US Supreme Ct. Rules 8-1 in favor of Fag Hating Protests

[Seabass]

Now, let's suppose the Phelps protest signs read "God Hates Jews", or "God Hates Niggers" -
Do you suppose the Supreme Court decision would have been the same?

Likely. Have you ever been to their website? God hates literally every living creature on the planet.

[rachelbean]

Now, let's suppose the Phelps protest signs read "God Hates Jews", or "God Hates Niggers" -
Do you suppose the Supreme Court decision would have been the same?

Yes.

[Geoff]

...a mentally deranged but highly competent ex-serviceman...

We haz one of those...

[HomerJay]

As for the WBC loons, I think they serve a legitimate purpose, which is the staunch defense of the First Amendment and freedom of speech. We stood a not inconsiderable risk of losing an important aspect of our liberty, but the Supremes came through and set another strong precedent that protects us against the forces of political correctness. They are useful idiots, canaries in the coal mine, so to speak. So long as people like that can speak freely and not be sanctioned for doing so, we are all safer and more free. On the day we can use the law to shut up such people by force, on that day a significant part of our liberty dies and tyranny waits in the wings for its cue.

If public order law is used to neuter the protests to keep them 1,000ft away from the funeral and often out of sight, why not use the same public order law to keep them further away or even out of town?

If they are being kept away from the funerals, how is that speaking freely and without sanction?

Their 1st Amendment rights have been compromised, not enabled.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

...a mentally deranged but highly competent ex-serviceman...

We haz one of those...

Wut?

[Coito ergo sum]

Now, let's suppose the Phelps protest signs read "God Hates Jews", or "God Hates Niggers" -
Do you suppose the Supreme Court decision would have been the same?

Yes. Already happened.

See the US Supreme Court case of Brandenburg v Ohio http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio (involving the KKK) and Nazi Party of America vs Village of Skokie Illinois, involving Nazis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_S ... _of_Skokie

[Coito ergo sum]

As for the WBC loons, I think they serve a legitimate purpose, which is the staunch defense of the First Amendment and freedom of speech. We stood a not inconsiderable risk of losing an important aspect of our liberty, but the Supremes came through and set another strong precedent that protects us against the forces of political correctness. They are useful idiots, canaries in the coal mine, so to speak. So long as people like that can speak freely and not be sanctioned for doing so, we are all safer and more free. On the day we can use the law to shut up such people by force, on that day a significant part of our liberty dies and tyranny waits in the wings for its cue.

If public order law is used to neuter the protests to keep them 1,000ft away from the funeral and often out of sight, why not use the same public order law to keep them further away or even out of town?

Because the law doesn't apply to just them, it applies to everyone. So if THEY have to be out of town, then so would PETA, a labor union demonstration, NOW, International ANSWER, Code Pink, the NAACP, and every other group. Time/Place/Manner regulations are allowed but they must be reasonable, and they must be "content neutral." That latter bit is the rub. When you keep one group out, you also have to keep out the Kiwanis Club or the Knights of Columbus Parade.

If they are being kept away from the funerals, how is that speaking freely and without sanction?

It's a time, place, and manner restriction applicable to all demonstrations on a content neutral basis. It's not just them, and it's not just the nasty speech that has to be kept away. It's any demonstration. Even a pro-gay demonstration would have to stay out.

Their 1st Amendment rights have been compromised, not enabled.

http://itlaw.wikia.com/wiki/Time,_place ... strictions

[HomerJay]

Their 1st Amendment rights have been compromised, not enabled.

http://itlaw.wikia.com/wiki/Time,_place ... strictions

This is Fudge with a capital F.

Not all demonstrations are neutered to 1,000 feet, in fact it could be argued that this prevents WBC FoS because they are not able to address their speech at the people they desire to.

They certainly wouldn't be able to leaflet the funeral if they decided to.

[Coito ergo sum]

Their 1st Amendment rights have been compromised, not enabled.

http://itlaw.wikia.com/wiki/Time,_place ... strictions

This is Fudge with a capital F.

