US Supreme Court allows anti-gay military funeral protests

[EnglishLady]

BBC News March 2

The US Supreme Court has ruled that a controversial anti-gay church has the right to picket military funerals by the free speech provision in the US Constitution.

The court ruled 8-1 in favour of the Westboro Baptist Church, which was sued by the father of a dead US Marine.

The court upheld a ruling throwing out a $5m (£3m) judgment to the father.

Chief Justice John Roberts said the Constitution could not be thrown out because "picketing was outrageous".

'Inflicting great pain'

"What Westboro said, in the whole context of how and where it chose to say it, is entitled to 'special protection' under the First Amendment, and that protection cannot be overcome by a jury finding that the picketing was outrageous," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in opinion for the court.

Church members, led by the Reverend Fred Phelps, have picketed outside numerous military funerals to draw attention to their view that US military deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan are punishment for the immorality of Americans, including tolerance of homosexuality and abortion.

"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," the justices said on Wednesday.

Justice Samuel Alito was the only dissenting judge.

The Supreme Court compounded the injury by throwing out the judgement, Mr Alito said in court papers.

"In order to have a society in which public issues can be openly and vigorously debated, it is not necessary to allow the brutalization of innocent victims like petitioner. I therefore respectfully dissent," he wrote.

Following the ruling on Wednesday, Margie Phelps, Mr Phelps's daughter and the lawyer representing the church, told reporters that the case "put a megaphone to the mouth of this little church".

"We read the law. We follow the law. The only way for a different ruling is to shred the First Amendment," she added.

Snyder funeral

Lance Cpl Matthew Snyder was killed in a humvee accident in Iraq in 2006 and his body was returned to the US state of Maryland for burial, which members of the Westboro Baptist Church picketed.

The protesters marched with signs outside the soldier's funeral that read "Thank God for Dead Soldiers", "You're Going to Hell" and "God Hates the USA/Thank God for 9/11", which forced the funeral procession to alter its route.

Soon after, Albert Snyder, Matthew's father, came across a poem on Westboro Baptist Church's website attacking his son's upbringing.

Mr Snyder then filed a lawsuit in March 2006 accusing the church of intentionally inflicting emotional distress and won $11m at trial in 2007, which was later reduced by a judge to $5m.

He has argued in the past that the case was not about free speech but rather about how the church, which is based in Topeka, in the state of Kansas, harassed him.

But a federal appeals court in Virginia threw out the judgement, saying the Constitution shielded the church members from liability.

 

[skyraider]

BBC News March 2

The US Supreme Court has ruled that a controversial anti-gay church has the right to picket military funerals by the free speech provision in the US Constitution.

The court ruled 8-1 in favour of the Westboro Baptist Church, which was sued by the father of a dead US Marine.

The court upheld a ruling throwing out a $5m (£3m) judgment to the father.

Chief Justice John Roberts said the Constitution could not be thrown out because "picketing was outrageous".

'Inflicting great pain'

"What Westboro said, in the whole context of how and where it chose to say it, is entitled to 'special protection' under the First Amendment, and that protection cannot be overcome by a jury finding that the picketing was outrageous," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in opinion for the court.

Church members, led by the Reverend Fred Phelps, have picketed outside numerous military funerals to draw attention to their view that US military deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan are punishment for the immorality of Americans, including tolerance of homosexuality and abortion.

"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," the justices said on Wednesday.

Justice Samuel Alito was the only dissenting judge.

The Supreme Court compounded the injury by throwing out the judgement, Mr Alito said in court papers.

"In order to have a society in which public issues can be openly and vigorously debated, it is not necessary to allow the brutalization of innocent victims like petitioner. I therefore respectfully dissent," he wrote.

Following the ruling on Wednesday, Margie Phelps, Mr Phelps's daughter and the lawyer representing the church, told reporters that the case "put a megaphone to the mouth of this little church".

"We read the law. We follow the law. The only way for a different ruling is to shred the First Amendment," she added.

