The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Down Range Cafe => Topic started by: PegLeg45 on March 02, 2011, 11:26:58 AM
-
Not that this is a big surprise, but since we had a half-dozen or more posts on these sad-asses with nothing better to do than harass decent folk, I figured I post an update.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110302/ap_on_re_us/us_supreme_court_funeral_protests
1st Amendment protects military funeral protesters
WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that the First Amendment protects fundamentalist church members who mount anti-gay protests outside military funerals, despite the pain they cause grieving families.
The court voted 8-1 in favor of the Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kan. The decision upheld an appeals court ruling that threw out a $5 million judgment to the father of a dead Marine who sued church members after they picketed his son's funeral.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the opinion for the court. Justice Samuel Alito dissented.
Roberts said free speech rights in the First Amendment shield the funeral protesters, noting that they obeyed police directions and were 1,000 feet from the church.
"Speech is powerful. It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and — as it did here — inflict great pain. On the facts before us, we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker," Roberts said. "As a nation we have chosen a different course — to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate."
Alito strongly disagreed. "Our profound national commitment to free and open debate is not a license for the vicious verbal assault that occurred in this case," he said.
---snip---
more at link above
-
As much as I hate to agree with Roberts on this. Their speech, while hateful and vitriolic, is not putting anyone in immediate danger. (i.e. Yelling fire in a theater)
Remember that the first amendment is not there to protect the speech you agree with, but to protect the speech that to are against. I would still like to see more people condemning the actions of these clowns.
-
As much as I hate to agree with Roberts on this. Their speech, while hateful and vitriolic, is not putting anyone in immediate danger. (i.e. Yelling fire in a theater)
Remember that the first amendment is not there to protect the speech you agree with, but to protect the speech that to are against. I would still like to see more people condemning the actions of these clowns.
Agree 100%....which is why I wasn't really surprised. I guess the big surprise was the fact that it wasn't unanimous.
-
It was the right ruling.
You know my feeling on this, they have the right to protest with in a reasonable range, but the cops should be magicly looking the wrong way if they happen to get thier ass kicked...
-
issue the honor guard live ammo and aim the '3 volleys of musketry' in the right direction, followed by a bayonet charge!
;D
-
I disagree with the ruling!
These people are protesting a military and government policy. However, they directing their protest at a grieving family and community. If they want to protest the homosexuals in the military issues they can go to the Pentagon or any enlistment center and do it, but to do it at the place where a grieving family is gathered to remember a life lost in a violent and tragic manor and to disrupt that service is infringing on their Rights to gather and exercise their religious beliefs.
Myself, as a Patriot Guard member I will stand silently and shield a family while not confronting or acknowledging the protesters. But if they disturb a service for a close friend or relative while I am in the mourners group, I will make sure they know and remember I was there and exercised my right to express myself.
-
It was the right ruling.
You know my feeling on this, they have the right to protest with in a reasonable range, but the cops should be magicly looking the wrong way if they happen to get thier ass kicked...
Just what is the range for a .50 BMG?
-
thats not far enough...
-
It was the right ruling.
You know my feeling on this, they have the right to protest with in a reasonable range, but the cops should be magicly looking the wrong way if they happen to get thier ass kicked...
+1
-
The problem is that evidence seems to indicate that the goal of this group is not to express their beliefs but to incite a reaction from grieving relatives of those at whose funerals they do their protest.
This is not an expression of free speech but and incitement to violence.
I know that it would not be likely that that would be proven in court, but that is, in any case, what is going on here.
-
The problem is that evidence seems to indicate that the goal of this group is not to express their beliefs but to incite a reaction from grieving relatives of those at whose funerals they do their protest.
This is not an expression of free speech but and incitement to violence.
I know that it would not be likely that that would be proven in court, but that is, in any case, what is going on here.
It would be if you got a judge and jury that actually had some principles. >:(
Good luck finding that.
-
Surely there is enough ex special forces, seals, rangers etc pissed off enough to make a few of these ass clowns dissapear from their homes in the dead of night never to be found again or meet with "accidents"
-
Isn't there something in the law about "fighting Words"? The concept being that some words are so reprehensible that they invite a physical response.
I just read an article in American History magazine about duels in the 1800s. People were much more civil in this country then about insulting each other. You could easily find yourself hiding a 50cal pistol ball in your chest.
-
This is going to get interesting yet. In the opinion for the majority it is written that even hateful speech needs to be protected to protect free speech. As I said in how I would react and as Solus said, this is going to lead to violence.
The bigger thing is that the Court's opinion that "hateful speech" needs to be protected flies in the face of hate crimes laws.
What does this mean for racial slurs, the latest attack to attempt to censor politics over violent language, the use of American Indian names and images for mascots, or any protection for race, sex, religion or sexual orientation (this group was just told it can use anti-homosexual language and both shout and amplify it)? I see the attorneys lining up to revisit many laws and decisions! Especially anything harassment based on verbal statements or posters (the two items used by the Westboro protesters).
-
Have there been protests at the funerals of minorities?
If not, I'm wondering if Westboro is playing it safe.
-
This is going to get interesting yet. In the opinion for the majority it is written that even hateful speech needs to be protected to protect free speech. As I said in how I would react and as Solus said, this is going to lead to violence.
The bigger thing is that the Court's opinion that "hateful speech" needs to be protected flies in the face of hate crimes laws.
