News 1st Amendment protects military funeral protesters

[nismaratwork]

http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/03/02/scotus.westboro.church/index.html?hpt=Sbin

So, these hatemongers can continue to protest military funerals... which is no surprise as it's a pretty clear-cut issue of free expression. By the same token, I hope their hell is real, and reserved just for them.

I'm having trouble reconciling outrage, with approval of the law itself. I agree with the ruling, but I almost wish for "judicial activism".

Court's 8-1 ruling upholds the right of Westboro Baptist Church members to stage protests
The father of a fallen Marine sued after church members protested at his son's funeral
The U.S. has chosen "to protect even hurtful speech on public issues," chief justice writes

It's now our choice of how to respond. So... how to respond?

 

[lisab]

I'd like the media to just ignore them. I think everyone knows what they're about and realizes that they have nothing constructive to say.

 

[DanP]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110302/ap_on_re_us/us_supreme_court_funeral_protests

I agree that those ppl have the right to free speech, no matter the pain they cause. It's low to do what they do, but their right to speak should be protected.

Whats your take ?

 

[DanP]

Ok, I just seen that there is another thread already discussing this. So delete, whatever

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110302/ap_on_re_us/us_supreme_court_funeral_protests

I agree that those ppl have the right to free speech, no matter the pain they cause. It's low to do what they do, but their right to speak should be protected.

Whats your take ?

yup and if people feel strongly enough against it, they should start a counter movement

 

[Char. Limit]

For this, I'll repeat the comment I posted on SodaHead:

I don't like it. I'll be the first to say that I don't like it. What these people are doing is vicious and morally reprehensible.

However, it is also constitutionally protected.

Yep. However, if I had a ride, I would be glad to join whatever counter-movement there is.

 

[nismaratwork]

Agreed with both of you... it's still miserably bitter pill, and I'm not even in the military, nor have I been!

 

[turbo]

Yep. However, if I had a ride, I would be glad to join whatever counter-movement there is.

There is an "Angels" movement of some sort that is determined to shield mourners from the WBC loons. Lots of them line up with outstretched arms with white "wings" to form a visual barrier.

There is another group that is more effective, IMO. Families holding funerals for fallen soldiers in Maine can count on contingents from Hell's Angels and the Iron Horsemen to show up if WBC intends to demonstrate. WBC members are poison, spiteful, and rude, but they are not stupid enough to butt heads with bikers with POW/MIA colors on their bikes and vests. Want to disrespect a fallen soldier? Better reconsider.

 

[nismaratwork]

There is an "Angels" movement of some sort that is determined to shield mourners from the WBC loons. Lots of them line up with outstretched arms with white "wings" to form a visual barrier.

There is another group that is more effective, IMO. Families holding funerals for fallen soldiers in Maine can count on contingents from Hell's Angels and the Iron Horsemen to show up if WBC intends to demonstrate. WBC members are poison, spiteful, and rude, but they are not stupid enough to butt heads with bikers with POW/MIA colors on their bikes and vests. Want to disrespect a fallen soldier? Better reconsider.

Now that... is what I was thinking, not advocating, but thinking.

 

[Char. Limit]

Now that... is what I was thinking, not advocating, but thinking.

I'll advocate it.

 

[nismaratwork]

I'll advocate it.

No... we cannot advocate illegal activities here... it's against regulations. (I've run afoul of this, trust me) If it were not, my position in this thread would involve... more extreme measures than bikers.

 

[DanP]

Now that... is what I was thinking, not advocating, but thinking.

Violence is a tool as good as any other. It just happens outside the law. Organized crime has offered protection many times to certain categories. This could lead to interesting developments. Worthy of a fallow-up

 

[nismaratwork]

Violence is a tool as good as any other. It just happens outside the law. Organized crime has offered protection many times to certain categories. This could lead to interesting developments. Worthy of a fallow-up

In a purely hypothetical scenario:

You have Group A, which is acting within the law, but outside of every standard of decency.

Group B should consider picking a few off from a distance, non-lethal poisonings of family members as a warning, and other forms of terror.

Purely hypothetical, and unrelated to this issue, given the law.

 

[Astronuc]

If Snyder's family had asked Westboro not to protest the funeral for his son, then he might have had a more clear cut case for the violation of the state's anti-harassment law. However, he made the case after the fact. Each state or local community has a different set of criteria on harassment, and one has to research the matter in one's locale.

