High court: Does father's pain trump free speech?

[Evo]

I am on the side of the family. There is no reason, IMO, for these people to be doing this to this family. Perhaps this should be considered when a person or group plans to engage in the harrassment of private individuals. I don't see why the First Amendment needs to allow for harrasment and stalking of private citizens going about their private, personal, lawful activities. I don't think this type of personal harrassment was intended to be protected when the First Ammendment was written.

Supreme Court justices, in a rare public display of sympathy, strongly suggested Wednesday they would like to rule for a dead Marine's father against fundamentalist church members who picketed his son's funeral — but aren't sure they can.

Left unresolved after an hourlong argument that explored the limits of the First Amendment: Does the father's emotional pain trump the protesters' free speech rights?

The difficulty of the constitutional issue was palpable in the courtroom as the justices weighed the case of Albert Snyder. His son died in Iraq in 2006, and members of a family-dominated church in Topeka, Kan., protested at the funeral to express their view that U.S. deaths in Afghanistan and Iraq are God's punishment for American immorality and tolerance of homosexuality and abortion.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101007/ap_on_go_su_co/us_supreme_court_funeral_protests

This next article goes into more detail of what the Supreme Court is faced with.

http://www.ydr.com/ci_14667129

 

[G037H3]

public place=is constitutionally protected

 

[JaredJames]

These people make me sick. I wonder how they'd react if a hundred atheist's set up camp outside their homes and started preaching how God and the Bible is BS?

Oh but that's right, they can picket people's funerals and be covered by the freedom of speech, but if we try to picket them, suddenly freedom of religion comes into it and we're still in the wrong.

If they tried that where I lived they'd have a rather significant number of 'family' showing them the 'error of their ways'!

I don't think it's a case of violating free speech, but more a case of people being so ignorant and insensitive towards others and not respecting them at such a distressing time.

I may disagree with what someone says or does, but I have enough respect for them to know when I should and shouldn't voice my opinion.

 

[russ_watters]

public place=is constitutionally protected

That isn't true. Speech in public places is restricted all the time. Even if the content itself is protected, there are many of reasons why speech might not be. In this case, one group interfering with the rights of another (at the very least, this is harassment) seems like a good reason to me to make them express their opinion somewhere else.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Recall that Bush had free-speech zones penned off at a distance, at his rallies. Even a woman wearing an Obama shirt was ejected from a rally.

 

[JaredJames]

public place=is constitutionally protected

So me shouting racist slurs in a public place would be constitutionally protected?

 

[Vanadium 50]

I recommend people read the 4th circuit court of appeals' decision on this. It includes a number of interesting and possibly relevant facts:

It was undisputed at trial that Defendants complied with local ordinances and police directions with respect to being a certain distance from the church. Furthermore, it was established at trial that Snyder did not actually see the signs until he saw a television program later that day with footage of the Phelps family at his son’s funeral.

 

[Astronuc]

I am on the side of the family. There is no reason, IMO, for these people to be doing this to this family. Perhaps this should be considered when a person or group plans to engage in the harrassment of private individuals. I don't see why the First Amendment needs to allow for harrasment and stalking of private citizens going about their private, personal, lawful activities. I don't think this type of personal harrassment was intended to be protected when the First Ammendment was written.

Harrassment is not protected by the First Amendment. It's one of those matters left to the States, which do have legal sanctions/laws against harassment. Snyder would have to demonstrate that Phelps et al violated the state or local statute regarding harrassment.

Most criminal matters at the local level are handled by local or state authorities and judicial systems, unless the criminal violation is against the nation or Federal Government, or persons employed or otherwise serving in the Federal Government.

 

[Proton Soup]

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130379867

Inside the courtroom, Snyder's lawyer, Sean Summers, told the justices that "if context ever matters, it matters at a funeral." But some justices pointed out that the picketers had obeyed all police instructions and stood 1,000 feet away from the church. Moreover, they noted that part of Snyder's emotional distress claim involves a derogatory Internet posting that he came across a month after the funeral.

"Suppose there had been no funeral protest, just the Internet posting," asked Justice Antonin Scalia. "Would you still have had a claim for damages?"

Summers answered yes, because of the "personal, targeted epithets directed at the Snyder family."

this is a pure speech case. it's not about harassment. for all our sake, the protesters had better win this case.

