Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

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 agree Joe. I think somewhere in Phelps' zeal to persecute everything and everyone he doesn't agree with he chose to disregard the fundamental tenet of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Phelps and his kind the unfortunate side effects of having first amendment rights - most people self-police themselves to some extent, but these folks just spew hate.

[youtube][/youtube]

Also, I hate the Westboro Baptist Church... but, I believe what they do should be protected under the first amendment.

Supreme Court was damn close to unamimous in their decision (8-1, Alito was sole dissenter).

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

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

It does give you freedom to express your politics without fear of arrest or punishment.

Punishing people for speaking in a public place solely because all decent people disagree with the message of the speech could hardly be more inconsistent with the First Amendment.

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

So should we make white supremacy speech illegal? I mean, all decent people disagree with their message. It offends, humilates, and terrorizes certain segments of the population. It also has a much, much larger following than the Westboro Baptist Church.

I guess we should make it a crime?

Skjellyfetti wrote:

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

It does give you freedom to express your politics without fear of arrest or punishment.

Punishing people for speaking in a public place solely because all decent people disagree with the message of the speech could hardly be more inconsistent with the First Amendment.

The framers of the constitution were not fighting for the freedom to terrorize people. There is a fine line here. We all have the freedom of speech, but we have to be RESPONSIBLE with it. Just like the Right to Bear Arms. We must be responsible with that right and not infringe on the liberties of others.

Skjellyfetti wrote:

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

So should we make white supremacy speech illegal? I mean, all decent people disagree with their message. It offends, humilates, and terrorizes certain segments of the population. I guess we should make it a crime?

If it's hate, violent and comes from a group that wants nothing more than to terrorize, than why not? Are you saying you want a group of skin heads walking around screaming "White Power" and racial slurs KNOWING it will cause trouble? You have to use your head. Speech and Actions are related. If you get some guy going staging a protest, calling out slurs against Whites, Blacks, Jews, etc... someone is going to overreact and cause violence.

Skjellyfetti wrote:

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

So should we make white supremacy speech illegal? I mean, all decent people disagree with their message. It offends, humilates, and terrorizes certain segments of the population. I guess we should make it a crime?

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

ASUG8 wrote:

Skjellyfetti wrote:
So should we make white supremacy speech illegal? I mean, all decent people disagree with their message. It offends, humilates, and terrorizes certain segments of the population. I guess we should make it a crime?

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.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-751.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Here's the opinion. Chief Justice Roberts' majority opinion, joined by eight other justices, is pretty persuasive.

But I think Justice Alito really knocks it out of the park as to why this particular choice of the forum is calculated to create publicity for a fringe message at the cost of the parents' right to bury their child, and is thus an abuse of the First Amendment.

Ibanez wrote:

ASUG8 wrote:
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.

Why aren't you on the Supreme Court if you're such a fokking expert?

Jesus.

I get painted as clueless... and that I have a crazy, radical position...

when 8 OUT OF 9 Justices on the Supreme Court agree with me.

That's overwhelming consensus... and it's pretty rare for the court to rule with that much consistency on hotly debated topics like this.

But, somehow I'm the crazy one.

Grizalltheway wrote:

Ibanez wrote:
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.

Why aren't you on the Supreme Court if you're such a fokking expert?

Never said I was an expert there Griz. I have an understanding that goes beyond what some 5th grade teacher taught me. Why so fucking hostile?

I guess 8 out of 9 justices only have a 5th grade social studies understanding of the Constitution as well.

Skjellyfetti wrote:Jesus.

I get painted as clueless... and that I have a crazy, radical position...

when 8 OUT OF 9 Justices on the Supreme Court agree with me.

That's overwhelming consensus... and it's pretty rare for the court to rule with that much consistency on hotly debated topics like this.

But, somehow I'm the crazy one.

Do you konw what it will look like if America DENY'S the Freedom of Speech? The implications from that would be incredible. It's just my opinion and I don't take a strict view of the Constitution, but I'm a believer of responsible, respectfuly speech.

Ibanez wrote:

Skjellyfetti wrote:Jesus.

I get painted as clueless... and that I have a crazy, radical position...

when 8 OUT OF 9 Justices on the Supreme Court agree with me.

That's overwhelming consensus... and it's pretty rare for the court to rule with that much consistency on hotly debated topics like this.

But, somehow I'm the crazy one.

Do you konw what it will look like if America DENY'S the Freedom of Speech? The implications from that would be incredible. It's just my opinion and I don't take a strict view of the Constitution, but I'm a believer of responsible, respectfuly speech.

Ok, who gets to decide what constitutes responsible, respectful speech?

Ibanez wrote:

Grizalltheway wrote:
Why aren't you on the Supreme Court if you're such a fokking expert?

Never said I was an expert there Griz. I have an understanding that goes beyond what some 5th grade teacher taught me. Why so fucking hostile?