 

[BobG]

If Snyder's family had asked Westboro not to protest the funeral for his son, then he might have had a more clear cut case for the violation of the state's anti-harassment law. However, he made the case after the fact. Each state or local community has a different set of criteria on harassment, and one has to research the matter in one's locale.

If he had even seen the protestors live instead of on a news broadcast, he might have had a better case.

Given that the Westboro protestors followed all local laws regarding the protest, that they weren't even visible to the participants of the funeral, and that their protest was directed against general issues, Snyder didn't have a legitimate case for harrassment.

The Supreme Court came to the right decision about protection of free speech, but this was a lousy case regardless.

 

[turbo]

Violence is a tool as good as any other. It just happens outside the law. Organized crime has offered protection many times to certain categories. This could lead to interesting developments. Worthy of a fallow-up

The bikers haven't attacked anyone, to my knowledge. Just the fact that they offer to act as an honor guard for a fallen soldier is enough to make WBC look for a softer target, as best as I can determine. No violence required.

In Maine, bikers are generally well-respected. The United Bikers of Maine host the state's largest single annual charity event - the "Toys for Tots" bike run. At the end of that ride, the Salvation Army collects tens of thousands of toys, bicycles, wagons, games, sets of art supplies, etc, etc every year so that poor families can choose Christmas gifts for their children. My wife and I concentrated on older kids, so no stuffed animals - those were always popular with bikers, for some reason. We generally gave things like Walkman radios with rechargeable batteries and chargers, heavy-weight sleeping bags, board games, and other things that would appeal to adolescents and young teens.

 

[DanP]

In Maine, bikers are generally well-respected.

There are bikers and bikers. Hell Angels, Pagans, Outlaws too ?

 

[turbo]

There are bikers and bikers. Hell Angels, Pagans, Outlaws too ?

"Outlaw" clubs are quite well represented at the annual charity event, and there is no friction that I can see. People get along.

There are always people on the fringes that want to act tough, make trouble unnecessarily, etc, but those are exceptions, IMO. The toughest crowd around here is the Iron Horsemen. The National Enforcer of that club, and his crowd used to show up at my open-mic jams, make requests, and buy rounds for the band. Huge guy that some folks might call scary, but he loved the blues, and liked to have a table right down front. The music could be a little rough around the edges because I let just about anybody have stage-time if they wanted to play, but we all had a good time.

 

[BobG]

There are bikers and bikers. Hell Angels, Pagans, Outlaws too ?

There's a point. During the 90's Hells Angels made Akron into the meth capitol of Ohio. If they're well respected, it must be among extreme libertarians, as I'd be more likely to see them as a type of organized crime organization.

 

[turbo]

There's a point. During the 90's Hells Angels made Akron into the meth capitol of Ohio. If they're well respected, it must be among extreme libertarians, as I'd be more likely to see them as a type of organized crime organization.

It's just that bikers in general are well-respected. Turf-wars aside, if you see contingents of several one-percenter clubs willing to act as honor guards/escorts for a fallen soldier and come together and cooperate for that cause, it's a sign of hope. Harleys are VERY popular in Maine, but only a tiny minority of bikers affiliate themselves with fringe groups.

The Angels might be the kings of drugs in some locations, but they are not so active that way here, even with a large club-house only about 20 minutes from me.

 

[DanP]

It's just that bikers in general are well-respected. Turf-wars aside, if you see contingents of several one-percenter clubs willing to act as honor guards/escorts for a fallen soldier and come together and cooperate for that cause, it's a sign of hope.

Hope for what ?

 

[turbo]

Hope for what ?

Civility amongst biker-clubs that the FBI considers organized crime groups.

 

[nismaratwork]

Why use bikers when we have long rifles?

 

[turbo]

Why use bikers when we have long rifles?

It's just that the public doesn't expect civility from bikers. Early on, when we were just starting the Toys for Tots drives, the governor and other political entities started to figure out that we were a force to be dealt with, so they showed up at our charity drives. During one of our earliest campaigns, I got to meet Malcolm Forbes, who rode up here with a bunch of biking enthusiasts from his company. During a more recent gathering when we needed the acreage of the whole capitol mall to assemble, I got to meet Sonny Barger. I wasn't impressed by one more than the other.

BTW, every governor since Angus King has ridden at the head of our parade to the donation site. At least Baldacci had the good sense to buy his own machine and not be a passenger.

