Supreme Court sides in favor of Westboro Baptist

[JohnnyMack]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41868004/ns/politics-more_politics/

Kind of a no-brainer.

[OUMallen]

You know, at some point, the intentional infliction of emotional distress should stand on its own, though.

[IndySooner]

Unfortunately, these guys have the right to do what they're doing. It doesn't make it a good thing. It doesn't make them "Christian" by any means. Legally, though, we can't stop them. The best way to stop them would be to ignore them, but I don't see that happening because of the emotional situations they chose for their ***-backward displays.

[jumperstop]

You know, at some point, the intentional infliction of emotional distress should stand on its own, though.

Freedom of speech should be thrown out the door at someones funeral...to me that's a private thing anyways. I know they are across the street so really they aren't doing anything illegal, but they aren't hiding the fact they are there to ruin that person's funeral either.

[badger]

Go ahead and keep protesting, Westboro. Eventually, someone's going to abuse the limits of the law just as you have. We all know that eventually there are going to be martyrs in these situations.

[C&CDean]

Go ahead and keep protesting, Westboro. Eventually, someone's going to abuse the limits of the law just as you have. We all know that eventually there are going to be martyrs in these situations.

^

Some day some POd family member or friend is gonna snap. People aren't always completely stable during the loss of a close friend/relative. What I am curious about is how the courts will treat the poor bastard that finally breaks and sends these cretins straight to hell.

[badger]

When I said "limits of the law," I mean that someone is eventually going to find a time or a place when Westboro isn't hiding behind state troopers stomping on American flags while using the-other-f-word so freely. If McAlester could get away with slashing the tires that weren't facing the local law enforcers... well, I don't endorse violence, not even against these guys. All I know is that someone is not only going to act against these guys, but they are going to get away with it.

[NormanPride]

I prefer the noise pollution idea. Get a local band to play a benefit concert right next to where they're given space. Let them play as loud as possible.

[OUDoc]

well, I don't endorse violence, not even against these guys. All I know is that someone is not only going to act against these guys, but they are going to get away with it.

If anyone deserves it, it's these guys.

[OUDoc]

And I'm thinking of starting up a kegger across the street from their funerals.
Strippers. Loud music. Everything.

[rekamrettuB]

I prefer the noise pollution idea. Get a local band to play a benefit concert right next to where they're given space. Let them play as loud as possible.

As fun as that would be you need to consider this could be interfering with a funeral. The terrorists have won.

[IndySooner]

And I'm thinking of starting up a kegger across the street from their funerals.
Strippers. Loud music. Everything.

A few gays swapping spit would be pretty interesting. That might get the "church" goers violent, which would then make their "speech" illegal.

That's going to be the key. How can someone get the "church" to snap.

[pphilfran]

Ignore em

[IndySooner]

Ignore em

I agree, but emotions run high in these situations. That's why their "protests" are so effective.

[OUMallen]

Freedom of speech should be thrown out the door at someones funeral...to me that's a private thing anyways. I know they are across the street so really they aren't doing anything illegal, but they aren't hiding the fact they are there to ruin that person's funeral either.

Never thrown out the door. Just that, if their actions rise to a level of tortious liability, they should be held accountable for their actions through a civil suit.

[sappstuf]

Unfortunately, these guys have the right to do what they're doing. It doesn't make it a good thing. It doesn't make them "Christian" by any means. Legally, though, we can't stop them. The best way to stop them would be to ignore them, but I don't see that happening because of the emotional situations they chose for their ***-backward displays.


True. There is no jackass exception to the First Amendment..

[NormanPride]

Can a city zone certain areas as not for protesters?

[OULenexaman]

I've always wondered what all the other Baptist churchs think of these people calling themselves baptists...

[C&CDean]

I've always wondered what all the other Baptist churchs think of these people calling themselves baptists...

Probably the same thing they call other Baptists when they see them at the liquor store.

[Leroy Lizard]

As fun as that would be you need to consider this could be interfering with a funeral. The terrorists have won.

Yeah, playing John Philip Sousa during a funeral would not... well... seem right. :D

[Leroy Lizard]

Can a city zone certain areas as not for protesters?

I imagine not for the purpose of preventing protests.

[OULenexaman]

Probably the same thing they call other Baptists when they see them at the liquor store.

