Supreme Court rules in favor of westboro to picket soldier's funerals.

[Funguy81]

http://www.aolnews.com/2011/03/02/westboro-baptist-church-ruling-dissenting-justice-samuel-alito/?icid=maing%7Caim%7Cdl1%7Csec1_lnk1%7C47809

Ok, I'm not the most politically active person in the world, but this ruling gave me a double take. How the hell do 8 out of 9 judges agree that westboro can picket and blast soldier's names at the time and location of their funerals? How is it that their right to free speech to trash talk soldier's deaths in a middle of a funeral is more important than the right of the families and friends to honor and remember their lost loved ones? So that means everyone one of those families that lost soldiers have a right to wait for that one of that church's members of congregations funeral and picket, trash talk, and pretty much disrespect and ruin that day of rememberance.

[Zakharra]

 Freedom of speech protects speech we do not like or want to hear. To be relevant, it has to protect the bad as well as the good speech.

[Sabby]

They have to stay a certain distance away, I think.

[Jude]

I don't think anyone really agrees with what the WBC does, it's just that any law to keep them from doing what they do would probably ensnare other people who are doing perfectly legitimate things.  A law that is specific enough to affect only one group and their actions by name would probably not be constitutional and the kind of restriction Alito talks about is so subjective that it could be applied in billions of unintended ways.  Referring to his quote:

But in staking out his lone dissent, Alito suggested that when publicly offensive speech is also -- and perhaps primarily -- personally painful, the Constitution doesn't protect it.

If he got his way any public speech which is offensive and personally painful could be grounds to sue.  Imagine what effects that would have on freedom of speech and our legal system if that were to become law given that what is offensive and painful is totally subjective.  Or, let me put it in another way that's more palatable to the general public.

If Alito got his way, imagine how many journalists Charlie Sheen could sue.

EDIT:  In addition, I find Alito's arguments very unconvincing.  He constantly talks about the personal pain and brutal experiences that this guy's father suffered.  I'm not saying that he wasn't distressed by the WBC's actions, but I can't imagine that any court could scientifically demonstrate how someone else's words on one brief occasion could inflict real, measurable harm on another person.  That's the real problem with this case; if it was a drawn out thing they'd be liable for harassment, but it wasn't.  This was a one-off event.  It's extremely unlikely that having a singular bad day where some protesters said some really horrible things can cause actual measurable harm.

Offense is not harm.  Momentary emotional distress caused by another person's isolated words that have no actual impact on your life, no matter how vile, should not cause any lasting damage to a person.  Yet that's exactly the sort of thing that's assumed in this case, I think, and also something that a jury would probably disagree with me on even if a lot of psychological professionals were to disagree with them.

[Oniya]

Momentary emotional distress caused by another person's isolated words that have no actual impact on your life, no matter how vile, should not cause any lasting damage to a person.  Yet that's exactly the sort of thing that's assumed in this case, I think, and also something that a jury would probably disagree with me on even if a lot of psychological professionals were to disagree with them.

Actually, the psychologists have spoken.  We're telling our kids they don't have to put up with 'another person's isolated words', because we see that they do have an 'actual impact'.  Why not set a good example for them?

[Jude]

Bullying is not "isolated."  It's habitual harassment by definition.  The study you chose is not at all applicable to this situation.  Bullying is basically a euphemism we use for harassment when it occurs between children -- and harassment is already illegal.

EDIT:  But to be fair, if the preponderance of the evidence showed that WBC is walking around seriously damaging people in measurable, significant ways, I'd be for their actions being outlawed too.

I don't believe that anyone should ever have the right to cause serious harm to another person.  However it doesn't seem likely to me that a protest which is required to be several hundred feet from the funeral consisting of outlandish and offensive non-sequitors can actually cause lasting harm to a grieving person.

[Oniya]

The WBC has habitually protested every soldier's funeral that they can get to.  Every soldier's family that has experienced it once has that encounter revisited with each of these protests.  Is it any less 'bullying' when the antagonist systematically distributes the actions over a specific group? 

[Brandon]

I am not suprised in the slightest, the first ammendmant allows nuts like the WBC to legally spout their hate speech and IMO the supreme court was completely in the right to enforce the first ammendment. It is no different then the KKK rallys or the Anti-theist billboards that appear every christmas season. Under the law they can not and should not be punished by the government or government institutions.

That said, I wouldnt call the WBC funeral protests bullying either, while bullying is harrassment its done to an individual. THeir protests, no matter how vile, have just targeted a specific group of people. Dead soldiers. IMO those men and women were american hero's and still are, they deserve much better then their final rest to be filled with hate feuld bigotry. Their actions are one of the few times in my life where Ive seriously considered vigilantism and ultimately I think thats what it comes down to. The law protects them but not from people who no longer feel the law is right in this circumstance (although I am not nor would I ever call for vigilantism)

[Jude]

The article you linked is about the prevalence of suicide amongst children who are bullied.  Not only are we not talking about children, but we're not talking about behavior that is even roughly analogous to the sort of bullying you're ascribing to the WBC.  The WBC shouts offensive slogans, they do not steal people's lunch money, threaten violence, or represent a persistent ongoing threat that is unavoidable for their victim who is in a powerless situation.  There is no intimidation or coercion in their act.  They have one encounter with their victims (which is pretty easy to ignore and avoid thanks to the laws requiring protesters to maintain their distance) and that's that.

