Bigots 1 Funerals 0

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

1st Amendment protects military funeral protesters

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that the First Amendment protects fundamentalist church members who mount anti-gay protests outside military funerals, despite the pain they cause grieving families.

The court voted 8-1 in favor of the Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kan. 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.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the opinion for the court. Justice Samuel Alito dissented.

Roberts said free speech rights in the First Amendment shield the funeral protesters, noting that they obeyed police directions and were 1,000 feet from the church.

"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," Roberts said. "As a nation we have chosen a different course — to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate."

Alito strongly disagreed. "Our profound national commitment to free and open debate is not a license for the vicious verbal assault that occurred in this case," he said.

Matthew Snyder died in Iraq in 2006 and his body was returned to the United States for burial. Members of the Westboro Baptist Church, who have picketed military funerals for several years, decided to protest outside the Westminster, Md., church where his funeral was to be held.

The Rev. Fred Phelps and his family members who make up most of the Westboro Baptist Church have picketed many military funerals in their quest to draw attention to their incendiary view that U.S. deaths in Afghanistan and Iraq are God's punishment for the nation's tolerance of homosexuality.

They showed up with their usual signs, including "Thank God for dead soldiers," "You're Going to Hell," "God Hates the USA/Thank God for 9/11," and one that combined the U.S. Marine Corps motto, Semper Fi, with a slur against gay men.

The church members drew counter-demonstrators, as well as media coverage and a heavy police presence to maintain order. The result was a spectacle that led to altering the route of the funeral procession.

Several weeks later, Albert Snyder was surfing the Internet for tributes to his son from other soldiers and strangers when he came upon a poem on the church's website that attacked Matthew's parents for the way they brought up their son.

Soon after, Snyder filed a lawsuit accusing the Phelpses of intentionally inflicting emotional distress. He won $11 million at trial, later reduced by a judge to $5 million.

The federal appeals court in Richmond, Va., threw out the verdict and said the Constitution shielded the church members from liability.

Forty-eight states, 42 U.S. senators and veterans groups sided with Snyder, asking the court to shield funerals from the Phelps family's "psychological terrorism."

While distancing themselves from the church's message, media organizations, including The Associated Press, urged the court to side with the Phelps family because of concerns that a victory for Snyder could erode speech rights.

Roberts described the court's holding as narrow, and in a separate opinion, Justice Stephen Breyer suggested in other circumstances, governments would not be "powerless to provide private individuals with necessary protection."

But in this case, Breyer said, it would be wrong to "punish Westboro for seeking to communicate its views on matters of public concern."

Margie Phelps, a daughter of the minister and a lawyer who argued the case at the Supreme Court, said she expected the outcome. "The only surprise is that Justice Alito did not feel compelled to follow his oath," Phelps said. "We read the law. We follow the law. The only way for a different ruling is to shred the First Amendment."

She also offered her church's view of the decision. "I think it's pretty self-explanatory, but here's the core point: The wrath of God is pouring onto this land. Rather than trying to shut us up, use your platforms to tell this nation to mourn for your sins."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110302/ap_on_re_us/us_supreme_court_funeral_protests


Surprised Roberts got to write the opinion, but I also don't know how that's decided, so maybe not a surprise. 

An inevitable outcome, which is sort of sad given what these psychopaths are doing. 

[Saulbadguy]

UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION!!111

[Tobias]

UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION!!111

+1

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION!!111

+1

[OK_Cat]

never understood why people worry/hate these guys so much.  They make funny signs, BFD.    

the irony is that the people that hate them the most spend the most time talking about them.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

never understood why people worry/hate these guys so much.  They make funny signs, BFD.    

The case is about protesting funerals.  I'm guessing you'd be pretty pissed if a hundred of these people showed up at your mom's funeral.

the irony is that the people that hate them the most spend the most time talking about them.

Totally agree, and it's exactly what the Phelps' want. 

Pretty twisted crap

[the KHAN!]

I think we should hire the guy who plowed through that Critical Mass group with his car to do the same to Phelps and his family.

[fatty fat fat]

these guys are money. as kansans, we should be proud of them, despite their filth.