What does this mean for racial slurs, the latest attack to attempt to censor politics over violent language, the use of American Indian names and images for mascots, or any protection for race, sex, religion or sexual orientation (this group was just told it can use anti-homosexual language and both shout and amplify it)? I see the attorneys lining up to revisit many laws and decisions! Especially anything harassment based on verbal statements or posters (the two items used by the Westboro protesters).
Good point.
From that point of view, is the Westboro assclowns protesting at a military funeral really any different than, oh say, the KKK showing up at the funeral of a Black citizen's and shouting racial slurs?
Slippery issues afoot, indeed.
-
They are not communicating a threat,..... they are communicating a belief. Yes it deserves a backhand and flat out ass whoopin', the big BUTT is the same as the assclowns that burn an American Flag.
It is not for the rights you get to pick and choose to like. Like the 2nd Amend, not for the guns "some" folks like...
Now if some group decides to stage a counter protest, and fill up their "permitted" area with flag waiving Veteran bikers, and citizens that drown their protests out with Patriotism, and Love Of God & Country,.....
(and personally an ass kickin), than so be it. I'll gladly chip in for bail.
" I may disagree with you at every level, but I will defend your right to make an idiot, insulting, asshat out of yourself "
and if you get backhanded along the way,....well......
Can it be construed as "hate speech"??? I didn't see too many arrests for protesters burning Cheney/Bush/Rumsfeld in effigy, putting a Hitler mustache on them, and wishing them dead...
-
"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."
As much as I don't care for their (Westboro) message, these simple words speak volumes.
-
Peg, The SCOTUS did rule in favor of allowing Nazi's to march through predominantly Jewish Skokie Ill.
TW, there is one major difference between this and Flag burning, the Westboro people chanting and yelling is "speech" which is specifically protected by the Constitution. Flag burning is an "act of expression" so called "freedom of expression is mentioned nowhere in the Constitution, it comes from the UN declaration of Human rights.
-
Its still sending a political message. I think the Court was right in all three cases, though all three piss me off. Roberts I supported when W nominated him, Alito I did not, largely because Alito, and his liberal counterparts, support the state too much. It comes down to this. Letting the Westboro Baptist guys do their thing may raise our blood pressure. Stoping them from doining it might wind up leaving us facing legal sanctions down the line. The choice is easy, just not pleasant. :-\
FQ13
-
tombogan I agree with protecting our Rights and how it is Constitutional, but it does not follow previous rulings concerning "hate," and hateful speech is specifically addressed in the opinion.
I still question where the Rights of a grieving family come into play when a group is protesting someone else, but aiming their anger at this family.
As a side note, I think the main reason the case went the way it did was the same reason it went all the way to SCOTUS - The family did not know of the protest until someone brought them the video shot by a news crew. The Westboro group was far enough away and there was enough shielding by supporters that the family never noticed it the day of the service. However, there are many cases every year where if it weren't for community support or the Patriot Guard the Westboro group would be prominent and a hindrance to the funeral process. That is why the Patriot Guard only comes on family request and works all details out with the family and funeral director.
The Guard will remain silent unless needed to raise the volume level to drown out the protesters, and that is when the Harleys are nice! That or Blackhawks - I participated in one service where they did the committal service in front of the church before the body was flown to Arlington. After a service in the church the body was placed on a bier in the street behind the funeral coach, there were 100 chairs for family, and military on three sides. As pastor finished his part, the honor guard stepped forward and we began to hear the thumping (being staffers we knew what was coming). Three Blackhawks came down the street at about fifty feet, they took positions one each over each group of honor guards and hovered through the entire honor ceremony and placing the casket in the coach (protesters a block away went unnoticed after this). They then escorted the procession to the airport (125 miles) and landed on the airfield at the shipping depot. The soldiers from the Blackhawks formed an honor guard while the casketed body, escort and family went through processing and boarded their plane. Imagine the emotions on that flight after watching that take place while you are being boarded!
-
Thanks for that description, m58.
Every Soldier is worth that and every family member deserves to see that value expressed like that. Hell, every American needs to see that value expressed like that.
We can never repay the debt.
Thanks also for your part is this expression. You do us all an Honor.
-
I agree with the ruling. With that said, this is insane! Where else but in Illinois? Bill T.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/03/02/illinois-officials-spar-order-make-list-gun-owners-public/?test=latestnews
-
I agree with the ruling. With that said, this is insane! Where else but in Illinois? Bill T.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/03/02/illinois-officials-spar-order-make-list-gun-owners-public/?test=latestnews
MAYBE in Kalifornistan, but otherwise, nowhere.
-
"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."
As much as I don't care for their (Westboro) message, these simple words speak volumes.
Agree 100%.
I hope my previous posts have not been misconstrued as not supporting the 1st Amendment and, ultimately, the SCotUS decision. I might not like it, but it is the right decision.
My previous posts have been merely pointing to things like what M58 said that it is becoming dangerously close, at times, to being in a place where the difference between actions and words have to be determined. Keying on the words in the 1st Amendment about 'peaceably assembling'....at what point does it go beyond words and into incitement? Sadly, after an incident where someone is injured or killed most probably.
Thanks also Tom for the reminder of the ruling about the Nazi march. I remember it now, but it had slipped my mind.
-
FQ, the Flag burning ruling was wrong because it is not based on The US Constitution, but instead is based on UN BS.
M58 posted "tombogan I agree with protecting our Rights and how it is Constitutional, but it does not follow previous rulings concerning "hate," and hateful speech is specifically addressed in the opinion."
But this ruling is in fact perfectly in line with the Skokie ruling.
-
Remember that the first amendment is not there to protect the speech you agree with, but to protect the speech that to are against.
+1