Snyder funeral

Lance Cpl Matthew Snyder was killed in a humvee accident in Iraq in 2006 and his body was returned to the US state of Maryland for burial, which members of the Westboro Baptist Church picketed.

The protesters marched with signs outside the soldier's funeral that read "Thank God for Dead Soldiers", "You're Going to Hell" and "God Hates the USA/Thank God for 9/11", which forced the funeral procession to alter its route.

Soon after, Albert Snyder, Matthew's father, came across a poem on Westboro Baptist Church's website attacking his son's upbringing.

Mr Snyder then filed a lawsuit in March 2006 accusing the church of intentionally inflicting emotional distress and won $11m at trial in 2007, which was later reduced by a judge to $5m.

He has argued in the past that the case was not about free speech but rather about how the church, which is based in Topeka, in the state of Kansas, harassed him.

But a federal appeals court in Virginia threw out the judgement, saying the Constitution shielded the church members from liability.

1st amendment or not, if there is no respect for a funeral, then this will open up all kinds of funeral protest junk. The protesting of funerals and ugly signs will only lead to violence eventually, someone will snap and people will die. It is only a matter of time.

 

[greg334]

1st amendment or not, if there is no respect for a funeral, then this will open up all kinds of funeral protest junk. The protesting of funerals and ugly signs will only lead to violence eventually, someone will snap and people will die. It is only a matter of time.

Well Sky, you can't have it any other way. The first amendment is important enough not to have a right not to be offended and funerals have zero to do with rights or offending people. As much as I sound like an a**, I expected no less out of this and if we really want to fight these idiots and their scum followers, then it has to be done on a level that has no violence and a united front - as that one town did.

BUT with that said, we must also think that if this went the other way, what negitive impact is would have on our freedoms, all of them and how we could be stifled be the ridiculous position that the courts will have to take up by having a right not to be offended.

 

[chefdennis]

The SC has some many paramiters for how they look at wohat os protected under 1A it isn;t funny... pron is looked at different then an publishers right to publish the same garbage...a student is high schoolmcan't wear a anti gay shirt but a mexican illegal in high school can wear a La Raza shirt....and individual can spend millions of his/her own money to run for office and his neighbor can only give him.her so much (yes campiagn contributions are covered as free speech or the limit of)....so to say that there is only one way to look at 1A is BS...the robes have changed their thinking so many times it ain't funny...

I agree with ky, when a few of these isdiot get a bullet in the forhead, then things will be looked at a bit different...

 

[Desperado]

yes and no make noise while church service is going on see how fast they have the cops there to shut it up try opening a beer joint next to a church and see if you can in some states church's have their rights and so should everybody else especially during morning

 

[Pilgrim]

After today's verdict from SCOTUS, it looks like the proper course of action may be some sort of counter-protest that makes the Phelps cult pay a price for their obnoxious antics. We don't know what for those hypothetical protests might take, but I'm sure some outside-the-box thinkers will come up with something. Who would think anyone, no matter how crude or distasteful they might be, would have sunk so low as to disrupt the funerals of fallen soldiers in order to promote their totally unrelated anti-gay agenda?

But Skyraider is right - it's easy to see how some grief-stricken relative of a fallen soldier could go off the deep end and wade into the midst of these "protesters" with an M-16 and wipe the whole lot of them out. Then the mainstream media would portray their cult as "victims"

 

[layoutshooter]

The Constitution MUST be protected. Do not, however, be surprised when something happens to one of those scum bags who protest a funeral. A person, and I use that term lightly, who would inflict their sick, perverted ideas on a grieving family deserves what may happen to them. For every action this is an equal and often greater reaction. The lower and more offensive the act the greater the response is likely to be. In other words, "Thems be fightin words bubba!!"


I pity the fool who would protest the funeral of one of my family members. I don't care what would happen to me. It could happen, my nephew's wife is now in Afghanistan and my son might be by the end of the year.


I would love to ask those members of the court how they would react. IF they could answer honestly it would be interesting to ask them.