They don't just target the funerals of dead soldiers, they were at Comicon and many other events that had nothing to do with deceased soldiers.  And even if they did, you can't just substitute the word individual for group and extrapolate the same results.

Show me one single person who has killed themself because of the WBC and that'll give me some pause.  Unfortunately even that's just a simplistic anecdote, so I have to admit that I'm not sure that sufficient data could even possibly be collected to analyze the impact of their reactions if they are having a decidedly detrimental influence on society.  If there are a couple of cases of them severely damaging a person however, I think that's good enough to establish something (though maybe not scientifically or particularly strongly).

[Sabby]

Why isn't there a masked vigilante group about this? We've had a big gay bus and a biker group follow these pricks and do what they can, but I'm waiting for a few early 20's in motorcross gear and face obscuring helmets to do strafing runs with ATV's and paintball guns.

I am absolutely seriously when I say I would join that group, hell, even help organize it, but I don't live close enough. I mean, who is seriously going to arrest and unmask them?

[Brandon]

I think you would look better in a long cape and tights for that role Sabby :P

The issue with vigilantism during their rallies is while it would certianly knock them down a peg and possibly make them reconsider future rallies they always seem to have at least 1 police officer present which would mean having to harm an innocent woman/man just trying to uphold the law that we all follow. On morale grounds alone that doesnt look very good but it becomes more complicated with the fact that if you wound a cop everyone in the precient will be gunning for you. On top of that its a numbers question, as I recall the WBC has about 50 people in its congregation, meaning you would want numbers at least twice that size. 100ish people isnt an easy thing to hide or disperse, especially on the backs of motorcycles which can be easily traced with the film crews that are always nearby

I dont know of many people that have the fortitude in their beliefs to risk their freedom for at least a decade all for their beliefs

[Lyell]

The first amendment protects the right to freedom of speech. Or rather, it prevents the government, federal and state, from making any law that would impede such. And yet they still have done so, likely in part due to the WBC. Most notably, on May 29, 2006, President George W. Bush signed into law the Respect for America's Fallen Heroes Act (Pub.L. 109-228), prohibiting protests within 300 feet (91 m) of the entrance of any cemetery under control of the National Cemetery Administration from 60 minutes before to 60 minutes after a funeral. Penalties for violating the act are up to $100,000 in fines and up to one year imprisonment. The bill garnered overwhelming bipartisan support in Congress with a 408–3 vote in the House, with 21 not voting, and a unanimous vote in the Senate.

Why though?

It does not protect you from the consequences of what you say. The fighting words doctrine, in United States constitutional law, is a limitation to freedom of speech as protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. In its 9-0 decision, Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942), the U.S. Supreme Court established the doctrine and held that "insulting or 'fighting words,' those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace" are among the "well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech [that] the prevention and punishment of...have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem."

I doubt it would take much study to connect WBC's injuring mantra and the many assault cases they've won.

[Noelle]

This has been debated endlessly in P&R for every event WBC has taken up.

It comes down to this:

WBC is not stupid. You can disagree with them til your face turns blue (and believe me, I certainly disagree), but they skirt the lines of legality purposely. They do not say "kill the fags", they do not say "kill more soldiers" (though recently there was a comment released by Phelps that I do believe was inciting -- I can't recall it now, but I think it kind of insinuated the aforementioned) -- they typically target a general group of people, they concede to most regulations that limit their protesting, and they know their legal rights.

Making a case for offensive speech is weak, at best. The fact that a man saw something on TV later that offended him and tried to sue is actually quite atrocious to me. I would argue that people who are actually suggesting physical harm on them are in some ways more offensive and blatantly contradictory to the point of free speech at all. That's bullying, too, even if it's against something you don't like. It's playground stuff, childish revenge at best that doesn't prove any point except that anyone with a little muscle can censor anyone weaker than them. There are more intelligent ways to deal with attention-whores like the WBC. What happens when we all stop acting outraged over their bullshit and treat them like the small, insignificant group of inbred fringe lunatics they are?

[Lyell]

Good luck getting the collective U.S. to cooperate on that level. These guys have spent years perfecting attention whoring. It's how they make their money. Convincing everyone that it's better to just smile, nod and ignore them is one of those 'easier said than done' bits.

[Zeitgeist]

Yeah I'm not thrilled about this decision at all, even if I understand it and ultimately support the spirit of it. The remedy though is to take that very same freedom of speech upheld by the courts and turn it back on WBC, and drown them out with condemnation. Those Hells Angel motorcycle inspired organizations need to be supported and encouraged to continue their efforts and get between the families and WBC at every turn. Their churches need to be picketed (legally) and they need to be made aware their behavior and words are wholly reprehensible. I don't suggest anyone will change their minds, I only suggest their awful message be drown out by the din of more reasonable speech.

[Oniya]

The article I linked to was in response to your statement that "Momentary emotional distress caused by another person's isolated words that have no actual impact on your life, no matter how vile, should not cause any lasting damage to a person. "

If you think that bullying is restricted to threats of physical violence, I honestly hope that you'll look into that more.  Female-on-female bullying rarely involves threats of violence, and is no less vicious or damaging than being told that someone is going to jump you on the way home from school.  I say this from personal experience.

