I agree, but is that what they're doing as such?
Yes. These pics taken at the gates of Walter Reed Army Medical Center...
Posted on 03/13/2011 7:46:27 AM PDT by Kaslin
In America, it's easy to take freedom speech for granted. After all, for citizens of the United States, free speech is a birthright, an ideal deeply woven into the fabric of society and culture. Sometimes, however, our ideals come into conflict with reality, and our convictions are put to the test. When a cherished liberty is exploited for a dubious purpose, do the perpetrators of that exploitation retain the right to exercise that liberty, or should the right be circumscribed "for the greater good?"
The US Supreme Court answered this question last week with its ruling that the anti-military, anti-gay protest activities of the Westboro Baptist Church (WBC) are protected under the First Amendment to the Constitution. This was not welcome news for those who believe that something should be done to protect grieving families of fallen soldiers from the vitriol of a lunatic "pastor" and his overzealous followers. As disgusting and offensive as WBC's conduct is, however, the general consensus among legal experts and pundits on the Left and Right is that the Supreme Court made the right decision. Chief Justice John Roberts took pains to articulate why the Court came down on the side of the protestors in this case:
"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. 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. That choice requires that we shield Westboro from tort liability for its picketing in this case."
Chief Justice Roberts and his colleagues are absolutely correct here. The blessings of living in a free society come with the unavoidable consequences of that freedom: inevitably, misguided – and sometimes evil – people will use that freedom to spew hateful, hurtful speech. Yet, as much as we may wish to use the force of law to impose civility on public discourse, it is not the government's job to police the thoughts and words of its citizens.
This is the animating principle behind opposition to hate crime legislation. Regardless of how this emotionally-charged debate might be portrayed in the media, the primary objection of critics of "hate crimes" is that such laws essentially criminalize thought or attitudes. In a society based in the rule of law, it is legitimate to punish a person when their conduct violates the life, liberty, or property of another. It is not legitimate, however, to punish that same person more severely if their crime was motivated by an unpopular or abhorrent ideology. Actions, not attitudes, are the proper province of government regulation.
As Chief Justice Roberts observed, hate speech can stir powerful emotions in us, prompting a desire for justice that clouds our ability to appreciate the higher principles involved. In a political and cultural atmosphere that becomes more and more contentious every day however, it is critical that we remain firm in our allegiance to the values that America was founded on. Unlike many other parts of the world – where open criticism of the predominant religion or reigning despot is likely to land a person in prison or worse – America is a land that has always stood as a bastion of liberty and a model of the democratic process in action. If a person or a group says something we don't like, we don't issue death threats, or take to the streets in violent protest, or lobby the state to crack down on our enemies. That's just not the American way.
The American Legion's response to the Westboro Baptist Church's offensive activities is a perfect example of the American way in action. For six years, the Patriot Guard Riders have stood vigil at military funerals, acting as guardians for the fallen and their families and minimizing their exposure to the hateful protesters lining the funeral routes. In the wake of the Supreme Court's decision, the Legion has pledged to continue this work for as long as they are needed. Try as they might to garner attention with their hateful words, the Westboro Baptist Church's message will never resonate as loud as the message being sent by the Patriot Guard Riders. That is what makes America a great nation.
What Westboro does isn’t political speech, but harassment and intimidation. You do not have the right to get in someone’s face and shout obscenities and threats.
I still stand by the old addage, “your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins”.
This was the first issue with which I disagreed with
Sarah Palin. I think these guys did have the right to do what they did. I don’t think they should have, but that is another issue.
You are correct and it’s really sad that the Supreme court didn’t see it that way
I agree, but is that what they're doing as such?
As obnoxious as this is, CJ Roberts is dead on to right. We cannot compromise freedom of speech. I just hope that he will remember that when we have an opportunity to test the constitutionality of “hate speech” statutes.
Justice Samuel Alito, however, issued a dissenting opinion in this matter.
"In this case, respondents brutally attacked Matthew Snyder, and this attack, which was almost certain to inflict injury, was central to respondents’ well-practiced strategy for attracting public attention," wrote Alito.
"On the morning of Matthew Snyder’s funeral, respondents could have chosen to stage their protest at countless locations. They could have picketed the United States Capitol, the White House, the Supreme Court, the Pentagon, or any of the more than 5,600 military recruiting stations in this country. They could have returned to the Maryland State House or the United States Naval Academy, where they had been the day before. They could have selected any public road where pedestrians are allowed. (There are more than 4,000,000 miles of public roads in the United States.) They could have staged their protest in a public park. (There are more than 20,000 public parks in this country.) They could have chosen any Catholic church where no funeral was taking place. (There are nearly 19,000 Catholic churches in the United States.) But of course, a small group picketing at any of these locations would have probably gone unnoticed."
Alito continues and quotes Westboro Baptist Church's attack against Snyder: "Belying any suggestion that they had simply made general comments about homosexuality, the Catholic Church, and the United States military, the “epic” addressed the Snyder family directly:
'God blessed you, Mr. and Mrs. Snyder, with a resource and his name was Matthew. He was an arrow in your quiver! In thanks to God for the comfort the child could bring you, you had a DUTY to prepare that child to serve the LORD his GOD—PERIOD! You did JUST THE OPPOSITE—you raised him for the devil.