 

[ChrisGa23]

I to heard they passed this and it made me mad. Where are the rights to the soldier's family? What makes it bad is not all soldiers funerals they protest at isnt gay. They are just there to protest. And I guarantee they are only doing it for attention. They are a no body and seek so much attention it forces them to do something so dramatic as protest a soldier's funeral just to get recognized sense they live such a life of losers. Plus the soldier's are out fighting for their freedom of 1st amendment rights while they are abusing it.

I got some solutions and suggestions. Why dont the people go to their church and protest while they have service and gatherings.

Or maybe congress could pass a law saying you have to be 2 miles away from a funeral if your gonna protest.

 

[greg334]

A few of you don't seem to get this, there is no right NOT to be offended. The funeral is not a thing that is protected by law and the freedom of expression and speech has and should always be over any and funeral rites regardless who the person is. Being a Vet does not preclude that the person is above a citizen as bad as that sounds. IF this was at one of the federal cemeteries, then I would agree limited access is justified but many of the protests are held at public accessible places and when we start going down the path of the rights of the family and all of that BS NOT to be offended, then we can no longer support the constitution as it was intended but more importantly it hurts all of us.

ONE VERY IMPORTANT POINT is that the SC didn't make this decision based on the emotion derived from the people involved NOR did they look at it as an attack on A SPECIFIC family, they looked at this as a protest AGAINST the GOVERNMENT. THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT as many of us here use the same level of rhetoric when we complain about our government and IF we wanted to limited the scum at the Westboro Baptist Church through laws, it opens the door for the same reasoning behind limiting OUR speech in forums, chat rooms and other on-line places.

IF there is violence against these people, then it is the fault of our system and ourselves by not countering them with peaceful demonstrations or finding other ways to slow them down.

 

[skyraider]

We can type all the BS in here we want over law and the interpretation of law. IMHO, good common sense must prevail over the protesting of funerals. Now that said, someday a soldier will be buried and his living buddies will resolve this issue in their own special way . We now have well trained soldiers that may put honor and pride of the United States of America far above disrespecting our fallen soldiers by civilians with a piece of paper saying they can act like a-holes. With protesting comes consequences when those protest are about a sensitive subject such as a funeral, I'm just saying, stand by.

 

[greg334]

We can type all the BS in here we want over law and the interpretation of law. IMHO, good common sense must prevail over the protesting of funerals.

Common sense would prevail when we look at things without the media hype too.

Common sense would allow us to plan and put forth that plan to stop people like this without getting all upset and p*ssed off.

The country evolves all the time but we do not have a right NOT to be offended in this country.

The problem is that funeral rites are not taken seriously BY THE ENTIRE COUNTRY nor are the desecration of where people, especially combat vets, are buried.

We look at this crap and get all upset with it while no one pays a d*mn bit of attention to what happened (and still is) in Arlington. Where is everyone complaining about Westboro complaining about Arlington?

This subject as much as it is not anywhere as important as Arlington, seems to garner more media time, more sensationalized journalism from every type of media outlet than Arlington just on the coverage of the SC decision - what does that say about our country and the respect to those who served?

Now that said, someday a soldier will be buried and his living buddies will resolve this issue in their own special way . We now have well trained soldiers that may put honor and pride of the United States of America far above disrespecting our fallen soldiers by civilians with a piece of paper saying they can act like a-holes. With protesting comes consequences when those protest are about a sensitive subject such as a funeral, I'm just saying, stand by.

If that's the case, I don't want any of them in the US military. It is not their right nor privilege to resolve anything that goes against the constitution that they took an oath to uphold. The SC spoke, it is reasonable decision based on the actual facts that were presented to them and it is UP TO ALL OF US to take up the 'fight' legally and without violence.

BUT this goes right back to the subject of Arlington and the lack of concern, where is it? Why are we so hateful of people like Westboro but not those who were in charge of Arlington?

 

[EnglishLady]

As you know I do not understand all the "rules & reg's" of the USA yet, but when I read this piece I felt angry.

I understand what has been written in the posts above and from what Greg is saying too, but for goodness sake can't common sense prevail in situations like this?

Can't the SC rule for common sense on the freedom of speech?