I still maintain that each protest that the Phelps family does impacts not only the individuals at the specific funeral, but also any of their previous victims that find out about the protest.  Soldiers' families can be a fairly tight-knit group - something else I know from personal experience.  It also impacts the families of living soldiers:  If my child dies over there, are we going to have to put up with this?

The fact that the Phelps family shows up at other events is irrelevant.  Just because a bully decides to pick on a nerd one day does not wipe away the fact that he systematically picks on drama club members when ever possible.

Phelps and his clan are bullies, despite the fact that they only interact with their victims once directly.  Would it make a difference if we had a 'Saving Private Ryan' scenario where a family has gone through five funerals, and the Phelps family was in attendance, protesting, at each one?  Is it going to take some distraught parent committing suicide over Phelps's actions? 

To paraphrase a judge I once heard:  The day I stop feeling outraged about the things I see is the day I should step down. 

[Remiel]

Noelle is right.  Many (if not all) states have strict laws about where and when it is acceptable to protest at funerals, and to my knowledge the WBC have not violated any of these.  As reported by a radio interview this morning, and confirmed by this article, Mr. Snyder only saw the WBC protesters in passing the day of the funeral and didn't register the particularly egregious and offensive slogans until he saw the media coverage later on. 

The WBC protests on public property, well within state law.  They stayed the requisite 1000 feet away from the funeral at all times.  They did not advocate violence to any group or individual.

The First Amendment protects all freedom of speech, not just speech that we like or agree with.  I support the Supreme Court's ruling. 

[Lyell]

And I hold that certain speech in spite of the amendment is not protected. Shouting fire, inciting a riot or the aforementioned 'Fighting Words' statutes all fall under unprotected speech. You can't even flip someone the bird for cutting you off without misdemeanor charges.

[Vekseid]

And I hold that certain speech in spite of the amendment is not protected. Shouting fire, inciting a riot or the aforementioned 'Fighting Words' statutes all fall under unprotected speech. You can't even flip someone the bird for cutting you off without misdemeanor charges.

Which is why the WBC makes sure that its words are not directed at a person, and don't encourage violence against any group, but simply say that 'God' will, which is how they get around these laws as designed, because prohibiting it means you risk preventing 'x will happen because of y' speech, which is the foundation of a rather lot of discourse in general.

Regardless, we do have 'free speech zones', which is basically what groups like the Riders provide. For the WBC, they don't really care as long as they get attention and, the less attention we give them in general, the better.

[Oniya]

I really wish that God could sue them for libel and slander.

[Funguy81]

I personally don't care what they say, or how they say it. That's the freedom of speech. I just find it utterly disrespectful that they do this in a forum right outside of a soldier's funeral where the family and loved ones gathered to in remembrance. If they want to say it in front of a courthouse, school, university, or etc... great...have at it, but people should not have to hear that while gathered for a funeral. This ruling is not about censoring freedom of speech, but choosing a group's right to say whatever they want to say over the right for a family to have a day of respect for someone they lost.

[Callie Del Noire]

I think they are enjoying twisting a blade in one of the worst days of a person's life. Imagine putting your child in a ground. You're in a fragile state of mind, and having somebody take obvious joy at your loss and adding to your emotionally frail state of mind. Telling you  that he/she is dead because of something you've no control over and they are in hell.

I am frankly surprised that someone hasn't taken a shot at one of these idiots yet.

[RubySlippers]

The US has very strong free speech rights and they also have religious grounds even if no one here likes their views. I will note however as horrid as they sound to us they have a right in our nation to their message within fair limits and they obeyed all local laws. Hurting someones feelings and sense of decency is not something they can limit.

[Lyell]

Hurting someones feelings and sense of decency is not something they can limit.

Not that it'll stop them from trying. See 'Cyber Bullying Laws.'

[Noelle]

How is picketing a funeral any different than picketing any other day of the week? A wedding? A birthday? Someone just having a crappy day who doesn't want to be bothered? State of mind is a weak argument -- on those grounds, I could tell someone my dog just got hit by a car and I don't want to see anyone trying to picket my gay rights event because it would just further upset me...or maybe I just had a baby, and I just don't feel like dealing with anyone's shit trying to bring me down, because who wants to raise their kid in a world that's mean and spiteful?

They're not even picketing AT the funeral or even on the funeral grounds. Nobody is putting a top hat on and tap-dancing on anybody's grave. In fact, WBC usually shows up for a very negligible amount of time and then leaves. They don't know you, they probably don't even care who you are or what your name is, they just show up and then leave when their time is up and make absolutely no lasting impact except a wave of unnecessary outrage.

Venue choice can affect freedom of speech and assembly. What good is protesting if the only place you're allowed is 10 miles out of town? Why does anyone care what you're saying if they can't see or hear you? Venue choice can also affect the strength of the message you're giving. For WBC's purposes, no matter how much you disagree with them, the venue choice strengthens their voice and makes people take notice. For all intents and purposes, they are highly successful at being activists for their cause.

This is hardly inciting a riot -- the only violence being brought up is by everyone else BUT the WBC. Their words aren't directly stirring a panic the way yelling "fire" would, they are NOT inciting direct violence by saying things like "go out and beat up a homo today" -- in fact, they are peaceful, as much as that word goes against their message. They smile, they take the abuse others give them, and they practice their legal rights while obeying the law, which, now that I've examined both sides, is actually a lot more than I can say of those opposing them. Being on the perceived right side of an issue is not a carte blanche to do whatever you want without regards to the opposition. You can still be right in your stance on an issue and make the wrong choices.

