Westboro Baptist

[somerfrost]

when speech is shown to clearly hurt others, it is not protected, I believe in the 1st Amendment but I think they cross the line. The emotional trauma they cause the families of slain heroes is certainly not what the founding fathers had in mind. Yes, much speech is crude and disgusting...that's protected but yelling "fire" in a crowded movie theater is not.

[GBBob]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

when speech is shown to clearly hurt others, it is not protected, I believe in the 1st Amendment but I think they cross the line. The emotional trauma they cause the families of slain heroes is certainly not what the founding fathers had in mind. Yes, much speech is crude and disgusting...that's protected but yelling "fire" in a crowded movie theater is not.

Obviously on a technicality, but I think you can see the difference between the two

[Riot]

??? The way I understand it, the case isn't about Westboro's ability to stand on a sidewalk and demonstrate their low IQ's, it's when they specifically named these people on their website and went after them.

[randallscott35]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

when speech is shown to clearly hurt others, it is not protected, I believe in the 1st Amendment but I think they cross the line. The emotional trauma they cause the families of slain heroes is certainly not what the founding fathers had in mind. Yes, much speech is crude and disgusting...that's protected but yelling "fire" in a crowded movie theater is not.

Incorrect. Hyperbolic speech is always protected...."God Hates Fags, God Loves Dead Soldiers" is hyperbolic. Again, they will surely win this case.

[somerfrost]

But when "God hate fags and thank God for dead troops" is spewed at a funeral it becomes harmful to the families....I don't give a damn if they have their hate fests but not at military funerals. The right to one's opinion is not the same as attacking innocent folks and beating them over the head with one's perversion. They are encouraging violence....I think this is a gray area...hopefully the Court will use common sense!

[randallscott35]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

But when "God hate fags and thank God for dead troops" is spewed at a funeral it becomes harmful to the families....I don't give a damn if they have their hate fests but not at military funerals. The right to one's opinion is not the same as attacking innocent folks and beating them over the head with one's perversion. They are encouraging violence....I think this is a gray area...hopefully the Court will use common sense!

But you miss that they followed the law. Not a chance that the church doesn't win. Again, hyperbolic speech is the key.

Alan Chen from NYTIMES has a better legal explanation.

It’s never easy to defend free speech. People claiming First Amendment protection for their expression are almost always unpopular, mired in controversy, and socially and politically marginalized. Their speech is often intended to provoke public outcry, unrest and anger. That’s how they call attention to the causes they embrace. As a result, emotions run high.

Speakers will very likely censor themselves out of fear that they will be sued for their free expression.
The case of the Westboro Baptist Church’s funeral protests is no different. One would have to be heartless not to feel for families mourning the tragic loss of their loved ones who have served their country bravely. Our natural human impulse is to want to stop such speech. But the First Amendment protects our pluralistic society from this reflexive, majoritarian desire to censor messages that make us uncomfortable or upset. We don’t need the Constitution to protect wildly popular speech; we need it to protect expression with which we vehemently disagree.

That is why First Amendment doctrine generally forbids the government (including courts, through judgments for plaintiffs who claim emotional distress based on the words of others) to penalize speech solely because of its content. Many suggest that the Constitution should allow an exception to this rule for the funeral protest in this case because the content of the speech was highly offensive. “Isn’t this different?,” people ask. “Haven’t these people crossed the line?”

History is filled with similar pleas to the courts to protect people’s sensibilities by limiting the First Amendment. These have emerged from across the ideological spectrum, with claims for exceptions ranging from flag burning to abortion protest, from profane political expression to misogynist musical lyrics. The courts have usually resisted them, and with good reason. The composition of public discourse would be severely distorted if we permitted government to pick and choose which ideas we hear.

A ruling protecting funeral protests under the First Amendment does not leave grieving families without protection. The law already allows regulation of speech or conduct that is threatening. Government also may regulate the volume of speech as well as the location where it occurs, so long as it applies the same limits to all speakers. Finally, the law permits people to protect themselves from trespass, the physical invasion of their private property or spaces.

The case pending in the Supreme Court is about much more than funeral protests. Allowing a First Amendment exemption for highly offensive speech would open the door to a wide range of regulation that could seriously endanger our collective liberty. If the multi-million dollar judgment against the church and its supporters for intentional infliction of emotional distress and invasion of privacy is upheld, it will deter protestors of all political views.