I cannot believe a "true" church would even consider doing such a thing at an 'ordinary' funeral, let alone that of a military persons funeral.

Absolutely deplorable IMO

 

[chefdennis]

I am with Sky...the law is still looking for a Military sniper that they think shot his wife in the head as she performed on stage in a country western bar...they figure he shot her from over 500 yards away....Sooer or later that is what you will see with this group. Then all you have to do is put the garbage to the curb to be taken away....

 

[Jack_Berry]

it is easy to see that the doctrine of jesus is not taught in this church. as we all know, jesus taught to love the sinner and hate the sin, just the opposite of this churchs belief. since you cannot pick and choose what you want to believe, you either believe or don't believe, these folks cannot claim to be christians.

the only person who has died for anyones sins is jesus christ.

 

[buckwheat]

As much as I'll probably get a smackdown for this.........I agree with Greg.The fact that these vermin show up at ANY funeral and spout their hatred just goes to show what scum they are. But the constitution doesn't let us legislate morality and I believe this is a moral issue. There are assaults on the constitution all the time and they have to be kept at bay. That being said, my #2 son is in the USAF currently. If he were to be killed and these scum were to picket his funeral and shout there vitriol, their leader would draw his last breath about 15 seconds after I reached his position. I would immediately surrender to authorities and accept my punishment. One last thing.......

God bless the Patriot Guard

 

[golfournut]

it is easy to see that the doctrine of jesus is not taught in this church. as we all know, jesus taught to love the sinner and hate the sin, just the opposite of this churchs belief. since you cannot pick and choose what you want to believe, you either believe or don't believe, these folks cannot claim to be christians.

the only person who has died for anyones sins is jesus christ.

And forgiveness of sinners. What kind of hollier than tho church is this? Next they will think they are above god!

Posted with my Droid EO Forum App

 

[LDB]

They aren't a church and shouldn't be getting tax exemption or anything else of benefit to a church. They are a single family of loons plus a few loon friends. They technically are within the letter of the law. They are far outside the intent of the first amendment. Their time will come and it won't be any too soon.

 

[golfournut]

The gray area is where does ones right to exercise that right infringe on another's right?

Posted with my Droid EO Forum App

 

[greg334]

As you know I do not understand all the "rules & reg's" of the USA yet, but when I read this piece I felt angry.

Sue read this very very carefully.

IT is meant to get you angry, to remove any sensible reasoning that you would have and only look at things through emotional lenses.

With any reasonable person who wants to make this a nation of laws not of men, they will see what I am saying about the media and the people who want to make this a more divisive issue to deflect the people from other rather very important issues.

I understand what has been written in the posts above and from what Greg is saying too, but for goodness sake can't common sense prevail in situations like this?

BUT see common sense did prevail, the father of that solider took the church to court and the system worked by allowing him access to address the issue. He lost, which was expected but not wanted (by me too) and he, like the rest of the country was told that the first amendment and THIS case isn't about one person or one rite but if a right for all.

Can't the SC rule for common sense on the freedom of speech?

That's not their job. They are charged to look at things presented to them through a process of law and judge them based on a single issue - if the case was judged properly by constitutional standard. They do take other things in to consideration but not in this case, it was about the freedom of expression and speech based not on the church protesting a single individual (noticed that they didn't name the soldier who was being buried) but rather the country itself.

I cannot believe a "true" church would even consider doing such a thing at an 'ordinary' funeral, let alone that of a military persons funeral.

Well anyone can be a church, literally, and there is no such thing as a requirement to fit one or another doctrine. There are even churches out there that believe that Jesus was just a prophet and the trinity was created to enslave man under Christianity.

Buckwheat the problem is when you allow yourself the emotion of correcting a wrong, you will create more of an issue by making them martyrs for their cause. The best thing to do is the fight them with their own tools, using a united front without the emotion they want you to us.

 

[chefdennis]

its easier to kill them and then pay for your actions as Buckwheat said..I have noothing but respect for that type of decision...a dead martyr is still dead...kill 4-5 of them at different funerals, sooner or later they will stop and the world will be less 4-5 pos and be a better place for it....