1st Amendment protects military funeral protesters

[carbon]

I think you may have convinced me. You are saying that family members can't see or hear WBC protests? If that's the case, it's a public protest not harassment?

And I'm not trying to argue or anything with you Veggie Meat(lol), I'm really just trying to understand. Thanks for the info.

 

[reddog1]

Good decision, but those ppl are scum, bottom of the bucket. Period.

No, not the judges...LOL

 

[Erick]

That is one of the scariest things I have read on here.

Who decides? The majority? NO EFFING WAY!!!!

As disgusting as WBC is, they have every right to protest. The SCOTUS did te right thing.

When you want to put limits on free speech you and the majority disagree with today, just remember tomorrow you may be the minority and it may be your speech that most others despise.

I didn't say we need to hold common sense elections. I am saying that if the people see something we view as wrong, it is our responsibility to confront those type of people in a non violent way. I don't believe people should stand aside and allow these sort of things to happen. Yea, it's their liberty. It's our liberty to disagree and as a united community let them know that we disagree with them.

 

[vvvvvvv]

I didn't say we need to hold common sense elections. I am saying that if the people see something we view as wrong, it is our responsibility to confront those type of people in a non violent way. I don't believe people should stand aside and allow these sort of things to happen. Yea, it's their liberty. It's our liberty to disagree and as a united community let them know that we disagree with them.

In the context of the post that JB quoted, your statement implies that you believe that the Constitution and the laws derived from it should be subjected to "common sense" during interpretation, an ideology that differs significantly from person to person.

Your liberty stops when it imposes upon the liberty of another. These protests do not impose upon anyone's liberties, especially the instance of question in Snyder v. Phelps.

 

[Nraman]

Good ruling, but important to note that the 1st only protects you from government interference with your freedom of speech....it doesn't protect you from the people you piss off when you run your suck somewhere you shouldn't.

I agree.
"Congress shall make no law ....abridging the freedom of speech."
We are not Congress, I don't see how the 1st means we have to take their abuse. Besides, the 1st is not without its limits. It does not apply to an employee of a company, to a soldier and you cannot yell fire in a theater.
Surely there has to be a way to pay them back, even if it means demonstrating in front of their church, just outside the private property part. Dig some dirt on them and put it on a large sign for all to see, make their day on the way to their church. Have JB standing by with a camera to record any events that can be used to bankrupt them.

 

[Nraman]

The way I see it, they are not protesting against the dead soldier any more than the person who burns a flag (which happens to be the proper way to dispose of a flag), is burning a cloth. They are expressing strong disagreement against the government. As such, for the greater good, we have to allow them to do so, or else we all lose big.
I am just saying that if they can use the law to their advantage to express their ideas with no regard for the pain they cause the family, we should be able to cause them such grief, legally always, that they are forced to protest against the government in a different way. Where is it written that if somebody has a beef with the government its OK to screw everybody on his way?

 

[donner]

I agree.
"Congress shall make no law ....abridging the freedom of speech."
We are not Congress, I don't see how the 1st means we have to take their abuse. Besides, the 1st is not without its limits. It does not apply to an employee of a company, to a soldier and you cannot yell fire in a theater.
Surely there has to be a way to pay them back, even if it means demonstrating in front of their church, just outside the private property part. Dig some dirt on them and put it on a large sign for all to see, make their day on the way to their church. Have JB standing by with a camera to record any events that can be used to bankrupt them.

i think that is exactly the point that some here are trying to make and that others are failing to see.

We don't want the government making the restrictions because once started, where will it end?

If individuals want to counter-protest then that is their right. But we don't want the government deciding what is and isn't protected or what is and isn't hurtful. Congress can too easily be swayed to infringe the rights of the minority by the crisis-de-jour.

 

[carbon]

i think that is exactly the point that some here are trying to make and that others are failing to see.

We don't want the government making the restrictions because once started, where will it end?

If individuals want to counter-protest then that is their right. But we don't want the government deciding what is and isn't protected or what is and isn't hurtful. Congress can too easily be swayed to infringe the rights of the minority by the crisis-de-jour.

If you are talking about me, I think I finally got it thanks to JB and Veggie(lol). It's just so close to harassment that it's confusing. I'm all for protesting but WBC didn't seem like protesting. I think Veggie was saying they are technically protesting on the day of the funeral and not the funeral itself. Basically you can't go into a bar calling people fags, but you can stand just outside and say God hates fags and your babies are going to die because alcohol is legal.

 

[MD Froman]

One day those creeps are gonna mess with the wrong tribe and get wiped off the face of the earth and I hope people not unlike ourselves pull jury duty for the trial.

Blasphemy? Speaking ill of the dead? Whoring for lawsuits with scripture? Oppressing widows and the newly fatherless?

Here's my new sign:

God Hates The Westboro Baptist Church!

 

[Tully]

I don't usually join in on these debates but I have strong feelings about this one. It sickens me to see some of the comments about this being a good decision by the Supreme Court. Nothing about this is right.
I've been on many Patriot Guard missions and a few have involved WBC. We talk about protecting free speech. I don't think what WBC is doing is what the founders of this country had in mind when they wrote the constitution and those who later passed the admendments. Nor do I feel they would condone it.
I wonder what would have happened if some protested in this manner at the burial of soldiers killed making this a free country in the early days.
Pityful that some want to protest at funerals of our brave who lost their lives. Even worse that we would protect them for any reason.
The father on CBS news this morning was right. If the government will not protect us from evil then civilians will protect themselves. That's when someone will get hurt and a well meaning citizen will go to jail for a long time.

My $.02