They hardly deserve sympathy -- their opinion certainly doesn't merit much respect and nobody has to listen to them fairly if they don't want to, but disagreeing with someone's view, however appalling you find it, is never grounds for taking away their right to express it. Ever. I stand by their rights and I would defend to death their right to say it, as the saying goes. In fact, I think it would be hilarious if they picketed my funeral. I wouldn't want my family to give them the time of day or the satisfaction of being upset. I would want them to laugh at how much time they're wasting and encourage others to do the same.

[Lyell]

They're not even picketing AT the funeral or even on the funeral grounds. Nobody is putting a top hat on and tap-dancing on anybody's grave. In fact, WBC usually shows up for a very negligible amount of time and then leaves. They don't know you, they probably don't even care who you are or what your name is, they just show up and then leave when their time is up and make absolutely no lasting impact except a wave of unnecessary outrage.

Venue choice can affect freedom of speech and assembly. What good is protesting if the only place you're allowed is 10 miles out of town? Why does anyone care what you're saying if they can't see or hear you? Venue choice can also affect the strength of the message you're giving. For WBC's purposes, no matter how much you disagree with them, the venue choice strengthens their voice and makes people take notice. For all intents and purposes, they are highly successful at being activists for their cause.

See various indications about knowing their legal limits. They've almost been directly targeted by laws that prohibit protesting within an hour before and an hour after funeral proceedings take place by state and federal legislature. It's also mandated that they stay a certain distance from the proceedings or entrances to respective burial grounds.

"Inciting a riot applies to a person who organizes, encourages, or participates in a riot. It can apply to one who urges or instigates others to riot. It does not apply to someone who merely advocates ideas or expresses beliefs, if those ideas and beliefs do not involve advocating violence."
                                 --Jeralyn Merrie

Apparently expressing glee over soldiers returning in body bags isn't considered advocating violence.

[Noelle]

I'm aware of the limitations they have set on them, that's why I mentioned that they're not picketing directly AT the funeral :P I'm not contending any facts there, that was kind of my point!

The WBC isn't inciting a riot any more than Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh or Sarah Palin's crappy campaign graphics do and I have yet to see evidence that points otherwise. They skirt the line for that reason. They're really not that different from each other in tactics (except maybe Sarah Palin, since I don't consider as extreme as Beck/Limbaugh), only in the message.

Besides, at heart, I would argue that a lot of people actually agree with the WBC's stance on gays, if the perpetual dissent towards homosexuality even without their help. Everyone is crying about them picketing soldier's funerals, but hardly a word is said towards their dissent towards gays or usage of the word 'faggots' except maybe by the GLBT activists. Remove their picketing at funerals, and you've got yourself an agreeable anti-gay group for conservative America!

[Callie Del Noire]

Or attending the funeral of politician's wives (John Edwards wife, who incidentally died of a terrible cancer, and they carried signs saying the same sort of stuff their signs at the fallen soldiers funerals.)

[Lyell]

Do they actually make it to gay pride events? I know I've seen them at an anime or comic convention and were thoroughly shot down when they were treated like a bunch of missed social retards.

[Callie Del Noire]

Jon Stewart on the Daily Show praticed his 'right to speech' tonight to give a very nice summation of his opion on 'Rev' Phelps and his church.

Video forthcoming when I find it. :D

[RubySlippers]

Not that it'll stop them from trying. See 'Cyber Bullying Laws.'

I'm opposed to them actually the parents should be monitoring the child when on these social network sites and the child should learn not all people will be nice like my parents did for me. I consider this no matter for the government unless a parent goes to court and gets a restraining order on the offender(s). Schools have no place going outside the home to stop this behavior but can act in school which is their sphere.

Back on topic the US sponsors many sites illegal in many EU nations supporting hate groups I think thats fine if one doesn't let retarded racist neo-nazi people spew their insideous gospels then enlightened people can't counter it and show they are morons. If you have holocaust deniers what good is it repressing the idea since that is not helping eliminate the idea in the underground world of ideas is it? Put the truth on it and make it open in the light and see these people deal with it.

[Zakharra]

I think they are enjoying twisting a blade in one of the worst days of a person's life. Imagine putting your child in a ground. You're in a fragile state of mind, and having somebody take obvious joy at your loss and adding to your emotionally frail state of mind. Telling you  that he/she is dead because of something you've no control over and they are in hell.

I am frankly surprised that someone hasn't taken a shot at one of these idiots yet.

They are prepared for that and have good lawyers ready.

[Callie Del Noire]

They are prepared for that and have good lawyers ready.

Doesn't keep them from getting shot. And they typically rely on their own family for lawyers, Phelps has been disbarred and I know at least two of his daughters ARE lawyers. I think they use law suits as one of the family income sources.

[Remiel]

I wonder--has anyone tried to go to the WBC and picket outside of the church?  Something like "The Westboro Church is full of bullshit and Phelps is going to hell"?  Seems to me that would be an equally valid expression of the right to free speech.

