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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Evo
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Pain
Click For Summary
The Supreme Court is deliberating a case involving a father's emotional distress after fundamentalist church members protested at his son's funeral, raising questions about the limits of free speech under the First Amendment. Justices expressed sympathy for the father's plight but are concerned about the constitutional implications of restricting free speech, even in sensitive contexts like funerals. The discussion highlights the tension between protecting individual rights and addressing perceived harassment, with some arguing that the protests constitute harassment rather than legitimate expression. The case underscores the complexity of balancing emotional pain against free speech rights, particularly when the speech is deemed hateful or insensitive. Ultimately, the court's decision could set a significant precedent regarding the boundaries of free speech in relation to personal grief.
  • #91
Gokul43201 said:
How? What harm was caused (or was capable of being caused) in this case?

Imagine your child is killed in combat, you're at their funeral, you see / hear that someone is protesting nearby calling your son a "fag" and saying they deserve to die.

Now, is your reaction:

a) "Ah, that's OK, they have the right permit."
or
b) Anger and/or emotional distress.

Unless you can answer a for the above, you have been harmed by this protest, it has effected you. Whether directly, by witnessing it or indirectly by seeing it on the news.

The argument of "they didn't see the protest" doesn't hold. It was on the news. This argument is the equivelant of saying "you only watched the twin towers fall on tv, you couldn't have a reaction to it".
The fact pretty much everyone in this thread has said they find the actions vile and despicable, clearly shows we have all had a reaction (I'd say emotional) in some way or another. We have all been affected and to say this family can't be harmed by indirectly hearing of the protests just doesn't work. Out of everyone hearing of this protest, given its location and timing, they are the most likely to be emotionally harmed by it.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #92
jarednjames said:
Imagine your child is killed in combat, you're at their funeral, you see / hear that someone is protesting nearby calling your son a "fag" and saying they deserve to die.

Now, is your reaction:

a) "Ah, that's OK, they have the right permit."
or
b) Anger and/or emotional distress.

Unless you can answer a for the above, you have been harmed by this protest, it has effected you. Whether directly, by witnessing it or indirectly by seeing it on the news.
If you are going to ban any protest that evokes "anger and/or emotional distress" as a response (which is in large part the point of a protest - you don't carry out a protest to make people feel good about the state of things), then you might as well ban all protest and stop calling yourself a modern democracy.

You don't think anti-war protests (to pick a common example) cause anger and/or emotional distress?
 
  • #93
As far as I'm concerned they are constitutionally protected because they aren't causing "physical" harm to anyone. The KKK has every right to put on marches and all that, although they are a hateful group, as long as they don't cause any harm.
As terrible as it is, it's better off they are allowed to do what they do for the sake of all our first amendment rights, because once they start limiting that right, watch it go away REALLY fast.
 
  • #94
What I find more troubling than the protest itself is the seeming determination of the USSC to abandon all objectivity and try their darndest to find in favor of one particular side (as summarized in the quote below, from the link in the OP):
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito and Antonin Scalia appeared, to varying degrees, to be searching for a way to rule for Snyder.
You don't search for a way to rationalize a predetermined judgment; you make a judgment based on an unbiased search.
 
  • #95
MathConfusion said:
As far as I'm concerned they are constitutionally protected because they aren't causing "physical" harm to anyone.
Best as I can tell, the only form of harm that is covered by the 'fighting words' limitation is physical injury. Anger and/or emotional distress doesn't make the cut.
 
  • #96
Gokul43201 said:
If you are going to ban any protest that evokes "anger and/or emotional distress" as a response (which is in large part the point of a protest - you don't carry out a protest to make people feel good about the state of things), then you might as well ban all protest and stop calling yourself a modern democracy.

You don't think anti-war protests (to pick a common example) cause anger and/or emotional distress?
jarednjames said:
That aside, this is exactly what I've been trying to say. I don't want to stop them protesting, but simply have a system which stops them doing it in an inconsiderate way (around funerals etc).

Yes, people could still be affected, but it isn't directly targetted at an event, especially such an already emotionally charged one.

I'm fed up of saying this and having people pick and choose segments of my posts, I'm not talking about all protests, I'm talking about ones targeted at people, such as in this case were the funeral is the target.

The example I gave was to demonstrate how harm can be caused by protests, especially ones such as these. The above section I have quoted (plus all previous posts) shows what I feel regarding specific types of protest (aka, open aimed at no persons in particular or targeting specific people).

Regarding harm also, emotional (mental) harm can be just as bad as physical abuse. To differentiate doesn't really work. Emotional or physical bullying aren't separate and can have exactly the same results so far as the victim goes.
 