Mom?? Why are you here??:D

[KantoSooner]

When I said "limits of the law," I mean that someone is eventually going to find a time or a place when Westboro isn't hiding behind state troopers stomping on American flags while using the-other-f-word so freely. If McAlester could get away with slashing the tires that weren't facing the local law enforcers... well, I don't endorse violence, not even against these guys. All I know is that someone is not only going to act against these guys, but they are going to get away with it.

You've got three actors to think about if this happens:

The DA, The Jury and The Judge. I can think of several counties in which these dipthongs would be well advised to simply take their beatings, load up their casualties and get the F out of town before things got serious.

And, franky, that would be natural justice.

You could also arrange for several gay rugby teams from SFO come in and incite the protesters....and then beat the unholy crap out of them. That would be must see teevee. And if I happened to be selling axe handles on the sidewalk? Well, coincidences happen.

[Leroy Lizard]

I've resigned to the fact that nothing is going to happen to these dudes.

[HBick]

Well the Westboro Baptist Church has taken on Anonymous, so while they may have the right to protest at military funerals (and has anyone on this board been at a funeral and seen this happen? It's sickening.), at least their internet presence will be abused.

I'm not saying I'm for or against Anonymous, at first they were focusing on Scientology and things like that, but recently they have devoted their efforts to helping protesters in the Middle East get the word about the government crackdowns, namely Iran, Egypt and now Libya

[HBick]

I've resigned to the fact that nothing is going to happen to these dudes.

You're probably right, but crazy does go both ways in the world. I wouldn't want to **** off the wrong family member while protesting their loved ones death with signs that read "God Hates Fags," "God Hates Dead Soldiers," "God Hates America" and the countless others.

It's disturbing to say the least

[TheHumanAlphabet]

As much as Westboro is vile and all I stand against. They unfortunately have the right to be an a$$ and protest. Just as I have the right to get a group of big Harley riders and drive on the street next to them and clear the pipes and blow out carbon soot out of the engine while checking the engine performance...

[sappstuf]

You're probably right, but crazy does go both ways in the world. I wouldn't want to **** off the wrong family member while protesting their loved ones death with signs that read "God Hates Fags," "God Hates Dead Soldiers," "God Hates America" and the countless others.

It's disturbing to say the least

What jury would convict a family member who testified that they snapped at their son's funeral when they heard that chatting and went over and beat the crap out of every single one of them?

[HBick]

What jury would convict a family member who testified that they snapped at their son's funeral when they heard that chatting and went over and beat the crap out of every single one of them?

I surmise a jury on the East or West coast

[OUMallen]

What jury would convict a family member who testified that they snapped at their son's funeral when they heard that chatting and went over and beat the crap out of every single one of them?

Or one here. You can't just beat people up. That's such a silly notion that it really didn't really need to be put on the thread, did it?

[AlboSooner]

Like any other troll, WBC thrives on attention. Legally you can't stop them from protesting, but you can ignore them. Would you get upset if a mentally retarded person cursed at your mom? No, you ignore them because they are mentally retarded. It's the same with WBC.

[NormanPride]

We should get an entire town to conspire and just make them disappear...

[sappstuf]

Or one here. You can't just beat people up. That's such a silly notion that it really didn't really need to be put on the thread, did it?

Yes, jury nullifcation is silly and never happens..

[Leroy Lizard]

Well the Westboro Baptist Church has taken on Anonymous, so while they may have the right to protest at military funerals (and has anyone on this board been at a funeral and seen this happen? It's sickening.), at least their internet presence will be abused.


Wow, that'll really show 'em. :rolleyes:

[Leroy Lizard]

As much as Westboro is vile and all I stand against. They unfortunately have the right to be an a$$ and protest. Just as I have the right to get a group of big Harley riders and drive on the street next to them and clear the pipes and blow out carbon soot out of the engine while checking the engine performance...

You'd probably get fined for breaking noise and pollution ordinances. :D

[OUMallen]

Yes, jury nullifcation is silly and never happens..

OK genius, let's just start beating up people when they offend us. Good lord. Why don't you get in your car and go spearhead the effort.

[KantoSooner]

Or one here. You can't just beat people up. That's such a silly notion that it really didn't really need to be put on the thread, did it?

Are you seriously saying that, if you were in the jury room you wouldn't just drink your coffee, smile and refuse to convict?

