Fred Phelps Wins at Supreme Court

[Appaholic]

Jeez man, you'd argue with a freakin' stapler. Phelps and his crew are flirting with hate crimes IMO.

Jelly doesn't get it. He has no understanding of our Nations history, it's creation and the Bill of Rights. He has no grasp of how to maintain civility. You CANNOT let people do whatever they want and maintain social order.

You're the one that doesn't get it. Our country & it's Bill of Rights weren't established to maintain order, but rather to guarantee all citizens certain inalienable rights. And had this country been more concerned with your "order & civility", we'd still be singing God Save the Queen. This country was founded upon the idea of creating disorder in an attempt to protect it's (white) inhabitant's rights.

[COBBLESTONE]

Haven't read the decision, but an 8-1 decision saying that, although offensive, Fred Phelps and the WBC are protected by the First Amendment and can hurl hurtful epithets at the families attending funerals for dead soldiers.

I thought they had grounds to uphold the verdict against them based on common law tort theories, like intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Justice Alito alone dissents: ""Our profound national commitment to free and open debate is not a license for the vicious verbal assault that occurred in this case," he wrote.

I don't think the First Amendment should protect speech which is intended to inflict emotional injury.

I'm shocked you're not celebrating this Joe. Let me say this, the Patriot Riders also have First Amendment rights as well. Hopefully they'll exercise them when these scumbags show up at another military funeral. I know I'll have no problem introducing myself to these lowlifes if they ever show up at a funeral for somebody that I served with.

[JoltinJoe]

Jelly doesn't get it. He has no understanding of our Nations history, it's creation and the Bill of Rights. He has no grasp of how to maintain civility. You CANNOT let people do whatever they want and maintain social order.

You're the one that doesn't get it. Our country & it's Bill of Rights weren't established to maintain order, but rather to guarantee all citizens certain inalienable rights. And had this country been more concerned with your "order & civility", we'd still be singing God Save the Queen. This country was founded upon the idea of creating disorder in an attempt to protect it's (white) inhabitant's rights.

I've read these opinions twice, and I am now believe Roberts has it right. It seems Maryland already had a time, place and manner restriction which WBC followed to the "T." Maryland has since changed its law to outlaw any speech at funerals.

Alito's opinion sounds great, but in the end, he really is just saying that at some point, protected speech crosses the line. Who makes that call?

[COBBLESTONE]

I think it is safe to say that Sky has never served or had a friend or relative who served in the military. If you did your view might be a bit different.

Yes we have freedoms of expression in this country but they need to be exercised responsibly.

That's it for me in this shameful thread.

[JoltinJoe]

Haven't read the decision, but an 8-1 decision saying that, although offensive, Fred Phelps and the WBC are protected by the First Amendment and can hurl hurtful epithets at the families attending funerals for dead soldiers.

I thought they had grounds to uphold the verdict against them based on common law tort theories, like intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Justice Alito alone dissents: ""Our profound national commitment to free and open debate is not a license for the vicious verbal assault that occurred in this case," he wrote.

I don't think the First Amendment should protect speech which is intended to inflict emotional injury.

I'm shocked you're not celebrating this Joe. Let me say this, the Patriot Riders also have First Amendment rights as well. Hopefully they'll exercise them when these scumbags show up at another military funeral. I know I'll have no problem introducing myself to these lowlifes if they ever show up at a funeral for somebody that I served with.

That's because you never actually read what I say. You presume I say or believe things because you are a bigot, and you have narrow, prejudiced, stereotyped views about Catholics.

[dbackjon]

You're the one that doesn't get it. Our country & it's Bill of Rights weren't established to maintain order, but rather to guarantee all citizens certain inalienable rights. And had this country been more concerned with your "order & civility", we'd still be singing God Save the Queen. This country was founded upon the idea of creating disorder in an attempt to protect it's (white) inhabitant's rights.

I've read these opinions twice, and I am now believe Roberts has it right. It seems Maryland already had a time, place and manner restriction which WBC followed to the "T." Maryland has since changed its law to outlaw any speech at funerals.

Alito's opinion sounds great, but in the end, he really is just saying that at some point, protected speech crosses the line. Who makes that call?

I think the court got it right. With Bill of Rights issues (and yes, even 2nd Amendment), rights are paramount. The burden has to be why those rights shoudl be taken away, not vice-versa.

[89Hen]

I'm really not sure why there's even a debate here. This is akin to flag burning. You can find that act abhorrent, but you have to realize it's somebody's right to do it.

[kalm]

I'm really not sure why there's even a debate here. This is akin to flag burning. You can find that act abhorrent, but you have to realize it's somebody's right to do it.

This.

[danefan]

Quick and easy answer : all municipalities should now pass laws forbidding ALL demonstrations within 1000 feet of a cemetery 2hrs before, during and 2hrs after a burial ceremony.

Content neutral. Time and space only.