[Callie Del Noire]

In moments of whimsy I imagine doing that. :D Of course I'd also day dream of buying lots around the church and putting up 30 foot signs that same the same sort of thing in the lots when I consider it. All the hate and discontent without actually using calories. (Comes from an old story of a clansman back in the country in NC I grew up in having a sign in his field by the highway saying something noxious. Till the day it 'accidently' burned down)

[Silk]

I wonder--has anyone tried to go to the WBC and picket outside of the church?  Something like "The Westboro Church is full of bullshit and Phelps is going to hell"?  Seems to me that would be an equally valid expression of the right to free speech.

Problem is, christianity is built on the foundation of "matyrdom" and all that will do is make them matyrs to their cause.

[Callie Del Noire]

The Daily Show - Tales of Principled Behavior


There you go. His comments are funny and sums the WBC folks I think

[Revolverman]

Problem is, christianity is built on the foundation of "matyrdom" and all that will do is make them matyrs to their cause.

That about sums it up.

I am shocked that we give an incestuous cult of what? 15 people? so much power that we are willing to give up our own rights just to see them silenced.

[Noelle]

I think if there's anyone in these cases that deserves our pity, it's the Phelps children who are indoctrinated into this insanity at such a young age.

[Jude]

"Give them power" is really the key phrase.  It doesn't matter what someone else says if you don't listen, can avoid them, and refuse to take what little you do hear to heart.  They make one of the worst days in a person's life that much worse, which is inexcusable, but not justification enough to tear a hole in freedom of speech that could easily be used to silence legitimate, necessary speech in the future.  Even if you don't believe that will happen, remember that with every concession we make freedom erodes.  That isn't to say we shouldn't ever consider restricting freedom (that would be a slippery slope fallacy), but you have to weigh the pros and cons in each instance.

I just don't see how anyone can claim that it's worth risking freedom of speech to silence some nutjobs who become more and more hated with every public appearance they make.

Now if you want to talk fair, legal repercussions for what they do, how about we take away their tax exemption?  That merely requires the law to be enforced, not bent or perverted.  Political organizations, even if they have a religious basis, still have to pay the IRS.

[Will]

That about sums it up.

I am shocked that we give an incestuous cult of what? 15 people? so much power that we are willing to give up our own rights just to see them silenced.

I really can't imagine a better summary of the situation.  Paragraphs upon paragraphs couldn't do better than this.

I think if there's anyone in these cases that deserves our pity, it's the Phelps children who are indoctrinated into this insanity at such a young age.

Also a valid point.

[Funguy81]

The Daily Show - Tales of Principled Behavior


There you go. His comments are funny and sums the WBC folks I think

That made me smile.  ;D

[Callie Del Noire]

That made me smile.  ;D

Made me wonder too. How much of the WBC issues are ways for the church to sue others and keep things tax free? I mean they stuck the father who took them to the Supreme Court with their lawyer bills (who are basically all Phelps family members it looks like)

[Inkidu]

Sadly the only thing freedom of speech does not protect is lies.

And opinions are not lies.

You also cannot defame a dead person.

That's the way the law is, and yes they have a right to spew hateful things public places just like the Neo-Nazis or the KKK.

It sucks, it's not right, but it's a constitutional freedom. :(

[Shjade]

Why isn't there a masked vigilante group about this?

You mean Anonymous?

Granted, they didn't do anything to the WBC until those folks were dumb enough to directly call them out, but it's basically what you wanted. Aside from the violence.

[Callie Del Noire]

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7358616n

Face the Nation's take on their 'win'.

[Brandon]

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7358616n

Face the Nation's take on their 'win'.

Wow, he said it far better then I ever could.

[Zeitgeist]

Wow, he said it far better then I ever could.

Which is precisely what I suggested earlier. Buffer zones, and drown out their hate speech with reasonable speech.

Yeah I'm not thrilled about this decision at all, even if I understand it and ultimately support the spirit of it. The remedy though is to take that very same freedom of speech upheld by the courts and turn it back on WBC, and drown them out with condemnation. Those Hells Angel motorcycle inspired organizations need to be supported and encouraged to continue their efforts and get between the families and WBC at every turn. Their churches need to be picketed (legally) and they need to be made aware their behavior and words are wholly reprehensible. I don't suggest anyone will change their minds, I only suggest their awful message be drown out by the din of more reasonable speech.

[RubySlippers]

Sadly the only thing freedom of speech does not protect is lies.

And opinions are not lies.

You also cannot defame a dead person.

That's the way the law is, and yes they have a right to spew hateful things public places just like the Neo-Nazis or the KKK.

It sucks, it's not right, but it's a constitutional freedom. :(

I prefer it over Europe where if your a holocaust denier, neo-nazi or other wackjob you can be arrested in several nations if you did nothing wrong but have an unpopular view. I say get this bile out in the open to the light of day and show how stupid it is for those with small minds.

[Brandon]

I prefer it over Europe where if your a holocaust denier, neo-nazi or other wackjob you can be arrested in several nations if you did nothing wrong but have an unpopular view. I say get this bile out in the open to the light of day and show how stupid it is for those with small minds.

and that model is a near perfect way to eventually rob everyone of their freedoms and turn our nation into a dictatorship. Step 1: Lable everyone you dont agree with as wackjobs Step 2: Arrest said people, placing them in prisons/camps or fine them till future financial stability is a pipe dreamStep 3: Appeal to the public on how "wrong" they were Step 5: Repeat till all semblance of freedom to think for or be oneself is gone

Ok thats worst case scenario and unlikely to happen without a Machiavellian villain at the head but I am against any kind of law that prevents the free expression of ideas/beliefs whether it be religious, philosophical, and/or political in nature.