[TUSooner]

The very few people in the world that don't think Westboro is Full of **** are Westboro and maybe a few Islamists & Talibanis. Sadly, the Westboros thirve on unpopularity and take it as a sign that they are on God's side vs "the World." I confess that I would not even feign indignation or shock if some angry people shot a bunch of 'em up.

[SoonerJack]

Perhaps we should watch the Wichita obits and when someone from the cult dies we go and make a big stinkin stink at their funerals.

Oh, and regarding the Baptist issue. Since the Baptist church isn't run by any sort of hierarchy (pope, chief, ceo, potentate) anybody can start a Baptist church and perform whatever whacked out rituals and what-nots that they want.

[sappstuf]

OK genius, let's just start beating up people when they offend us. Good lord. Why don't you get in your car and go spearhead the effort.

OK genius, I'm sure you can point to a specific post of mine where I said I supported such actions. Good lord. Why don't you get on your computer and spearhead the effort.

However, would it surprise me if such events happened and a jury did not convict? Not in the least bit. That you cannot seem to see that point is rather surprising.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

Perhaps we should watch the Wichita obits and when someone from the cult dies we go and make a big stinkin stink at their funerals.

I like this idea.


Oh, and regarding the Baptist issue. Since the Baptist church isn't run by any sort of hierarchy (pope, chief, ceo, potentate) anybody can start a Baptist church and perform whatever whacked out rituals and what-nots that they want.

Herein lies the rub. Anyone can interpret anything and if you get enough followers, you have a church or a religion.

[bonkuba]

Beat em to death

Sounds better this way :D

[yermom]

The very few people in the world that don't think Westboro is Full of **** are Westboro and maybe a few Islamists & Talibanis. Sadly, the Westboros thirve on unpopularity and take it as a sign that they are on God's side vs "the World." I confess that I would not even feign indignation or shock if some angry people shot a bunch of 'em up.

http://img828.imageshack.us/img828/5664/imagezgw.jpg (http://img828.imageshack.us/i/imagezgw.jpg/)

[yermom]

oh, and they better not try their act in Brazil

if you are familiar with Critical Mass, apparently it didn't go over so well recently...

KRgiIrHRoHM

[Bourbon St Sooner]

I agree, but emotions run high in these situations. That's why their "protests" are so effective.

I guess it depends on what you call effective. It certainly gets them attention but I don't think it brings anybody to their side. Of course, their real motive may just be to get attention. Anyways, I just assume they'll get what's coming to them eventually.

[OhU1]

Can a city zone certain areas as not for protesters?

No. Streets, parks, and sidewalks are considered open to public discourse. The "public forum doctrine" is the line of case law dealing with First Amendment issues in public places. Public forums cannot be regulated based on content; i.e. "protesting". A city can regulate based on reasonable time, place, manner critera taking into context the nature of the area in question (example: shouting on a bullhorn at 2:00 AM in a park next to a residential neighborhood can be forbidden).

[KantoSooner]

Where are the civic minded juvenile delinquints of Kansas? That's what I'd like to know. B'God, in the 1970's there would have been so many unexplained fires, infestations of rodents in buildings and rattle snakes in mailboxes that the entire area would have been considered cursed by the Diety. What is lacking in the youth of today?

[MsProudSooner]

I wonder if protesters have ever shown up at the funeral of a WBC member? I wonder how they would like it.

[badger]

I wonder if protesters have ever shown up at the funeral of a WBC member? I wonder how they would like it.

it's a fairly recent phenomenon, hence the younger families and youth protesters, but i imagine that when the leader (control freak, from what I've heard) finally croaks, there is going to be a very large gathering outside his funeral.

[Boarder]

Well, they can't proclaim their victory on any of their websites. So that is nice. Illegal, but nice.

[Leroy Lizard]

http://img828.imageshack.us/img828/5664/imagezgw.jpg (http://img828.imageshack.us/i/imagezgw.jpg/)

:D

[starclassic tama]

Well, they can't proclaim their victory on any of their websites. So that is nice. Illegal, but nice.

i just hope anonymous keeps it up, and murders every website they put up to replace the ones that are down. not sure if they will, but that would be nice for them to be removed from the internet. now if we could just get the local medias to ignore them when they come to protest, that would be a big step. i'm sure the ******s notify the local media when they are coming to their town, and of course the media won't ignore something that is going to sell.

[GKeeper316]

Can a city zone certain areas as not for protesters?

nope. the right to assemble peacably is also guaranteed. the best they could do is tell em they cant stand in the street and block the funeral procession.

