Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

US Court Rules For Military Funeral Protesters - Westboro 8 , America 1
indychannel ^ | UPDATED: 11:12 am EST March 2, 2011

Posted on 03/02/2011 8:32:21 AM PST by InvisibleChurch

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-42 next last
To: InvisibleChurch

What ever happened to the old charge of “disturbing the peace” or “inciting violence or a riot”? This is absurd and obscene. - I thought people were counter-protesting and blocking these Clinton buddies with support signs and American flags. Someone or group has to be bankrolling these lounge lizards to give the Christian churches a trumped up bad name. They are damned ungodly reprobates!


21 posted on 03/02/2011 9:12:53 AM PST by Twinkie ( PEACE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 4Runner

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


22 posted on 03/02/2011 9:16:48 AM PST by trumandogz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: InvisibleChurch

No problem. Real Americans and Real Christians will defeat the nut cases from WBC. No one expected the courts to get this right.
The ruling that affirms the idiots right to be there also affirms every patriot and Christian right to be there (at the families request) to defend the families of our fallen warriors.
There are far far more of us then the idiots..


23 posted on 03/02/2011 9:17:45 AM PST by SECURE AMERICA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MindBender26

There is an answer. Budget cuts will obviously make it impossible for police support at these funerals. Therefore, any bikers who just “happen” to be in the area just might not be noticed when they beat the living **** out of these protestors.

After all, we already a fine Obama-t*rd tradition of the DOJ ignoring civil rights violations.

The cops are then free to come and scoop up the pieces after the Vietnam era bikers clean the clocks of the protestors.


24 posted on 03/02/2011 9:19:18 AM PST by Da Coyote
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Twinkie
As a poster astutely pointed out on another thread, there's no justification for an argument about "inciting violence or a riot" in a case where NO violence and NO riot took place. As ridiculous as it may seem, you have to react violently to a protest like this before you can later make a legal case that the protest incited violence.

The U.S. Supreme Court got this one right. In fact, I'm surprised it even made it this far in the U.S. legal system because the end result seemed very obvious to me.

25 posted on 03/02/2011 9:24:06 AM PST by Alberta's Child ("If you touch my junk, I'm gonna have you arrested.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: trumandogz

Federal prisons are packed with individuals who have demonstrated persuasively a complete and utter disregard for the rights and dignity of law-abiding American citizens, yet who are quite capable of quoting fragments of the U.S. Constitution in defense of their actions. What’s your excuse?


26 posted on 03/02/2011 9:41:08 AM PST by 4Runner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: MindBender26
You are absolutely correct.
27 posted on 03/02/2011 9:42:04 AM PST by bmwcyle (It is Satan's fault)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: 4Runner

“Federal prisons are packed with individuals who have demonstrated persuasively a complete and utter disregard for the rights and dignity of law-abiding American citizens, yet who are quite capable of quoting fragments of the U.S. Constitution in defense of their actions. What’s your excuse?”

My excuse is that I understand the First Amendment and understand that speech should not be prohibited simply because I find it offensive.

If it were the cast that speech that I happen to find offensive were banned, then there would be someone else who may one day claim that the free speech I exercise is somehow offensive and that my type of speech should be banned.

And what about one day when some people claim that the things that you say are offensive?


28 posted on 03/02/2011 10:00:14 AM PST by trumandogz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: InvisibleChurch

Fine.

I guess the kooks will have to deal with getting their arses kicked at every protest.

Put some real fear into them.


29 posted on 03/02/2011 10:05:53 AM PST by roses of sharon ("Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise." Luke 23:43)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: InvisibleChurch
The High Court got this one right. These douchebags have the right to protest but I would argue that we have just as much right to protest the protesters.

Patriot Guard Riders Group Pictures, Images and Photos

PATRIOT GUARD RIDERS
30 posted on 03/02/2011 10:32:22 AM PST by marine86297 (I'll never forgive Clinton for Somalia, my blood is on his hands)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

This Westboro group is trying to incite riots and violence by pushing the envelope. I think they’re being PAID, being BANKROLLED to do so, because that is what certain elements in this country want. It will kill two birds with one stone and, most especially, those dastardly “Christians” who are SO violent and intolerant will come up “deserving” persecution.

I said whatever happend to “disturbing the peace”?
These hired guns (Westboro so-called “Baptists”) are most certainly disturbing the peace. Is that no longer a valid claim? The SC got it right, eh? Wait until you’re on the receiving end of something similar. - They’re also skating on thin ice and deserve what they get.


31 posted on 03/02/2011 1:54:46 PM PST by Twinkie ( PEACE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Twinkie
If staging a peaceful demonstration (regardless of the vile nature of what they may be saying) in a public place hundreds of yards away from a funeral somehow constitutes "disturbing the peace," then we may as well flush the First Amendment down the toilet. Because I'll tell y'all this . . . you can be sure than every leftist in this country would love to have an opportunity to use the same rationale to squelch legitimate public dissent from their own radical policies.

Would you apply the same standards if this were a group of law-abiding Americans demonstrating outside a radical Wahabbist mosque?

It's also worth noting that "disturbing the peace" never came into play in this case because there are already criminal statutes that would apply in a case like that. The absence of any such criminal charges in this case is very telling. This was a civil court case involving the defendant's appeal of a jury verdict for the plaintiff.

32 posted on 03/02/2011 2:15:02 PM PST by Alberta's Child ("If you touch my junk, I'm gonna have you arrested.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

What about anti-abortion activists who are on public property harrassing the “clinic entrants”? Aren’t they limited?


33 posted on 03/02/2011 4:16:03 PM PST by Twinkie ( PEACE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

I don’t know, I was hoping you knew of one. I figured their free speech .....nevermind. sigh


34 posted on 03/02/2011 5:27:25 PM PST by Shimmer1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: MindBender26

I was relieved to hear the decision. 8-1 is good strong stance for free speech.


35 posted on 03/02/2011 5:30:00 PM PST by Balding_Eagle (Overproduction, one of the top five worries of the American Farmer each and every year..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ConservaTexan

Take a check?

:)


36 posted on 03/02/2011 6:14:17 PM PST by MindBender26 (Fighting the "con" in Conservatism on FR since 1998.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Shimmer1

Used to be that idiots like this would get their butts kicked and nobody would see a thing.


37 posted on 03/02/2011 6:23:45 PM PST by cripplecreek (Remember the River Raisin! (look it up))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Twinkie

That’s a good question. My guess is that they’re covered under the First Amendment as long as they don’t impede a public thoroughfare.


38 posted on 03/02/2011 6:53:57 PM PST by Alberta's Child ("If you touch my junk, I'm gonna have you arrested.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

That’s what I’m waiting for...hoping for.


39 posted on 03/02/2011 7:13:00 PM PST by Shimmer1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

I can’t quite put it into words, but surely there’s something about someone accosting a person with words....


40 posted on 03/02/2011 9:44:28 PM PST by Shimmer1 (Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. - MLK Jr.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-42 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson