Supreme Court to hear arguments over 'Thank God for dead soldiers' funeral protest

Supreme Court to hear arguments over 'Thank God for dead soldiers' funeral protest

www.msnbc.msn.com

WASHINGTON — The father of a Marine killed in Iraq is asking the Supreme Court to reinstate a $5 million verdict against members of a fundamentalist church who picketed his son's funeral with signs like "Thank God for Dead Soldiers" and "God Hates the USA."

The court is hearing arguments Wednesday in the dispute between Albert Snyder of York, Pa., and members of the Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kan.

The case pits Snyder's right to grieve privately against the church members' right to say what they want, no matter how offensive.

Westboro members, led by the Rev. Fred P

(visit the link for the full news article)

Now I am not sure how many people have been paying attention to this new article, however, we should all be perking up and watching very carefully. What is at stake here, are 2 rights, that would affect all of us, the Freedom of Religion and the Freedom of Speech. On the other side, is the right of privacy and to not be harassed when we are out or at a private event, such as a funeral. Both have a different ramifications that will effect every day life, from what we can say in public and where, what all we can worship, and the message that the minister can deliver, along with what is considred a private event, along with how far away that privacy extends.
This should provide to be very interesting and the judges decision is one that I am looking forward to hearing and reading about, along with why they ruled the way they did, along with the supporting cases that their decisions were made on.

www.msnbc.msn.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Fred Phelps causes me so much conflict. You are, of course, correct that his freedom to speak is to be protected, at all costs. And his freedom to believe his insane form of litigation based faux Christianity is also a right to be defended.

But at the same time... This guy needs his butt kicked like no other man in modern history. Not legally, mind you. Let him have his rights. I just really wish somebody would beat some sense into him. Maybe then he'd learn a little respect through osmosis or something.

~ Heff

The head of this church appeared on Newsnight a few months ago, Jeremy Paxman tore her and her beliefs to shreds and it was truly beautiful to watch.

this is why I believe in separation of church and state.
Thank God for that.

There's a thread about this here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by sdcigarpig
On the other side, is the right of privacy and to not be harassed when we are out or at a private event, such as a funeral.

The funeral isn't private. It's public. And there is no right not to be harassed.

A public cemetery is one used by the general community, a neighborhood, or a church, while a private cemetery is one used only by a family or a small portion of the community. However, public use rather than ownership determines whether a cemetery is public. Thus, a cemetery, though privately owned or maintained, may be deemed a public cemetery if it is open, under reasonable regulations, to the use of the public for the burial of the dead. A cemetery, though privately owned, is properly classified as a “public cemetery” where it consists of a great number of burial plots or sites sold and for sale to the public.

Source

I must support Phelps' First Amendment rights here and I hope the Supreme Court does, too. Emotions shouldn't enter into what's legal and what's not. We can't legislate morality (what's right and wrong) and confuse that with what's LEGAL. Phelps' legal rights should prevail.

reply to post by Hefficide


This church gives all other churches a bad name.
They just seem to be pseudo-christian shock jocks.
Making money through law suits and causing others
extreme grief.

reply to post by sdcigarpig


what is there to hear?

It's vile, disgusting, wrong, immature, hateful, and shouldn't be tolerated by individual citizens.

HOWEVER!!!!

As far as our government is concerned, they damned well by God not disallow these people to assemble.

It starts with a bunch of hateful bigots, and it gets twisted and manipulated to apply to you and me, much further on down the road.

If people have a major problem with it, they should take matters into their own hands. But government should stay the hell out of it.

reply to post by Snarf


The government has to get involved in this case, as the fundamental rights are at stake here. When there is a conflict between differing rights, then it is apon the courts that we as citizens must turn to. The rights are very well set in stone, but the question must be asked what holds a greater weight in the eyes of the law, and to the interest of everyone. This decision, no matter how it goes, will impact every one in the US and all of its territories and the military for years to come. That is why it bears to pay very close attention to what the Supreme Court decides, how it rules and on what grounds, both those for and dissenting.
The way the Supreme Court, and all courts usually make a decision, from what I have read, is that all cases have to be proved using prior court cases, hence why there is so much at stake here. They will look for all relavent cases and base a decision on the rulings of current and prior judges, along with the laws in the applicable states. Such rulings would affect the way states make their laws.
Is the WBC a disgusting hate filled group, yes. Does the father of the marine have a point about wanting to have services for his son to be done in a dignified respectful private manor, yes. There in lies the problem, as both are correct in their stance and views. One demands the freedom of Speech, using the pulpit as a means to use that freedom, even though it is vile and hateful. The other demands to be left alone, to be allowed to morn and not deal with people being vile and viscious in their message.
To be fair and balanced, each has that right, but this is more than just a case of who is right, but one of sensativity and tolerance. The WBC group is clearly not tolerant, but uses their rights and freedoms like a weapon, and there too lies the problem. The courts are being asked to draw a line in the sand, and state what is and is not permissible. If they rule against the WBC and draw a line too far against the freedoms that they express, it would be bad for all of us, as it means that would affect every one for the next 40 years, too far against the father, and then our very rights of privacy is starting to get erroded. Ask yourself this, if you were in the judges shoes, those sitting and having to listen to the arguments that are presented, keeping in mind, that you can not base a decision solely on what you view, having to be blind to your own bias and decision, how would you decide on what is and is not permissible in this case, and how you would rule, knowing full well that you not only have to justify your decision, but also knowing that what you rule, will effect the country and its laws for years to come. I would not want to be in any of those judges shoes right now, as this one is going to be talked about for the months to come.

Originally posted by sdcigarpig
reply to post by Snarf

 

The government has to get involved in this case, as the fundamental rights are at stake here.

What fundamental rights? What differing rights?

There is no right to privacy on public property and there's no right NOT to have to hear others' opinions.

Does the father of the marine have a point about wanting to have services for his son to be done in a dignified respectful private manor, yes.

Yes, he has a point, but he doesn't have a legal RIGHT to have that on public property.

how you would rule

In favor of the First Amendment. No question, no hesitation. How else COULD someone rule? The father has no right to NOT hear things he doesn't want to hear while in public. (I know you weren't talking to me, but I answered anyway. )

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Yes I'd love to see how this would go over if someone acted in these manners at a funeral of say a president? Bet you they'd be arrested for at the very least disorderly conduct. Right or wrong on the first amendment rights that preacher should be drawn & quartered in my opinion. There are just some things you don't do and disrespecting someone who committed serving their life for your freedom is one of them. If they have to pass a law pertaining to this case regarding first amendment rights at a funeral I am fine with that it would impact me none, as much as I could ever despise someone I wouldn't have to worry about breaking that law. This shouldn't even be a discussion it boils down to common decency.

Originally posted by jaynkeel
Yes I'd love to see how this would go over if someone acted in these manners at a funeral of say a president?

Presidents have special protection and this kind of behavior would easily be seen as a threat, so you're right, a president wouldn't have to worry about this.

There are just some things you don't do and disrespecting someone who committed serving their life for your freedom is one of them.

Fortunately for us, we have no laws against disrespect. I can freely disrespect a service member or anyone. You're trying to bring emotion into the law.

If they have to pass a law pertaining to this case regarding first amendment rights at a funeral I am fine with that it would impact me none, as much as I could ever despise someone I wouldn't have to worry about breaking that law.

So, as long as it doesn't impact you, you're fine with it? That makes me a little bit ill. You certainly have a right not to support the First Amendment, though.

Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech ... or the right of the people peaceably to assemble...

There is nothing confusing about that.

There are so many alternatives to this that it makes no sense to waste the Supreme Court's time with it.

If you run up to someone in the street and scream obscentities in their face it can be classed as assault, harassment, disturbing the peace etc etc.

A little creative policing would solve this problem without all the pantywaists clutching desperately to their embroidered hankerchiefs and wailing about the protection of our civil liberties.

One thing we should all agree on (for once) is that yelling at the mother of a dead young Marine that God is happy her son is dead because we tolerate homosexuals in our society is abhorrent to all but the most disturbed individuals.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Okay so you wouldn't mind if people showed up at a family member or your's funeral and started shouting stuff like 'thank god so and so is dead', or start blasting loud music at the funeral, as long as their first amendment rights aren't impinged on.
Basically, you're saying, its okay to do whatever, as long as 'THEIR' rights aren't violated, how about moral decency? Yes we have rights that shouldn't be impinged on, but the RIGHT THING TO DO AS PEOPLE, is to say, hey, its a funeral, lets leave them to their grieving.
Have we slipped so far as a people, we only listen to JUST the letter of the law, and not morally be right?
No wonder we haven't been able to advance as a species.

Originally posted by HomerinNC
Okay so you wouldn't mind if people showed up at a family member or your's funeral and started shouting stuff like 'thank god so and so is dead', or start blasting loud music at the funeral, as long as their first amendment rights aren't impinged on.

You're making a HUGE assumption there, pal. I didn't say ANYTHING about what I personally thought about Phelps' behavior. I would HATE it, in fact. I think it's despicable. But that's what Free Speech is all about. It's easy to support someone if they're talking about love, flowers, butterflies and unicorns. But the REAL test of Free Speech is to support it for someone with whom we VEHEMENTLY disagree. You fail. As do others who advocate silencing Phelps because what he's doing is "wrong".

Basically, you're saying, its okay to do whatever, as long as 'THEIR' rights aren't violated,

I have said no such thing, basically or otherwise. Putting words in my mouth and then disagreeing with them is not an effective way to debate the issue.

how about moral decency?

I am all for moral decency (as each person sees fit) but I am VERY much against LEGISLATING moral decency, as everyone's idea of that is different. Whose morals shall we use? Fred Phelps' morals or yours or mine??

Yes we have rights that shouldn't be impinged on, but the RIGHT THING TO DO AS PEOPLE, is to say, hey, its a funeral, lets leave them to their grieving.

Right and Wrong indicate morals and have nothing to do with legal rights. Morality cannot and should not be legislated.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Then who's morals are we using when it comes to right and wrong with murder, rape, etc? Morals have everything to do with the situation at hand. As well as involving emotion with respect to the laws else the laws have no real substance if not for morals or emotion. I respect your opinions especially as a devoted contributer to ats and alot of what you contribute is of great quality. But I have to disagree due to emotion, sorry but with all the changing of laws that the government likes to do this is one part of such law I think should be regulated. But if it was me and my son that preacher would have assumed room temperature real quick. Yes I am all for the freedom of speech but like I said earlier people who don't know how to act with common manners and civility in the situation of a funeral need to be either removed from the area or dealt with in another manner. It is no different than me yelling outside my house what I believe in at 1am and the cops showing up giving me a disturbing the peace when all I was doing was using my freedom of speech. So you see in certain situations your freedom of speech has already been infringed upon making a law pertaining to funerals would really do no harm to the common person just as arresting people for murder or rape would not effect the average person.

I'd like to point out three things.

1) Freedom of speech is a constitutional right.
2) The right to bear arms is a constitutional right.
3) One is innocent *unless proven* guilty.

And that is all I have to say on the subject.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Presidents have special protection and this kind of behavior would easily be seen as a threat, so you're right, a president wouldn't have to worry about this.

But using your own logic, how is it a threat to them? That president is dead and is beyond any threat and needs protection from what, protesters? Does that not infringe on those protesters rights then? And a president is above and beyond what laws?

Fortunately for us, we have no laws against disrespect. I can freely disrespect a service member or anyone. You're trying to bring emotion into the law.

And how much respect would you like to be shown to you in your life? And the use of emotion can be said for your argument for any president. Isn`t it emotion that would cause the use of protection in that case? Double standard anyone?

If they have to pass a law pertaining to this case regarding first amendment rights at a funeral I am fine with that it would impact me none, as much as I could ever despise someone I wouldn't have to worry about breaking that law.

So, as long as it doesn't impact you, you're fine with it? That makes me a little bit ill. You certainly have a right not to support the First Amendment, though.

And it doesn`t make you ill to think, this moron has pushed freedom of speech to the point, that it has to be ruled on, and a line drawn in the sand?

Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech ... or the right of the people peaceably to assemble...

There is nothing confusing about that.

The confusion is within the interpretation of said rights, and this is why the court is taking this case on.

Originally posted by jaynkeel
I am all for the freedom of speech

You cannot make that claim honestly. You support restricting speech, by law, because you find it offensive. That's a slap in the face to Free Speech.

Originally posted by FiatLux
But using your own logic, how is it a threat to them?

The family of a president is also under special protection.

Congress enacted legislation that permanently authorized Secret Service protection of the president, his immediate family, the president-elect, and the vice president, if he wishes.

Source

And how much respect would you like to be shown to you in your life?

What I would like is so totally irrelevant to this situation. It's about what is LEGAL. You, and some others here, are confusing the CONTENT of what a person expresses with his RIGHT to express it.

And it doesn`t make you ill to think, this moron has pushed freedom of speech to the point, that it has to be ruled on, and a line drawn in the sand?

No. This is how our legal system works. I actually like it quite a bit.

The confusion is within the interpretation of said rights, and this is why the court is taking this case on.

Under the United States Code Title 18 Subsection 1514(c)1. Harassment is defined as "a course of conduct directed at a specific person that causes substantial emotional distress in such a person and serves no legitimate purpose".

Source

Phelps' actions aren't directed at the father. And cannot cause emotional distress to the dead Marine.

The Supreme Court may rule that Phelps is outside his rights, but I doubt they will. It would set a dangerous precedent. It will be interesting to see what they say.

The confusion is within the interpretation of said rights, and this is why the court is taking this case on.

Under the United States Code Title 18 Subsection 1514(c)1. Harassment is defined as "a course of conduct directed at a specific person that causes substantial emotional distress in such a person and serves no legitimate purpose".

Source

Phelps' actions aren't directed at the father. And cannot cause emotional distress to the dead Marine.

The Supreme Court may rule that Phelps is outside his rights, but I doubt they will. It would set a dangerous precedent. It will be interesting to see what they say.

Doesnt matter WHOM the'yre directed AT, the FATHER was the one that was emotionally distressed at the protest, him and the rest of the grieving family