Justices signal intent to dismantle first amendment

[philw]

 

anyone heard of this one ??

Matt Ryan
Infowars.com
October 6, 2010
The Supreme court heard arguments Wednesday concerning the highly-publicized funeral protest case, and they appear to be set to limit free-speech by permitting lawsuits against those that offend others. The Supreme Court, including Justices Anthony M. Kennedy and Stephen G. Breyer, sound ready to rule in favor of this new limit. The Los Angeles Times reports:
Kennedy said “certain harassing conduct” was not always protected as free speech. “Torts and crimes are committed with words all the time,” he said, referring to legal wrongs that result in lawsuits. “The First Amendment doesn’t stop state tort law in appropriate circumstances,” Breyer commented later.
Though the case is about funeral protests, Breyer said the court’s ruling will have an impact on the Internet, since it tests whether personal attacks can lead to lawsuits.
This mirrors regulations proposed in H.R. 1966 which appears to have stalled in congress. This bill included vague and difficult to define terms allowing citizens to be sued for offending people online. Ars Technica covered the controversy:
HR 1966 was introduced in April by US Representative Linda Sanchez (D-CA) and it’s supported by 14 other members of Congress. According to the text, individuals who bully others via any electronic means could face fines, two years in prison, or both. This, of course, could include those nasty text messages you sent to your ex on Saturday night, the questionable e-mail you sent to your brother, or those forum posts you made in which you called for someone who liked the new Star Trek movie to jump off a building.

This means that if legislation fails in congress, it could be forced through by the Supreme Court. Justice Breyer himself stated that this ruling would have a direct effect on the internet. In a very clear case of “legislating from the bench”, our government is able to push through limits on our freedoms using the very court created to protect them.
Fresh food that lasts from eFoods Direct (Ad)
This legislation didn’t stall in the UK where draconian equality and politically correct regulations have been active for several years. These regulations allow citizens to sue others for any and every possible offense even if it was only perceived by the plaintiff. These rules have been particularly difficult on employers, reports Mail Online:
The legislation, championed by Labour’s deputy leader Harriet Harman, introduces a bewildering range of rights which allow staff to sue for almost any perceived offence they receive in the workplace.
It creates the controversial legal concept of ‘third party harassment’, under which workers will be able to sue over jokes and banter they find offensive – even if the comments are aimed at someone else and they weren’t there at the time the comments were made.
These regulations, and others like them, have crippled their nation’s ability to prosecute and deport illegal immigrants. Police work in fear of enforcing immigration laws because they don’t want to appear racist. The UK has thousands of unchecked illegal immigrants free of prosecution while their police stand by with their hands tied. Ryan Kisinel of Mail Online wrote, “Police fear asking questions about their nationality because they will be hung out to dry by politically correct regulations.”

http://www.infowars.com/justices-signal-intent-to-dismantle-first-amendment/

[Solus]

Yeah.  This was brought about by a group of protesters who believe that God is punishing the US for it's acceptance of the Gay Lifestyle by letting US soldiers get killed in action.

The protesters show up near funerals for US service men killed in action carrying signs that say  "Thank God for Dead Soldiers"

As you could imagine, this is very disturbing to loved ones who are there for the funeral service.

I'm not sure what wrong it was that God was punishing us for with the war casualties in conflicts that occurred before the attitudes towards Gays became more tolerant.  I'm pretty sure we had casualties in all the wars since the Revolution to now?   

[r_w]

This one sucks, but I think I fall on the side of the westboro.  I completely (nearly violently) disagree with their tactics and almost completely disagree with their message, but to shut them up would end free speech. 

I actually want them to go to the SCOTUS again for a 1st amend vs. hate crime ruling. 

[jnevis]

Los Angeles Times
October 7, 2010
Pg. 12

Justices Take On Funeral Protesters

The Supreme Court seems inclined to side with the father of a dead Marine in the free-speech case.

By David G. Savage

WASHINGTON -- Despite free-speech concerns, Supreme Court justices sounded sympathetic Wednesday to a lawsuit filed by the father of a Marine killed in Iraq whose funeral was picketed by protesters with signs like, "Thank God for IEDs."

