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

[DR13]

If the government are going to issue permits to allow this preaching, they should consider what impact it could have. In this case, the funeral was the target. I don't want to stop them preaching it, but more to request they do it on a different day so it doesn't conflict with said event.
I still disagree with what they preach, but at least then it's somewhat less targeted and can be considered 'general preaching'

My thoughts exactly

 

[JaredJames]

Bigotry is a crime?

Sorry, only read the first few. In which case, ignore the first line for the last few and just apply the rest.

 

[DR13]

Bigotry is a crime?

Not against the explicit laws, but it definitely breaks the social contract.

 

[lisab]

Not against the explicit laws, but it definitely breaks the social contract.

We don't fine or arrest people for breaking "the social contract".

 

[G037H3]

OK, there's a bit more to my view than that, but for the purposes of now, I'll say it should be banned.


Yes, these people have committed a crime, they are to be punished by the state / country / whoever is supposed to deal with it. Not the general public (although socially that is generally what ends up happening.)

racists aren't criminals

unless they commit an actual crime

hating another person or group isn't a crime in itself

 

[DR13]

We don't fine or arrest people for breaking "the social contract".

I didn't say that we should fine/arrest these people, that would be insane. But I am saying that I understand why people would want to protest and speak out against these people (not hate speech though).

 

[JaredJames]

racists aren't criminals

unless they commit an actual crime

hating another person or group isn't a crime in itself

I already answered this in a previous post. I didn't read the full list, just assumed it was a list of criminals.

I apologised and I attempted to indicate a correction.

Your post is unnecessary.

 

[JaredJames]

We don't fine or arrest people for breaking "the social contract".

No, we don't. But we can use some principles of common decency and respect to at least help prevent potential conflicts from occurring.

I'm not going through it for a fourth time, but I've made my point regarding guidelines being used for issuing permits for protests a number of times now.

If protest A could potentially conflict with event B, request that protest A be made on another day.

I will give some credit in this case, they were gone before the funeral. But still, being on the same day at the same location (and they admit to targeting the funeral) is enough for me to want these guidelines in place so that time and money isn't wasted due to these issues which could be avoided.

 

[D H]

"Them's fightin' words" was used earlier. I don't see why this isn't considered just that.

Because it's not, at least per the current meaning of that doctrine. The Supreme Court first articulated the fighting words doctrine in 1942 in rather broad terms but have been narrowing down what that concept means ever since. In essence, "fighting words" must risk an immediate breach of the peace. Snyder was not motivated to commit violence (an irrational an illegal act). He was instead motivated to file a lawsuit (a rational and legal act).

That said, some of the questions during the hearing certainly did indicate that the Court is questioning whether this is unprotected speech based on the fighting words doctrine. I will be interested to see where the Supreme Court draws the line should it side with the Synders in this case. BTW, don't expect a decision any time soon. We'll have to wait until next spring or summer. The Supreme Court always takes its sweet time, particularly on issues like this one.

 

[JaredJames]

Well they say they want soldiers to die (and others, but we'll stick to the subject here). That in it's broadest sense is showing support for people killing them and wanting them to do it. It's promoting violence towards the troops. "fightin' words" if I've ever heard them.

 

[D H]

If protest A could potentially conflict with event B, request that protest A be made on another day.

This vile church more or less did just that. Not another day, but another hour. They were out of there when the service started. That's one strange thing about this church: as irrational as their proclamations are, they are very rational when it comes to planning their activities. They call the local officials ahead of time, get the necessary permits, and obey the constraints laid upon them.

They also are very sure to inform the media, national and local, print and TV, and every other form. They relish in the undue attention given them. That undue attention is the sole reason they do this vile nonsense. They gave up protesting against NASA and at 9/11 attack sites when the media stopped showing up. The media is as much as fault here as is this group. Vile groups like this will always exist. The media feeds groups like this, both in terms of the lavish attention these groups need and in terms of contributions mailed by various useful idiots who happened to see such groups on TV.

 

[Proton Soup]

This vile church more or less did just that. Not another day, but another hour. They were out of there when the service started. That's one strange thing about this church: as irrational as their proclamations are, they are very rational when it comes to planning their activities. They call the local officials ahead of time, get the necessary permits, and obey the constraints laid upon them.

They also are very sure to inform the media, national and local, print and TV, and every other form. They relish in the undue attention given them. That undue attention is the sole reason they do this vile nonsense. They gave up protesting against NASA and at 9/11 attack sites when the media stopped showing up. The media is as much as fault here as is this group. Vile groups like this will always exist. The media feeds groups like this, both in terms of the lavish attention these groups need and in terms of contributions mailed by various useful idiots who happened to see such groups on TV.

and that seems to also be part of their point. that the media feeds, e.g., politicians that use the funerals for their own undue attention.

 

[Office_Shredder]

No, we don't. But we can use some principles of common decency and respect to at least help prevent potential conflicts from occurring.

I'm not going through it for a fourth time, but I've made my point regarding guidelines being used for issuing permits for protests a number of times now.

If protest A could potentially conflict with event B, request that protest A be made on another day.

I will give some credit in this case, they were gone before the funeral. But still, being on the same day at the same location (and they admit to targeting the funeral) is enough for me to want these guidelines in place so that time and money isn't wasted due to these issues which could be avoided.

You've said you want there to be guidelines, but you haven't really laid out what they would be. You can't just request they hold their protest at another time because it's obvious they'll just say no. You also can't take into account the content of their speech when you decide whether or not to issue a permit; so you need rules in place that would prevent this sort of thing from occurring without actually mentioning the specific conflict between events that is taking place.

A rule like you can't have a rally if there's a funeral in town is unlikely to pass Constitutional muster. What specific wording would you suggest that would not open up the town to millions of dollars in liability when they're sued for infringing on first amendment rights?

 

[Gokul43201]

Well they say they want soldiers to die (and others, but we'll stick to the subject here). That in it's broadest sense is showing support for people killing them and wanting them to do it. It's promoting violence towards the troops. "fightin' words" if I've ever heard them.

Your everyday definitions are not useful. There is a very specific definition of 'fighting words' as it applies within first amendment cases. D H took the effort to provide this definition - it doesn't help at all that you completely ignore the legal definition and choose to go with your own version.

And by your definition "Support the troops" should also count as fighting words, as it shows support for some people killing others.

 

[BoomBoom]

I really think there should be a Gay Pride Parade held every Sunday up and down the street in front of this church! ...and by all means, it should be as lewd as the law will allow!

 

[mugaliens]

None of the freedoms granted in our Constitution or its amendments are absolutely. All have limits involving reasonability and rationality. For example, 2A guarantees the right to keep and bear arms. It doesn't not extend to trailering a howitzer along for a weekend camping trip. Similarly, 1A's restrictions including a prohibition against shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater when no such fire exists, as doing so unnecessarily harms (endangers) those who're attending the show.

Protesting a funeral is a gross violation of 1A rights as it causes harm to the friends and family who are in mourning.

It is, however, encroaching on a slippery slope...

In most locales, a permit must be obtained before staging a protest, and permits are often refused on grounds that a protest is likely to create a disturbance of the peace. This sounds like a great time for communities to simply enact and enforce the permitting process.

 

[Office_Shredder]

Protesting a funeral is a gross violation of 1A rights as it causes harm to the friends and family who are in mourning.

Where does it guarantee this in the first amendment? Just because an action isn't constitutionally protected doesn't mean that its opposite is

 

[Astronuc]

Westboro's funeral protest clearly troubles Supreme Court
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/10/06/101689/supreme-court-divided-about-protecting.html

US military funeral protest case opens in supreme court
http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2010/oct/07/us-military-funeral-protest-supreme-court

The high court agreed to consider whether the protesters' message is protected by the First Amendment or limited by the competing privacy and religious rights of the mourners.
. . . .
A funeral for the fallen Marine was held in March 2006 in Westminster, Md. Snyder, 20, died from a non-combat-related vehicle accident on March 3, 2006, while supporting Operation Iraqi Freedom.

According to a Web site created in Snyder's honor, his relatives filed the civil lawsuit against the Westboro Baptist Church to "bring an end to the reign of terror and abuse that they inflicted" upon grieving families of U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/03/30/marines-father-ordered-pay-protesters-court-fees/

I looked into Maryland's anti-harassment statute some time ago. I can't find all the information at the moment, but this is one article I found.

§123 of Article 27 of the Maryland Code makes it a misdemeanor to "follow another person in or about a public place or maliciously engage in a course of conduct that alarms or seriously annoys another person."

To be guilty, the defendant must have acted without an otherwise legal purpose and have engaged in the forbidden conduct "with intent to harass, alarm, or annoy" "after reasonable warning or request to desist," according to the statute. "This section does not apply to any peaceable activity intended to express political views or provide information to others."

Adapted from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4183/is_20010920/ai_n10048016/

Snyder's case is legally weak because it's not clear that folks of Westboro Baptist Church have violated any law. Phelps et al did their homework, obtained permits, and complied with restrictions as to where they protested, i.e., they did not approach the Snyder family or attendees of the funeral, and then they apparently left before the funeral started. It doesn't appear that they were asked to leave. Furthermore, they are making a political statement.

US military funeral protest case opens in supreme court
http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2010/oct/07/us-military-funeral-protest-supreme-court


I think the purpose of Snyder's case is that he wishes to stop Phelps et al from protesting at or near funerals of fallen servicepersons, but he is not seeking to prevent Phelps from protesting.

