News High court: Does father's pain trump free speech?

[Evo]

I am on the side of the family. There is no reason, IMO, for these people to be doing this to this family. Perhaps this should be considered when a person or group plans to engage in the harrassment of private individuals. I don't see why the First Amendment needs to allow for harrasment and stalking of private citizens going about their private, personal, lawful activities. I don't think this type of personal harrassment was intended to be protected when the First Ammendment was written.

Supreme Court justices, in a rare public display of sympathy, strongly suggested Wednesday they would like to rule for a dead Marine's father against fundamentalist church members who picketed his son's funeral — but aren't sure they can.

Left unresolved after an hourlong argument that explored the limits of the First Amendment: Does the father's emotional pain trump the protesters' free speech rights?

The difficulty of the constitutional issue was palpable in the courtroom as the justices weighed the case of Albert Snyder. His son died in Iraq in 2006, and members of a family-dominated church in Topeka, Kan., protested at the funeral to express their view that U.S. deaths in Afghanistan and Iraq are God's punishment for American immorality and tolerance of homosexuality and abortion.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101007/ap_on_go_su_co/us_supreme_court_funeral_protests

This next article goes into more detail of what the Supreme Court is faced with.

http://www.ydr.com/ci_14667129

 

[G037H3]

public place=is constitutionally protected

 

[JaredJames]

These people make me sick. I wonder how they'd react if a hundred atheist's set up camp outside their homes and started preaching how God and the Bible is BS?

Oh but that's right, they can picket people's funerals and be covered by the freedom of speech, but if we try to picket them, suddenly freedom of religion comes into it and we're still in the wrong.

If they tried that where I lived they'd have a rather significant number of 'family' showing them the 'error of their ways'!

I don't think it's a case of violating free speech, but more a case of people being so ignorant and insensitive towards others and not respecting them at such a distressing time.

I may disagree with what someone says or does, but I have enough respect for them to know when I should and shouldn't voice my opinion.

 

[russ_watters]

public place=is constitutionally protected

That isn't true. Speech in public places is restricted all the time. Even if the content itself is protected, there are many of reasons why speech might not be. In this case, one group interfering with the rights of another (at the very least, this is harassment) seems like a good reason to me to make them express their opinion somewhere else.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Recall that Bush had free-speech zones penned off at a distance, at his rallies. Even a woman wearing an Obama shirt was ejected from a rally.

 

[JaredJames]

public place=is constitutionally protected

So me shouting racist slurs in a public place would be constitutionally protected?

 

[Vanadium 50]

I recommend people read the 4th circuit court of appeals' decision on this. It includes a number of interesting and possibly relevant facts:

It was undisputed at trial that Defendants complied with local ordinances and police directions with respect to being a certain distance from the church. Furthermore, it was established at trial that Snyder did not actually see the signs until he saw a television program later that day with footage of the Phelps family at his son’s funeral.

 

[Astronuc]

I am on the side of the family. There is no reason, IMO, for these people to be doing this to this family. Perhaps this should be considered when a person or group plans to engage in the harrassment of private individuals. I don't see why the First Amendment needs to allow for harrasment and stalking of private citizens going about their private, personal, lawful activities. I don't think this type of personal harrassment was intended to be protected when the First Ammendment was written.

Harrassment is not protected by the First Amendment. It's one of those matters left to the States, which do have legal sanctions/laws against harassment. Snyder would have to demonstrate that Phelps et al violated the state or local statute regarding harrassment.

Most criminal matters at the local level are handled by local or state authorities and judicial systems, unless the criminal violation is against the nation or Federal Government, or persons employed or otherwise serving in the Federal Government.

 

[Proton Soup]

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130379867

Inside the courtroom, Snyder's lawyer, Sean Summers, told the justices that "if context ever matters, it matters at a funeral." But some justices pointed out that the picketers had obeyed all police instructions and stood 1,000 feet away from the church. Moreover, they noted that part of Snyder's emotional distress claim involves a derogatory Internet posting that he came across a month after the funeral.

"Suppose there had been no funeral protest, just the Internet posting," asked Justice Antonin Scalia. "Would you still have had a claim for damages?"

