USSC rules for Westboro
The Associated Press reports that the Supreme Court has ruled 8-1 in favor of the Westboro “Baptist” Church.
The decision upheld an appeals court ruling that threw out a $5 million judgment to the father of a dead Marine who sued church members after they picketed his son’s funeral.
Alito was the lone dissenter according to Fox News.
I guess everything is protected speech now.
ADDED: Brandy sends us a link from MSNBC;
While the protests were painful, the majority wrote that the Constitution protects even hurtful speech on public issues.
“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,” Roberts wrote, “and that protection cannot be overcome by a jury finding that the picketing was outrageous.”
Category: Breaking News, General Whackos
When the law is applied without common sense and a moral code it becomes useless.
Then I guess harrassment lawsuits will dry up and go away? Same with stalking?
This just makes me sick.
Words fail me. If ever there was a reason there were limits on “free speech”, the Westboro fags are the number one example of why we do need them from time to time.
I will have to read the opinions in detail. I would just like to see what they have on the implied right of privacy.
Huh, I see it’s going to take even more motorcycles with loud pipes B) There’ll always be more than one way to drown ’em out…
Appalling. When I saw the headline on my home page this morning, I was certain that I must have misread. There are no words.
that anon was me, sorry.
Well, I guess it will be ok to go and protest at the Westboro Fag Cult then? We can make signs saying how their children are the product of incest, etc. and that will be ok with the courts?
OT–as tempting as that sounds, REAL Christians (real HUMANS) wouldn’t waste the effort on those worthless shit-sucking pieces of waste. The greatest pain that can be inflicted on the Westboro fags is the ostracism to which they are rightfully subjected.
Probably why most normal people don’t counter-protest them, save for their appearances outside their “church”. Simply don’t merit acknowledgement.
I really really really had hoped the SC would take it upon themselves to do something about this blight, but in truth I’m not at all surprised.
What should be done, in light of this ruling, is to appeal to the press to stop covering these assholes. They THRIVE on creating controversy. Stop putting cameras on them and they will retreat into their hole.
I think Scott just made the best suggestion I’ve heard yet.
Second Scott’s motion. Good luck getting the jackwagons in the media to go along with it.
Then again, a few of Anonymous’ DoS attacks on the Westboro fags websites wouldn’t hurt either.
Here’s the decision from the SC. Like I said, I’m not surprised. Fact is I think the court got it right, unfortunately I don’t believe getting it right is always right.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-751.pdf
It sounds like to me they said there’s no asshole filter in the 1st, and I have a tendency to agree with it, however much I may abhor whatever asshole-ishness is being spoken.
That said, I think there’s a good argument to be made here that this case should have been more about stalking or other behavior that is not protected by the first-not only did they protest his son’s funeral, they apprently wrote poems online that spoke to how badly his parents raised him and other vomitious crap.
Perhaps the stalking angle coule be worked in more in future cases. Conspiracy to commit stalking? Actual stalking? RICO? Bueller?
C-
So, you can place restrictions on protests at abortion clinics because calling the patients baby killers is mean but you can call service members baby killers and far worse by the Westboro fags….I’m glad that’s clear….
No, the protests at abortion clinics continue, and do so under the same rules as the ones the Westboro pukes are required to follow.
Or another way of saying it is that the WB idiots have to follow the same rules as the abortion protesters, and they do.
It was argued on the wrong grounds. One thing that constantly comes up about Westboro Baptists is their propensity to sue whomever opposes them. Their church also serves as a lawsuit mill, and they are making some mad money.
Redo this case as a function of commerce. Westboro Baptists are inciting reaction in order to bring a lawsuit for the purpose of funding.
If there’s one thing our government hates more than TEA Partiers, it’s non-government folks trying to make a buck.
Unfortunately I am not creative enough to come up with a viable solution for dealing with these thugs that wouldn’t land me in a cell next to Eric Rudolph. Instead I will leave you with this little reminder of what stress is.
http://www.jokeoftheday.com/content/pictures/209/stress
Just when I wanted the court to be activist, they fail me. I too, believe in the 1st amendment, that all speech, no matter how offensive is protected. And the WB speech is offensive to me on a level that I cannot describe. You speech and many of speech is proscribed in many cases. As a condition of employment and at school. This is the time SCOTUS could have stepped up.
Just read the opinion. Whiel not at all surprised, I am a little dissapointed. I strongly believe in the first amendment. I also believe, as my mother often said, your right to swing your arm stops at the point that your fist makes contact with my nose.
I find footnote 1 and footnote 15 in the dissent instructive. The Phelps clan has the right to protest, but what they did online in the “epic” may not be.
Any society that is unable say there is a line and we as a society will not allow you to cross it without consequences is no longer a society, it is anarchy. I regret that most of my adult life was spent in uniform protecting a nation that no longer is willing to provide the basic, earned respect a fallen soldier deserves. It is a very sad commentary on what depths our nation has fallen to. And sadly I have no hope our nation will ever return to what it was and should be. Clearly the lunatics are now running the asylum.
we sue over hate speech, ie Nazis, so why is it that this isn’t treated as such. If the intent is to wound we treat it as Assault. Verbal abuse in spouses is treated almost as harshly as physical abuse. can you tell me that calling a wife an wide legged whore is protected? The first Amendment does not protect ANYTHING, it is a negative law, regarding the fact that we will not make LAWS. It says nothing about Fraud (as in Stolen Valor), or Abuse (in this case.
I think “Intent” is exactly where a lot of the question here hinges Doc. The Snyder side failed to adequately prove a direct intent on the part of Phelps’ gang to cause pain and suffering to him and his family that lay outside the protection of the dubious public issue they claim to be publicly championing.
Like I said before, honestly I wish this could have gone differently, but I still applaud the Justices for resisting the urge to legislate from the bench.
@23 Anonymous:
Please don’t ever regret wearing the uniform. We do have “lunatics running the asylum” in some ways, but the fact of the matter is also that you protected what is best about this nation. “Tares among the wheat” kind of thing, you know? The WBC blight showed up on my church’s doorstep a few years ago, and we sent them packing. You have this to look forward to: WBC’s hate is a poison that will eventually bring about their downfall, and you will probably live to see it.