the Westboro "Church" has the right to do it's disgusting minstrel show at funerals, the Supremes rules 8-1 with only Alito dissenting.


a correct decision, but I really wish some non-state actor would knee cap the whole sickass family, so they'd have to protest in wheelchairs.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-751.pdf

Saw that, and thought exactly the same thing. I'm really surprised there hasn't been an incident already, but I'd guess it's just a matter of time before some mourning family member gets a bit of vengeance.

The likelihood of a retaliatory incident just increased ten fold.

It was the right decision and it will simply be handled legislatively now,by each respective state.

Figures - and the decision was an easy one to predict, and in all honestly rightly so, disgusting as it may be.. However, this part:
_____________________________

That said, � �[e]ven protected speech is not equally permissible in all
places and at all times.� � Frisby v. Schultz, 487 U. S. 474, 479.
Westboro�s choice of where and when to conduct its picketing is not
beyond the Government�s regulatory reach�it is �subject to reasonable time, place, or manner restrictions.� Clark v. Community for
Creative Non-Violence, 468 U. S. 288, 293. The facts here are quite
different, however, both with respect to the activity being regulated
and the means of restricting those activities, from the few limited
situations where the Court has concluded that the location of targeted picketing can be properly regulated under provisions deemed
content neutral. Frisby, supra, at 477; Madsen v. Women�s Health
Center, Inc., 512 U. S. 753, 768, distinguished. Maryland now has a
law restricting funeral picketing but that law was not in effect at the
time of these events, so this Court has no occasion to consider
whether that law is a �reasonable time, place, or manner restrictio[n]� under the standards announced by this Court.
_____________________

....does allow 'regulation' as to time/place.. I think there will be some serious 'regulations' coming down the pipe..

The thing about this ruling also fully protects those anti-Westboro protesters who bring their OWN signs and get right in the faces of those idiots...

And I still can't believe that church is still standing.. But that's just me..

+1

Westboro knows NOTHING about Christianity. They act out of malice, hate, and conceit. They are a repugnant scourge on decent Americans.

+1000

Guess I never have heard, do they claim to be Christian?

Agree, it's the right decision. Also think someday someone is going to do something very bad to those folks.

We call our parents, "The greatest generation"

I'm trying to imagine a Westboro Church-like scenario during WW2

....not having much luck with that.

GTC

Okay, they have a "right" to protest

Does this mean you can't force them to get a permit or tell them EXACTLY where they will be allowed to stand?

Do I have a "right" to protest them... with a paint ball gun?

+1

Seems to me the Westboro chuch is inciting violence given their behavior. Sure would like to be seated on the jury when someone reacts to their actions.

Correct decision IMHO, but they are going to reap what they sow sooner or later!

Terry, you just summed it up.

Then why can't you yell "FIRE" in a crowded movie theatre? I support free speech, but it does have its limits. The definition of hate speech runs in both directions.

falsely yelling fire isn't hate speech, it's creating a clear and present danger of injury. while one could argue....and the plaintiffs did....that the Westboro people create a danger by making people so mad they beat the crap out of them, the courts have not been convinced.

and letting the state decide what is just tooooo mean to say in public is a place we dare not go.

I hate the decision, but I recognize that their rights mean we all have rights.
Stripping away freedom of expression because we don't like what is being said, means YOU or I might be next, base on someone not liking me calling hussein the national lawn jockey.

I can't wait till Phelps dies, just to see how many will picket at his funeral..? That might be worth the drive..!

I don't blame you you one bit........

Of all the current "stuff" going on, having to defend their right to protest is one of the most difficult....

Well said. Shouting fire in a crowded theater isn't even speech, per se. Or, perhaps better said, one is not punished for the speech, but rather for the intent matched with an action designed to cause panic and injury. The "act" in this case is the verbal act of shouting fire within a certain context. The speech element in shouting fire in a theater (the vocal communication in words of the idea of fire) is never punishable under the law in and of itself, such as, for example, 1) when there actually is a fire, 2) when it's an actor's line in a play, or 3) when the theater isn't crowded.

Steve:


What this church/family like cult does makes me sick. Where in the Bible does it say we should disrupt morning? I know there are many anti gay people out there but there are better ways to express your self.

The flip side of that coin is our Constitution protects our right to be disgusting and thank god for that document as we all benefit from its protection. Still makes me sick.

no disagreement that they are revolting people, and a stink in the nostrils of Jesus.

if I were in close proximity, I'm not sure I could resist putting the boot in on that scum.

but I don't want the government deciding who can be obnoxious and who can't.

I system is not perfect but it works!

It was the correct decision by the court. Jury selection of the one who kneecaps these mofos though,...should be on a voluntary basis...can we make that happen?

They damned near had to walk out of Oklahoma not too long ago....Those boys in the eastern part of our great state aren't the forgiving type...

I would be willing to contribute a few pick handles to what ever motor cycle gang that would make it point to hang out near the "Westboro church members" while these "Christians" demonstrate at a military funeral.

Jim

Ya'll have convinced me that the decision was right.

Not to say one has to LIKE the scenario.

They'd do better to avoid farting around in Az., folks were pretty riled at ole' Fred's little diatrebe.

GTC

JUSTICE ALITO, dissenting.
Our profound national commitment to free and open
debate is not a license for the vicious verbal assault that
occurred in this case.
Petitioner Albert Snyder is not a public figure. He is
simply a parent whose son, Marine Lance Corporal Mat
thew Snyder, was killed in Iraq. Mr. Snyder wanted what
is surely the right of any parent who experiences such an
incalculable loss: to bury his son in peace. But respon
dents, members of the Westboro Baptist Church, deprived
him of that elementary right. They first issued a press
release and thus turned Matthew�s funeral into a tumul
tuous media event. They then appeared at the church,
approached as closely as they could without trespassing,
and launched a malevolent verbal attack on Matthew and
his family at a time of acute emotional vulnerability. As a
result, Albert Snyder suffered severe and lasting emo
tional injury.1 The Court now holds that the First
Amendment protected respondents� right to brutalize Mr.
Snyder. I cannot agree.

Now now, that's not christian. I feel badly for this "church" I'm sure they don't have much money and as such they are driving around in older vehicles that have not been well maintained. Perhaps a kind soul will give them a free brake job just to ensure that everything is in working order before they head over the Rockies for a protest?

It's the christian thing to do.