The justices appeared inclined to set a limit to freedom of speech when ordinary citizens are targeted with especially personal and hurtful attacks. The 1st Amendment says the government may not restrict free speech, but it is less clear when it shields speakers from private lawsuits.

The Phelps family from Topeka, Kan., has picketed at military funerals across the nation and proclaimed that God is punishing America and its troops because of its tolerance of homosexuality.

In 2006, family members traveled to Maryland, where they held antiwar and anti-gay signs at the funeral of Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder, and they also put on their website a message that accused his father, Albert Snyder, of having raised his son "to defy the creator" and "serve the devil."

A Maryland court awarded Snyder $5 million in damages, but the award was thrown out on free-speech grounds.

Justices Anthony M. Kennedy and Stephen G. Breyer, usual defenders of the 1st Amendment, said they thought people could be sued for outrageous personal attacks.

Kennedy said "certain harassing conduct" was not always protected as free speech. "Torts and crimes are committed with words all the time," he said, referring to legal wrongs that result in lawsuits. "The 1st Amendment doesn't stop state tort law in appropriate circumstances," Breyer added.

Though the case is about funeral protests, Breyer said the court's ruling will have an effect on the Internet, because it tests whether vicious personal attacks -- often made by bloggers -- can lead to lawsuits.

Snyder sued the Phelps family under a common provision of state law that permits claims for an intentional infliction of emotional distress.

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

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. She noted that protesters were kept well away from the funeral in this case, and they were sued only because of their disturbing message. But she too seemed troubled by the protests.

"This is a case about exploiting a private family's grief," she said. "The question is: Why should the 1st Amendment tolerate exploiting this Marine's family when you have so many other forums for getting across your message?"

Breyer and several others said they were searching for a middle ground that would allow the Snyders to win, but not threaten wide-open public debate. "What I'm trying to accomplish is to allow this tort to exist, but not allow it to interfere with an important public message," he said.

It will be several months before the court makes a ruling in the case.

[jnevis]

I beleive this isn't going to "dismantle" the First Amendment.  It will on the other hand give pause to those that deliberately and continuously use the First Amendment to harm an individual. 

[Sponsor]

[Solus]

I don't think this should be an exception to the First Amendment. 

Rather, this case should be heard by a local court with the protesters sued for whatever damages might apply.

Community standards will then apply as the jury will be from the local populace and the Government won't have any "wedge" into the First.

Signs like "Thank God for Dead Soldiers" at funerals will be disfavored by locals while a "You Mother Wears Combat Boots" outside someone's house might draw a police response but not for the content of the sign.

[Ichiban]

No right is without limits.  Figuring out where those limits are is the hard part.  The first amendment is pretty sacrosanct but it is still limited.  The classic yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, slander, liable, false reporting of crimes, etc. 

Way too many people do things strictly for the shock value (and to get attention) and then try to hide behind the first to dodge responsibility for their actions.  Words have meaning, actions have consequences.

Personally, I would like to see someone break out their Barrett and drop a couple of these "Christians."  Not that I would advocate such behavior.

[Teresa Heilevang]

Personally, I would like to see someone break out their Barrett and drop a couple of these "Christians."  Not that I would advocate such behavior.

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

[Solus]

I'd like to see these protesters bird dogged and make it known if any of them has a funeral to attend or other personal tragedy to get through.

Then have folks show up to wave appropriate signs during their grief and hardship.

[tombogan03884]

This is how we have already lost so much of what made America great.
There is no good choice here, the SCOTUS and I have to side with the scum bags who should be tarred and feathered.
The Amendments were not put in to protect popular opinions, and activities, they don't need.
The alternative is to open the door to censorship even further than has been done by "Hate crime" legislation.
On the other hand, while I support their right to voice their opinion, I would not have a problem with any one who kicked the crap out of one of these low lifes.

That may sound contradictory, but the Constitution only protects their LEGAL rights, it does not prevent the community from voicing it's disapproval of that opinion.