[Okla-homey]

^

Some day some POd family member or friend is gonna snap. People aren't always completely stable during the loss of a close friend/relative. What I am curious about is how the courts will treat the poor bastard that finally breaks and sends these cretins straight to hell.

I would imagine no jury in this part of the country would convict. And I would also imagine the defendant wouldn't have any trouble raising a legal defense fund.

[Turd_Ferguson]

Where are the civic minded juvenile delinquints of Kansas? That's what I'd like to know. B'God, in the 1970's there would have been so many unexplained fires, infestations of rodents in buildings and rattle snakes in mailboxes that the entire area would have been considered cursed by the Diety. What is lacking in the youth of today?There a bunch of ***** *** liberal's...

[SoonerStormchaser]

I have already informed Vet, but I will post it here for further proof to make my final wishes known:
Should I make the ultimate sacrifice, you all have my permission to do whatever is necessary to keep these ****ers away from my funeral.

That being said...this result by SCOTUS doesn't surprise me...and I am inclined to agree with it. If they had ruled the opposite, it could easily be used to set a dangerous precedent that could have been easily abused further down the line.

[Turd_Ferguson]

I have already informed Vet, but I will post it here for further proof to make my final wishes known:
Should I make the ultimate sacrifice, you all have my permission to do whatever is necessary to keep these ****ers away from my funeral.

That being said...this result by SCOTUS doesn't surprise me...and I am inclined to agree with it. If they had ruled the opposite, it could easily be used to set a dangerous precedent that could have been easily abused further down the line.I hope it never comes to that, but know this...I appreciate your service very much.

[Okla-homey]

I've always wondered what all the other Baptist churchs think of these people calling themselves baptists...

We don't approve. Anymore than LDS approves of polygomous cults who consider themselves Mormons.

[Okla-homey]

I have already informed Vet, but I will post it here for further proof to make my final wishes known:
Should I make the ultimate sacrifice, you all have my permission to do whatever is necessary to keep these ****ers away from my funeral.

That being said...this result by SCOTUS doesn't surprise me...and I am inclined to agree with it. If they had ruled the opposite, it could easily be used to set a dangerous precedent that could have been easily abused further down the line.

Heh. The only way you'll make the "ultimate sacrifice" is if you choke to death on a chicken bone from your boxed lunch during a mission.

[SoonerStormchaser]

Laugh it up sir...

Actually, a bunch of my guys are getting 180's and 365's on the ground in Asscrackistan...it's not all fun and games in the air for us anymore.

[SicEmBaylor]

I detest these people as much as anyone, but the Supreme Court made the right decision. As long as they're doing this on public property and are otherwise peaceful, there's no reason any government entity should censor their speech.

Now...if someone wants to beat their sorry asses with a baseball bat then I sure wouldn't shed a tear.

[SicEmBaylor]

Heh. The only way you'll make the "ultimate sacrifice" is if you choke to death on a chicken bone from your boxed lunch during a mission.

Haven't you seen that movie "By Dawn's Early Light"...the AWACS guys were the heroes sacrificing themselves and saving the United States and perhaps even the world.

SSC could one day be in that same situation. You never know!

[rekamrettuB]

I detest these people as much as anyone, but the Supreme Court made the right decision. As long as they're doing this on public property and are otherwise peaceful, there's no reason any government entity should censor their speech.


How can signs like this be considered "peaceful"?

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

[Collier11]

The Superme Court unfortunately cant rule on common sense, the law is what it is

[Phil]

I have already informed Vet, but I will post it here for further proof to make my final wishes known:
Should I make the ultimate sacrifice, you all have my permission to do whatever is necessary to keep these ****ers away from my funeral.

That being said...this result by SCOTUS doesn't surprise me...and I am inclined to agree with it. If they had ruled the opposite, it could easily be used to set a dangerous precedent that could have been easily abused further down the line.

Yep. You should be proud that you are (at least theoretically) risking your life so that these people can do this. Seriously. That kind of freedom is what this country is about. The speech that is the most distasteful to us is as deserving of protection (more deserving, actually) as any other kind of speech.

That said, I hope those Westboro people DIAF.

[Leroy Lizard]

How can signs like this be considered "peaceful"?

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

As long as you don't whack someone over the head with it...

[Leroy Lizard]

Yep. You should be proud that you are (at least theoretically) risking your life so that these people can do this.

