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.
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?' "
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.”
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 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
The Tea Party should organize HUGE groups everywhere WBC goes to protest. The Tea Party group (or other conservative/ AMERICAN group) should surround the WBC dingbats and start singing hymns as loud as they can, like Amazing Grace, or some patriotic songs... as the funeral procession goes by.
After a few of these confrontations, I believe the WBC members will not be able to accomplish their goals and may stop . Also, the patriotic groups should go to the homes of the WBC members, and do the same, like at 3:am or go to the “church” and start disrupting the service, by standing up and singing patriotic songs.
Could be fun !
or should the ruling be based on what is stated in the Constitution?
The 1st amendment is as clearly stated as is the 2nd amendment.
I’m not sure why this even made it to the USSC. What they are doing should already be covered by ‘fighting words’ and is not legal speech.
The protesters drew counter-demonstrators, as well as media coverage and a heavy police presence to maintain order. The result was a spectacle that led to altering the route of the funeral procession.
Several weeks later, Albert Snyder was surfing the Internet for tributes to his son from other soldiers and strangers when he came upon a poem on the church's website that assailed Matthew's parents for the way they brought up their son."
Supreme Court: Raucous Funeral Picketers Allowed
In reading this, a couple of things stand out.
1. The protesters obeyed the police and kept their distance from the Church.
2. The route of the funeral procession was altered. My impression was that Mr.Snyder did not see the protesters or the counter protesters.
3. Several weeks later, Mr. Snyder came upon an offensive poem on the internet. Again, my impression is that Mr. Snyder was not suing over the presence of the protesters at the funeral, but was instead, suing over an offensive poem.
God bless and comfort Mr. Snyder. The Westboro Baptists can burn in hell. But I don't see how FReepers would have wanted this case to be decided otherwise. In time, a decision like this would give fearsome ability to liberals to hammer conservatives for speech they find offensive.
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.