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

[Hurkyl]

I think this is relevant to the legality of it.

Argh, then why didn't you say so when I specifically asked? e.g. I specifically wanted to know if you wanted to outlaw "uncivilized" speech.

These people are hiding behind freedom of speech to preach hatred.

As an aside, would you be equally opposed to similar speech directed at murderers? Rapists? Racists? Bigots?

 

[DR13]

As an aside, would you be equally opposed to similar speech directed at murderers? Rapists? Racists? Bigots?

These people deserve it. They chose broke the laws of society and must pay the price.

 

[Hurkyl]

These people deserve it. They chose broke the laws of society and must pay the price.

Got it. We can do all the hateful things we want to people we think are outside of the norm, but we should oppose all hateful things done to people we think inside of the norm.

 

[DR13]

Got it. We can do all the hateful things we want to people we think are outside of the norm, but we should oppose all hateful things done to people we think inside of the norm.

No, not all of the hateful things we want. We should never resort to violence or threats against their well being but it is reasonable to speak out against them. And I think that you are misusing the word "norm". I am not saying that anyone considered odd or abnormal should be spoken out against. Rather, I am saying that I do not have a problem when those in our society who commit egregious acts get what they deserve (within reason).

 

[JaredJames]

Argh, then why didn't you say so when I specifically asked? e.g. I specifically wanted to know if you wanted to outlaw "uncivilized" speech.

OK, there's a bit more to my view than that, but for the purposes of now, I'll say it should be banned.

As an aside, would you be equally opposed to similar speech directed at murderers? Rapists? Racists? Bigots?

Yes, these people have committed a crime, they are to be punished by the state / country / whoever is supposed to deal with it. Not the general public (although socially that is generally what ends up happening.)

We are all entitled to an opinion, and to voice that opinion. However, preaching hatred at these people isn't the way to do it.

They have committed a crime or have shown views that extremist and so any hatred thrown at them doesn't get considered the same way because of what they have done. There is a definite difference between shouting at a murderer and a soldier. In this case, did the soldier deserve it? Did his family do something to deserve the abuse directed towards them?

 

[Hurkyl]

it is reasonable to speak out against them.

I think it's always unreasonable to preach hatred, even if its directed against Adolf Hitler.

And don't forget that jarednjames isn't just speaking out -- he wants their (the Westboro Church) acts to be illegal.

I am not saying that anyone considered odd or abnormal should be spoken out against

The point of using the word "norm" is that what is considered an egregious act varies over time and from person to person.

 

[JaredJames]

it is reasonable to speak out against them.

I agree, it is reasonable to speak out against them. But there is a way to do that and preaching hatred and supporting violence towards them is not the way to go about it.

I do not have a problem when those in our society who commit egregious acts get what they deserve (within reason).

They get what they deserve based on the law. It is not down to general public.

 

[Hurkyl]

Yes, these people have committed a crime,

Bigotry is a crime?

 

[JaredJames]

And don't forget that jarednjames isn't just speaking out -- he wants their (the Westboro Church) acts to be illegal.

For the record, I have never said make it illegal in any post (other than the last). I said to regulate it to a degree.

If the government are going to issue permits to allow this preaching, they should consider what impact it could have. In this case, the funeral was the target. I don't want to stop them preaching it, but more to request they do it on a different day so it doesn't conflict with said event.
I still disagree with what they preach, but at least then it's somewhat less targeted and can be considered 'general preaching'

Now, the only reason I have turned around and said ban it in the last post is because you seem fixated on having legal or illegal. My view (based on the requirement to maintain freedom of speech) is to leave people preach, but to put some basic guidelines (as explained in previous posts).

 

[DR13]

I think it's always unreasonable to preach hatred, even if its directed against Adolf Hitler.

And don't forget that jarednjames isn't just speaking out -- he wants their (the Westboro Church) acts to be illegal.


The point of using the word "norm" is that what is considered an egregious act varies over time and from person to person.

Ah, it seems we have a misunderstanding. I do not mean that there should be *hate* speech against people who break the laws of society. However, I do see a point in peaceful protests. And as far as the Westboro Church goes: I would hope that the Supreme Court puts a stop to it but does not necessarily make it illegal. That would be going to far. As I said before, it makes sense to handle these things on a case-by-case basis since every situation is so unique.

 

[DR13]

If the government are going to issue permits to allow this preaching, they should consider what impact it could have. In this case, the funeral was the target. I don't want to stop them preaching it, but more to request they do it on a different day so it doesn't conflict with said event.
I still disagree with what they preach, but at least then it's somewhat less targeted and can be considered 'general preaching'

My thoughts exactly

 

[JaredJames]

Bigotry is a crime?