 

[nismaratwork]

It's just that the public doesn't expect civility from bikers. Early on, when we were just starting the Toys for Tots drives, the governor and other political entities started to figure out that we a force to deal with. During one of our earliest campaigns, I got to meet Malcolm Forbes, who rode up here with a bunch of biking enthusiasts from his company. During a more recent gathering when we needed the whole capitol mall to assemble, I got to meet Sonny Barger. I wasn't impressed by one more than the other.

Hmmm... I know very little about biking, but my impression was that of "One Percenters"... not a universal "criminal enterprise".

If I'm wrong, I'd better stop giving to the police and firemen!.. they have biking clubs.

 

[BobG]

I'd like the media to just ignore them. I think everyone knows what they're about and realizes that they have nothing constructive to say.

Given that Snyder only saw the WBC protesting the funeral on the news, an interesting strategy would have been to name the news station as a codefendant. There's no chance the news station would be found liable for any damages (but, then again, this was such a dog of a case that I'm shocked it ever reached the US Supreme Court), but it would still be embarrassing for a news station to be considered a coconspirator with the WBC.

 

[Gokul43201]

If he had even seen the protestors live instead of on a news broadcast, he might have had a better case.

Still, not a winnable case, I hope. Since WBC complied with all city regulations, how can there be a valid case against them based on the possibility that they were seen live rather than after the fact?

 

[BobG]

I just noticed that only a news story about the decision was linked; not the actual decision.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-751.pdf

That said, “ ‘[e]ven protected speech is not equally permissible in all places and at all times.’ ” Frisby v. Schultz, 487 U. S. 474, 479. Westboro’s choice of where and when to conduct its picketing is not beyond the Government’s regulatory reach—it is “subject to reasonable time, place, or manner restrictions.” Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence, 468 U. S. 288, 293. The facts here are quite different, however, both with respect to the activity being regulated and the means of restricting those activities, from the few limited situations where the Court has concluded that the location of targeted picketing can be properly regulated under provisions deemed content neutral.

(b) Snyder also may not recover for the tort of intrusion upon seclusion. He argues that he was a member of a captive audience at his son’s funeral, but the captive audience doctrine—which has been applied sparingly, see Rowan v. Post Office Dept., 397 U. S. 728, 736– 738; Frisby, supra, at 484–485—should not be expanded to the circumstances here. Westboro stayed well away from the memorial service, Snyder could see no more than the tops of the picketers’ signs, and there is no indication that the picketing interfered with the funeral service itself. Pp. 13–14.

The location of the protests were important. WBC has a right to free speech. It doesn't have a right to disrupt a person's funeral. In other words, a city can establish regulations that would prevent a protest from disrupting a funeral and, as long as WBC complies with those regulations, it can't be successfully sued or prosecuted.

If the city felt that in sight, but some set distance away, was suitable protection to ensure a funeral wasn't disrupted, then Snyder would still most likely be unsuccessful. What's reasonable has quite a large range. The regulations would have to be outrageous (allow protestors to stage protest at the gravesite in the middle of the funeral, for example - or only allow the protest to take place at least 20 miles from the gravesite as an example on the opposite extreme) in order to successfully challenge them.

 

[nismaratwork]

Still, not a winnable case, I hope. Since WBC complied with all city regulations, how can there be a valid case against them based on the possibility that they were seen live rather than after the fact?

You're right, but I still like the point; it would make it a bigger issue. I like how you think BobG!

Still. How about this: [PLAIN]http://cdn.uproxx.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/taser-xrep.jpg Since nobody seems into my campaign of terror and murder.

 

[Gokul43201]

Alito dissents: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/03/AR2011030302920.html

I disagree with Alito. Besides, what exactly is an "elementary right"? And how is it different from a fundamental right?

 

[DanP]

Alito dissents: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/03/AR2011030302920.html

I disagree with Alito. Besides, what exactly is an "elementary right"? And how is it different from a fundamental right?

Alito has a point, but IMO this is vastly uncharted territory as of yet.

Ill frist say that criminal law in just about any territory punishes severely assaults and aggravated assault crimes. Battery for example is a volitional act done with the purpose of causing harmful or offensive contact. Besides being a crime, you are liable for civil damages as well.

In the current years psychologysts and neruobiologists have amassed evidence which seems to point in the direction that social pain activates the same centers of pain as physical pain in the brain. Additionally, it may cause psychological damage to a person. Repeated aggression can cause anxiety, depression. Not good.

So it seems somehow ironic that we punish criminally harmful and offensive physical behavior, while at the same time we allow certain forms of social aggression unpunished.