 

[G037H3]

So me shouting racist slurs in a public place would be constitutionally protected?

yep, to an extent

has to be peaceful, remember

 

[Astronuc]

If Phelps and his followers posted their garbage at PF, their posts would be deleted and they would be banned!

His 'speech' is hateful, and it has no redeeming social value.

His group went out its way to protest at the funeral, and that is essentially harassment. If Phelps et al want to protest the government and/or its policy, then let them go to the steps of Congress or the White House and protest there. Phelps and his group should leave the families of dead soldiers alone, since they do not decide policy.

 

[Evo]

I recommend people read the 4th circuit court of appeals' decision on this. It includes a number of interesting and possibly relevant facts:

But the issue now is that The US Supreme Court has voted to take on the appeal.

 

[Evo]

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130379867



this is a pure speech case. it's not about harassment. for all our sake, the protesters had better win this case.

From your article

Justice Ginsburg neatly summed up the issue in its most basic terms: "This is a case about exploiting a private family's grief, and the question is: Why should the First Amendment tolerate exploiting this Marine's family when you have so many other forums for getting across your message?"

 

[Proton Soup]

But the issue now is that The US Supreme Court has voted to take on the appeal.

yes, all bets are off. anything goes depending on the mood of the court, and apparently, Summers is a compleat idiot.

 

[G037H3]

Evo starts thread:

I am on the side of the family. There is no reason, IMO, for these people to be doing this to this family. Perhaps this should be considered when a person or group plans to engage in the harrassment of private individuals. I don't see why the First Amendment needs to allow for harrasment and stalking of private citizens going about their private, personal, lawful activities. I don't think this type of personal harrassment was intended to be protected when the First Ammendment was written.

jarednjames responds to 'religion':

These people make me sick. I wonder how they'd react if a hundred atheist's set up camp outside their homes and started preaching how God and the Bible is BS?
Oh but that's right, they can picket people's funerals and be covered by the freedom of speech, but if we try to picket them, suddenly freedom of religion comes into it and we're still in the wrong.
If they tried that where I lived they'd have a rather significant number of 'family' showing them the 'error of their ways'!
I don't think it's a case of violating free speech, but more a case of people being so ignorant and insensitive towards others and not respecting them at such a distressing time.
I may disagree with what someone says or does, but I have enough respect for them to know when I should and shouldn't voice my opinion.

russ_watters doesn't differentiate between 'fire' and 'you're a ****':

That isn't true. Speech in public places is restricted all the time. Even if the content itself is protected, there are many of reasons why speech might not be. In this case, one group interfering with the rights of another (at the very least, this is harassment) seems like a good reason to me to make them express their opinion somewhere else.

Ivan Seeking brings in Bush for no reason:

Recall that Bush had free-speech zones penned off at a distance, at his rallies. Even a woman wearing an Obama shirt was ejected from a rally.

jarednjames implies that those opinions are wrong, or relevant to the thread:

So me shouting racist slurs in a public place would be constitutionally protected?

Astronuc implies that a private forum is the gold standard of conduct for public free speech:

If Phelps and his followers posted their garbage at PF, their posts would be deleted and they would be banned!

His 'speech' is hateful, and it has no redeeming social value.

His group went out its way to protest at the funeral, and that is essentially harassment. If Phelps et al want to protest the government and/or its policy, then let them go to the steps of Congress or the White House and protest there. Phelps and his group should leave the families of dead soldiers alone, since they do not decide policy.

Proton Soup knows how to read and reserve judgment:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...ryId=130379867

Inside the courtroom, Snyder's lawyer, Sean Summers, told the justices that "if context ever matters, it matters at a funeral." But some justices pointed out that the picketers had obeyed all police instructions and stood 1,000 feet away from the church. Moreover, they noted that part of Snyder's emotional distress claim involves a derogatory Internet posting that he came across a month after the funeral.

"Suppose there had been no funeral protest, just the Internet posting," asked Justice Antonin Scalia. "Would you still have had a claim for damages?"

Summers answered yes, because of the "personal, targeted epithets directed at the Snyder family."

this is a pure speech case. it's not about harassment. for all our sake, the protesters had better win this case.

seriously guys, UMAD

learn to respond to the action, not the content

'he hit me' instead of 'he hit me while wearing a blue shirt! i hate blue!'

 

[Proton Soup]

From your article

we'll see, she's just one judge. but this isn't about some ordinary citizen, it is political speech aimed at an agent of the US government.

