It is currently Fri May 29, 2026 12:52 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 15 posts ] 
Author Message
backthatSASSup
PostPosted: Wed Mar 02, 2011 4:47 pm 
Offline
PP Quarterback
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 7:44 pm
Posts: 1549
Location: BuffaLOVE
Quote:
Washington (CNN) -- A Kansas church that attracted nationwide attention for its angry, anti-gay protests at the funerals of U.S. military members has won its appeal at the Supreme Court, an issue testing the competing constitutional rights of free speech and privacy.

The justices, by an 8-1 vote, said Wednesday that members of Westboro Baptist Church had a right to promote what they call a broad-based message on public matters such as wars. The father of a fallen Marine had sued the small church, saying those protests amounted to targeted harassment and an intentional infliction of emotional distress.

"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," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority.

At issue was a delicate test between the privacy rights of grieving families and the free speech rights of demonstrators, however disturbing and provocative their message. Several states have attempted to impose specific limits on when and where the church members can protest.

The church, led by pastor Fred Phelps, believes God is punishing the United States for "the sin of homosexuality" through events including soldiers' deaths. Members have traveled the country shouting at grieving families at funerals and displaying such signs as "Thank God for dead soldiers," "God blew up the troops" and "AIDS cures fags."

Westboro members had appeared outside the 2006 funeral for Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder in Westminster, Maryland, outside Baltimore.

Snyder's family sued the church in 2007, alleging invasion of privacy, intentional infliction of emotional distress and civil conspiracy. A jury awarded the family $2.9 million in compensatory damages plus $8 million in punitive damages, which were later reduced to $5 million.

The church appealed the case in 2008 to a federal appeals court, which reversed the judgments a year later, siding with the church's allegations that its First Amendment rights were violated.

Albert Snyder, Matthew's father, said his son was not gay and the protesters should not have been at the funeral.

"I was just shocked that any individual could do this to another human being," Snyder told CNN. "I mean, it was inhuman."

Church members say their broader message was aimed at the unspecified actions of the military and those who serve in it. They believe U.S. soldiers deserve to die because they fight for a country that tolerates homosexuality.

Roberts in his opinion noted the Snyder family was not a "captive audience" to the protests that were conducted several hundred yards away.

"Westboro stayed well away from the memorial service," wrote Roberts. "Snyder could see no more than the tops of the signs when driving to the funeral. And there is no indication that the picketing itself in any way interfered with the funeral itself."

Based on that the court concluded Snyder could not collect damages from Westboro.

But the chief justice showed little sympathy for the message Westboro promotes.

"Westboro believes that America is morally flawed; many Americans might feel the same about Westboro. Westboro's funeral picketing is certainly hurtful and its contribution to public discourse may be negligible," he said. However, "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."

The ruling was a narrow one, dealing with the specific, unusual facts of this appeal. Such vocal protests at military funerals are almost entirely confined to this one small group. Roberts said on the free speech question, it was enough to rely on "limited principles that sweep no more broadly than the appropriate context of the instant case."

Only Justice Samuel Alito dissented. He said the church's "outrageous conduct caused petitioner great injury, and the court now compounds that injury by depriving petitioner of a judgment that acknowledges the wrong he suffered," he said. "In order to have a society in which public issues can be openly and vigorously debated, it is not necessary to allow the brutalization of innocent victims like petitioner."

...

Church members told the court they have a duty to protest and picket at certain events, including funerals, to promote their religious message: "That God's promise of love and heaven for those who obey him in this life is counterbalanced by God's wrath and hell for those who do not obey him."

The congregation is made up mostly of Fred Phelps and his family. The pastor has 13 children, and at least 54 grandchildren and seven great-grandchildren.

....

The case decided Wednesday is Snyder v. Phelps (09-751).


http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/03/02/scotus ... tml?hpt=C1


What are your thoughts?

The saddest thing to me is that winning this case is exactly what that team of lawyers, excuse me, religious activists wanted. I understand free speech protection and all that and I'm not really upset about the ruling; but it just really bothers me that this case is exactly what the church wanted and now I'm sure they'll recover damages from the poor guy that sued them. I feel Snyder was so wronged by their actions and they will see no punishment for it, because it falls under free speech. I really did like the substance of Sam Alito's dissenting opinion, which was:

Quote:
"outrageous conduct caused petitioner great injury, and the court now compounds that injury by depriving petitioner of a judgment that acknowledges the wrong he suffered," he said. "In order to have a society in which public issues can be openly and vigorously debated, it is not necessary to allow the brutalization of innocent victims like petitioner."


I'm just really torn on this. I understand where both sides are coming from, but I have sympathy for Snyder (obviously).

And now, I will go back to ignoring the Westboro Church because I hate giving them the attention they want.


Top
 Profile  
 
mechaphil
PostPosted: Wed Mar 02, 2011 4:55 pm 
Offline
Thy Horror Cosmic
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 4:57 pm
Posts: 19086
Location: BFLO
I'm with you on this one Beth

_________________
mechaphil


Top
 Profile  
 
Squanto
PostPosted: Wed Mar 02, 2011 5:15 pm 
Offline
Carlos Spicy-Wiener
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 10:31 am
Posts: 9240
Location: FAP TURBO
I need to read the case still, but I think they got it right.