Speakers will likely censor themselves out of fear that they will be sued by someone who is highly offended or emotionally harmed by the passionate way that they convey their beliefs. The marketplace of ideas will be muted. The protection of these protesters’ rights ensures the liberty of many other speakers. But one of the prices of that liberty is tolerance for words that may hurt.

[hi_im_god]

you've simplified plaintiff arguments in a way that if true would, in fact, make this a slam dunk. so why did the supreme court grant cert?

plaintiff won $5 million against westboro in a lower court. the appeals court overturned that verdict. now the supreme court agreed to hear the case when all they had to do was deny cert and the appeals court ruling stands. why would they bother hearing the case?

re-read what riot wrote. it's not about signs held up at funerals. it's about the speech specifically targeted at plaintiff on the westboro website. the issue is going to be whether or not this plaintiff is a public figure. that's where the justices questioning went. if he is, then falwell vs. flynt applies and it is indeed a slam dunk.

if he's not, then they'll either expand the free speech rules from flynt so they also apply to private individuals or they'll distinguish from flynt and you could see a very different ruling than you expect.

the court took on the case for a reason. i don't know what it is but i guarentee it wasn't to waste all the time and effort to say the appeals court had it exactly right. they're going to make a point. they wouldn't have taken the case otherwise.

[randallscott35]

Originally Posted by hi_im_god

you've simplified plaintiff arguments in a way that if true would, in fact, make this a slam dunk. so why did the supreme court grant cert?

plaintiff won $5 million against westboro in a lower court. the appeals court overturned that verdict. now the supreme court agreed to hear the case when all they had to do was deny cert and the appeals court ruling stands. why would they bother hearing the case?

re-read what riot wrote. it's not about signs held up at funerals. it's about the speech specifically targeted at plaintiff on the westboro website. the issue is going to be whether or not this plaintiff is a public figure. that's where the justices questioning went. if he is, then falwell vs. flynt applies and it is indeed a slam dunk.

if he's not, then they'll either expand the free speech rules from flynt so they also apply to private individuals or they'll distinguish from flynt and you could see a very different ruling than you expect.

the court took on the case for a reason. i don't know what it is but i guarentee it wasn't to waste all the time and effort to say the appeals court had it exactly right. they're going to make a point. they wouldn't have taken the case otherwise.

Yes they take very few cases but they haven't taken one in 22 years such as this. More a, we are due factor, than rewriting the law....As for the internet post, the line of questioning didn't follow that that was their main concern for the case. Second, if they upheld the judgment, every blogger who is critical of someone from here on out will be taken to court....In 2 months we will see who is correct.

[hi_im_god]

Originally Posted by randallscott35

Yes they take very few cases but they haven't taken one in 22 years such as this. More a, we are due factor, than rewriting the law....As for the internet post, the line of questioning didn't follow that that was their main concern for the case. Second, if they upheld the judgment, every blogger who is critical of someone from here on out will be taken to court....In 2 months we will see who is correct.

they also haven't ruled on slavery recently, randall.

i like the idea of the justices sitting around deciding which cases to take based on the fact they haven't done it in a while. "yeah, it's settled law and there's nothing for us to add but it's been 150 years dude!"

that's not the way it's done though. they have a point to make. we'll find out what it is.

[randallscott35]

Originally Posted by hi_im_god

they also haven't ruled on slavery recently, randall.

i like the idea of the justices sitting around deciding which cases to take based on the fact they haven't done it in a while. "yeah, it's settled law and there's nothing for us to add but it's been 150 years dude!"

that's not the way it's done though. they have a point to make. we'll find out what it is.

Not really. Again, when the court has changed virtually every member in the past 20 years, they do often look back at similar cases...yes things are different mainly b/c the internet is different. But to believe they will censor blog criticisms is not going to happen....Plus he was searching a month after the funeral when he saw the post. The two really shouldn't be connected at all.

[hi_im_god]

Originally Posted by randallscott35

Not really. Again, when the court has changed virtually every member in the past 20 years, they do often look back at similar cases...yes things are different mainly b/c the internet is different. But to believe they will censor blog criticisms is not going to happen....Plus he was searching a month after the funeral when he saw the post. The two really shouldn't be connected at all.

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.

[Nascar1966]

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.