  • #97
jarednjames said:
I'm fed up of saying this and having people pick and choose segments of my posts, I'm not talking about all protests, I'm talking about ones targeted at people, such as in this case were the funeral is the target.
I'm definitely not choosing segments of your posts that I find convenient to respond to.

The example I gave was to demonstrate how harm can be caused by protests, especially ones such as these.
To what end? I have shown how similar harm can be caused by any number of protests that even you, perhaps, might find acceptable. Therefore how do you use the "harm argument" to ban some of these protests but not others?

The above section I have quoted (plus all previous posts) shows what I feel regarding specific types of protest (aka, open aimed at no persons in particular or targeting specific people).
What kind of protests are aimed at "no persons in particular"? If at all anyone can make a claim about not targeting a specific person, that would be the Westboro Baptist Church. Their protest is essentially saying that US soldiers are dying because Americans are sinners - it is blaming virtually the entire population of the US. They are about as universal as one can get with protesting, not only in terms of the target audience (the US public), but also in terms of the venues - they've protested at funerals for 9/11 victims, victims of the Sago mine disaster, victims of anti-gay violence, church icons (Jerry Falwell), civil rights icons (Coretta Scott King), TV icons, military persons, ... and they blame all of these deaths on the sinfulness of Americans. You can not make the case that they are singling out a specific person for their protest (even if that were a valid objection).
 
Last edited:
  • #98
How come states can vote to have no gay marriage but it's a big problem to say we don't want people protesting funerals or about our dead soldiers or increase the buffer zone around funerals etc. etc.?
 
  • #99
MathConfusion said:
As far as I'm concerned they are constitutionally protected because they aren't causing "physical" harm to anyone. The KKK has every right to put on marches and all that, although they are a hateful group, as long as they don't cause any harm.
As terrible as it is, it's better off they are allowed to do what they do for the sake of all our first amendment rights, because once they start limiting that right, watch it go away REALLY fast.

Bleh.. . Let's not do the American favorite passtime and cling to slippery slopes.
 
  • #100
zomgwtf said:
How come states can vote to have no gay marriage but it's a big problem to say we don't want people protesting funerals or about our dead soldiers or increase the buffer zone around funerals etc. etc.?

For the same reason apples aren't oranges. Can you elaborate on this point?
 
  • #101
Office_Shredder said:
For the same reason apples aren't oranges. Can you elaborate on this point?

Give me a reason to ban gay marriage aside from "because it's wrong".

It doesn't hurt anyone, it certainly doesn't make any difference to anyone. So why ban it? Because people don't like it.
 
  • #102
jarednjames said:
Give me a reason to ban gay marriage aside from "because it's wrong".

It doesn't hurt anyone, it certainly doesn't make any difference to anyone. So why ban it? Because people don't like it.
Does this mean you have no objection to gay marriage bans?
 
  • #103
Gokul43201 said:
Does this mean you have no objection to gay marriage bans?

I do have an objection, I don't see what's wrong with gay marriage.

I can't speak for gay people, but by banning it, to me you are discriminating against them and telling them they aren't, on legal grounds, the same as straight people. Now that passes your 'is it consitutional' tests with a big yes, but banning what these people do does not and as such, remains protected.
 
Last edited:
  • #104
jarednjames said:
I do have an objection, I don't see what's wrong with gay marriage.
But you don't think it could cause anger and/or emotional distress for some people?

Now that passes your 'is it consitutional' tests with a big yes, but banning what these people do does not and as such, remains protected.
A "big yes". Ummm ... please cite the caselaw supporting that assertion. I'm not aware of it. Far as I know, it has at best a mixed reaction from the courts.

PS: Also, if this is to be pursued at any length, a new thread would be wise. In fact, in lieu of recent developments with California's Prop 8, the definition clause of marriage ("between one man and one woman") in DOMA and Don't Ask Don't Tell, all being found unconstitutional, a thread on any/all these issues would be worth having.
 
Last edited:
  • #105
jarednjames said:
Imagine your child is killed in combat, you're at their funeral, you see / hear that someone is protesting nearby calling your son a "fag" and saying they deserve to die.
...
The argument of "they didn't see the protest" doesn't hold. It was on the news. This argument is the equivelant of saying "you only watched the twin towers fall on tv, you couldn't have a reaction to it".
If it were true that counter-argument didn't hold water, then you shouldn't need to resort to significantly changing the scenario to support your own argument.
 
  • #106
Hurkyl said:
If it were true that counter-argument didn't hold water, then you shouldn't need to resort to significantly changing the scenario to support your own argument.
Shouldn't have to, with the right audience. But testing the strength of someone's argument by exploring its logical ends is a technique that, IMO, works well in many situations.
 
