privacy and religious rights of the mourners.

The father of a marine killed in Iraq is suing the Westboro Baptists over their actions at his son's funeral. From what I can gather, there had been a ruling on this in favour of the WBs, with 'free speech' the rationale, but that's been overturned and the case is being looked at from the point of view of the plaintiff's right to protection from 'free speech' under the law.

These WBs need to be hit hard with some simple 'play nice' guidelines, I think.

[kiki5711]

.that's just sad. I mean, the family is already hurting as it is. This kind of free speech should be banned.

[JimC]

From CBS News

(AP) WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court is entering an emotionally charged dispute between the grieving father of a Marine who died in Iraq and the anti-gay protesters who picket military funerals with inflammatory messages like "Thank God for dead soldiers."

The court agreed Monday to consider whether the protesters' message, no matter how provocative or upsetting, is protected by the First Amendment or limited by the competing privacy and religious rights of the mourners.

The father of a marine killed in Iraq is suing the Westboro Baptists over their actions at his son's funeral. From what I can gather, there had been a ruling on this in favour of the WBs, with 'free speech' the rationale, but that's been overturned and the case is being looked at from the point of view of the plaintiff's right to protection from 'free speech' under the law.

These WBs need to be hit with some simple 'play nice' guidelines, I think.

To be honest, 'Lou, I'd fucking hit 'em with a hail of .44 rounds if I thought I could get away with it...

Evil scum...

[Chinaski]

The SC should order to lock Fred Phelps in a room with the fathers of soldiers whose funerals he's picketed.

Seriously though, can't the father hire some private security?

[charlou]

Chinaski, this has already happened - too late for security. But that does beg the question, if they could have hired security preventing the 'protest' (could they?), thereby preventing freespeech before the fact, what does that say about the law regarding free speech?

From CBS News

(AP) WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court is entering an emotionally charged dispute between the grieving father of a Marine who died in Iraq and the anti-gay protesters who picket military funerals with inflammatory messages like "Thank God for dead soldiers."

The court agreed Monday to consider whether the protesters' message, no matter how provocative or upsetting, is protected by the First Amendment or limited by the competing privacy and religious rights of the mourners.

The father of a marine killed in Iraq is suing the Westboro Baptists over their actions at his son's funeral. From what I can gather, there had been a ruling on this in favour of the WBs, with 'free speech' the rationale, but that's been overturned and the case is being looked at from the point of view of the plaintiff's right to protection from 'free speech' under the law.

These WBs need to be hit with some simple 'play nice' guidelines, I think.

To be honest, 'Lou, I'd fucking hit 'em with a hail of .44 rounds if I thought I could get away with it...

Evil scum...

Likewise ... but then I remember I'm a little bit civillised and not inclined to debase myself to their particular level of evil.

[virphen]

Whatever else you say about them, at least they're the ones who have read the friggin' bible and understood how nasty it is.

[JimC]

Whatever else you say about them, at least they're the ones who have read the friggin' bible and understood how nasty it is.

And they relish every sadistic bit of it...

[charlou]

Whatever else you say about them, at least they're the ones who have read the friggin' bible and understood how nasty it is.

I prefer the people who cherry pick the 'good' bits, despite their delusion.

[virphen]

Oh for sure, they're a bunch of vile arseholes.

But that's what truly following the bible implies.

[MissingNo.]

Fred Phelps and the rest of the WBs are horrible human beings and protesting someone's funeral like that is an awful thing to do. However, they haven't broken any laws by doing so and the court decision is correct. You can say you believe in free speech but it means nothing if you turn your back on it the minute someone says something you don't like. Of course it's offensive but people don't have the right to not be offended, even in circumstances such as this. I hate to say it but I'm with Phelps on this one: He has done nothing to warrant a prison sentence or even a fine.

[Azathoth]

Fred Phelps and the rest of the WBs are horrible human beings and protesting someone's funeral like that is an awful thing to do. However, they haven't broken any laws by doing so and the court decision is correct. You can say you believe in free speech but it means nothing if you turn your back on it the minute someone says something you don't like. Of course it's offensive but people don't have the right to not be offended, even in circumstances such as this. I hate to say it but I'm with Phelps on this one: He has done nothing to warrant a prison sentence or even a fine.

+1

[AshtonBlack]

The thread over at RD.net front page has some good comments, from lawyers on it.
Personally, I think that he had the right to protest. Deeply offensive shit, I agree and I vehemently disagree with his views, but if this curtails the US first amendment then, it sets a worrying (for the US) precedent.

[JimC]

The thread over at RD.net front page has some good comments, from lawyers on it.
Personally, I think that he had the right to protest. Deeply offensive shit, I agree and I vehemently disagree with his views, but if this curtails the US first amendment then, it sets a worrying (for the US) precedent.

What would be great is constant counter protests at his church, by big, muscly men wearing chains and leather...

[charlou]

The thread over at RD.net front page has some good comments, from lawyers on it.
Personally, I think that he had the right to protest. Deeply offensive shit, I agree and I vehemently disagree with his views, but if this curtails the US first amendment then, it sets a worrying (for the US) precedent.

What would be great is constant counter protests at his church, by big, muscly men wearing chains and leather...

And winsome wenches sporting lusty bustieres and brimming tankards of 'join the human species'.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I could solve this matter quickly, but some of you would get all grumpy.