I myself had seen persons verbally abused go through very rough times because of this. Anger, pain, a feeling of impotence to stop the assault all mounted up. Frankly, sometimes is just easier to be beaten physically, the pain may go away sooner :P

So if you take this perspective, you have serious grounds to reconsider the limits of 1st amendment. We still need more evidence on the damage and pain non-physical violence can cause in humans. It will come in the next decades probably, slowly. We are not there yet, there is too mcuh unknown, so for now I would support free speech as it is understood today.

Speech, in the mouth of someone aware of what he is doing, can be as destructive as battery or rape.

 

[Gokul43201]

So if you take this perspective, you have serious grounds to reconsider the limits of 1st amendment.

City ordinances already impose limits on the FA to minimize such psychological battery. Those limitations were respected by WBC through their adherence to the city regulations.

 

[DanP]

City ordinances already impose limits on the FA to minimize such psychological battery. Those limitations were respected by WBC through their adherence to the city regulations.

It is not important what the city does, and what is their perception of the events, from a constitutional PoV. Furthermore, we don't know how effective are those limitations. They are welcome for now.

We don't seek to minimize the effects of a crime like battery or rape, we seek to protect our own from the crime occurring in the first place. We don't let rapists walk free, and seek to minimize the effects of the damage they did on victims. If a crime exists, you have to seek to punish the crime through criminal law, not allow it and try to minimize its effects.

Yes, his honor has a very serious point. But as I said, its too much of an uncharted territory as for now.

 

[Proton Soup]

Alito dissents: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/03/AR2011030302920.html

I disagree with Alito. Besides, what exactly is an "elementary right"? And how is it different from a fundamental right?

what i find most troubling is this:

He added: "It does not follow, however, that they may intentionally inflict severe emotional injury on private persons at a time of intense emotional sensitivity by launching vicious verbal attacks that make no contribution to public debate."

the very idea of muzzling people based on some qualitative assessment of their speech is profane.

Alito has a point, but IMO this is vastly uncharted territory as of yet.

Ill frist say that criminal law in just about any territory punishes severely assaults and aggravated assault crimes. Battery for example is a volitional act done with the purpose of causing harmful or offensive contact. Besides being a crime, you are liable for civil damages as well.

In the current years psychologysts and neruobiologists have amassed evidence which seems to point in the direction that social pain activates the same centers of pain as physical pain in the brain. Additionally, it may cause psychological damage to a person. Repeated aggression can cause anxiety, depression. Not good.

So it seems somehow ironic that we punish criminally harmful and offensive physical behavior, while at the same time we allow certain forms of social aggression unpunished.

I myself had seen persons verbally abused go through very rough times because of this. Anger, pain, a feeling of impotence to stop the assault all mounted up. Frankly, sometimes is just easier to be beaten physically, the pain may go away sooner :P

So if you take this perspective, you have serious grounds to reconsider the limits of 1st amendment. We still need more evidence on the damage and pain non-physical violence can cause in humans. It will come in the next decades probably, slowly. We are not there yet, there is too mcuh unknown, so for now I would support free speech as it is understood today.

Speech, in the mouth of someone aware of what he is doing, can be as destructive as battery or rape.

there was no assault here. the offendees had to actually exert some effort to expose themselves to it.

your argument could be pretty far reaching, too. we may have to completely re-examine the way we look at domestic violence. it may be that, more often than not, the "victim" really was asking for it.

 

[DanP]

your argument could be pretty far reaching, too. we may have to completely re-examine the way we look at domestic violence. it may be that, more often than not, the "victim" really was asking for it.

Yes it has far reaching implications.

Its uncharted territory, but it may have legal consequences in several decades.

 

[Proton Soup]

Yes it has far reaching implications.

Its uncharted territory, but it may have legal consequences in several decades.

i hope not. every individual on the planet will have their own set of rules as to what causes them emotional pain. it's not even clear that eliminating emotional pain would be good for society in general.

 

[BobG]

Some liberals have complained that Alito's view in the Snyder case is at odds with his vote in Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission that said corporations have a free speech right to play a larger role in election spending.

Goldstein and others disagree.

"I think the criticisms of Alito as being inconsistent in light of the campaign finance cases are wrong," he said. "In his view, the First Amendment has a core value relating to political speech. In his view, extending it to protect videos of animal cruelty and exploitation of a military funeral goes too far. The rest of the court obviously disagrees, but his position seems completely coherent."

Alito does have a point that the intent of the First Amendment is primarily aimed at protecting political speech. Literature and art may receive the same type of protection, but other types of speech (commercial speech, for example) have less protection.