Summers answered yes, because of the "personal, targeted epithets directed at the Snyder family."

this is a pure speech case. it's not about harassment. for all our sake, the protesters had better win this case.

 

[G037H3]

So me shouting racist slurs in a public place would be constitutionally protected?

yep, to an extent

has to be peaceful, remember

 

[Astronuc]

If Phelps and his followers posted their garbage at PF, their posts would be deleted and they would be banned!

His 'speech' is hateful, and it has no redeeming social value.

His group went out its way to protest at the funeral, and that is essentially harassment. If Phelps et al want to protest the government and/or its policy, then let them go to the steps of Congress or the White House and protest there. Phelps and his group should leave the families of dead soldiers alone, since they do not decide policy.

 

[Evo]

I recommend people read the 4th circuit court of appeals' decision on this. It includes a number of interesting and possibly relevant facts:

But the issue now is that The US Supreme Court has voted to take on the appeal.

 

[Evo]

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130379867



this is a pure speech case. it's not about harassment. for all our sake, the protesters had better win this case.

From your article

Justice Ginsburg neatly summed up the issue in its most basic terms: "This is a case about exploiting a private family's grief, and the question is: Why should the First Amendment tolerate exploiting this Marine's family when you have so many other forums for getting across your message?"

 

[Proton Soup]

But the issue now is that The US Supreme Court has voted to take on the appeal.

yes, all bets are off. anything goes depending on the mood of the court, and apparently, Summers is a compleat idiot.

 

[G037H3]

Evo starts thread:

I am on the side of the family. There is no reason, IMO, for these people to be doing this to this family. Perhaps this should be considered when a person or group plans to engage in the harrassment of private individuals. I don't see why the First Amendment needs to allow for harrasment and stalking of private citizens going about their private, personal, lawful activities. I don't think this type of personal harrassment was intended to be protected when the First Ammendment was written.

jarednjames responds to 'religion':

These people make me sick. I wonder how they'd react if a hundred atheist's set up camp outside their homes and started preaching how God and the Bible is BS?
Oh but that's right, they can picket people's funerals and be covered by the freedom of speech, but if we try to picket them, suddenly freedom of religion comes into it and we're still in the wrong.
If they tried that where I lived they'd have a rather significant number of 'family' showing them the 'error of their ways'!
I don't think it's a case of violating free speech, but more a case of people being so ignorant and insensitive towards others and not respecting them at such a distressing time.
I may disagree with what someone says or does, but I have enough respect for them to know when I should and shouldn't voice my opinion.

russ_watters doesn't differentiate between 'fire' and 'you're a ****':

That isn't true. Speech in public places is restricted all the time. Even if the content itself is protected, there are many of reasons why speech might not be. In this case, one group interfering with the rights of another (at the very least, this is harassment) seems like a good reason to me to make them express their opinion somewhere else.

Ivan Seeking brings in Bush for no reason:

Recall that Bush had free-speech zones penned off at a distance, at his rallies. Even a woman wearing an Obama shirt was ejected from a rally.

jarednjames implies that those opinions are wrong, or relevant to the thread:

So me shouting racist slurs in a public place would be constitutionally protected?

Astronuc implies that a private forum is the gold standard of conduct for public free speech:

If Phelps and his followers posted their garbage at PF, their posts would be deleted and they would be banned!

His 'speech' is hateful, and it has no redeeming social value.

His group went out its way to protest at the funeral, and that is essentially harassment. If Phelps et al want to protest the government and/or its policy, then let them go to the steps of Congress or the White House and protest there. Phelps and his group should leave the families of dead soldiers alone, since they do not decide policy.

Proton Soup knows how to read and reserve judgment:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...ryId=130379867

Inside the courtroom, Snyder's lawyer, Sean Summers, told the justices that "if context ever matters, it matters at a funeral." But some justices pointed out that the picketers had obeyed all police instructions and stood 1,000 feet away from the church. Moreover, they noted that part of Snyder's emotional distress claim involves a derogatory Internet posting that he came across a month after the funeral.

"Suppose there had been no funeral protest, just the Internet posting," asked Justice Antonin Scalia. "Would you still have had a claim for damages?"