  • #107
How dig i significantly change the scenario.
They protested exactly as i described, the snyders heard about it from the news. They were affected by it.
 
  • #108
Gokul43201 said:
Shouldn't have to, with the right audience. But testing the strength of someone's argument by exploring its logical ends is a technique that, IMO, works well in many situations.
Maybe I've missed context, but it feels to be in the wrong direction. Exaggerating the harm done would be interesting to explore just how far one can push an argument that some harm must be permitted -- but it's not very useful for one trying to argue that the actual amount of harm done is too much.
 
  • #109
jarednjames said:
They protested exactly as i described, the snyders heard about it from the news.
These two statements contradict each other, given that you described someone who overheard a protest as it was happening during the funeral.
 
  • #110
Ah, I see the problem, when I wrote 'heard' I didnt mean directly overheard. I meant it 'found out somehow', perhaps people only say that in the Uk.

Example:
"Did you know Bob was arrested?"
"Yeah, I heard about it down the pub the other night."

As you can see, not directly, 'heard at the scene'. This is the way I was referring to it, not as in directly overheard.
 
Last edited:
  • #111
  • #112
Gokul43201 said:
What I find more troubling than the protest itself is the seeming determination of the USSC to abandon all objectivity and try their darndest to find in favor of one particular side (as summarized in the quote below, from the link in the OP):
You don't search for a way to rationalize a predetermined judgment; you make a judgment based on an unbiased search.

it is troubling, especially when you consider the soldiers are not just private citizens, they ARE the government. what i really hate most of all about this is the sanctification of military as somehow sacred and above criticism. these guys weren't even drafted, they volunteered.
 
  • #113
The problem with the Westboro group is that they are running a pretty good scam.

Calling them a church is a stretch. It is a family of lawyers that came up with a perfect money scam, and it actually did work for a little.

They just don't show up to these things, they actually file for a permit to protest. And they actually want to be turned down, so they can sue.

And they did and won a few good settlements. Until eventually the Patriot riders got involved and started to cause riots.

But as a legal strategy they nailed it. They use church status and the gay angle so it falls under religion and not simply as free speech. On Free Speech they would not have a legal leg, but as a religious speech it becomes a little tougher and is protected a little better.

But it is a scam that got way out of hand.
 
  • #114
Gokul43201 said:
Shouldn't have to, with the right audience. But testing the strength of someone's argument by exploring its logical ends is a technique that, IMO, works well in many situations.

In a purely logical world, it shouldn't have to. In a world that's a combination of the rational and the irrational (with both being important to the quality of life), exploring how a line of logic works in various situations is a valid technique.

Except I see a different focal point in this situation. In a sense, the Westboro case is similar to Ground Zero Mosque. The emotion of the case tends to focus on the pain of a "victim" - a pain that wasn't caused by the "villain" in the scenario, but the "villain's" insensitivity amplified the "victim's" pain.

Similar, but not identical. It's easier to understand a family's pain at their son's funeral than it is to understand the pain of a city 9 years later.

I think the issue comes down to one question: Can pain suffered by a person or group of persons justify quashing others rights out of respect for the persons' suffering, how many and what type restrictions can you put on others' rights, and how long is it appropriate to do so?

Personally, I think the restrictions on where the Westboro Church can protest are adequate. They were not able to disrupt the funeral itself in any way. The only way the Snyder family had of even knowing the protest took place was the news media and the internet.
 
  • #115
I read through this whole thread, because I did not want to make the same argument as someone else, but I don't think I saw it. So here goes.

Some background to ground my response - personally I think the church's tactics and execution are horrible, cruel and despicable. I good thrashing would do them some good.

A favorite quote of mine is "If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all" (~Chomsky I believe). So, I hope that the court sides with freedom of speech in this instance.

But my main point, is the irony- namely, that this young man died "defending the constitution"** and his family is attempting to abridge these rights. They seem to be playing the new American defacto stance of victim. The protest was not even during the funeral proper. As has been pointed out above, the family did not even know about the protest until after the fact. This whole situation is interesting from a law point of view. One the consequences of freedom is all the idiocy that the idiots get to do with that freedom.

**I put this in quotes, because I do not believe it, but many people try to frame any war in this regard.
 
  • #116
The father's lawsuit
This is a suit for defamation, invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of
emotional distress.

http://blogs.kansascity.com/files/findlaw.pdf

I think the suit should be read to understand what the reasons were before they became distorted. The *church* personally attacked the parents on their hate website. Based on the suit, the damages were for emotional distress caused by the Westboro Church and where they were standing and when they were there aren't the issue. Just read it. IMO, these (Westboro) people are using the First Amendment as a smoke screen, it's digusting.

These people take the cake.

17. Defendant Westboro Baptist Church, Inc. operates, maintains, and owns several
websites:

(1) www.thesignsofthetimes.net;[/URL]
(2) [PLAIN]www.smellthebrimstone.com;[/URL]
(3) [PLAIN]www.godhatesamerica.com;[/URL]
(4) [PLAIN]www.priestsrapeboys.com;[/URL]
(5) [PLAIN]www.godhatessweden.com;[/URL]
(6) [PLAIN]www.godhatescanada.com;[/URL] and lastly,
(7) [url]www.godhatesfags.com[/url].
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #117
Evo said:
The father's lawsuit

http://blogs.kansascity.com/files/findlaw.pdf

I think the suit should be read to understand what the reasons were before they became distorted. Based on the suit, the damages were for emotional distress caused by the Westboro Church and where they were standing and when they were there aren't the issue. Just read it. IMO, these (Westboro) people are using the First Amendment as a smoke screen, it's digusting, IMO.

These people take the cake.

17. Defendant Westboro Baptist Church, Inc. operates, maintains, and owns several
websites:

I completely agree with you there. The websites say it all (I've looked through them all).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #118
Evo said:
The father's lawsuit

http://blogs.kansascity.com/files/findlaw.pdf

I think the suit should be read to understand what the reasons were before they became distorted. The *church* personally attacked the parents on their hate website. Based on the suit, the damages were for emotional distress caused by the Westboro Church and where they were standing and when they were there aren't the issue. Just read it. IMO, these (Westboro) people are using the First Amendment as a smoke screen, it's digusting.

These people take the cake.

17. Defendant Westboro Baptist Church, Inc. operates, maintains, and owns several
websites:

(1) www.thesignsofthetimes.net
(2) www.smellthebrimstone.com[/URL]
(3) [PLAIN]www.godhatesamerica.com[/URL]
(4) [PLAIN]www.priestsrapeboys.com[/URL]
(5) [PLAIN]www.godhatessweden.com[/URL]
(6) [PLAIN]www.godhatescanada.com[/URL] and lastly,
(7) [url]www.godhatesfags.com[/url][/QUOTE]

Thanks Evo. I was under the false assumption that it was only the protest under consideration for the suit. I think defamation and intentional infliction of emotional
distress are appropriate here. It also seems reasonable to consider whether their tax status as a church should remain intact given their hate mongering. There must be some provisions concerning any groups tax-exempt status and illegal activity.

On a side note, I really liked reading over how the court was pushing the logical boundaries of the arguments and how they were trying to look at the question from all sides. Very interesting.

Also, Evo, you might want to take the semicolons out of the URL tags.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #119
Norman said:
On a side note, I really liked reading over how the court was pushing the logical boundaries of the arguments and how they were trying to look at the question from all sides. Very interesting.
Unfortunately, since the WBC has twisted everything to sound like a Free Speech issue, it's clouded the original intent of the parent's lawsuit.

Also, Evo, you might want to take the semicolons out of the URL tags.
I just copied and pasted from the lawsuit, this would be the current list.

http://www.godhatesamerica.com/

Sister Sites

GodHatesFags.com
The main website of the most controversial church in the world – Westboro Baptist Church!

SignMovies.com
Brief, fascinating videos that offer Bible-based expositions of the message of WBC.

JewsKilledJesus.com
What the Bible teaches about the final fate of the nation of Israel for murdering the Messiah.

BeastObama.com
A scriptural look at the rising beast and how he is going to usher in the destruction of the world.

PriestsRapeBoys.com
The Catholic Church: the largest, most well-funded and organized pedophile machine in history.

blogs.SpareNot.com
Chronicles the worldwide street preaching ministry of Westboro Baptist Church!

AmericaIsDoomed.com
Builds the airtight case that america is not only cursed of God, but that this curse is irreversible.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #120
will the court have to also decide on the issues of whether there is a Creator, Devil, good, and evil? if internet postings are the real issue here, then it all seems relevant based on the text in the pdf above.
 

Similar threads

News Father of US Marine killed in Iraq ordered to pay.
  • · Replies 91 ·
4
Replies
91
Views
11K
News 1st Amendment protects military funeral protesters
  • · Replies 45 ·
2
Replies
45
Views
8K
News A Scary Look at Past Work Experience of a US President
  • · Replies 43 ·
2
Replies
43
Views
6K