do they look back at similar cases and leave them intact?

i'm not suggesting which way this goes but it's going to be either an expansion of falwell vs. flynt so that it also apply to individuals who aren't public figures or it's going to place some limits on speech.

or they may move the line on what defines a "public figure"

what they aren't going to do is nothing which is what your "i can't believe anyone is even debating this" opening and "sometimes they like to do the same thing again just for the hell of it." suggests.

there's a reason they took the case.

To me it isn't debatable which is why I chose to portray it that way...Now they surely took it for a reason and as I said already part of that reason could be "internet speech" but also this kind of protest at funerals is not something that used to happen. We will wait and see rather than talk passed each other.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arg...pts/09-751.pdf

some light reading.

Cool reading

If there are 2 votes against the freak Church, I'll be surprised

Because of ignorant people like these there should be a draft. Maybe then they will realize how good they have it. Its a shame you have people like these who have no respect for the dead, especially for a dead person who gave up thier life for our country.

The majority of them are too old and genetically challenged to be drafted. Should just pick them up and drop them off in the desert with no supplies.

Maybe the above should also apply to the illegals. Lets also put them in the desert without supplies.

You mean like what happens right now?

Seriously: why don't you read up a little on the subjects you so like to hate?

Here, you can read only the first paragraph:

Back to the point. Supreme Court or not, if that was my son's, or brother's, or daughter's, or sister's, or friend's funeral someone would be laying bleeding in the gutter clinging to the last thread of life with a God hates fags sign sticking out of their you know what. Then I'd be on trial.

My attention span would not let me read very much. But I think God wins this one Randall.

As usual. I am right. ;)

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/03/us/03scotus.html?hp

I would suggest that everytime a member of this church shows a sign they are given a beating and anyone who gets arrested demands a jury of his peers. Wonder if kickachurchladysass.org is reserved.

Let's then see how those courts rule.

Violence is never the answer but I certainly understand how these idiots push the "kick your teeth down your throat" button. They mock our country and those who defend the freedoms they exploit and then demand legal defense, using that same system they betray. I believe in karma and to those fools I only say...there's a storm heading your way!

Westboro Baptist has been very successfully dealt with the past year: wherever they show up, citizens now organize and line the streets preventing WB from getting anywhere near their targets, and physically obstructing them and their signs from the target (along funeral routes, for example). In other words, WB can't get close to the victim's families if the streets are already lined arm-to-arm and 3 deep with volunteer citizens.

It's worked in multiple cities, and WB has even gone home without demonstrating a few times, as their targets wouldn't even see them.

Their spokesperson gloated publicly today and claimed they would quadruple the number of military funerals they picket, 44 states have passed legislation limiting their access to funeral sites and 48 attorney generals filed briefs with the Court siding with Mr Snyder...this is far from over...unfortunately!

Hey, if you can get them drafted, I am now protected (according to today's ruling) in my right to hold up a sign saying "God loves dead Westboro Baptists."

No, Joey, you've always been protected with freedom of speech. That is not a new thing starting today.

I know that -- I was joking. Of course, should violence break out when the Westboro Baptists meet supporters of the military, which side gets charged with a hate crime?

ding,ding,ding...we have a winner. forget about the fag talk......if any of you bothered to listen to the lady that agrued for them (and she won). thats their whole point...its not about fags or hate.......they are pointing out the fact that our soldiers are dying for all of our sins......being gay is just one....greed, violence and imperialism are some of the others...they have no class but they do have a point...as long as we accept these illegal wars...we are all guilty. the government and media don't want it spun the way it really is and as usual most drones will eat up the media version. sure thats what God would of done....he would of blown the hell out of Iraq....lol....ok...throw hypocrites on the list too....lol

First of all, it's quite arrogant of you to assume none of us heard the vile rhetoric of the daughter of the church founder (yes. she somehow became a lawyer and did indeed represent the church before the Court). If these folks believed that our troops were dying for our collective sins then why not call society to task rather than singling out dead troops and their families? They are a hate group, pure and simple and simplistic attempts to cling somehow to some higher calling cannot disguise that. They hate gays, much as the clan hates blacks and Nazis hate Jews...trying to explain their actions with some philosophical justification cannot wash the crap away!