Summers answered yes, because of the "personal, targeted epithets directed at the Snyder family."

this is a pure speech case. it's not about harassment. for all our sake, the protesters had better win this case.

seriously guys, UMAD

learn to respond to the action, not the content

'he hit me' instead of 'he hit me while wearing a blue shirt! i hate blue!'

 

[Proton Soup]

From your article

we'll see, she's just one judge. but this isn't about some ordinary citizen, it is political speech aimed at an agent of the US government.

 

[Evo]

we'll see, she's just one judge. but this isn't about some ordinary citizen, it is political speech aimed at an agent of the US government.

With signs aimed at the mourners at the funeral saying "god hates your tears' that's hate speech directed at the private mourners.

 

[G037H3]

With signs aimed at the mourners at the funeral saying "god hates your tears' that's hate speech directed at the private mourners.

>implying hate speech is real, and not just a way to limit free speech

>implying that it is illegal to hate another person

>implying that if one person commits a true crime against another, the specific details of the victim matter, when the person committing the crime should be charged regardless of who or what the victim is

 

[JaredJames]

jarednjames responds to 'religion':

Uh, the article is about a church protesting a funeral, my post was to point out the discrimination shown to non-religious folks by the laws put in place to protect the religious. These religions can protest under the cover of freedom of speech, but if I protest them, I'm infringing their religious rights.

jarednjames implies that those opinions are wrong, or relevant to the thread:

Are you saying racist remarks shouted in public aren't wrong? Why is it not relevant, your first post implies that no matter what is said in public it is protected. That is pure BS, go stand on your street corner and try shouting racist slurs at passers by and see how long you remain there.

 

[G037H3]

Uh, the article is about a church protesting a funeral, my post was to point out the discrimination shown to non-religious folks by the laws put in place to protect the religious. These religions can protest under the cover of freedom of speech, but if I protest them, I'm infringing their religious rights.



Are you saying racist remarks shouted in public aren't wrong? Why is it not relevant, your first post implies that no matter what is said in public it is protected. That is pure BS, go stand on your street corner and try shouting racist slurs at passers by and see how long you remain there.

look at the details before responding

shouting? no. walking up to people and calling them racial slurs? yes.

probably won't make too many friends, as it's a silly thing to do with your time, and makes you look like an idiot, but yep, is permissible.

 

[JaredJames]

>implying that if one person commits a true crime against another, the specific details of the victim matter, when the person committing the crime should be charged regardless of who or what the victim is

Oh my god, I just snapped a piece of wood! I'm being charged with Grievous Bodily Harm.

 

[G037H3]

Oh my god, I just snapped a piece of wood! I'm being charged with Grievous Bodily Harm.

"what" refers to subspecies/sex/etc.

 

[D H]

First some replies, then my thoughts.

but if we try to picket them, suddenly freedom of religion comes into it and we're still in the wrong.

Are you sure about that? Has a group filed for a permit to protest at 3701 West 12th Street in Topeka, Kansas and been denied?

So me shouting racist slurs in a public place would be constitutionally protected?

Them's fightin' words. Fighting words are not protected speech.

Speech in public places is restricted all the time.

Correct. That's the basis for public nuisance laws, and that is the basis for requiring groups to obtain protest permits and the like. However, denying such permits on the basis of the expected content of the speech is unconstitutional without some very compelling reasons.

I recommend people read the 4th circuit court of appeals' decision on this. It includes a number of interesting and possibly relevant facts:

It was undisputed at trial that Defendants complied with local ordinances and police directions with respect to being a certain distance from the church.

Exactly. They had the necessary permits.




I know how exactly vile this group is. Shortly after the Columbia disaster they set up camp right outside the main gate of NASA's Johnson Space Center with placards proclaiming that god struck down the Columbia, etc. I remotely knew one of the astronauts who died in that accident, and directly knew a lot of people who were more intimately connected to those astronauts than I was. That was some evil, vile stuff. They were there for publicity, and publicity only. They abandoned NASA when they found the publicity here wasn't very good while being complete wipes along funeral routes made for good publicity.

As vile and superficial as this group is, they still do have rights.

 

[Proton Soup]

With signs aimed at the mourners at the funeral saying "god hates your tears' that's hate speech directed at the private mourners.

how is this "hate speech" ? for that matter, what is "hate speech" ? does it provoke an action? what does it do other than make you hate Phelps?