My brain is with the majority, but my heart sides with Alito.


Top
 Profile  
 
ironyisadeadscene
PostPosted: Wed Mar 02, 2011 5:19 pm 
Offline
Captain Dynasty
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 2:01 pm
Posts: 15390
Location: michigan
of course it doesnt work like this, but if they have the freedom of speech, the freedom of reaction should come into place. if you have the right to get off by protesting someones family disaster, then someone should have the right to appropriately react.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
Squanto
PostPosted: Wed Mar 02, 2011 5:35 pm 
Offline
Carlos Spicy-Wiener
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 10:31 am
Posts: 9240
Location: FAP TURBO
The word 'appropriate' becomes a slippery slope. Who decides what is appropriate?

They'll just do what most people have been doing. Defining a specific demonstration/protest area away from the funeral proceedings. The WBC gets to spew their hate, and the families don't have to see it.


Top
 Profile  
 
ironyisadeadscene
PostPosted: Wed Mar 02, 2011 5:43 pm 
Offline
Captain Dynasty
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 2:01 pm
Posts: 15390
Location: michigan
i understand. i just believe if someone has the right to say any vile, inhuman, hateful thing they want to these mourning families, then any reaction they get should be somewhat expected.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
Markus
PostPosted: Wed Mar 02, 2011 5:50 pm 
Offline
Power Forward
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 12, 2009 9:17 pm
Posts: 1495
I've been following this case for awhile. The church did this for all the wrong reasons. You don't touch military funerals, and the soldier wasn't even gay. I'm sorry but i'm not one way or another on the gay marriage issue, but soldiers dying overseas isn't a reaction from god.

Maybe it's been decided "legal", but if someone gets angry enough, there could be an assault/murder resulting from this.

Put yourself in his shoes. The dad feels lifeless. He and others could do anything.

They already physically attacked the church group once, it could definitely happen again.


Top
 Profile  
 
backthatSASSup
PostPosted: Wed Mar 02, 2011 6:53 pm 
Offline
PP Quarterback
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 7:44 pm
Posts: 1549
Location: BuffaLOVE
I don't really believe that the church (at least the founders anyway, maybe the minions believe it) believes in the hate mongering they wish to inspire, but rather they try to purposely get a rise out of people so that they'll be sued, knowing full well they will not lose because they have protected speech. They also can sue others who try to limit their speech and make money off it. The whole family is a team of scummy lawyers that give those who practice a bad name.


Top
 Profile  
 
Crosscheck
PostPosted: Wed Mar 02, 2011 7:08 pm 
Offline
Sober enough to run a server
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 3:10 am
Posts: 7477
Location: 2,568 miles from the F'n arena
Good.

The first amendment exists to protect exactly these type of assholes.

Their message wasn't on trial.

_________________
Hold my beer and watch this...


Top
 Profile  
 
ironyisadeadscene
PostPosted: Wed Mar 02, 2011 7:11 pm 
Offline
Captain Dynasty
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 2:01 pm
Posts: 15390
Location: michigan
very true.

still... i cant stand their "message."

if something bad happens because they said the wrong thing to the wrong guy.. i wont cry when they get their asses kicked.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
Crosscheck
PostPosted: Wed Mar 02, 2011 7:13 pm 
Offline
Sober enough to run a server
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 3:10 am
Posts: 7477
Location: 2,568 miles from the F'n arena
This is what a state controlling speech looks like
http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/ ... -shot-dead

_________________
Hold my beer and watch this...


Top
 Profile  
 
Sabresfansince1980
PostPosted: Wed Mar 02, 2011 11:22 pm 
Offline
Star Sniper
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 19, 2009 11:45 pm
Posts: 3021
Location: So far away
People should stand outiside the church members' houses, work places, and church 24/7 protesting them, calling them every vile filth possible, and let them enjoy a taste of their own shit sandwich.


Top
 Profile  
 
Stuuuuuuu
PostPosted: Thu Mar 03, 2011 2:36 pm 
Offline
Franchise Defenseman
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2009 9:09 pm
Posts: 2876
Location: Portland, Oregano
Have to say that the decision seems right to me, even if i disagree w/the group's message. I do wonder what the same Court would have ruled about the older policy of not publishing photographs of dead soldier's coffins. Hopefully they would rule in favor of the 1st amendment again, but I wonder if the Robert's court would have defended the Bush administration's policy out of political loyalties.


Top
 Profile  
 
Displaced Fan
PostPosted: Thu Mar 03, 2011 2:48 pm 
Offline
Superstar Goalie
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 1:34 am
Posts: 4097
As an ex-Honor Guard body bearer this gets under my skin to no end. Free speech is free speech though, as much as I hate their message. I just hope that some off kiltered Marine stomps a mudhole in them one day though.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
ironyisadeadscene
PostPosted: Thu Mar 03, 2011 2:51 pm 
Offline
Captain Dynasty
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 2:01 pm
Posts: 15390
Location: michigan
couldnt you just pelt them with paint balls? hurts, but safe.

no, thats illegal. dammit.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 15 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to: