SCoTUS rules in favor of Westboro Protesters

[JC5123]

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.

[sledgemeister]

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"

[DGF]

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.

[MikeBjerum]

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).

[Solus]

Have there been protests at the funerals of minorities?

If not, I'm wondering if Westboro is playing it safe.

[Sponsor]

[PegLeg45]

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.

[twyacht]

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...

[Timothy]

"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.

[tombogan03884]

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.

[fightingquaker13]

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