 

[Evo]

we'll see, she's just one judge. but this isn't about some ordinary citizen, it is political speech aimed at an agent of the US government.

With signs aimed at the mourners at the funeral saying "god hates your tears' that's hate speech directed at the private mourners.

 

[G037H3]

With signs aimed at the mourners at the funeral saying "god hates your tears' that's hate speech directed at the private mourners.

>implying hate speech is real, and not just a way to limit free speech

>implying that it is illegal to hate another person

>implying that if one person commits a true crime against another, the specific details of the victim matter, when the person committing the crime should be charged regardless of who or what the victim is

 

[JaredJames]

jarednjames responds to 'religion':

Uh, the article is about a church protesting a funeral, my post was to point out the discrimination shown to non-religious folks by the laws put in place to protect the religious. These religions can protest under the cover of freedom of speech, but if I protest them, I'm infringing their religious rights.

jarednjames implies that those opinions are wrong, or relevant to the thread:

Are you saying racist remarks shouted in public aren't wrong? Why is it not relevant, your first post implies that no matter what is said in public it is protected. That is pure BS, go stand on your street corner and try shouting racist slurs at passers by and see how long you remain there.

 

[G037H3]

Uh, the article is about a church protesting a funeral, my post was to point out the discrimination shown to non-religious folks by the laws put in place to protect the religious. These religions can protest under the cover of freedom of speech, but if I protest them, I'm infringing their religious rights.



Are you saying racist remarks shouted in public aren't wrong? Why is it not relevant, your first post implies that no matter what is said in public it is protected. That is pure BS, go stand on your street corner and try shouting racist slurs at passers by and see how long you remain there.

look at the details before responding

shouting? no. walking up to people and calling them racial slurs? yes.

probably won't make too many friends, as it's a silly thing to do with your time, and makes you look like an idiot, but yep, is permissible.

 

[JaredJames]

>implying that if one person commits a true crime against another, the specific details of the victim matter, when the person committing the crime should be charged regardless of who or what the victim is

Oh my god, I just snapped a piece of wood! I'm being charged with Grievous Bodily Harm.

 

[G037H3]

Oh my god, I just snapped a piece of wood! I'm being charged with Grievous Bodily Harm.

"what" refers to subspecies/sex/etc.

 

[D H]

First some replies, then my thoughts.

but if we try to picket them, suddenly freedom of religion comes into it and we're still in the wrong.

Are you sure about that? Has a group filed for a permit to protest at 3701 West 12th Street in Topeka, Kansas and been denied?

So me shouting racist slurs in a public place would be constitutionally protected?

Them's fightin' words. Fighting words are not protected speech.

Speech in public places is restricted all the time.

Correct. That's the basis for public nuisance laws, and that is the basis for requiring groups to obtain protest permits and the like. However, denying such permits on the basis of the expected content of the speech is unconstitutional without some very compelling reasons.

I recommend people read the 4th circuit court of appeals' decision on this. It includes a number of interesting and possibly relevant facts:

It was undisputed at trial that Defendants complied with local ordinances and police directions with respect to being a certain distance from the church.

Exactly. They had the necessary permits.




I know how exactly vile this group is. Shortly after the Columbia disaster they set up camp right outside the main gate of NASA's Johnson Space Center with placards proclaiming that god struck down the Columbia, etc. I remotely knew one of the astronauts who died in that accident, and directly knew a lot of people who were more intimately connected to those astronauts than I was. That was some evil, vile stuff. They were there for publicity, and publicity only. They abandoned NASA when they found the publicity here wasn't very good while being complete wipes along funeral routes made for good publicity.

As vile and superficial as this group is, they still do have rights.

 

[Proton Soup]

With signs aimed at the mourners at the funeral saying "god hates your tears' that's hate speech directed at the private mourners.

how is this "hate speech" ? for that matter, what is "hate speech" ? does it provoke an action? what does it do other than make you hate Phelps?

 

[JaredJames]

shouting? no. walking up to people and calling them racial slurs? yes.

probably won't make too many friends, as it's a silly thing to do with your time, and makes you look like an idiot, but yep, is permissible.