Applying that to the Snyder case is a little troubling since you have to subjectively decide the WBC's 'political' views are too bizarre to legitimatize as political speech. I'd be a little embarrassed to say the views of the WBC are sane, but the idea of just tossing them out of the realm of political speech completely bothers me.

Edit: Alito's dissent is also very well written and worth reading. None the less, I don't think I could agree with him, even if his dissent does leave some lingering troubling thoughts.

 

[nismaratwork]

Alito dissents: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/03/AR2011030302920.html

I disagree with Alito. Besides, what exactly is an "elementary right"? And how is it different from a fundamental right?

This is an area of weakness for me; I don't believe in rights, only mutually extended privelages.

 

[jduster]

The first amendment was not made to defend our right to say things such as "have a nice day" or "good morning": it was made to protect our freedom to express any opinions, including explosively controversial ones. Prohibiting people from expressing certain opinions just because we do not like them creates a slippery slope.

There are reasons to limit free speech: violation of confidentiality agreements, threats, harassment, and such. But expressing an opinion that other people don't like is not one of them.

As much respect I have for American troops, and as abhorrently wrong I find military funeral protesters, it is unconstitutional to prohibit their protests to an extent.

 

[xxChrisxx]

There are reasons to limit free speech: violation of confidentiality agreements, threats, harassment, and such. But expressing an opinion that other people don't like is not one of them.

Surely going to someones funeral with the express intent to cause pain to the bereaved could be considered harassment. I'm unsure of what is considered legally hararssment over there.

As annoying as the UK is sometimes, banning Fred Phelps from entering the country on the grounds that he's a dick is a victory for the common good.

 

[jduster]

At a certain point protesting at military funerals does become harassment and slander, but as long as the protesters do not cross that line, they should be allowed to protest.

The 1st amendment protects free speech, and unfortunately, it does allow people to say bad things, but on the whole, it is best for society not to censor whatever offends it.

 

[BobG]

As annoying as the UK is sometimes, banning Fred Phelps from entering the country on the grounds that he's a dick is a victory for the common good.

Interesting list of people banned from entering the UK:

Geert Wilders
Osama Bin Laden
Snoop Dog
Robert Mugabe (and his wife)
Albert Speers
Fred Phelps (and his daughter)
Sun Myung Moon
Louis Farrakhan
Martha Stewart
Slobodan Milosevic
L Ron Hubbard

How did Martha Stewart get on that list?

 

[Jasongreat]

The first amendment was not made to defend our right to say things such as "have a nice day" or "good morning": it was made to protect our freedom to express any opinions, including explosively controversial ones. Prohibiting people from expressing certain opinions just because we do not like them creates a slippery slope.

There are reasons to limit free speech: violation of confidentiality agreements, threats, harassment, and such. But expressing an opinion that other people don't like is not one of them.

As much respect I have for American troops, and as abhorrently wrong I find military funeral protesters, it is unconstitutional to prohibit their protests to an extent.

Its only unconstitutional if congress prohibits speech, and since the 14th amendment state governments, the public can restrict speech all they want. If enough people show up and shout louder than WBC, they can even put signs between them and the family blocking the view, they go home like they did in Missouri, if I remember correctly.

Edit:http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20022176-504083.html

 

[xxChrisxx]

How did Martha Stewart get on that list?

Interestingly enough there is a link just below her name stating why. Temporary even permanent refusals for entry are different to the home office bans. Refusals may be becuase someone was convicted of a crime, or other significant reason.

Martha was a bit of an odd one to refuse entry to though.


On the other hand the fuss that ensued from an enraged Michael Savage was worth than ban just for his reaction.

 

[mugaliens]

Interesting list of people banned from entering the UK:

In addition to the hate-mongering Phelps, I note Michael Weiner aka Michael Savage made the list. Who is he? Wikipedia says he's third radio talk show host in the nation, but I've never heard of him.

As for Phelps, he was disbarred from the practice of law for a reason, and most of his band of protesters are related to him and one another. He claims he's a Christian, and a Baptist, no less, yet his group of hate-mongerers violates so many precepts of the Bible it's not even funny.

I'll not protest at his funeral, as I have far too much dignity to stoop to his level. In fact, I'll even poor a pint of Guiness Stout on his grave! To ensure it's purity, I'll even do him the benevolence of straining it through my kidneys, first. ;)

 

[Evo]

Martha was a bit of an odd one to refuse entry to though.

She's a convicted felon.