[Cheka Man]

The WBC want to picket children's funerals now.  :o

[Revolverman]

The WBC want to picket children's funerals now.  :o

some one needs to investigate how they get all this money to do it.

[Callie Del Noire]

some one needs to investigate how they get all this money to do it.

Church funds, counter suits to the people who sue to keep them from protesting, and so on.

[Will]

Church funds, counter suits to the people who sue to keep them from protesting, and so on.

In other words, attention.  Huzzah.

[Phaia]

I listen to various talk shows driving to and from work! Most are Conservative, not all, one of those I listen to is Mike Gallagher. He is not as bad as many but he has my repsect for one main reason. His response to Westbrook.

****
Westbrook Baptist Church On October 6, 2006, Gallagher convinced the controversial Topeka, Kansas-based Westbrook Baptist Church to appear on air with an hour of air time in exchange for not picketing a funeral for victims from the Amish school shooting near Nickel Mines, Pennsylvania. Initially, Gallagher offered the organization money to not picket the funeral. With this gesture being accused of being blood money, the syndicated radio host gave the church an hour to appear on air. The Amish funerals went on peacefully after the contract signed with WBC stipulated a $500,000 fine if there were picketers anywhere near the funerals.[2]

Following plans by the Westbrook Baptist Church to protest funerals of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre, Gallagher offered the group three hours of airtime in exchange for an agreement not to protest these funerals. The WBC was the in-studio guests of Gallagher's program for its entirety on April 24, 2007.[3]

He has made a similar agreement with Westbrook concerning possible protests at the funerals of those killed in Tucson on 8 January 2011, despite the fact that emergency legislation passed on 12 January 2011 makes such protests illegal in Arizona.[4]
*****
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Gallagher

Mike may be off in some of his ideas but he believes that anything he can do to minimize potentail damage by WBC in certain things is proper. He said that for the Amish school children he felt that the Amish would have not understood why WBC would be there.

In one of the segments he had others in for a debate with WBC. Unfortunately I missed all 3 segments but would have loved to have heard them.

This seems to me to be a way to deal with these people, bring them in and debate them. Show how completely out there they are. I do have to wonder why ONLY a conservative talk show host has had WBC on. I would love to see one of the liberal preachers debate these people.


EDIT: found this link as well
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/megyn-kelly-challenges-mike-gallagher-about-inviting-westboro-baptist-church-members-on-his-show/

Phaia

[Callie Del Noire]

You know that he might keep an archive of broadcasts somewhere online Phaia

[Will]

I'm really torn on that as a solution.  That's basically giving them the publicity they want, thus validating their antics.  It's like buying a child a toy to quell their tantrum; it might seem like a good idea in the short term, but in the long term, it only teaches them to throw more tantrums.

Also, considering that the last person to sue over the Westboro picketing only saw the picketing on TV, I have to wonder if the Amish would have noticed the wackjobs at all.

[Callie Del Noire]

I'm really torn on that as a solution.  That's basically giving them the publicity they want, thus validating their antics.  It's like buying a child a toy to quell their tantrum; it might seem like a good idea in the short term, but in the long term, it only teaches them to throw more tantrums.

Also, considering that the last person to sue over the Westboro picketing only saw the picketing on TV, I have to wonder if the Amish would have noticed the wackjobs at all.

Most likely, the show got more out of it than the WBC folks. Still I agree that it's bad, but I would have done it as well to spar folks like the Amish. This was a culturally .. alien ..event to them to begin with..and to see those.. Hatemongers would have been like letting some tool kick puppies.

[Jazra]

I'm really torn on that as a solution.  That's basically giving them the publicity they want, thus validating their antics.  It's like buying a child a toy to quell their tantrum; it might seem like a good idea in the short term, but in the long term, it only teaches them to throw more tantrums.

Also, considering that the last person to sue over the Westboro picketing only saw the picketing on TV, I have to wonder if the Amish would have noticed the wackjobs at all.

I don't knock Gallagher for trying to help. Ideally, he's trying to do a decent thing. But there is no decent solution. The WBC is the equivalent of an Internet Troll who has sadly stepped out of the computer. The only solution is to ignore them. Even on the Internet, though, its hard to ignore people like this. When you're in the business of selling news and opinion, the temptation must be strong to put these clowns on the air whether its covering their picketing or letting them have air time not to picket. I support the Supreme Court's decision. It's the right decision for our country. What I would love to do or seen done to these horrific excuses for humanity is illegal and I would never suggest it. So we're back to dealing with a situation that can't be dealt with or simply biting our tongue and ignoring them.

[Callie Del Noire]

Anyone want to bet that this sort of crap would be harder for them to pull off if they lose their tax free status as a church?

[Noelle]

Ehh, do we really need to shelter the Amish? They're not helpless, naive, overgrown children and they do have exposure to the outside world -- they just choose to maintain a distance. Most Amish people have a rumspringa in their youth and often own cell phones and use computers and such during that time so they can experience life outside of their society. Even post-rumspringa, they deal with the rest of the world commercially/economically by selling their goods to outsiders and adhering to safety standards. This isn't the Amazon where we have a tribe of natives with no real outside influence who are the last of their kind and are being threatened with destruction -- we're talking about people who willfully remove themselves from modern technologies who would've likely dealt with the WBC in their own way and moved on from the event, much like what most people do.