Perhaps the protests at specific funerals could be considered a form of harassment or torment. The issue then becomes, do the actions of Phelps et al meet the test with respect to harassment or torment. Does their action contribute to the emotional pain for already grieving folks?

 

[Gokul43201]

Protesting a funeral is a gross violation of 1A rights as it causes harm to the friends and family who are in mourning.

How? What harm was caused (or was capable of being caused) in this case?

It is, however, encroaching on a slippery slope...

In most locales, a permit must be obtained before staging a protest, and permits are often refused on grounds that a protest is likely to create a disturbance of the peace. This sounds like a great time for communities to simply enact and enforce the permitting process.

Permits for protest are exactly the manner in which this form of speech is regulated. As has been pointed out numerous times in this thread, Westboro Baptist obtained the necessary permits and conducted the protest in accordance with the all the imposed restrictions (i.e., maintaining some minimum distance from the location, dispersing the protest before the funeral started, etc.).

 

[JaredJames]

I think the purpose of Snyder's case is that he wishes to stop Phelps et al from protesting at or near funerals of fallen servicepersons, but he is not seeking to prevent Phelps from protesting.

I've given up arguing here, it is clear that viewpoints are different and I feel there is a responsibility of the government to restrict such vile actions and others believe they should be allowed to do it.

That aside, this is exactly what I've been trying to say. I don't want to stop them protesting, but simply have a system which stops them doing it in an inconsiderate way (around funerals etc).

Yes, people could still be affected, but it isn't directly targetted at an event, especially such an already emotionally charged one.

 

[JaredJames]

How? What harm was caused (or was capable of being caused) in this case?

Imagine your child is killed in combat, you're at their funeral, you see / hear that someone is protesting nearby calling your son a "fag" and saying they deserve to die.

Now, is your reaction:

a) "Ah, that's OK, they have the right permit."
or
b) Anger and/or emotional distress.

Unless you can answer a for the above, you have been harmed by this protest, it has effected you. Whether directly, by witnessing it or indirectly by seeing it on the news.

The argument of "they didn't see the protest" doesn't hold. It was on the news. This argument is the equivelant of saying "you only watched the twin towers fall on tv, you couldn't have a reaction to it".
The fact pretty much everyone in this thread has said they find the actions vile and despicable, clearly shows we have all had a reaction (I'd say emotional) in some way or another. We have all been affected and to say this family can't be harmed by indirectly hearing of the protests just doesn't work. Out of everyone hearing of this protest, given its location and timing, they are the most likely to be emotionally harmed by it.

 

[Gokul43201]

Imagine your child is killed in combat, you're at their funeral, you see / hear that someone is protesting nearby calling your son a "fag" and saying they deserve to die.

Now, is your reaction:

a) "Ah, that's OK, they have the right permit."
or
b) Anger and/or emotional distress.

Unless you can answer a for the above, you have been harmed by this protest, it has effected you. Whether directly, by witnessing it or indirectly by seeing it on the news.

If you are going to ban any protest that evokes "anger and/or emotional distress" as a response (which is in large part the point of a protest - you don't carry out a protest to make people feel good about the state of things), then you might as well ban all protest and stop calling yourself a modern democracy.

You don't think anti-war protests (to pick a common example) cause anger and/or emotional distress?

 

[MathConfusion]

As far as I'm concerned they are constitutionally protected because they aren't causing "physical" harm to anyone. The KKK has every right to put on marches and all that, although they are a hateful group, as long as they don't cause any harm.
As terrible as it is, it's better off they are allowed to do what they do for the sake of all our first amendment rights, because once they start limiting that right, watch it go away REALLY fast.

 

[Gokul43201]

What I find more troubling than the protest itself is the seeming determination of the USSC to abandon all objectivity and try their darndest to find in favor of one particular side (as summarized in the quote below, from the link in the OP):

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito and Antonin Scalia appeared, to varying degrees, to be searching for a way to rule for Snyder.

You don't search for a way to rationalize a predetermined judgment; you make a judgment based on an unbiased search.

 

[Gokul43201]

As far as I'm concerned they are constitutionally protected because they aren't causing "physical" harm to anyone.

Best as I can tell, the only form of harm that is covered by the 'fighting words' limitation is physical injury. Anger and/or emotional distress doesn't make the cut.

 

[JaredJames]

If you are going to ban any protest that evokes "anger and/or emotional distress" as a response (which is in large part the point of a protest - you don't carry out a protest to make people feel good about the state of things), then you might as well ban all protest and stop calling yourself a modern democracy.

You don't think anti-war protests (to pick a common example) cause anger and/or emotional distress?

That aside, this is exactly what I've been trying to say. I don't want to stop them protesting, but simply have a system which stops them doing it in an inconsiderate way (around funerals etc).

Yes, people could still be affected, but it isn't directly targetted at an event, especially such an already emotionally charged one.