 

[JaredJames]

shouting? no. walking up to people and calling them racial slurs? yes.

probably won't make too many friends, as it's a silly thing to do with your time, and makes you look like an idiot, but yep, is permissible.

Oh look, this guy didn't make the remarks directly at anyone in particular, just "shouted" (or broadcast) them, he got arrested:
http://beforeitsnews.com/story/26/492/16-Year_Old_Arrested_For_Racial_Slurs_at_Wal-Mart_in_NJ.html

 

[G037H3]

Oh look, this guy didn't make the remarks directly at anyone in particular, just "shouted" (or broadcast) them, he got arrested:
http://beforeitsnews.com/story/26/492/16-Year_Old_Arrested_For_Racial_Slurs_at_Wal-Mart_in_NJ.html

he shouldn't have been arrested

he should have been kicked out of the store for using the broadcasting equipment that he didn't have permission to use, obviously

 

[JaredJames]

"what" refers to subspecies/sex/etc.

No s***.

These people need to grow a pair, leave the 'comfort' of the USA and go out to these war zones. Where they have no freedom of speech, no freedom of religion. But no, they'd rather sit in the safety of the USA and attack those who fight for their country, fighting for the very freedoms they cower behind.

 

[Evo]

how is this "hate speech" ? for that matter, what is "hate speech" ? does it provoke an action? what does it do other than make you hate Phelps?

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...h&sa=X&ei=0fCwTLSKE5CosAOz56GmDA&ved=0CBIQkAE

http://definitions.uslegal.com/h/hate-speech/

 

[Vanadium 50]

But the issue now is that The US Supreme Court has voted to take on the appeal.

Yes, but the facts remain unchanged. The Seventh Amendment prohibits appellate courts from ruling on the facts of a case - they can only rule on the law. I think it's valuable for people to take a look at these facts before reaching conclusions.

 

[Newai]

Exactly. They had the necessary permits.

Do the permits cover protest? Or do they also cover protest conduct?

 

[D H]

he shouldn't have been arrested

Yes, he should have. Fighting words are not protected speech.

 

[G037H3]

No s***.

These people need to grow a pair, leave the 'comfort' of the USA and go out to these war zones. Where they have no freedom of speech, no freedom of religion. But no, they'd rather sit in the safety of the USA and attack those who fight for their country, fighting for the very freedoms they cower behind.

i wasn't entirely sure if i needed to clarify it for you

no freedom of speech in a warzone? really?

no freedom of religion on a warzone? then i suppose that many of the US soldiers in the Middle East are committing crimes by believing in a God that cares for them.

as for soldiers...

 

[JaredJames]

Yes, he should have. Fighting words are not protected speech.

So how is picketing a funeral? You are standing (within some distance) and promoting hatred of soldiers and their families. You are attacking them personally.

I really can't see how me standing at a funeral shouting god hates fags and soldiers deserve to die is any different than me standing on a street corner shouting racist slurs. They are targetting specific groups of people.

There should be an -ism for this sort of thing!

 

[D H]

Do the permits cover protest? Or do they also cover protest conduct?

The group issued the protest has to obey the law. No throwing rocks, no fighting words, no exceeding the limits of the permit.

As Vanadium 50 already mentioned, this (vile) group "complied with local ordinances and police directions."

If Phelps and his followers posted their garbage at PF, their posts would be deleted and they would be banned!

Of course they would -- and they would have no recourse. The first amendment does not apply to PF. The first amendment is a restriction on the government. The public sidewalks are the domain of the government.

His 'speech' is hateful, and it has no redeeming social value.

Of course it is hateful. And vile. And superficial (this group is after publicity only). That isn't what the Supreme Court is debating.

 

[JaredJames]

no freedom of speech in a warzone? really?

Go preach about Christianity out in Afghanistan streets (without military escort) and see how long you survive.

Oh, would you believe it:
http://www.alertnet.org/db/an_art/55867/2010/04/31-125504-1.htm

allegations they were preaching Christianity in the Islamic nation where religious conversion is a criminal offence.

no freedom of religion on a warzone? then i suppose that many of the US soldiers in the Middle East are committing crimes by believing in a God that cares for them.

