Justices signal intent to dismantle first amendment

[fightingquaker13]

Its exhibit 42,006 as to why hard cases make bad law. Every time we react to some outrage or another we draft a law or opinion that doesn't fit the other 99% of the cases. People say "That will fix the sobs", and feel righteous. That lasts about a year. Then we see all the collateral damage. Child porn! Evil, kill them! Then we have cases where teenage girls are prosecuted for sending topless shots of themselves to a lowlife boyfriend who then posts it? Mandatory minimum drug sentences, three strikes laws etc. They all lead to badness. This is one more example. Its like the Koran guy. One crazy storefront preacher who wants attention is in a position to do real harm, and doesn't care as long as he gets his 15 minutes.  One hopes the Court realizes that there is not a nationwide epidemic of hateful protests at military funerals and lets this slide. We don't need to give the state more power over our lives due to one group of whackjobs. And here I agree with Tom. If just one honor guard at one of these funerals had slipped in a few live rounds (or for that matter bayonets) this would no longer be a problem.
FQ13

[r_w]

Can I be the one?? ?? huh?? Can I? Can I?? Let me .. Plleeeeeazzzze let me do it.. Purty Please??

You could just about do it from your own backyard if the wind is right.

[Pathfinder]

On Wednesday, the justices seemed to agree that a general protest sign, such as "Stop the War" or even "Thank God for Dead Soldiers" would be protected as free speech. The Phelps family crossed the line when it targeted the dead Marine's father with their protest, argued Sean E. Summers, a lawyer for Snyder. "We have personal, targeted epithets directed at the Snyder family," he said.

Justice Elena Kagan, the newest member of the court, drew the attention of her colleagues with her opening question to Margie J. Phelps. The Kansas lawyer who was defending her family began by saying that their protests were intended to provoke "public discussion" about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Kagan quickly pressed her. Would it be permissible, she asked, for the protesters to pick out "a wounded soldier and follow him around," holding "offensive and outrageous signs" near his home and calling him a "war criminal?" In such a case, "does he have a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress?" Kagan said.   Have to say she gets a point of respect for that

Pathfinder: No, she doesn't. 40 years ago she would have been one of the ones yelling and screaming "baby killer" at returning Viet Nam vets. It was free speech then, even though highly directed at each returning soldier.

Phelps hesitated, but then answered. "My answer, Justice Kagan, is no, I don't believe that person should have a cause of action."

That answer appeared to turn the argument against Phelps and the funeral protesters. Later, Justice Samuel A. Alito pressed her with another such example.

Suppose protesters stopped a grandmother whose son had been killed in the war, and they "speak to her in the most vile terms" and say they were happy he was killed. Is this protected free speech? Alito asked.

Phelps responded calmly, but avoided a direct answer. It might be illegal "stalking" or "fighting words," she said.

Alito dismissed the "fighting words" defense. "It's an elderly person. She's really not in a position to punch this person in the nose," he said.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg took the free-speech side during much of the argument. Pathfinder: OK, this scares the crap out of me - that shriveled one-worlder supporting the US Constitution? WTF? Is this one of the signs of the impending apocalypse? ? ?  ?

[Solus]

I wonder if it had been an Illegal Alien who was being harassed if Kagan and Ginsburg would have been supporting the 1st.

Seems more likely they would use it to further their agenda than worry about it's true meaning.

[fightingquaker13]

I wonder if it had been an Illegal Alien who was being harassed if Kagan and Ginsburg would have been supporting the 1st.

Seems more likely they would use it to further their agenda than worry about it's true meaning.

And if hadn't been soldier's funerals these guys were desecrating would anyone have even cared? Hell they did it to gays who'd died of AIDS for years and no one noticed till the Matthew Shepard thing.
 Rule #1 of criminal law: Don't go after a sympathic victim. Rob all the drug dealers you want. Break into a church or a nursing home? You've got a problem. We'll hope the Court can see past that, and I don't care why, just as long as they do it.
FQ13

[Sponsor]

[TAB]

Here is how they should rule.


Yes you can protest, but if some one comes by and kicks your ass, the police will not respond.


prob solved.

[Ichiban]

Rule #1 of criminal law: Don't go after a sympathic victim. Rob all the drug dealers you want.
FQ13

But be careful if you're in Philly. 
http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/breaking/Two-Cops-Accused-of-Robbing-an-Undercover-Officer.html?dr

[PegLeg45]

Here is how they should rule.


Yes you can protest, but if some one comes by and kicks your ass, the police will not respond.


prob solved.

I like that.

[LittleRed]

Here is how they should rule.


Yes you can protest, but if some one comes by and kicks your ass, the police will not respond.


prob solved.

I like this one, too.

I don't want to see the right to peacefully protest diminished at all. However, I have to question to things:

1. Is this truly peaceful? This seems to be done to provoke a response that might be less than peaceful.

2. Who exactly are they protesting? There are not doing this in the public square but rather a private, emotional, and intimate setting of a funeral.

Could these protest seem to be threats? After all there are most likely other soldiers there at the funeral.

Let's examine a different point of view. What if these protester had sign that read "Thank God for Dead Congressman" outside the steps of the capitol building? Or, "Thank God for Dead Presidents" outside the White House? Or, "Thank God for Dead Justices" outside the Supreme Court? Or, how about "Thank God for Dead African Americans" in an African American neighborhood?

For some reason I don't think those would fall under protected speech quite as easily. And, if not, then there is not equal justice under the law.

I would rather see no ruling at all, and turn this into a matter of a civil suit rather than a constitutional one.

[fightingquaker13]

I like this one, too.

I don't want to see the right to peacefully protest diminished at all. However, I have to question to things:

1. Is this truly peaceful? This seems to be done to provoke a response that might be less than peaceful.

2. Who exactly are they protesting? There are not doing this in the public square but rather a private, emotional, and intimate setting of a funeral.

Could these protest seem to be threats? After all there are most likely other soldiers there at the funeral.

Let's examine a different point of view. What if these protester had sign that read "Thank God for Dead Congressman" outside the steps of the capitol building? Or, "Thank God for Dead Presidents" outside the White House? Or, "Thank God for Dead Justices" outside the Supreme Court? Or, how about "Thank God for Dead African Americans" in an African American neighborhood?

For some reason I don't think those would fall under protected speech quite as easily. And, if not, then there is not equal justice under the law.

I would rather see no ruling at all, and turn this into a matter of a civil suit rather than a constitutional one.

Couple of quick points. This is a civil suit. A soldier's dad sued for infliction of emotional distress. This is over whether he can collect. Second, the provocation point is actually (semi) good law. Its called the "fighting words" doctrine. The Court held in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire that calling someone an SOB was not protected because a reasonable person could be provoked to violence. That has never been used or enforced since. Still, it hasn't been overturned either. I'm not a fan, beause it basically gives a heckler's veto to whomever gets sufficiently offended, but this case would certainly seem to be just what the Court was talking about in Chaplinsky.
FQ13