[Stupid Fitz]

never understood why people worry/hate these guys so much.  They make funny signs, BFD.    

the irony is that the people that hate them the most spend the most time talking about them.

If we stopped paying attention to them/clicking on every article about them, they would go away.  Still amazes me that some soldier's dad hasn't taken them out at a funeral.  Pretty sure no one would show up at their funerals. 

[Skipper44]

never understood why people worry/hate these guys so much.  They make funny signs, BFD.    

the irony is that the people that hate them the most spend the most time talking about them.

If we stopped paying attention to them/clicking on every article about them, they would go away.  Still amazes me that some soldier's dad hasn't taken them out at a funeral.  Pretty sure no one would show up at their funerals. 

This may be one of the reasons they always have kids with them at protests

[Trim]

They protested law school graduation.  Trim's bro, same guy from the falling off the bus story, still drunk and not knowing who they were, attempted to converse with them and buy one of the "ku is gay" or "gayhawk" signs before looking at the other 9/11 signs and deciding he didn't understand what was going on well enough to continue negotiating.

[pike]

Hate these d00ds as much as the next d00d, but you can't stop them. Doing so would be allowing the government to take away more rights than they already have a la Patriot Act, TSA perverts, etc.

[Tobias]

They protested law school graduation.  Trim's bro, same guy from the falling off the bus story, still drunk and not knowing who they were, attempted to converse with them and buy one of the "ku is gay" or "gayhawk" signs before looking at the other 9/11 signs and deciding he didn't understand what was going on well enough to continue negotiating.

Sounds like a great premise for a reality show or something

[jtksu]

GOD HATES OKCAT'S MOM!!

[AbeFroman]

Hate these d00ds as much as the next d00d, but you can't stop them. Doing so would be allowing the government to take away more rights than they already have a la Patriot Act, TSA perverts, etc.

That's what my bleeding heart liberal friends say. Right after they admonish people for saying "That's gay" or "you're a mommy"

[OK_Cat]

never understood why people worry/hate these guys so much.  They make funny signs, BFD.    

the irony is that the people that hate them the most spend the most time talking about them.

If we stopped paying attention to them/clicking on every article about them, they would go away.  Still amazes me that some soldier's dad hasn't taken them out at a funeral.  Pretty sure no one would show up at their funerals. 

If someone shot/killed one of them, that's way worse than what these idiots are doing.

[michigancat]

Hate these d00ds as much as the next d00d, but you can't stop them. Doing so would be allowing the government to take away more rights than they already have a la Patriot Act, TSA perverts, etc.

That's what my bleeding heart liberal friends say. Right after they admonish people for saying "That's gay" or "you're a mommy"

There is nothing wrong with that. It is perfectly reasonable to hate what someone says yet still defend their right to say it.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

Hate these d00ds as much as the next d00d, but you can't stop them. Doing so would be allowing the government to take away more rights than they already have a la Patriot Act, TSA perverts, etc.

That's what my bleeding heart liberal friends say. Right after they admonish people for saying "That's gay" or "you're a mommy"

There is nothing wrong with that. It is perfectly reasonable to hate what someone says yet still defend their right to say it.

SHUT UP!!!

[pike]

Hate these d00ds as much as the next d00d, but you can't stop them. Doing so would be allowing the government to take away more rights than they already have a la Patriot Act, TSA perverts, etc.

That's what my bleeding heart liberal friends say. Right after they admonish people for saying "That's gay" or "you're a but then again I am an idiot"

There is nothing wrong with that. It is perfectly reasonable to hate what someone says yet still defend their right to say it.

Exactly. And it doesn't make someone a "bleeding liberal" for upholding the constitution.

[the KHAN!]

Hate these d00ds as much as the next d00d, but you can't stop them. Doing so would be allowing the government to take away more rights than they already have a la Patriot Act, TSA perverts, etc.

That's what my bleeding heart liberal friends say. Right after they admonish people for saying "That's gay" or "you're a but then again I am an idiot"

There is nothing wrong with that. It is perfectly reasonable to hate what someone says yet still defend their right to say it.

Exactly. And it doesn't make someone a "bleeding liberal" for upholding the constitution.