So far as within the army camps, they operate under the rules of the countries they are run by, I'm talking about in the streets of places like Iraq and Afghanistan. Again, as above.

as for soldiers...

How do you propose we pay an army then? How would you defend your country if we didn't have it?

On this basis, applied to the UK, all Army, Air Force, Navy, Medical Staff, Police, Politicians and public sector workers are all "welfare queens"? (Aside from medical, you can apply the above to the states too).
A BS argument if I've ever seen one.

That poster is attacking the very people in place to defend the rights you hide behind. How respectful of you.

 

[russ_watters]

Recall that Bush had free-speech zones penned off at a distance, at his rallies. Even a woman wearing an Obama shirt was ejected from a rally.

Yes, the concept of a "free speech zone" being used to protect one group from the harrassing speech of another is well established. So everyone is clear on just how well established it is, the concept did not originate with Bush as implied here - it has been an established concept for at least two decades, with the earliest mention being during the 1988 DNC. And the legality of the concept was first upheld by the courts following a 1999 WTO conferece.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone#History

 

[D H]

So how is picketing a funeral? You are standing (within some distance) and promoting hatred of soldiers and their families.

How far away do they have to stand to make it legal? A hundred yards? A mile? Nowhere?

I will admit I am very biased in this regard. I am a big fan of the 1st amendment, and I am not a fan of "hate crimes".

 

[JaredJames]

I will admit I am very biased in this regard. I am a big fan of the 1st amendment, and I am not a fan of "hate crimes".

I'm all for freedom of speech, but I draw the line when it comes to preaching hatred and having no respect for your fellow man.

EDIT (missed a bit): There isn't a distance in my mind that makes it right. Do it in the privacy of your own home where it has no effect on anyone else.

 

[Dr Transport]

As vile and disgusting as this protest has become. Let me say a few words. I am a veteran of this conflict, I spent a year deployed in support of Operation Enduring Freedom and put my life on the line and wasn't sure I was coming home in anything but a box on more than one occasion during that year.

Now, I find it appalling that this church is hiding behind the 1st Amendment in spewing this utter trash. Now it has been said in this very thread that standing on a street corner and yelling racial insults is wrong, and am sure that I'd be arrested for it. I am sure that I'd never get a permit to picket a funeral for someone if all I intended on was trashing the color of their skin or religion.

Trashing this Marines funeral and the memory of him is wrong, just plain wrong since he had none of the traits that were being protested against. But, here's the but, (and there is always a but), even as a right-leaning individual I will say that since there were no laws broken, it may be an open and shut case for the Court. I am not a lawyer, so I have no idea how they will respond to this. I am hoping that the Court rules in favor of the dead Marines family, but we'll just have to wait.

I would hope that if there is a higher being (I am not a disbeliever and I am not a Bible toter), they will get their revenge on these hateful individuals by denying them into whatever perfect afterlife there is and their 15 minutes of fame will be overshadowed by an eternity of what ever their punishment is.

 

[JaredJames]

since he had none of the traits that were being protested against.

Does this not come under slander / deformation of character then?

(A beautiful post by the way.)

 

[Hurkyl]

I'm all for freedom of speech, but I draw the line when it comes to preaching hatred and having no respect for your fellow man.

We should shut down speech criticizing politics too, then.

EDIT (missed a bit): There isn't a distance in my mind that makes it right. Do it in the privacy of your own home where it has no effect on anyone else.

So don't throw up "at the funeral" or "on the street corner" or "some distance" as red herrings. Just say "I think the government should ban this speech".

 

[JaredJames]

We should shut down speech criticizing politics too, then.

If it preaches hate and is disrespectful. There's no reason why you can't discuss things in a civilised manner without resorting to throwing attacks at each other.

So don't throw up "at the funeral" or "on the street corner" or "some distance" as red herrings. Just say "I think the government should ban this speech".

The only time I've used street corner is regarding racial slurs and that was to show a comparison between that and what these people do (which is picket on street corners). Simply trying to make the point that those two similar situations would be treated differently. I didn't bring up distance and hadn't commented regarding distance until then, I do think the government should treat both these situations identically.

