SCOTUS rules for anti-gay church over military protests

[hey-its-michael.livejournal.com]

A Kansas church that attracted nationwide attention for its angry, anti-gay protests at the funerals of U.S. military members has won its appeal at the Supreme Court, an issue testing the competing constitutional limits of free speech and privacy.

The justices, by an 8-1 vote, said Wednesday that members of Westboro Baptist Church had a right to promote what they call a broad-based message on public matters such as wars. The father of a fallen Marine had sued the small church, saying those protests amounted to targeted harassment and an intentional infliction of emotional distress.

"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. On the facts before us, we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker," the court's decision said.

Source

EDIT: Since the original text did not reference this, I should mention that the Court's decision today threw out a $5 million judgment against Westboro Church. They were originally found liable for the infliction of emotional distress upon the father of a dead marine, who sued them in court.

I believe the Supreme Court made the right call in this case. The First Amendment gives Americans a lot of latitude in what we get to say and do. This includes the right to say and do hurtful things. What Westboro Church does is utterly unethical. However, it is not illegal under our Constitution. They deserve the shame and ridicule of the communities in which they protest, but state and city governments cannot ban their foul behavior.

Comments

[tridus.livejournal.com]

Sooner or later those WBC jackasses are going to protest the wrong funeral and a shooting spree will ensue.

Then we'll all sit here and wonder "why does this type of thing happen?"

I dunno. Technically this seems to be the correct ruling, but I'm glad I live in a country where that isn't true and we can say "no this is not acceptable. GTFO."

[mijopo.livejournal.com]

Word.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

I'll take a nation that protects the speech rights of the people I don't disagree with over the nation that only protects the rights of those I do agree with any day of the week.

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

We in Oz have implied freedom of political communication, which is the important thing; being free to say whatever you want about the government. I'm not sure of the value of protecting the rights of these people to be jackasses.

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

The correct way to handle it is exactly how states and municipalities have handled it - by placing reasonable time, place and manner restrictions on protests. Giving someone a cause of action for damages because they find your political opinion hurtful is absolutely the wrong move. SCOTUS was definitely in the right on this one.

[dreadfulpenny81.livejournal.com]

This decision sucks, but I'm at least glad that the SCOTUS ruling doesn't restrict states or communities from continuing the restrictions.

Also, in most cases, those clowns from Westboro have to file a permit. If it's denied, they usually don't show up, so communities can always do that, too.

[rasilio.livejournal.com]

Gotta agree.


I think Fred Phelps is one of the biggest assholes in history but unless he is inciting violence he has the right to be that asshole.

That said, there is a difference between criminal and civil sanctions, and I do think he should be able to be sued for the harm he causes and I think one of the proper ways to handle such an asshole is for every family of a dead soldier he protests to take him to court and win a judgement for $100K.

Eventually he'll either get the lesson or run out of money, either way he'll stop protesting military funerals.

The important thing to remember is that freedom of speech means freedom from criminal sanction due to your speech, not freedom from consequences.

[hey-its-michael.livejournal.com]

Well, in this case the Supreme Court tossed a civil suit against Westboro for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Harm. Here, the court found that the First Amendment protected the church and threw out a $5 million court judgment against them.

[speciesofspaces.livejournal.com]

I really hate this judgment. They intended to cause harm and distress to the family. They ought to be held accountable for the damages that the family can prove.

I also hate that inevitably this ruling will be used to allow people to harass and intimidate women obtaining perfectly legal medical procedures.

[hey-its-michael.livejournal.com]

I don't think it conflicts with notions of free speech to wish upon people "just deserts" for the things they say. Words can hurt. Even if one has a right to say something, it doesn't make it ethical on their part to say it and hurt others.

So, I don't see anything wrong with your comment. :o)

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

I agree that this is one case where liberty must be defended. The whole "I disagree with what you do/say but I will defend to the death your right to do/say it" principle. Remember a government that shuts down Phelps and his scammers is plenty big enough to do that to anyone else it dislikes.

[malasadas.livejournal.com]

I've said it before and I'll say it again: if fucking assholes don't have the right to free speech in a public space then nobody does.

[qnetter]

Well, you have a right to free speech, but you don't have a right to an audience...

[singlethink.livejournal.com]

I disagree with this decision. The church can go protest somewhere else. I see no difference between this and when protesters at a university constantly interrupt a speaker (like Michael Oren at UC Irvine). Do it from somewhere where you cannot be heard during a ceremony.

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

I agree that they can be restricted in time, place and manner, but allowing individuals to sue them for monetary damages is not how you do that. States and municipalities have enacted ordinances on public displays at funerals, and I believe the federal government has one for military-specific graveyards, to address Phelps and keep his people a certain distance from the mourners.