Of course not.

It just makes them bleeding heart liberals for attacking people for saying Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) or Gay.

[Paul Moscow]

Hate these d00ds as much as the next d00d, but you can't stop them. Doing so would be allowing the government to take away more rights than they already have a la Patriot Act, TSA perverts, etc.

That's what my bleeding heart liberal friends say. Right after they admonish people for saying "That's gay" or "you're a but then again I am an idiot"

There is nothing wrong with that. It is perfectly reasonable to hate what someone says yet still defend their right to say it.

Exactly. And it doesn't make someone a "bleeding liberal" for upholding the constitution.

Of course not.

It just makes them bleeding heart liberals for attacking people for saying Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) or Gay.

It's not hypocritical on anyone's part to recognize that the Phelps and you have a right to call people gay retards while simultaneously criticizing your judgement in doing so.

Also, if you put, "You are a gay Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)" on a sign you are practically indistinguishable from the Phelps at that point, so I don't understand why you are surprised that people might react negatively towards your speech.

[the KHAN!]

Hate these d00ds as much as the next d00d, but you can't stop them. Doing so would be allowing the government to take away more rights than they already have a la Patriot Act, TSA perverts, etc.

That's what my bleeding heart liberal friends say. Right after they admonish people for saying "That's gay" or "you're a but then again I am an idiot"

There is nothing wrong with that. It is perfectly reasonable to hate what someone says yet still defend their right to say it.

Exactly. And it doesn't make someone a "bleeding liberal" for upholding the constitution.

Of course not.

It just makes them bleeding heart liberals for attacking people for saying Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) or Gay.

It's not hypocritical on anyone's part to recognize that the Phelps and you have a right to call people gay retards while simultaneously criticizing your judgement in doing so.

Also, if you put, "You are a gay Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)" on a sign you are practically indistinguishable from the Phelps at that point, so I don't understand why you are surprised that people might react negatively towards your speech.

I didn't suggest I go around calling people Gay retards, or holding placards with the same on them.

I suggested that people who jump all over you for saying "man that's gay" or "that movie was pretty Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)" are bleeding heart liberals. They need to stop throwing their own brand of morality on to everyone else and respect our first amendment rights to express ourselves however we choose.

[jtksu]

This entire thread is retardedly gay.  Seriously. 

[Kat Kid]

Hate these d00ds as much as the next d00d, but you can't stop them. Doing so would be allowing the government to take away more rights than they already have a la Patriot Act, TSA perverts, etc.

That's what my bleeding heart liberal friends say. Right after they admonish people for saying "That's gay" or "you're a but then again I am an idiot"

There is nothing wrong with that. It is perfectly reasonable to hate what someone says yet still defend their right to say it.

Exactly. And it doesn't make someone a "bleeding liberal" for upholding the constitution.

Of course not.

It just makes them bleeding heart liberals for attacking people for saying Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) or Gay.

It's not hypocritical on anyone's part to recognize that the Phelps and you have a right to call people gay retards while simultaneously criticizing your judgement in doing so.

Also, if you put, "You are a gay Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)" on a sign you are practically indistinguishable from the Phelps at that point, so I don't understand why you are surprised that people might react negatively towards your speech.

I didn't suggest I go around calling people Gay retards, or holding placards with the same on them.

I suggested that people who jump all over you for saying "man that's gay" or "that movie was pretty Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)" are bleeding heart liberals. They need to stop throwing their own brand of morality on to everyone else and respect our first amendment rights to express ourselves however we choose.

Do "they" have first amendment rights too? Who gets the tiebreaker in this scenario?

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

I think he's trying to say you shouldn't chastise people for exercising right of free speech. 

No one wants to her the bullshit spewing out of a liberals mouth, because its ignorant and offensive.  Yet these sane minds don't shout down liberals for saying the stupid things they say, they respect their right to free speech.  On the other hand, liberals use their "free speech" rights to demonize and discredit anyone who disagrees with them, an abuse of the right to free speech.

Basically, if you're using your "free speech" to quell another person's free speech and your excuse for doing so is free speech, you are a hypocrite.  It really isn't that hard.