 

[Vanadium 50]

As Vanadium 50 already mentioned, this (vile) group "complied with local ordinances and police directions."

Technically, I don't know if they complied or not. All I know is that the court found (or the parties stipulated) this to be the case.

I see people making comments about whether laws were broken. I would again encourage people to read the decision - it's clear that this a tort, which is not a case of breaking a law.

 

[BobG]

No one raised a conflict of interest about Supreme Court justices ruling in a case involving someone that protested the funeral of a close friend of theirs? They did the same thing at William Rehnquist's funeral.

Margie Phelps, Fred Phelps's daughter and lawyer for the Westboro Baptist Church is a hard to describe character. Here's an interview she did: http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2010/102010/10092010/569442 . In between the diatribes of hate and the imminent destruction of the United States she actually addresses a couple issues relevant to the case.

The fact is that we were over 1,000 feet away if you go as the crow flies, almost 1,500 driving distance. We were out of sight, out of sound, and we had left before the funeral started.

So what they are going to have to do is take hundreds of years of law about privacy, captive audiences, reasonable time/place/manner restrictions [and discard them] as a whole to rule against us. There is no way around that. They would have to uproot. They have never found a privacy interest that far away.

From the minute that soldier dies, every aspect of his life, death, burial, and funeral becomes public fodder. Politicians use those events to politic. The media use those events to tell sensational sappy stories. The military uses those events to hold patriotic pep rallies. The clergy use those events to mug for the cameras because they love to be greeted in the marketplace. The families use those events to have a big worshipfest--a public worshipfest of that dead body.

We watched that go on at these soldiers' funerals for two years before we started picketing at them. We realized that they have turned those funerals into an international public platform. Everybody uses that funeral to engage in expressive activity, and it is all one side of the dialog.

What's being said is, "He is a hero, and God Bless America." Yeah, yeah, yeah. Tell me about what a blessing it is to have your young son cut off in his prime lying there in a closed coffin in little tiny pieces. Have you people taken leave of your senses? So we joined that public debate.

 

[Hurkyl]

If it preaches hate and is disrespectful. There's no reason why you can't discuss things in a civilised manner without resorting to throwing attacks at each other.

Just to be clear -- are you merely opposing uncivilized speech, or are you advocating that it should be illegal?

 

[JaredJames]

Just to be clear -- are you merely opposing uncivilized speech, or are you advocating that it should be illegal?

I oppose uncivilised speech.

Like I said before, what you do in your own home is up to you, but going out and throwing these slurs (racist, against soldiers, sexist, ageist whatever you choose) should be at the very least put under some form of guidelines. How what is being preached effects those it is targeting should be taken into consideration. And I would apply that to any topic of discussion that isn't conducted in a civilised and respectful manner.

There's following the word of the law and then there's being decent and having respect for your fellow man. There are a lot of things you can do within the law but it doesn't mean they are always appropriate. There's a time and a place so to speak. If you really do feel the need to protest soldiers, and you are well within your rights to do so, then a funeral is not the time nor the place (1000ft isn't that far and they clearly targeted an area they knew a funeral would be at). Why not pick a 'neutral' area to do it? Heck my don't they do it outside a US Naval or Army base? (I'd love to see how long they managed to carry that one out for before action was taken - legal or otherwise).

 

[lisab]

I oppose uncivilised speech.

Like I said before, what you do in your own home is up to you, but going out and throwing these slurs (racist, against soldiers, sexist, ageist whatever you choose) should be at the very least put under some form of guidelines. How what is being preached effects those it is targeting should be taken into consideration. And I would apply that to any topic of discussion that isn't conducted in a civilised and respectful manner.

I think we can all agree such speech disagreeable. The question is, should it be illegal?

Free speech that is restricted to your own home...that's not free speech. In fact, I think they even have that in North Korea.

I think there's a cultural divide here...you mention this type of speech being "put under some form of guidelines". This mirrors your statements in another thread about a man's house burning; you thought it should be illegal to allow that to happen. There are plenty of people who, when learning of a lamentable situation, have the thought, "There ought to be a law...!" I recognize this as the response of a person who feels a good deal of empathy - not a bad thing, altogether.