. . . . . 'Albert and Julie RIPPED that body apart and taught Matthew to defy his Creator, to divorce, and to commit adultery. They taught him how to support the largest pedophile machine in the history of the entire world, the Roman Catholic monstrosity. Every dime they gave the Roman Catholic monster they condemned their own souls. They also, in supporting satanic Catholicism, taught Matthew to be an idolater. . . . . 'Then after all that they sent him to fight for the United States of Sodom, a filthy country that is in lock step with his evil, wicked, and sinful manner of life, putting him in the cross hairs of a God that is so mad He has smoke coming from his nostrils and fire from his mouth! How dumb was that?' "
And, back to the same old question: “who determines if it’s harassment or intimidation”? The Obama government?
It goes without saying that Westboro is a disgusting example of the abuse of our GOD-given-First-Amendment-assured rights, but our Bill of Rights enshrines the right to say things that others may find offensive. (I know, I know, Westboro is way beyond offensive. But, to hear most on the left talk, so is the Tea Party movement and all its members.)
And, besides, Patriot Guard - a non-governmental, citizens group, has formed in response to Westboro, and are there to ensure that no family has to be bothered by those creeps. Which is how it should be, in my opinion.
Antifederalist No. 78-79:
The Power of the Judiciary
by Brutus
“The supreme court under this constitution would be exalted above all other power in the government, and subject to no control.
...
The judges in England, it is true, hold their offices during their good behavior, but then their determinations are subject to correction by the house of lords; and their power is by no means so extensive as that of the proposed supreme court of the union. I believe they in no instance assume the authority to set aside an act of parliament under the idea that it is inconsistent with their constitution. They consider themselves bound to decide according to the existing laws of the land, and never undertake to control them by adjudging that they are inconsistent with the constitution-much less are they vested with the power of giv[ing an] equitable construction to the constitution.
The judges in England are under the control of the legislature, for they are bound to determine according to the laws passed under them. But the judges under this constitution will control the legislature, for the supreme court are authorised in the last resort, to determine what is the extent of the powers of the Congress. They are to give the constitution an explanation, and there is no power above them to set aside their judgment. The framers of this constitution appear to have followed that of the British, in rendering the judges independent, by granting them their offices during good behavior, without following the constitution of England, in instituting a tribunal in which their errors may be corrected; and without adverting to this, that the judicial under this system have a power which is above the legislative, and which indeed transcends any power before given to a judicial by any free government under heaven.
...[the authors of the constitution] have made the judges independent, in the fullest sense of the word. There is no power above them, to control any of their decisions. There is no authority that can remove them, and they cannot be controlled by the laws of the legislature. In short, they are independent of the people, of the legislature, and of every power under heaven. Men placed in this situation will generally soon feel themselves independent of heaven itself.”
I’m with Judge Alito
You do not have the right to get in someone’s face and shout obscenities and threats.You are absolutely right. The Supreme Court is redefining language by calling this "speech".
As much as I believe that the court erred gravely in this decision, and as much as I hate the Westboro lawyers (it's not a "church" it's a bunch of lawyers looking to provoke lawsuits), I do see one silver lining in this ruling:
It will make it harder for the Supreme Court to side with those who wish to prohibit all open discussion of Islam, already prohibited in Canada, the Netherlands and other places.
I'm not saying they won't be able to do it. Arbitrary power can do whatever it wants. But it will be harder to justify shutting down all open discussion of Islam while allowing the Westboro lawyers to shout obscenities and threats in the faces of grief-stricken mourners in a cynical and evil attempt to drum up lawsuits.
It is not about “free speech”.
It is about an ASSAULT at a funeral, protected
by traitors to the US Constitution in SCOTUS -
who favor the EU over the US Constitution,
who favor the Kenya over the US Constitution,
who favor Communists over the US Constitution,
who favor the UN over the US Constitution, and
who mock John Jay every day.
Situations like this should be resolved through some other legitimate means instead of narrowing the legal definition of the 1st Amendment.
I dare you to say that to Justice Scalia’s face.
“As obnoxious as this is, CJ Roberts is dead on to right. We cannot compromise freedom of speech. I just hope that he will remember that when we have an opportunity to test the constitutionality of “hate speech” statutes.”
Yes. Its easy to defend speech that you agree with but its difficult to defend vile or obnoxious speech. As much as I despise the Westboro Baptist Church they have the right to stand 1000 feet down the road and say anything they want. Either you have free speech or you don’t. There is no happy medium. I also include hate speech in this.
Yes. These pics taken at the gates of Walter Reed Army Medical Center...
I disagree. Incitement to violence has never been part of free speech, and harassing people when they are grieving is incitement. We all know what they are really after; for someone to lash out at them so they can sue their victim. These people should be executed, frankly. I’ve never seen such deliberate cruelty in my whole entire life.
What I don’t understand is why it is only the Patriot Guard and supporters of the military, generally, who have taken on the Westboro/Phels group? Where are all the gay activists? Were any amicus briefs filed by any “Human Rights” or GLAD groups?
Also ... Is Mr Snyder still stuck with the Phelpses’ legal bill?
I just wish there was another but legal way to get at this phony "church".
I wonder if they get a federal tax break for being a church, hmmmm.
Leni
As vile as it is, I don’t see how what they’re doing while standing on the sidewalk constitutes “getting in someone’s face”.
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.