I'm fed up of saying this and having people pick and choose segments of my posts, I'm not talking about all protests, I'm talking about ones targeted at people, such as in this case were the funeral is the target.

The example I gave was to demonstrate how harm can be caused by protests, especially ones such as these. The above section I have quoted (plus all previous posts) shows what I feel regarding specific types of protest (aka, open aimed at no persons in particular or targeting specific people).

Regarding harm also, emotional (mental) harm can be just as bad as physical abuse. To differentiate doesn't really work. Emotional or physical bullying aren't separate and can have exactly the same results so far as the victim goes.

 

[Gokul43201]

I'm fed up of saying this and having people pick and choose segments of my posts, I'm not talking about all protests, I'm talking about ones targeted at people, such as in this case were the funeral is the target.

I'm definitely not choosing segments of your posts that I find convenient to respond to.

The example I gave was to demonstrate how harm can be caused by protests, especially ones such as these.

To what end? I have shown how similar harm can be caused by any number of protests that even you, perhaps, might find acceptable. Therefore how do you use the "harm argument" to ban some of these protests but not others?

The above section I have quoted (plus all previous posts) shows what I feel regarding specific types of protest (aka, open aimed at no persons in particular or targeting specific people).

What kind of protests are aimed at "no persons in particular"? If at all anyone can make a claim about not targeting a specific person, that would be the Westboro Baptist Church. Their protest is essentially saying that US soldiers are dying because Americans are sinners - it is blaming virtually the entire population of the US. They are about as universal as one can get with protesting, not only in terms of the target audience (the US public), but also in terms of the venues - they've protested at funerals for 9/11 victims, victims of the Sago mine disaster, victims of anti-gay violence, church icons (Jerry Falwell), civil rights icons (Coretta Scott King), TV icons, military persons, ... and they blame all of these deaths on the sinfulness of Americans. You can not make the case that they are singling out a specific person for their protest (even if that were a valid objection).

 

[zomgwtf]

How come states can vote to have no gay marriage but it's a big problem to say we don't want people protesting funerals or about our dead soldiers or increase the buffer zone around funerals etc. etc.?

 

[zomgwtf]

As far as I'm concerned they are constitutionally protected because they aren't causing "physical" harm to anyone. The KKK has every right to put on marches and all that, although they are a hateful group, as long as they don't cause any harm.
As terrible as it is, it's better off they are allowed to do what they do for the sake of all our first amendment rights, because once they start limiting that right, watch it go away REALLY fast.

Bleh.. . Let's not do the American favorite passtime and cling to slippery slopes.

 

[Office_Shredder]

How come states can vote to have no gay marriage but it's a big problem to say we don't want people protesting funerals or about our dead soldiers or increase the buffer zone around funerals etc. etc.?

For the same reason apples aren't oranges. Can you elaborate on this point?

 

[JaredJames]

For the same reason apples aren't oranges. Can you elaborate on this point?

Give me a reason to ban gay marriage aside from "because it's wrong".

It doesn't hurt anyone, it certainly doesn't make any difference to anyone. So why ban it? Because people don't like it.

 

[Gokul43201]

Give me a reason to ban gay marriage aside from "because it's wrong".

It doesn't hurt anyone, it certainly doesn't make any difference to anyone. So why ban it? Because people don't like it.

Does this mean you have no objection to gay marriage bans?

 

[JaredJames]

Does this mean you have no objection to gay marriage bans?

I do have an objection, I don't see what's wrong with gay marriage.

I can't speak for gay people, but by banning it, to me you are discriminating against them and telling them they aren't, on legal grounds, the same as straight people. Now that passes your 'is it consitutional' tests with a big yes, but banning what these people do does not and as such, remains protected.

 

[Gokul43201]

I do have an objection, I don't see what's wrong with gay marriage.

But you don't think it could cause anger and/or emotional distress for some people?

Now that passes your 'is it consitutional' tests with a big yes, but banning what these people do does not and as such, remains protected.

A "big yes". Ummm ... please cite the caselaw supporting that assertion. I'm not aware of it. Far as I know, it has at best a mixed reaction from the courts.

PS: Also, if this is to be pursued at any length, a new thread would be wise. In fact, in lieu of recent developments with California's Prop 8, the definition clause of marriage ("between one man and one woman") in DOMA and Don't Ask Don't Tell, all being found unconstitutional, a thread on any/all these issues would be worth having.

 

[Hurkyl]

Imagine your child is killed in combat, you're at their funeral, you see / hear that someone is protesting nearby calling your son a "fag" and saying they deserve to die.
...
The argument of "they didn't see the protest" doesn't hold. It was on the news. This argument is the equivelant of saying "you only watched the twin towers fall on tv, you couldn't have a reaction to it".

If it were true that counter-argument didn't hold water, then you shouldn't need to resort to significantly changing the scenario to support your own argument.