[mijopo.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I have to say that I'm still not entirely sure I understand America and the whole free speech thing. Apparently, there are strict rules against showing a nipple or saying "fuck" or "shit" on the TV, a machine that I can easily control with a remote control or an on/off switch. And they can throw my kids out of school for wearing a pro-gay t-shirt or throw me out of a basketball game for wearing a pro immigration shirt. Or try carrying a controversial sign into a political rally. In those cases we seem able to find reasons to prevent people from uttering anything they want without concern for the audience. But saying the most incredibly hurtful, evil, despicable things imaginable to a man on the day that he's burying his son, "well, we have to respect their right to speak".

[hey-its-michael.livejournal.com]

Well, it's a little lengthy to get into, and there are dozens of SCOTUS cases discussing the differences between the examples you mention, but the overarching difference is what Westboro Church is doing is expressing a political / religious opinion, which is expressly protected under our Constitution. Saying "fuck" isn't.

[devil-ad-vocate.livejournal.com]

I'm glad the Supreme Court upheld the right to free speech. On the other hand - if the WBC van carrying these jerkoffs to their next "protest" blew a tire, wrecked, and exploded in a ball of fire - I wouldn't shed any tears.

[paedraggaidin.livejournal.com]

I will admit being conflicted about this. On the one hand, yeah, card-carrying ACLU member. On the other, certain forms of speech aren't protected (fighting words, libel, perjury). That plus my utter hatred of all things Phelps-related leads my heart to say "screw 'em, Alito was right."

But...the head says that this is, I guess, technically political speech, which is very much protected. Vile, disgusting, unforgivably hateful speech, but political speech nonetheless. On balance I'd have to say I grudgingly agree with the majority. The head wins.

[hey-its-michael.livejournal.com]

If harassment is illegal

This isn't harassment, as the law contemplates it. If it were, then every picket and protest would count as "harassment".

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

I'll say this much - I'm not sure if I'm more shocked that Alito was the lone dissenter, or that his dissent is so poor. His dissent would essentially open up the Constitutionality of free speech zones, which just makes no sense for me at all.

Surprised to see the liberal wing on the right side of this issue, though. After Citizens United, I wasn't sure they could ever get a speech case right.

[hey-its-michael.livejournal.com]

His dissent would essentially open up the Constitutionality of free speech zones, which just makes no sense for me at all.

I agree. His dissent was rather weak, and the idea of free speech zones is a travesty.

Surprised to see the liberal wing on the right side of this issue, though. After Citizens United, I wasn't sure they could ever get a speech case right.


Well, I will have to agree to disagree with your view on that case.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

It's good to see that sometimes the SCOTUS can make the right decision.

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

I still say Exile to some remote Aleutian island for the lot of them.

[jlc20thmaine.livejournal.com]

I agree with the ruling as much as I hate those sunsabitches. At the same time, one of these days someone is going to open fire on them. I'dlove to be on that jury to find the shooter not guilty.

What I'm concerned about is what impact, if any, does this ruling have on slander and libel laws?

[hey-its-michael.livejournal.com]

slander and libel laws

Defamation in the United States is extremely limited (compared to, say, the United Kingdom). Here, there are multiple elements one has to prove to recover, and one of them has to be that the thing said was untrue / false when said.

I don't think this case would have an impact on that analysis. Religious / political opinions seem out of the scope of defamation laws.

As they should.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

I'll just come out and say it.

As much as I would like to see Phelps and his organization razed to the ground and his fields salted, this was the right descision.

The First Amendment protects asshole just as it protects normal people. This is as it should be. Let's face it, there's little need to protect somebody waving a sign that says "I love mom and apple pie!"

Re: As they should.

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

I'll just come out and say it.

Brave of you, considering that this is the general consensus of the thread. :P

[ccr1138.livejournal.com]

Here's hoping for a convenient thunderbolt.

[harry-beast.livejournal.com]

Bad call, in my view. People should respect a funeral as a solemn occasion for family and friends to mourn someone who has died. They only have one chance and some bozos go and turn it into a carnival. What kind of society do we have when people have the right to abuse a grieving family, purely for the sake of mean spiritedness?

I support freedom of speech, but I sometimes get the feeling that its main beneficiaries are people diseeminating prejudice, vulgarity and falsehood.

[devil-ad-vocate.livejournal.com]

While I admire the progress of the last 66 years (my time on the planet), may I be forgiven my nostalgia for the days when these people would have the LIVING SHIT BEAT OUT OF THEM - and no one would even consider an arrest.