Trading airtime is counterproductive, if you ask me. People stress it over and over again and then shoot themselves in the foot -- attention is what these people thrive on, almost everyone admits it. Instead of giving in and holding up a megaphone to their already-loud mouths, passing reactionary statewide legislature that does everything but directly point its finger at the WBC, or otherwise making them into a Very Big Deal, they need to be treated like the sad, marginal bunch of inbred douchecanoes they really are. That is to say, we need to just roll our eyes and move past them. We treat them like a massive block in the road when really they're just a minor bump that can be hit with the car on our way to Disneyland.

[Apple of Eris]

"douchecanoes" That made me giggle.

I agree thw WBC should be ignored, seriously, but when they're near the funeral of a loved one shouting their obscene message and making a terrible ordeal even worse... That's rough.

That's why I like what the Patriot Riders organization did (I think that was their name), the bikers who lined up along funeral routes for american soldiers and stood between the WBC picketers and the funeral, blocking out the signs and the shouting. Very awesome folks. :)

[Oniya]

Being where I am, I see a lot of Amish.  They are quiet and dignified - but have a surprisingly sharp sense of humor once you get to the point of interacting with them.  I suspect that they would treat the WBC the same way that they treated the gunman in that school shooting. 



And it would infuriate the Phelps clan to be granted a forgiveness that they don't feel they are in need of.

[Callie Del Noire]

Being where I am, I see a lot of Amish.  They are quiet and dignified - but have a surprisingly sharp sense of humor once you get to the point of interacting with them.  I suspect that they would treat the WBC the same way that they treated the gunman in that school shooting. 



And it would infuriate the Phelps clan to be granted a forgiveness that they don't feel they are in need of.

You know.. I'd pay to see that... just to watch the Phelps clan fall to the ground in a frothing fit.

[Cheka Man]

Sadly unlike an Internet Troll the WBC can't be banned by a mod or Admin.

[Callie Del Noire]

Sadly unlike an Internet Troll the WBC can't be banned by a mod or Admin.

Still it would be nice to see a HUGE multi-story hammer come down on them. (Captioned Ban-hammer)

<wanders off to imagine that for a while>

[Oniya]

Will this do?

[Callie Del Noire]

Will this do?

]

What no attacking you with a Banana first?!'


Yes, very much

[gaggedLouise]

Being where I am, I see a lot of Amish.  They are quiet and dignified - but have a surprisingly sharp sense of humor once you get to the point of interacting with them.  I suspect that they would treat the WBC the same way that they treated the gunman in that school shooting. 



And it would infuriate the Phelps clan to be granted a forgiveness that they don't feel they are in need of.

Perfectly put! Unfortunately you can't rely on the media to be near as dignified when they have someone yelling "God hates U.S. Iraq soldiers", "God hates Obama" or is vowing to burn the Qu'ran tomorrow (the Westboro guys actually burnt the Qu'ran a few years ago, and promised to do it again during the burn-a-Qu'ran affair last year). Most news outlets today just have to give that kind of thing front space when it occurs, few can afford to refuse to show it or reply on it. And once there's been some really angry feedback, such as an infuriated veteran family calling the Westboro church idiots, or calling for a police raid on them, or muslims in Syria or somewhere who have seen a clip of the Qu'ran burning and have been given the impression that this is the typical American way to treat their holy book (very easy to pull off in a society without free media, where many people are illiterate and news often gets mixed with rumours) and so they stage a march with burning U.S. flags and straw-and-cloth effigies of Obama and Bush - then the rebound circle is established: both sides get to feed the trolls, and the media become unwitting or careless accomplices.

In the process, any serious debate about Islam, free speech or the war in question becomes compromised in the eyes of many people and hard to engage in, now that the room is so filled with smoke from the verbal or physical gunslinging on both sides.

[Oniya]

Another point I should put out there:  The Amish do not like to have their pictures taken.  I doubt there were any news cameras allowed in the vicinity of the funeral.  What do you suppose the WBC would do if there was a protest, and nobody came?

[Apple of Eris]

Good point Oniya, I know around here most of the news agencys are pretty sensitive to the Amish not liking to be photographed. I think though that a WBC protest around amish folks would draw the media like flies to honey. Really though, I'd be curious what the amish thought of them.

A couple places even post signs up at least near lancaster, which is pretty touristy, telling people to ask permission first. Honestly though, most of the amish, at least the younger ones I've talked too are pretty accomodating about it, they mostly seemed amused that people wanted their pictures.

[Oniya]

Probably a slight difference in populations then.  Where I am is far from touristy, and the word just sort of filters around that you 'don't do that' - although actually, it's just like you wouldn't take pictures of 'random person on the street' under normal circumstances without asking permission.  (Mr. Oniya used to work in the photo-developing business.)

[Zeitgeist]

A bit off topic but since we are talking about the Amish - I was so impressed by their behavior in the aftermath of the schoolhouse shooting a couple years back. They made a point of visiting the shooter's family, expressing their forgiveness and consoling the wife of the gunman and her loss. That, in my opinion, is the epitome of Christianity and Christian forgiveness.

