Supreme Court to hear case about westboro funeral picketers

[Boarder]

It will be on the next session docket starting Oct 4 (no date is set, yet).


The funeral picketing case (Snyder v. Phelps, et al., 09-751) focuses on a significant question of First Amendment law: the degree of constitutional protection given to private remarks made about a private person, occurring in a largely private setting.

This one should be very interesting. It's easy to agree that the westboroians shouldn't do this, but can they?

http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/03/court-to-rule-on-funeral-pickets/#more-17263

[yermom]

it should be legal, but also legal for relatives to beat the **** out of them

[Boarder]

It's easy to agree that the westboroians should have the holy crap kicked out of them, but can they have the holy crap kicked out of them?

[LosAngelesSooner]

Two words: Fire hose.

[Chuck Bao]

Two words: Fire hose.


I would have more respect for them if they caught it George Michael style. Or, is this the wrong thread for that?

[yermom]

It's easy to agree that the westboroians should have the holy crap kicked out of them, but can they have the holy crap kicked out of them?

right, i mean who determines who is a whackjob?

it would be nice to see someone go Fight Club on them though :D

[Scott D]

I would have more respect for them if they caught it George Michael style. Or, is this the wrong thread for that?

touche sir...touche. :D

[LosAngelesSooner]

I would have more respect for them if they caught it George Michael style. Or, is this the wrong thread for that?Fire Hose = George Michael?

Do you know something the rest of us don't know? :D

[Okla-homey]

Perhaps they'll come down on the side of banning them on grounds their speech is intended to incite mental anguish and suffering of the deceased military members' surviving family, and as such, is not protected speech.

That's how I'd rule anyway.

[Scott D]

you sir, are admittedly biased...not that it's a bad thing imo.

[Boarder]

Here are the actual questions:
(1) Whether the prohibition of awarding damages to public figures to compensate for the intentional infliction of emotional distress, under the Supreme Court’s First Amendment precedents, applies to a case involving two private persons regarding a private matter;

(2) whether the freedom of speech guaranteed by the First Amendment trumps its freedom of religion and peaceful assembly;

(3) whether an individual attending a family member’s funeral constitutes a “captive audience” who is entitled to state protection from unwanted communication.

[TUSooner]

Perhaps they'll come down on the side of banning them on grounds their speech is intended to incite mental anguish and suffering of the deceased military members' surviving family, and as such, is not protected speech.

That's how I'd rule anyway.

That's extremely sensible, which means it has no chance of becoming the law. :D

[TUSooner]

Here are the actual questions:
(1) Whether the prohibition of awarding damages to public figures to compensate for the intentional infliction of emotional distress, under the Supreme Court’s First Amendment precedents, applies to a case involving two private persons regarding a private matter;

(2) whether the freedom of speech guaranteed by the First Amendment trumps its freedom of religion and peaceful assembly;

(3) whether an individual attending a family member’s funeral constitutes a “captive audience” who is entitled to state protection from unwanted communication.

No.
No.
Yes.
Good guys win!

[Soonerfan88]

These whack-job idiots visited my home town for the funeral of a guy who died in Iraq. The grieving mother went for them but an officer got her just before she could get a hand on any of them.

I know that is the exact reaction they want to provoke, allowing grounds for lawsuits, but just once I'd like to see them beat down.

[LosAngelesSooner]

Hate to say it...but...

Why can't one of our nation's crazy, disgruntled, emotionally unstable, psychologically twisted, bell tower shooting, plane into IRS building crashing, walking around gunning people down whack jobs go all nuts on a gathering of THOSE hate mongering idiots instead of a mall or government office somewhere?

I mean...if they are gonna do it...at least do it to a group that kinda/sorta deserves it.
Too far?

[AlbqSooner]

[/INDENT]Too far?

Because the question is posed by you, I must presume it is merely rhetorical.

[LosAngelesSooner]

Because the question is posed by you, I must presume it is merely rhetorical.Riiight. Because everything I say is immediately discounted because I'm a big old meanie. :rolleyes:

[Leroy Lizard]

Are they actually disrupting the funeral in any way? If not, I would have to side with them, even though they are repulsive.

[47straight]

No.
No.
Yes.


Likely.

[Boarder]

Are they actually disrupting the funeral in any way? If not, I would have to side with them, even though they are repulsive.
That's what question 3 is addressing, I believe.

[Boarder]

http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2010/03/a-supreme-opportunity-to-shut-fred-phelpss-mouth.html

Nice little article on the situation