Court To Rule In Military Funeral Protest Case

[maiforpeace]

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.

It doesn't make up for all the pain inflicted on those military families, and they don't have 5 million bucks.

I'll be curious to see how the supreme court handles this case.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

It doesn't make up for all the pain inflicted on those military families, and they don't have 5 million bucks.

I'll be curious to see how the supreme court handles this case.

Mai, do you remember the Aryan Nations case? The court took all their property and put a lien on any future income from the leaders. They'll be playing that settlement until they're dead.

[Fromthehills]

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.

You are absolutely correct.

I'd love to catch Phelps on my property, but if we restrict free speech for him, it will ratchet up to us.

I don't like neo-nazis either, but I'd rather them have the right to shave their heads and display tattoos of swastikas, so I know who they are, than have to hide it. The enemy not seen, is far more dangerous than the enemy seen.

We have the right to be offended, we don't have the right to not be offended.

[maiforpeace]

It doesn't make up for all the pain inflicted on those military families, and they don't have 5 million bucks.

I'll be curious to see how the supreme court handles this case.

Mai, do you remember the Aryan Nations case? The court took all their property and put a lien on any future income from the leaders. They'll be playing that settlement until they're dead.

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/c ... an-nations

This one? The circumstances are a bit different though.

[Twoflower]

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

I cant think of anyone who would get grumpy about this.

[virphen]

If people here got grumpy, how could you tell?

[Millie]

If any good at all can come from such horrid acts, it is that the rest of the world sees what hateful people those buybull thumping vermin truly are.

[JimC]

If any good at all can come from such horrid acts, it is that the rest of the world sees what hateful people those buybull thumping vermin truly are.

I would hope for a tidal wave of protests from liberal christians, but I won't hold my breath...

[charlou]

We have the right to be offended, we don't have the right to not be offended.

Ayep, I like this (and the rest of your post). Cheers.

[CookieJon]

We have the right to be offended, we don't have the right to not be offended.

Ayep, I like this (and the rest of your post). Cheers.

Hmm... I'm not stating an opinion either way, but I wonder does that also imply that harassing phone calls from a stalker, for instance, would be ok as well?

[charlou]

We have the right to be offended, we don't have the right to not be offended.

Ayep, I like this (and the rest of your post). Cheers.

Hmm... I'm not stating an opinion either way, but I wonder does that also imply that harassing phone calls from a stalker, for instance, would be ok as well?

hmmm indeed ... I don't think there was an implication of anything being 'okay' as such - we have the right to be offended covers that. As I understood it, 'we don't have the right not to be offended' means that our feelings of offense are not reason enough to expect others to stfu. We must have a better rationale than just being offended. For example, in the case of a phone stalker my issue would be concern about personal safety, rather than personal offense.

That said, I do think there's an argument to be made against imposing ones personal pecadillos, values and/or beliefs into the personal space of others. It can be tantamout to psychological assault. That's what the phone stalker and the likes of Phelps are doing and I'm very interested in how this debate unfolds.

[MissingNo.]

We have the right to be offended, we don't have the right to not be offended.

Ayep, I like this (and the rest of your post). Cheers.

Hmm... I'm not stating an opinion either way, but I wonder does that also imply that harassing phone calls from a stalker, for instance, would be ok as well?

That's different from offense. If it can be demonstrated that the stalker is a physical threat, then one can get a restraining order. Plus phoning someone's private number is different than speaking to him in public. You can elect to have that person's number blocked since you own the telephone line. If the stalker persists in telephoning by using phone booths, for instance, it's now a matter of an invasion of privacy. There are certain rights to privacy which you have on your own property which don't exist in public. This would be a different matter if Phelps was calling these people at home or invading private property to protest but from what I understand, that isn't the case.

[CookieJon]

Ok I 'm not pushing any point, because as I said I'm not sure what my opinion is. I can see that the Phelps's have the right to free speech, but I also wonder if deliberately targetting this boy's funeral constitutes harassment beyond simply expressing one's opinion.

In the case of the phone stalker, sure the "victim" could change the number to get rid of him, etc, but my question was really to do with the intent of the caller. Let's say there were no threats made, and the caller was simply making irritating and offensive phone calls. Would the caller be within his rights (legally and/or morally) to pursue his agenda of offensive calls?

Let's also say that the calls are being made to women at an office in a public department, to get rid of the "invasion of privacy" aspect (although I could see an argument that crashing a funeral is similarly invasion of privacy, anyway).

I'm obviously no legal expert, but it seems to me that the intent of the Phelps's goes way beyond simply exercising their freedom of speech. Deliberately targeting this funeral smacks of harassment to me, especially since there are plenty of other platforms for the Southern Baptist church to get their point across.

[MissingNo.]

Ok I 'm not pushing any point, because as I said I'm not sure what my opinion is. I can see that the Phelps's have the right to free speech, but I also wonder if deliberately targetting this boy's funeral constitutes harassment beyond simply expressing one's opinion.

In the case of the phone stalker, sure the "victim" could change the number to get rid of him, etc, but my question was really to do with the intent of the caller. Let's say there were no threats made, and the caller was simply making irritating and offensive phone calls. Would the caller be within his rights (legally and/or morally) to pursue his agenda of offensive calls?

Let's also say that the calls are being made to women at an office in a public department, to get rid of the "invasion of privacy" aspect (although I could see an argument that crashing a funeral similarly invasion of privacy, anyway).

I'm obviously no legal expert, but it seems to me that the intent of the Phelps's goes way beyond simply exercising their freedom of speech. Deliberately targeting this funeral smacks of harassment to me, especially since there are plenty of other platforms for the Southern Baptist church to get their point across.

It isn't right to harass people at a funeral. It's a horrible thing to do. But there's a difference between what's right and what's legal. There's even a difference between what's right and what should be legal. Yes, he is well within his legal rights (and should be!) to protest anything on public property. If he were invading a privately owned graveyard or funeral home after being asked to leave, that would be a legal issue but from what I understand, they protest outside the funeral on public property. One should and, at least in America, does have the right to protest in public regardless of how distasteful some may find it. I'm not sure about the woman being called at an office in a public department. Again, it depends on the details. If the phone calls are threatening, it's a legal matter. There are probably laws about disrupting government practices that for which this harassment may or may not qualify. If it doesn't fall under either of these categories, the person could be asked to stop calling but beyond that, I don't think anything could be done. I'm no expert in law, especially American law so if I'm wrong, perhaps someone who knows more about the subject than me may correct me.

[CookieJon]

I suppose.

It could also be argued, I guess, that the Phelps are in fact threatening; I seem to recall them saying we're all going to be sent to Hell. Sounds pretty threatening to me, I wonder if something could be made of that?