I was never swayed by that. I would risk my life to ensure that everyone can be forced to be just like me.

[A Sooner in Texas]

Yep. You should be proud that you are (at least theoretically) risking your life so that these people can do this. Seriously. That kind of freedom is what this country is about. The speech that is the most distasteful to us is as deserving of protection (more deserving, actually) as any other kind of speech.

That said, I hope those Westboro people DIAF.

I'm just waiting for them to go Koresh.

And distasteful as it seems, the SC made the correct call, of course. Once the government begins infringing on even the most hateful of speech, it won't stop until it infringes on all speech.

[Boarder]

Justice Alito makes a pretty good argument for Snyder in his dissent. He basically says that WBC was malicious and made it a personal attack, something the majority opinion denies. Making it a personal attack would have let Snyder get a tort remedy. The opinion does pave the way for states making anti-funeral protest laws, so that's good.

[yermom]

so since they don't personalize the signs, they can cover their asses?

[Boarder]

so since they don't personalize the signs, they can cover their asses?
That was the opinion. Alito did not agree and said that they were definitely personal attacks. Especially after WBC put up a story on their website that said how Matthew Snyder, specifically, was in hell, thanks to his parents' sins of going to the Catholic Church and letting him join the evil military.

[MR2-Sooner86]

So...this means we can picket their funerals now? Awesome!

[Leroy Lizard]

so since they don't personalize the signs, they can cover their asses?

There does tend to be this big distinction between slander/libel and political speech.

[yermom]

That was the opinion. Alito did not agree and said that they were definitely personal attacks. Especially after WBC put up a story on their website that said how Matthew Snyder, specifically, was in hell, thanks to his parents' sins of going to the Catholic Church and letting him join the evil military.

how does that connect with the protests though?

i mean i say lots of bad things about Dean on here, can they get me for libel/slander/whatever?

i just figured he's a public figure :O

[achiro]

Just a quick question, don't they need some kind of permit from the specific municipality to group up and protest the way they do? If so, why doesn't the city either "lose" the request for a few days or give them the permit but for a location several miles away(citing some sort of prevention of violence)?

[OutlandTrophy]

how does that connect with the protests though?

i mean i say lots of bad things about Dean on here, can they get me for libel/slander/whatever?

i just figured he's a public nuisance :O

fify

[sooneron]

Justice Alito makes a pretty good argument for Snyder in his dissent. He basically says that WBC was malicious and made it a personal attack, something the majority opinion denies. Making it a personal attack would have let Snyder get a tort remedy. The opinion does pave the way for states making anti-funeral protest laws, so that's good.

Alito is a tard.

I do like your avvy tho.

[The Profit]

Justice Alito makes a pretty good argument for Snyder in his dissent. He basically says that WBC was malicious and made it a personal attack, something the majority opinion denies. Making it a personal attack would have let Snyder get a tort remedy. The opinion does pave the way for states making anti-funeral protest laws, so that's good.




You make a good point. Now, states (and even municipalities) can adopt laws that either prevent a protest at a funeral, or designate an area for protest five or 10 miles from a funeral site.

[Leroy Lizard]

Just a quick question, don't they need some kind of permit from the specific municipality to group up and protest the way they do? If so, why doesn't the city either "lose" the request for a few days or give them the permit but for a location several miles away(citing some sort of prevention of violence)?

Probably because they don't want to lose a truckload of money to the WBC in civil court.

[Leroy Lizard]

You make a good point. Now, states (and even municipalities) can adopt laws that either prevent a protest at a funeral, or designate an area for protest five or 10 miles from a funeral site.

How are you coming to that conclusion? I didn't see anything in the news story that indicates the SC would allow this to happen.

[badger]

In this morning's paper:

http://www.tulsaworld.com/articleimages/2011/20110303_Plante20110303.jpg

It would not surprise me in the least if one of Westboro's members died for them to picket their own member's funeral to continue garnering attention. :(

[Boarder]

How are you coming to that conclusion? I didn't see anything in the news story that indicates the SC would allow this to happen.
Read the actual court opinion. It doesn't specifically say that a protest can't be 10 miles away. It does recognize that states, such as Maryland (I think it was) have laws that would have applied here. This can easily be construed as saying that those laws are ok.

This is just paraphrasing, you can read the actual opinion here. (http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-751.pdf)
Holding: The decision rules that the First Amendment shields those who stage a peaceful protest on a matter of public concern near the funeral of a military service member from tort liability.

