Posted on 03/13/2011 7:46:27 AM PDT by Kaslin
If you read the decision, it is explained.
It is my understanding that they were no closer than 300ft.
Remember that logic is not always welcome even when correct.
Are you saying that Alito cannot understand logic?
When someone speaking before the Supremes can call them fags and hope they rot in hell will be the day I support their decision.
You can’t use that language on TV, in any classroom in America either.
Sorry, we’re seeing the fall of America.
Held: The First Amendment shields Westboro from tort liability for its picketing in this case. Pp. 5–15. (a) The Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment can serve as a defense in state tort suits, including suits for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U. S. 46, 50-51. Whether the First Amendment prohibits holding Westboro liable for its speech in this case turns largely on whether that speech is of public or private concern, as determined by all the circumstances of the case. “[S]peech on public issues occupies the ‘ “highest rung of the hierarchy of First Amendment values” ’ and is entitled to special protection.” Connick v. Myers, 461 U. S. 138, 145.Obviously, there is a lot more there than that, but there you are.
I should add that if they had been saying things that were specifically about the individuals involved, rather than general things about society/country/etc/., they would not have been protected. That’s the key: private vs. public concern.
Megyn Kelly, long before the decision was issued, predicted the outcome and that it would turn on just this issue: private vs. public concern.
I’m totally with the Supremes on this one. The day we stop protecting the most disgusting, vile, hate mongering slime and their right to be a blight on society is the same day that we agree that the government is the arbitrator of what is appropriate speech.
On the other hand, I see no problem with citizens, not government, taking it upon themselves to destroy these people in any way they see fit. If we have no right of privacy, neither do they. If they were shamed at their work places. Harassed every time they shopped, etc. I am sure that they would be most unhappy if they were the object of serious citizen pressure in every moment of their personal lives.
Any government strong enough to protect you from these people is strong enough to take away your rights too.
Show me where the SC addressed the poem posted on the internet. I may have missed it, but it was quite clear in that document that the “Church” was directly attacking a private citizen for private actions.
I can quote the document too. Alito writes:
“Petitioner Albert Snyder is not a public figure. He is simply a parent whose son, Marine Lance Corporal Matthew Snyder, was killed in Iraq. Mr. Snyder wanted what is surely the right of any parent who experiences such an incalculable loss: to bury his son in peace. But respondents, members of the Westboro Baptist Church, deprived him of that elementary right. They first issued a press release and thus turned Matthew’s funeral into a tumultuous media event. They then appeared at the church, approached as closely as they could without trespassing, and launched a malevolent verbal attack on Matthew and his family at a time of acute emotional vulnerability. As a result, Albert Snyder suffered severe and lasting emotional injury.1 The Court now holds that the First Amendment protected respondents’ right to brutalize Mr. Snyder. I cannot agree.”
It is clear to me that this case is not First Amendment at all. No one tried to stop them from protesting as far as I know. Rather, it was a question of whether Westboro committed an intentional infliction of emotional distress. The jury, and some judges, but obviously not all, agreed with that. Others, including most of the Supreme Court, did not. I agree with Alito. In fact, I think many here, even those who agree with the decision, agree that the whole affair was designed by Westboro not to address a greater issue but to provoke the family into violent action. They just feel that should be allowed because of free speech. Alito and I disagree.
“I see no problem with citizens, not government, taking it upon themselves to destroy these people in any way they see fit.”
If this were to happen to you, and you saw fit to use violence to stop those tormenting you, here’s what would happen. The government would protect those saying the vile things. They would put you in jail, and levy hefty fines for assault. If the criminal charges were felonies, they would take away your right to vote, and to own firearms with which to protect yourself.
They would then use your tax money to provide courts and judges to issue decrees to transfer your wealth to those who tormented you upon resolution of the civil suit. This decision says you have no right to defend yourself in any way. You just have to take it, that’s all.
A very good alternative to this that should pass muster is to regulate the time and place—not the content. Push them 5 miles away, late in the evening.
There certainly can be language that might not be permitted in a classroom because it is "offensive," and at other times, "offensive" language is tolerated.
I can't be sure anymore when the FCC will step in to fine or punish TV stations for something deemed to be outside the bounds of public decency. Cable TV is almost unlimited in what can be said or portrayed.
Any limit on the First Amendment must be viewed with suspicion.
I have to agree with you. As despicable as this group (Wesboro) is, Free Speech is what it is. We are given the right to speak our minds regardless if we are completely off our rocker as WBC is.
It’s a real touchy situation. these people are absolutely disgusting with what they do and I hate that it happens. But, they have every right to do so.
I truly feel it’s only a matter of time before one of them moves past speech and does something physical. When that happens, all bets are off and Westboro will be completely shut down (fingers crossed).
Its the same kind of logic that says the 2nd Amendment does not include Assault Rifles.
Thanks for providing all that detail. It hurts to have to agree with the Enemy, even if our reasons for doing so are exact opposite of the Enemy’s reasons.
Kind of like Barry not going into Libya right now. I have to agree with his decision, though not for his reasons. He’s a lazy talentless schmuck who doesn’t know which of his many muzzie friends in the area to side with. I want muzzies of all stripes to keep killing each other. So though it pains me to “agree” with Barry in keeping clear of Libya, I do so anyway.
If by assault rifles you mean fully automatic version of AK47s and M16s then I guess the court disagrees with you. If your reading of the intent of the first amendment means everyone can own full military weapons, then they could also own fully functioning tanks and artillery pieces. I can certainly understand that view, but I do think the court would agree.
On the other hand, if your view is that free speech must never be abridged, then how do you justify slander and libel laws?
I fear that you miss the point. All actions have consequences. We never have to accept being victims. The are alternatives and that’s why I suggested that the tactics be left to the individual.
If that’s too complicated try Alinsky:
5. “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counteract ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage.”
6. “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.”
9. “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.”
10. “The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition. It is this unceasing pressure that results in the reactions from the opposition that are essential for the success of the campaign.”
>>Thankfully, and unlike the majority of FReepers on this thread, the Supreme Court doesn’t operate on emotionalism.<<
I agree.
>>”Common sense & decency absent as wacko ‘church’ allowed hate msgs spewed@ soldiers’ funerals but we can’t invoke God’s name in public square,” Palin tweeted . <<
Bad form.
It’s one of those things that needs to be “clarified” later. It was an emotional response while many of us here were discussing the legal merits of the case and why the SCOTUS was correct.
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.