[Pointless Digression]

So that means everyone one of those families that lost soldiers have a right to wait for that one of that church's members of congregations funeral and picket, trash talk, and pretty much disrespect and ruin that day of rememberance.

I realize this conversation is more than a month cold, but I wanted to chime in since I felt it got off on the wrong foot to start.

The original poster said:

Ok, I'm not the most politically active person in the world, but this ruling gave me a double take. How the hell do 8 out of 9 judges agree that westboro can picket and blast soldier's names at the time and location of their funerals? How is it that their right to free speech to trash talk soldier's deaths in a middle of a funeral is more important than the right of the families and friends to honor and remember their lost loved ones?
CUT BY POINTLESS DIGRESSION

But that's not what happened at the protest. At all.

The court ruled that, since the protests happened peacefully and in a public space at a non-disruptive distance from the funeral -- and since, quote, "speech on public issues occupies the highest rung of the hierarchy of First Amendment values and is entitled to special protection" -- the original judgment against them could not stand.

They were in a public place. They were not violent; they were not disruptive; they were not invasive. Yes, they picketed a funeral. They picketed a funeral from 1,000 feet away -- so far away that the plaintiff didn't even know they were there until he heard about it on the news the next day.

I'm going to say that last part again, because it deserves special emphasis. The plaintiff didn't even know they were there. Until he heard about it on the news. The next day.

The emotional upset wasn't brought on by the funeral being protested. It was brought on simply by hearing about it on the news the next day, and knowing that the protests had happened at all. If the protests had happened in the next street, or the next town, or the next state, the effect would have been the same.

So I'm agreeing with the Supreme Court on this one. I don't see it as a victory for the WBC, but for the 1st Amendment.

Thanks to Greta Christina, whose blog post I lifted shamelessly from in order to build this reply.

[drivingmissdaisy]

Good luck finding any Supreme Court bench that is going to overturn 1st Amendment rights such as this. I mean shit, even Scalia agreed. These rights are too important and the foundation of our country and our Constitution. Why use my words when Justice Roberts wraps it up so nicely:

"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. On the facts before us, we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker," Roberts said. "As a nation we have chosen a different course - to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate."

You don't agree? Call your Congressman and tell him to enact new legislation (at which point they will laugh at your request to amend the Constitution). Regardless, such moves rely on legislation, not the court.

[RubySlippers]

The First Amendment is unique to the US in Europe for example denying the holocaust or advertising neo-nazi activities is illegal. We view it as this the morons can say what they like unless its actively promoting an illegal activity its good they say what they want most people will simple counter it with opposing messages. That is what happened here in this case most of us agree the church is full of morons if they do this but look at the messages here its countered by enlightened people that see this as a negative thing to do and denounce it on personal conviction.

[Callie Del Noire]

I LOVE THIS WOMAN.. and fyi.. she's wrong.. the final count was 44 protestors..so Lamponelli donated 44,000 in the name of the Westboro Baptist Church. (When i win the megaball lottery, I'll be hosting at least 1 show a year for her in Topeka.. LOL)

Comedian Lisa Lampanelli versus the Westboro Baptist Church

[TheVillain]

I keep in mind that the WBC is only a church in the loosest sense of the word. Last time I checked, only 3 members of the WBC aren't related to Reverend Phelps by blood or marriage and they're a husband, wife, and one of their kids.

But yeah, as much as laying a fat ban in their breakfast cereal would be keen, I can't think of a way to do it that doesn't open the doors for something worse.

[Oniya]

I kind of like the idea of making donations to charities in response to them.  It turns the negative into a positive.

[Callie Del Noire]

I kind of like the idea of making donations to charities in response to them.  It turns the negative into a positive.

Not to mention you can practically HEART their blood pressure go up at the announcement. It does my small petty petty heart good to know that they took no comfort from that.

I should be a better person.. but I'll take the warm feeling of knowing she probably spent more than she made on the show, gets a tax right off and maybe took years off their life in the process.

[Oniya]

Even if it was a bunch of ordinary people donating $5 per protestor, it would still a) tweak the WBC, and b) get funding to some worthy causes.

[Callie Del Noire]

Here is one of those 'wow' stories..

The KKK telling the folks at WBC they are going too far.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/klu-klux-klan-protests-westboro-baptist-church-video/2011/05/31/AGgoiPFH_blog.html

[Noelle]

Maybe they'll be like sister hate groups and orbit around each other, forever picketing the other while the rest of us stand back untouched.

Just a thought, anyway.

[TheGlyphstone]

I actually went to the KKK website once, as part of an unrelated bet/dare - they have a disclaimer at the bottom denouncing and repudiating any association with the WBC.

[Callie Del Noire]

I actually went to the KKK website once, as part of an unrelated bet/dare - they have a disclaimer at the bottom denouncing and repudiating any association with the WBC.

Whoa.. wow.. that just.. broke my surreal setting.

[Belle33]

I keep in mind that the WBC is only a church in the loosest sense of the word. Last time I checked, only 3 members of the WBC aren't related to Reverend Phelps by blood or marriage and they're a husband, wife, and one of their kids.

But yeah, as much as laying a fat ban in their breakfast cereal would be keen, I can't think of a way to do it that doesn't open the doors for something worse.

Well put.  Fortunately, there are many ways we can honor our fallen heros in privately. 

[Oniya]

Not to mention, at least two of his sons have broken from the WBC.