But consider that in the American culture, we aren't so fast to pass laws like that, historically. Having more freedom from laws means idiots will be free to be idiots. That might mean a man can lose his house in a fire because he "forgot" to pay the fee. Or it might mean the rest of us have put up with their disgusting opinions. Freedom isn't all butterflies and unicorns.

I don't mean to derail this thread by referencing another thread - I just noticed a parallel.

 

[D H]

1000ft isn't that far and they clearly targeted an area they knew a funeral would be at

So what is the official limit then? Is a mile too close? How about ten? The next continent?

Who decides what constitutes protesting in a "civilised and respectful manner"? You? Somebody thinks just the opposite of you?

I see from your profile that you are from London. Britain does not feel quite the same about freedom of speech that we do in the US. Witness your laws regarding libel, which only recently came to be questioned with the Simon Singh case. The suit against Simon Singh would never have seen the light of day in the US.

 

[BobG]

If you really do feel the need to protest soldiers, and you are well within your rights to do so, then a funeral is not the time nor the place (1000ft isn't that far and they clearly targeted an area they knew a funeral would be at). Why not pick a 'neutral' area to do it?

No one at the funeral saw or heard the protestors personally. They saw news accounts on TV and on the internet later on.

Their protest would have had to have been banned from any public place at all for the Snyders to not have seen it.

As much as I think the Phelps clan is a despicable gaggle of freaks, I don't quite see why the Supreme Court decided to take this case.

At least in the Shirvell-Armstrong case, Shirvell was focusing his rants on a single person. The Phelps clan pulls this at funerals for many servicemen and at the funerals of various public officials (Rehnquist being one). They don't focus their efforts on any single individual.

 

[JaredJames]

I think there's a cultural divide here...you mention this type of speech being "put under some form of guidelines". This mirrors your statements in another thread about a man's house burning; you thought it should be illegal to allow that to happen. There are plenty of people who, when learning of a lamentable situation, have the thought, "There ought to be a law...!" I recognize this as the response of a person who feels a good deal of empathy - not a bad thing, altogether.

But consider that in the American culture, we aren't so fast to pass laws like that, historically. Having more freedom from laws means idiots will be free to be idiots. That might mean a man can lose his house in a fire because he "forgot" to pay the fee. Or it might mean the rest of us have put up with their disgusting opinions. Freedom isn't all butterflies and unicorns.

There certainly is a parallel. My views are fairly consistent. I consider myself a very caring person and yes, I do empathise with a lot of issues people face.

I personally feel that situations such as this law suit, and the fire issue from the other thread could be avoided so simply. I'm saying guidelines because you could avoid this sort of situation occurring by regulating these controversial events to some degree.

I agree with freedom of speech to some degree (as I stated before). Now if these people want to protest, that is their right. However, in a situation like this where they have clearly targeted the funeral they are using freedom of speech to hide behind in order to show their hatred and intolerance not simply of other peoples beliefs, but directly aimed at specific people (Mr and Mrs Snyder - the article says the church posted a poem against the family on their site as well so it didn't stop at the picket line). I don't see what the problem is here with the government being able to say "you know what guys, do it another day". That way you aren't hindering the freedom of speech, they still get the chance to make a statement. The difference is you are granting the family the right to mourn their son without facing such an altercation as the one that has appeared now.

It all comes down to common decency and showing some respect.

So what is the official limit then? Is a mile too close? How about ten? The next continent?

Who decides what constitutes protesting in a "civilised and respectful manner"? You? Somebody thinks just the opposite of you?

Again, as above regarding the limit issue. It isn't so much a distance thing, but more a circumstances issue. Instead of allowing them to clearly target a family / group, just get them to protest on a different day. I think that allowing them to target the family in question in such a way is wrong.

With regards to respectful, that comes down to the circumstances. To judge it you would simply have to look at what / why a group is protesting and see if it has the potential to cause an issue. In this case they were after a particular event and so it's easy to see what sort of problems it could cause. If there wasn't a clear issue (no events on that day) that could cause problems, then by all means let the picket occur.

I hope that explains what I mean by respectful, civilised may be slightly more difficult to explain from my viewpoint and I'll try to work out the best way to explain it.