Posted on 03/02/2011 10:11:47 AM PST by SeekAndFind
A Kansas church known for its angry, anti-gay protests at funerals of U.S. troops won an appeal Wednesday at the Supreme Court in a case testing the competing constitutional rights of free speech and privacy.
In an 8-1 ruling, the justices said 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."
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
No they wouldn't. The pro-homo crowd does protests like this outside the front door of churches every single weekend somewhere and I've never heard of any of them getting arrest for disturbing the peace. You don't have a clue what you are talking about.
I don't know what sort of Tea Party activity you have been a part of. All of the events I have been a part of (about ten by now) have been held in public parks where the organizers have obtained permits for the gathering, or on private property with the blessing of the owner(s) of the property. SFAIAA, no neighbor could hear anything at any of the events I've been to that have been held on private property.
ML/NJ
And you support this? You support decisions which render violations of disturbing the peace null and void. Everyone who disturbs the peace could claim that he is exercising a free speech right.
As Rush has said, everyone has a right to free speech; but they do not have a right to be heard.
For 200 years or so this is the way it was in our little totalitarian republic, but now with publicly educated fools who think that queers have GREATER rights than worshipers, it is no more.
ML/NJ
I would put that in the same category as yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater when there is no fire.
Free speech is sometimes punishable by both man and the courts -- and God. So they may have their free speech at their own peril.
I would not be adverse to be walking by the inciters while I was carrying some mace, a zapper, a baseball bat, a knive, a pistol, and a shotgun and let them test how mad it might make me while they were doing their inciting.
I certainly support their right to do so. The same right which allows Christians to proselytize. (A right Christians don't have in some countries that call themselves Western democracies).
Ya see, Pal, you may have a right to tell me how wonderful Jesus is, but if you don't think I have a right to tell you to leave me alone, then you and I have a different view of America. It's one that could get you killed if run into the wrong person.
ML/NJ
Then we have different views. And my view won 8-1 which means it will be the law of the land for decades to come.
Just like Roe and Kelo. Liberals LOVE the Court, but really have no place here at FreeRepublic.
ML/NJ
This is not the first bad decision the SCOTUS has made; nor will it be the last. But, as bad rulings, this is in the top ten. Now let them enforce the ruling.
So what do you think of my reply 24 for a remedy?
Well, I think the proper remedy is the one Roberts suggested in the majority opinion. Create buffer zones around funerals which are protest free. Roberts said that would be acceptable.
I would agree, though I would want the buffer zone to begin at a point where the protesters cannot be seen or heard by funeral attendees for at least one full block from the burial site or cemetery, whichever is the furtherest, otherwise, bam, slice, chop, whip, mangle, maim, kick butt or do whatever moves you if you just happen to pass by the inciters.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.