Justices signal intent to dismantle first amendment

[CJS3]

I don't see how this limits free speech. The crack pot protesters aren't being forbidden from saying anything. They are just being sued for causing emotional distress.

Isn't a defamation of character lawsuit basically the same thing? If SCOTUS rules against the church, the ruling can be narrowed down to apply just to funerals.

[tombogan03884]

Problem is, if it's "narrowed down to apply just to funerals. " eventually it will be held to apply at other functions.
Laws never decrease in applicability.

Isn't there a freedom of religion issue here ? Those people are trying to conduct a religious ceremony, (Funeral for a fallen warrior ) but the westboro azzholes are interfering with the conduct of that ritual.

[fightingquaker13]

Problem is, if it's "narrowed down to apply just to funerals. " eventually it will be held to apply at other functions.
Laws never decrease in applicability.

Isn't there a freedom of religion issue here ? Those people are trying to conduct a religious ceremony, (Funeral for a fallen warrior ) but the westboro azzholes are interfering with the conduct of that ritual.

They'd argue its their freedom of religion that's at stake. They are a church group (though a small one).
FQ13

[jnevis]

They'd argue its their freedom of religion that's at stake. They are a church group (though a small one).
FQ13

At least a church in name.  We've been kicking this around here a lot lately.  Between Patriot Guard Riders and a HIGH percentage of veterans you can imagine the comments.  It looks as if the "church" is made up of alomst 80%+ of the  Phelps family, with most of them being laywers.  We think that besides the shock value, they are just looking for a way to get someone to kick their a$$ so they can sue.  Better than inflicting violence on them, although it would be VERY satisfying, take them apart with in the law and expose them as con artists and frauds.  Then they go away and look stupid and no one will listen to them.

[LittleRed]

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.

I guess that's why I am not a lawyer:(

I didn't know all the details. Still with the Supreme Court most frequently legislating from the bench (unconstitutionally by the way) the rulings are more far-reaching than a civil or criminal cases. The truth is most will see the ruling as either for or against the 1st Ammendment, when it should simply be a matter of ruling for or against these wackos.

I know this cuts both ways, but that is the way it was set up to work.

[Sponsor]

[fullautovalmet76]

"Be careful what you wish for, because you might get it." I don't know who said it (or something like it) but it applies to this situation.

If the court rules against the protesters, then we should be very careful about holding up pictures of guns at 2A rallies because this might be considered offensive, even threatening!

[CJS3]

Problem is, if it's "narrowed down to apply just to funerals. " eventually it will be held to apply at other functions.
Laws never decrease in applicability.

Isn't there a freedom of religion issue here ? Those people are trying to conduct a religious ceremony, (Funeral for a fallen warrior ) but the westboro azzholes are interfering with the conduct of that ritual.

A funeral is a private affair, even though it's held out in the open. This is not a 1st Amendment issue. The original law suit did not restrict the church's freedoms in any way. It just punished them for being assholes. Being forced to make restitution for your abusive actions is perfectly acceptable and makes no limitation on Constitutional protections. If these people are allowed to continue their disruption without legal limits, then the only way to stop them would be to kill them. Something I would cheerfully do, if after being KIA, they showed up at one of my son's funerals.


You have to remember, that the fasted way to loose a right is to abuse it, and they have gone beyond that.

[TAB]

I'm actually shocked no one has killed them yet.  Or beat the crap out of them for that matter.

I lost control of the car, honest, I didn't mean to run over that group of protestors.

[fightingquaker13]

I'm actually shocked no one has killed them yet.  Or beat the crap out of them for that matter.

I lost control of the car, honest, I didn't mean to run over that group of protestors.

You and me both TAB. They hae been doing this for years. It isn't just military either. They started by protesting the funerals of gays who died of AIDs. How would you like it if your kid came out of the closet, reconciled with you, lost his fight with a wasting disease, and at his funeral you were greated with "God Hates Fags" and "Your Son Is Burning in Hell" signs? Me, I wouldn't be responsible for my actions. Its just a matter of time, regardless of what the Court rules. These idiots are just too stupid to get that. I love the 1A, but it doesn't override common sense either. Gays or soldiers, if you poke a sleeping bear in the ass with a sharp stick (whether it be the grieving parent of a gay or a Marine), sooner or later, you'll wish you hadn't.
FQ13

[tombogan03884]

A funeral is a private affair, even though it's held out in the open. This is not a 1st Amendment issue. The original law suit did not restrict the church's freedoms in any way. It just punished them for being assholes. Being forced to make restitution for your abusive actions is perfectly acceptable and makes no limitation on Constitutional protections. If these people are allowed to continue their disruption without legal limits, then the only way to stop them would be to kill them. Something I would cheerfully do, if after being KIA, they showed up at one of my son's funerals.


You have to remember, that the fasted way to loose a right is to abuse it, and they have gone beyond that.

You have misunderstood me, The right to practice their religious beliefs is being denied to the soldiers family by these so called "Christians".