Oh look, this guy didn't make the remarks directly at anyone in particular, just "shouted" (or broadcast) them, he got arrested:
http://beforeitsnews.com/story/26/492/16-Year_Old_Arrested_For_Racial_Slurs_at_Wal-Mart_in_NJ.html

 

[G037H3]

Oh look, this guy didn't make the remarks directly at anyone in particular, just "shouted" (or broadcast) them, he got arrested:
http://beforeitsnews.com/story/26/492/16-Year_Old_Arrested_For_Racial_Slurs_at_Wal-Mart_in_NJ.html

he shouldn't have been arrested

he should have been kicked out of the store for using the broadcasting equipment that he didn't have permission to use, obviously

 

[JaredJames]

"what" refers to subspecies/sex/etc.

No s***.

These people need to grow a pair, leave the 'comfort' of the USA and go out to these war zones. Where they have no freedom of speech, no freedom of religion. But no, they'd rather sit in the safety of the USA and attack those who fight for their country, fighting for the very freedoms they cower behind.

 

[Evo]

how is this "hate speech" ? for that matter, what is "hate speech" ? does it provoke an action? what does it do other than make you hate Phelps?

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...h&sa=X&ei=0fCwTLSKE5CosAOz56GmDA&ved=0CBIQkAE

http://definitions.uslegal.com/h/hate-speech/

 

[Vanadium 50]

But the issue now is that The US Supreme Court has voted to take on the appeal.

Yes, but the facts remain unchanged. The Seventh Amendment prohibits appellate courts from ruling on the facts of a case - they can only rule on the law. I think it's valuable for people to take a look at these facts before reaching conclusions.

 

[Newai]

Exactly. They had the necessary permits.

Do the permits cover protest? Or do they also cover protest conduct?

 

[D H]

he shouldn't have been arrested

Yes, he should have. Fighting words are not protected speech.

 

[G037H3]

No s***.

These people need to grow a pair, leave the 'comfort' of the USA and go out to these war zones. Where they have no freedom of speech, no freedom of religion. But no, they'd rather sit in the safety of the USA and attack those who fight for their country, fighting for the very freedoms they cower behind.

i wasn't entirely sure if i needed to clarify it for you

no freedom of speech in a warzone? really?

no freedom of religion on a warzone? then i suppose that many of the US soldiers in the Middle East are committing crimes by believing in a God that cares for them.

as for soldiers...

 

[JaredJames]

Yes, he should have. Fighting words are not protected speech.

So how is picketing a funeral? You are standing (within some distance) and promoting hatred of soldiers and their families. You are attacking them personally.

I really can't see how me standing at a funeral shouting god hates fags and soldiers deserve to die is any different than me standing on a street corner shouting racist slurs. They are targetting specific groups of people.

There should be an -ism for this sort of thing!

 

[D H]

Do the permits cover protest? Or do they also cover protest conduct?

The group issued the protest has to obey the law. No throwing rocks, no fighting words, no exceeding the limits of the permit.

As Vanadium 50 already mentioned, this (vile) group "complied with local ordinances and police directions."

If Phelps and his followers posted their garbage at PF, their posts would be deleted and they would be banned!

Of course they would -- and they would have no recourse. The first amendment does not apply to PF. The first amendment is a restriction on the government. The public sidewalks are the domain of the government.

His 'speech' is hateful, and it has no redeeming social value.

Of course it is hateful. And vile. And superficial (this group is after publicity only). That isn't what the Supreme Court is debating.

 

[JaredJames]

no freedom of speech in a warzone? really?

Go preach about Christianity out in Afghanistan streets (without military escort) and see how long you survive.

Oh, would you believe it:
http://www.alertnet.org/db/an_art/55867/2010/04/31-125504-1.htm

allegations they were preaching Christianity in the Islamic nation where religious conversion is a criminal offence.

no freedom of religion on a warzone? then i suppose that many of the US soldiers in the Middle East are committing crimes by believing in a God that cares for them.

So far as within the army camps, they operate under the rules of the countries they are run by, I'm talking about in the streets of places like Iraq and Afghanistan. Again, as above.

as for soldiers...

How do you propose we pay an army then? How would you defend your country if we didn't have it?

On this basis, applied to the UK, all Army, Air Force, Navy, Medical Staff, Police, Politicians and public sector workers are all "welfare queens"? (Aside from medical, you can apply the above to the states too).
A BS argument if I've ever seen one.

That poster is attacking the very people in place to defend the rights you hide behind. How respectful of you.