Not all demonstrations are neutered to 1,000 feet, in fact it could be argued that this prevents WBC FoS because they are not able to address their speech at the people they desire to.

They certainly wouldn't be able to leaflet the funeral if they decided to.

Certainly, that's an argument to make; however, that would have been up to the WBC to sue the city to invalidate the 1,000 feet ordinance. Since they didn't violate the ordinance, it wasn't an issue in the Snyder vs WBC civil lawsuit.

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/f ... manner.htm

The analysis gets a little complex, and there is some grey area. However, if reasonable time,place and manner restrictions are not allowed, then you could have no rules prohibiting, say, the volume of protests using bullhorns, or the time when people can march down the street. Should people be able to have raucous demonstrations down a sleepy residential street? Should someone who hates you be able to stand outside your house with a bullhorn shouting obscenities at you?

[mistermack]

This first amendment stuff is bollocks. Freedom of speech is one thing. Freedom to offend is quite different.
Does freedom of speech mean MORE than the freedom to say what you like? Does it mean you can say what you like WHERE AND WHEN you choose?
That's MORE than freedom of speech. You can't go into the White House, and say what you want.
You can't get up on the rostrum when the president is making a speech, and take over. WHY should you be able to spout this stuff in earshot of a funeral?
Making them keep a couple of miles away doesn't cut down on their freedom of speech in the slightest. It just cuts down on the ability to offend. Can anybody answer that point? I can't think of an answer myself, so maybe someone can enlighten me. I would like to know how the judges answered it.

[Coito ergo sum]

This first amendment stuff is bollocks. Freedom of speech is one thing. Freedom to offend is quite different.

It isn't, actually. Saying "Religion is bollocks" offends millions of people. Is it not freedom of speech to say "religion is bollocks?" Of course it is. The distinction you try to make here is what the Islamists say when they want a new blasphemy law.

What you are really saying is "Freedom of speech is one thing. Freedom to say that which I find offensive, is quite different."

Does freedom of speech mean MORE than the freedom to say what you like? Does it mean you can say what you like WHERE AND WHEN you choose?

No, it does not mean you can say anything you like anywhere and anywhen you choose.

That's MORE than freedom of speech. You can't go into the White House, and say what you want.

That's true. But, where person X can stand and hold a sign, person Y can also stand and hold a sign.

You can't get up on the rostrum when the president is making a speech, and take over. WHY should you be able to spout this stuff in earshot of a funeral?

They were 1,000 feet away. Nobody heard them. And, the signs were not readable. The plaintiff, Mr. Snyder, testified he could not see the signs, and he didn't know what they were or what they said until long after the funeral. The funeral was not disturbed.

Making them keep a couple of miles away doesn't cut down on their freedom of speech in the slightest. It just cuts down on the ability to offend. Can anybody answer that point? I can't think of an answer myself, so maybe someone can enlighten me. I would like to know how the judges answered it.

They were 1,000 feet away, which is far enough that nobody was offended at the time. The father of the deceased soldier only became upset later when he learned what the signs said.

[Warren Dew]

Not all demonstrations are neutered to 1,000 feet, in fact it could be argued that this prevents WBC FoS because they are not able to address their speech at the people they desire to.

Westboro Baptist Church and the local police mutually agreed to a location.

If you read the supreme court oral arguments, the location was 1000 feet from the church the funeral mass was in, but adjacent to the church's main vehicular entrance, and 300 feet away from the entrance that was actually used. Evidently it was a pretty ritzy church. This also illustrates how the demonstraters don't get to say their thing "anywhere": in particular, they can't do it on private property, and the substantial amount of private property the church was situated on helped insulate the church.

The other issue that wasn't mentioned in the opinion was how the protesters found out about this particular funeral. Evidently the father of the deceased who filed the lawsuit had previously been on the airwaves exercising his own first amendment rights, using the occasion of his son's death to make political arguments that the protesters took issue with.