Skelly is just agreeing with the majority decision, and you're implying that he doesn't have a clue about history. Are you trying to say the same of 8 Supreme Court justices?

Ibanez wrote: Do you konw what it will look like if America DENY'S the Freedom of Speech? The implications from that would be incredible. It's just my opinion and I don't take a strict view of the Constitution, but I'm a believer of responsible, respectfuly speech.

I'm a believer of responsible, respectful speech as well. I'm not a Westboro Baptist Church supporter. I can't stand them. But, I don't believe irresponsible, disrespectful speech should be illegal.

But, I'm done here. You're just going retort by calling me a moron.

I think the issue here is free speech vs. controlled free speech.

You're allowed free speech per the constitution - there are no limits to what you can say.

Congress is, however, allowed to control where and how you deliver that speech - you can't yell fire in a crowded theater, you can't have a protest march in DC without the right permit, you can't burn crosses on people's front yards, etc. These controls, in turn, are constrained by the fact that the speech cannot be prohibited outright.

In this case the Westboro Church complied with all legal requirements. It was the message itself that was targeted in the lawsuit. That's why they prevailed.

I love our country - as hateful as their protests are, I'm truly amazed that they're still alive - a testament to the inherent goodness in Americans. Virtually anywhere else in the world they'd all be dead.

Rob Iola wrote:I think the issue here is free speech vs. controlled free speech.

You're allowed free speech per the constitution - there are no limits to what you can say.

Congress is, however, allowed to control where and how you deliver that speech - you can't yell fire in a crowded theater, you can't have a protest march in DC without the right permit, you can't burn crosses on people's front yards, etc. These controls, in turn, are constrained by the fact that the speech cannot be prohibited outright.

In this case the Westboro Church complied with all legal requirements. It was the message itself that was targeted in the lawsuit. That's why they prevailed.

I love our country - as hateful as their protests are, I'm truly amazed that they're still alive - a testament to the inherent goodness in Americans. Virtually anywhere else in the world they'd all be dead.

Good thoughts, Rob.

There is a suggestion in the opinion that a law which prohibits protests in the vicinity of funerals would be constitutional, so long as the law is applied on a content-neutral basis, i.e., time, place and manner restrictions are always legal if they are content neutral. So there's the remedy, the court seems to be saying.

Rob Iola wrote:I think the issue here is free speech vs. controlled free speech.

You're allowed free speech per the constitution - there are no limits to what you can say.

Congress is, however, allowed to control where and how you deliver that speech - you can't yell fire in a crowded theater, you can't have a protest march in DC without the right permit, you can't burn crosses on people's front yards, etc. These controls, in turn, are constrained by the fact that the speech cannot be prohibited outright.

In this case the Westboro Church complied with all legal requirements. It was the message itself that was targeted in the lawsuit. That's why they prevailed.

I love our country - as hateful as their protests are, I'm truly amazed that they're still alive - a testament to the inherent goodness in Americans. Virtually anywhere else in the world they'd all be dead.

+1. I agree with your's and Skelly's sentiments as well. While I find them disgusting, Phelps & his clan should be allowed to spew their hate. Now where they are allowed to exercise free speech is another matter entirely in similar vein that I have the right to yell "FIRE!", but not in crowded theater. Should Phelps and his clan be allowed to hurl spiteful insults about a dead soldier by law? Of course. Should they be allowed to do so at a funeral? No. Change the trespassing laws or establish a "free speech" zone away from the actual ceremony to allow them to exercise their constitutionally guaranteed right of free speech.

Ibanez wrote:

ASUG8 wrote:
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.

Eh. Jelly's crazy, to be sure, but when it comes to trolldom around here, Jelly doesn't even come close. There are one or two others here who make Jelly look like a wallflower....

JoltinJoe wrote:

Rob Iola wrote:I think the issue here is free speech vs. controlled free speech.

You're allowed free speech per the constitution - there are no limits to what you can say.

Congress is, however, allowed to control where and how you deliver that speech - you can't yell fire in a crowded theater, you can't have a protest march in DC without the right permit, you can't burn crosses on people's front yards, etc. These controls, in turn, are constrained by the fact that the speech cannot be prohibited outright.

In this case the Westboro Church complied with all legal requirements. It was the message itself that was targeted in the lawsuit. That's why they prevailed.

I love our country - as hateful as their protests are, I'm truly amazed that they're still alive - a testament to the inherent goodness in Americans. Virtually anywhere else in the world they'd all be dead.

Good thoughts, Rob.

There is a suggestion in the opinion that a law which prohibits protests in the vicinity of funerals would be constitutional, so long as the law is applied on a content-neutral basis, i.e., time, place and manner restrictions are always legal if they are content neutral. So there's the remedy, the court seems to be saying.

Bingo!