If you want a very good read on it, check here. (http://www.scotusblog.com/?p=115019)

Here is the way the Court spelled out the facts: The demonstrators told police what they would do in advance, and obeyed every order the police gave them. The protest was staged on a plot of public land next to a public street. The Baptists were some 1,000 feet away from the church, separated from it by several buildings. They displayed their signs, sang hymns, read from the Bible, kept their voices down, assaulted no one, and stayed away from the church and its grounds. And, most importantly, the specific message they chose to convey was — at least as the Court would find it — a message about issues of public policy, including the morality of homosexuality and the sins of the Roman Catholic Church and the sins of America as a whole.

Albert Snyder, of course, had insisted all along that this was a bigotry-filled assault on him personally and directly — it was one group of private individuals assaulting him and his family as private individuals — so it did not make any difference that they kept their distance and engaged in no violence. The Constitution’s guarantee of free speech, the Snyders contended, applies only to public issues, and does not apply at all in the exclusively private setting that the family believed to have existed in Westminster that day. Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr., in his lone dissent, agreed with the Snyders that that was exactly the context.

Reading the opinion of Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., for all of the Justices but Alito, one could not find in it a callousness toward the Snyders’ personal feelings. In a part of the opinion that the Chief Justice recited aloud in the courtroom, it said: “Westboro believes that America is morally flawed; many Americans might feel the same about Westboro. Westboro’s funeral picketing is certainly hurtful and its contribution to public discourse may be negligible….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.”

But, Roberts’ recitation concluded, “On the facts before us, we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker. 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.”

[The Profit]

How are you coming to that conclusion? I didn't see anything in the news story that indicates the SC would allow this to happen.



I have read several stories that indicate because the ruling didn't forbid reasonable regulations on the protesters, states and municipalities will be able to establish laws (some already have) to protect funerals from these wackos. Here is an excerpt from one story.


Wednesday's decision addressed First Amendment rights and the issue of psychological terror but did not address states' restrictions on time and distance of protests, he said.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that Westboro's choice of where and when to conduct its picketing is not beyond the government's regulatory reach and is subject to reasonable time, place or manner restrictions.
Roberts said the 1st Amendment protects "even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate."
Last year, prosecutors in Sarpy County reached a deal that kept both sides out of court in a case stemming from Westboro's 2007 protest at the funeral of Petty Officer 1st Class Jeffrey Chaney of Bellevue, who died in Iraq.
The deal was signed just before Shirley Phelps-Roper, whose father, Fred, founded the church, was to go to trial on charges of disturbing the peace and negligent child abuse.
Phelps-Roper allowed her 10-year-old son to stand on an American flag in protest, while she wore a flag as a skirt that dragged on the ground. Police arrested her on suspicion of violating a state flag mutilation law, as well as child abuse and disturbing the peace charges.
Those charges were dismissed in exchange for Phelps-Roper dropping a federal lawsuit against Nebraska authorities accusing them of malicious prosecution.
According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, 24 states have enacted distance requirements of at least 500 feet for funeral protesters. Of those, five have a 1,000-foot requirement. Montana's is 1,500 feet.

[Leroy Lizard]

My understanding is that the SC writes its rulings very narrow. If so, I wouldn't put any stock in the notion that the SC is willing to go along with a practice just because it doesn't explicitly forbid it.

[OhU1]

My understanding is that the SC writes its rulings very narrow. If so, I wouldn't put any stock in the notion that the SC is willing to go along with a practice just because it doesn't explicitly forbid it.

Agreed.

Further, state and municipalities have always had the ability to enact "reasonable" time, place and manner restrictions on speech in a public forum. I doubt that restricting protest to 5 or 10 miles from a funeral would hold up. 1,500 feet? That would probably hold up.

[Leroy Lizard]

Agreed.

You sure you want to do that?


Further, state and municipalities have always had the ability to enact "reasonable" time, place and manner restrictions on speech in a public forum. I doubt that restricting protest to 5 or 10 miles from a funeral would hold up. 1,500 feet? That would probably hold up.

Five football fields? Sounds pretty far to me.

If we really want to end this practice, force the protesters to camp within five feet of the funeral participants. :D

[OU Engineer]

I live in Georgia now, and a blurb in the AJC today said the last time WBC was in Georgia was 2007 to protest a funeral for a fallen soldier.