[dbackjon]

Quick and easy answer : all municipalities should now pass laws forbidding ALL demonstrations within 1000 feet of a cemetery 2hrs before, during and 2hrs after a burial ceremony.

Content neutral. Time and space only.

What constitutes a demonstration?

[JoltinJoe]

I'm really not sure why there's even a debate here. This is akin to flag burning. You can find that act abhorrent, but you have to realize it's somebody's right to do it.

The debate was over the tension between free speech rights and common law torts such as intentional infliction of emotional distress. Despite the First Amendment, there is a common law history of protecting people from being subjected to conduct which is intended to be abusive and cause pain.

When that conduct is speech which has some political motivation, the court is essentially affording that speech the highest protections of law. So the issue has been resolved.

[danefan]

Quick and easy answer : all municipalities should now pass laws forbidding ALL demonstrations within 1000 feet of a cemetery 2hrs before, during and 2hrs after a burial ceremony.

Content neutral. Time and space only.

What constitutes a demonstration?

General common definition is sufficient

Any attempt to deliver any message, whether through vocal or visual mediums.

[GannonFan]

Quick and easy answer : all municipalities should now pass laws forbidding ALL demonstrations within 1000 feet of a cemetery 2hrs before, during and 2hrs after a burial ceremony.

Content neutral. Time and space only.

Yup, works for me. Much easier doing that than trying to squeeze some interpretation out of the Constitution that isn't there. Plus we don't have to rely on somebody's interpretation of what is "reasonable" speech.

[TwinTownBisonFan]

Quick and easy answer : all municipalities should now pass laws forbidding ALL demonstrations within 1000 feet of a cemetery 2hrs before, during and 2hrs after a burial ceremony.

Content neutral. Time and space only.

This.

[HI54UNI]

I'm really not sure why there's even a debate here. This is akin to flag burning. You can find that act abhorrent, but you have to realize it's somebody's right to do it.

Ditto

[HI54UNI]

How about a law saying that anybody convicted of punching a funeral protester in the face is only guilty of a misdemeanor subject to a $25 fine?

[ASUG8]

How about a law saying that anybody convicted of punching a funeral protester in the face is only guilty of a misdemeanor subject to a $25 fine?

I think there would be a lot of people in line to pay their fines.

[Ibanez]

Jelly doesn't get it. He has no understanding of our Nations history, it's creation and the Bill of Rights. He has no grasp of how to maintain civility. You CANNOT let people do whatever they want and maintain social order.

You're the one that doesn't get it. Our country & it's Bill of Rights weren't established to maintain order, but rather to guarantee all citizens certain inalienable rights. And had this country been more concerned with your "order & civility", we'd still be singing God Save the Queen. This country was founded upon the idea of creating disorder in an attempt to protect it's (white) inhabitant's rights.

I get it. I have my point of view. I don't have to like it.

[TwinTownBisonFan]

How about a law saying that anybody convicted of punching a funeral protester in the face is only guilty of a misdemeanor subject to a $25 fine?

I think there would be a lot of people in line to pay their fines.

I know a few eccentric millionaires who would start a fund to pay the fines...

(my guess is the hell angels might too)

[Appaholic]

Quick and easy answer : all municipalities should now pass laws forbidding ALL demonstrations within 1000 feet of a cemetery 2hrs before, during and 2hrs after a burial ceremony.

Content neutral. Time and space only.

+1

[D1B]

Freedom of Speech doesn't give you the freedodm to offend, humiliate and terrorize.

Bullshit.

[andy7171]

Freedom of Speech doesn't give you the freedodm to offend, humiliate and terrorize.

That's what we call "Wisconsin Nice" around these parts.

Freedom of Speech doesn't give you the freedodm to offend, humiliate and terrorize.

Bullshit.

[Ursus A. Horribilis]

Skelly, Appa, and the others on the side of this being the right outcome rocked this mufucker.

If you want to be free and not have those freedoms infringed upon then you have to extend that same right to everyone else.

I got to this party late but I think I saw Mark say something about "offending speech" and that basically shouldn't be accepted?

Are you fucking kidding me? YOU DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO NOT BE OFFENDED. If you're offended...fuck off...too bad...toughen the fuck up and quit being a bitch.

I also can not see how this is a hate crime or even bordering on it. What crime have they committed?

I or anyone else don't have to say just the things that sit you well with you or that you find acceptable. Someone else can easily find it offensive and it won't sit well with them. I will say the things that I'm comfortable with and my opinions and if you don't like it tough fucking shit.

[Ursus A. Horribilis]

Freedom of Speech doesn't give you the freedodm to offend, humiliate and terrorize.

Bullshit.

Ah, thanks for quoting that one D, that's the exact line I was referring to. That is as backward thinking on this matter as it gets.

Your succinct reply probably does the trick and I could have followed your lead and truncated my response.

[∞∞∞]

http://kanewj.com/wbc/