Turns out, the services were moved at the last minute to accomadate an overflow crowd and the WBC people went to the wrong place. I lol'd.

But we have to remember that these people fund their efforts by taking anybody who threatens or acts violently towards them to court, so our best option is to really ignore them.

That, or wipe them all out in one fell swoop so that none are left to file suit...

[SicEmBaylor]

Ideally state law would not be subject to Federal law unless the state law was blatantly trampling on a Federal power (like if Arkansas decided to negotiate a free trade agreement with a foreign country). That's the way things worked before the 14th Amendment.

Now, as far as state law goes...most state Constitutions are a pretty close version of the US constitution so I'm sure this law probably violates state constitutional law. Ideally the state's Supreme Court would be striking this down without having to get involved with the Feds.

I hate the Feds interfering with state law.

[Leroy Lizard]

Ideally state law would not be subject to Federal law unless the state law was blatantly trampling on a Federal power (like if Arkansas decided to negotiate a free trade agreement with a foreign country). That's the way things worked before the 14th Amendment.

What about the Bill of Rights?

[SicEmBaylor]

What about the Bill of Rights?

The Bill of Rights weren't subject to state law until the 14th amendment applied Federal constitutional rights to everyone. Until then, the BOR was a limitation on what the federal government could do but not state governments. That's why the individual states all had separate state constitutions and it's why, just after ratification, all of the states were required to write totally new state constitutions and scrap the old colonial charters.

The reason that it wasn't much of an issue until the 14th Amendment is because, until the War of Northern Aggression, the Federal government really had little interest in getting involved in the domestic policy of individual states. Plus, the individual states drafted those first constitutions almost as copies of the Federal constitution so, in effect, everyone still had their fundamental rights constitutionally protected.

State constitutions mattered and are important. They aren't just there for show -- they used to be extremely important. Now...not so much.

[SoonerKnight]

Freedom of speech should be thrown out the door at someones funeral...to me that's a private thing anyways. I know they are across the street so really they aren't doing anything illegal, but they aren't hiding the fact they are there to ruin that person's funeral either.

sound ordinance. Their chanting in most cases will be over the decibel level allowed by ordinance. Then they gets the boot.

[Leroy Lizard]

The Bill of Rights weren't subject to state law until the 14th amendment applied Federal constitutional rights to everyone. Until then, the BOR was a limitation on what the federal government could do but not state governments. That's why the individual states all had separate state constitutions and it's why, just after ratification, all of the states were required to write totally new state constitutions and scrap the old colonial charters.

The reason that it wasn't much of an issue until the 14th Amendment is because, until the War of Northern Aggression, the Federal government really had little interest in getting involved in the domestic policy of individual states. Plus, the individual states drafted those first constitutions almost as copies of the Federal constitution so, in effect, everyone still had their fundamental rights constitutionally protected.

State constitutions mattered and are important. They aren't just there for show -- they used to be extremely important. Now...not so much.

That much I knew; I just didn't understand your angle at first read. Thanks for clarifying.

[Soonerman82]

We don't approve. Anymore than LDS approves of polygomous cults who consider themselves Mormons.

This Those people at Westboro are not Baptist.

[TAFBSooner]

Yep. You should be proud that you are (at least theoretically) risking your life so that these people can do this. Seriously. That kind of freedom is what this country is about. The speech that is the most distasteful to us is as deserving of protection (more deserving, actually) as any other kind of speech.

That said, I hope those Westboro people DIAF.

I completely agree. But what is this DIAF you speak of? I first though the F stood for "fire," but that's not painful enough.

[PDXsooner]

Someone may have already mentioned this, as I didn't read through the whole thread, but...

The Westboro Baptist Church is a non-factor in any religious discussion. Their church is located in some random strip mall. The attention they get relative to their size and relevance is entirely out of whack. I saw a special on them and there were like 40 people in the whole church, and they were a bunch of fat misfits and outcasts.

If the brother of some soldier goes "Falling Down" and empties multiple rounds into these idiots I hope our society has the common sense to give the guy an alias and a one-way ticket to Canada.

[yermom]

they are ready for that. that's why they use their kids as human shields.

[oudavid1]

If anyone deserves it, it's these guys.

im with you Tanner.


And I'm thinking of starting up a kegger across the street from their funerals.
Strippers. Loud music. Everything.

And me and JJ are invited right?
We can shop for polos in gainesville.