Sorry, only read the first few. In which case, ignore the first line for the last few and just apply the rest.

 

[DR13]

Bigotry is a crime?

Not against the explicit laws, but it definitely breaks the social contract.

 

[lisab]

Not against the explicit laws, but it definitely breaks the social contract.

We don't fine or arrest people for breaking "the social contract".

 

[G037H3]

OK, there's a bit more to my view than that, but for the purposes of now, I'll say it should be banned.


Yes, these people have committed a crime, they are to be punished by the state / country / whoever is supposed to deal with it. Not the general public (although socially that is generally what ends up happening.)

racists aren't criminals

unless they commit an actual crime

hating another person or group isn't a crime in itself

 

[DR13]

We don't fine or arrest people for breaking "the social contract".

I didn't say that we should fine/arrest these people, that would be insane. But I am saying that I understand why people would want to protest and speak out against these people (not hate speech though).

 

[JaredJames]

racists aren't criminals

unless they commit an actual crime

hating another person or group isn't a crime in itself

I already answered this in a previous post. I didn't read the full list, just assumed it was a list of criminals.

I apologised and I attempted to indicate a correction.

Your post is unnecessary.

 

[JaredJames]

We don't fine or arrest people for breaking "the social contract".

No, we don't. But we can use some principles of common decency and respect to at least help prevent potential conflicts from occurring.

I'm not going through it for a fourth time, but I've made my point regarding guidelines being used for issuing permits for protests a number of times now.

If protest A could potentially conflict with event B, request that protest A be made on another day.

I will give some credit in this case, they were gone before the funeral. But still, being on the same day at the same location (and they admit to targeting the funeral) is enough for me to want these guidelines in place so that time and money isn't wasted due to these issues which could be avoided.

 

[D H]

"Them's fightin' words" was used earlier. I don't see why this isn't considered just that.

Because it's not, at least per the current meaning of that doctrine. The Supreme Court first articulated the fighting words doctrine in 1942 in rather broad terms but have been narrowing down what that concept means ever since. In essence, "fighting words" must risk an immediate breach of the peace. Snyder was not motivated to commit violence (an irrational an illegal act). He was instead motivated to file a lawsuit (a rational and legal act).

That said, some of the questions during the hearing certainly did indicate that the Court is questioning whether this is unprotected speech based on the fighting words doctrine. I will be interested to see where the Supreme Court draws the line should it side with the Synders in this case. BTW, don't expect a decision any time soon. We'll have to wait until next spring or summer. The Supreme Court always takes its sweet time, particularly on issues like this one.

 

[JaredJames]

Well they say they want soldiers to die (and others, but we'll stick to the subject here). That in it's broadest sense is showing support for people killing them and wanting them to do it. It's promoting violence towards the troops. "fightin' words" if I've ever heard them.

 

[D H]

If protest A could potentially conflict with event B, request that protest A be made on another day.

This vile church more or less did just that. Not another day, but another hour. They were out of there when the service started. That's one strange thing about this church: as irrational as their proclamations are, they are very rational when it comes to planning their activities. They call the local officials ahead of time, get the necessary permits, and obey the constraints laid upon them.

They also are very sure to inform the media, national and local, print and TV, and every other form. They relish in the undue attention given them. That undue attention is the sole reason they do this vile nonsense. They gave up protesting against NASA and at 9/11 attack sites when the media stopped showing up. The media is as much as fault here as is this group. Vile groups like this will always exist. The media feeds groups like this, both in terms of the lavish attention these groups need and in terms of contributions mailed by various useful idiots who happened to see such groups on TV.

 

[Proton Soup]

This vile church more or less did just that. Not another day, but another hour. They were out of there when the service started. That's one strange thing about this church: as irrational as their proclamations are, they are very rational when it comes to planning their activities. They call the local officials ahead of time, get the necessary permits, and obey the constraints laid upon them.

They also are very sure to inform the media, national and local, print and TV, and every other form. They relish in the undue attention given them. That undue attention is the sole reason they do this vile nonsense. They gave up protesting against NASA and at 9/11 attack sites when the media stopped showing up. The media is as much as fault here as is this group. Vile groups like this will always exist. The media feeds groups like this, both in terms of the lavish attention these groups need and in terms of contributions mailed by various useful idiots who happened to see such groups on TV.

and that seems to also be part of their point. that the media feeds, e.g., politicians that use the funerals for their own undue attention.

 

[Office_Shredder]

No, we don't. But we can use some principles of common decency and respect to at least help prevent potential conflicts from occurring.

I'm not going through it for a fourth time, but I've made my point regarding guidelines being used for issuing permits for protests a number of times now.

If protest A could potentially conflict with event B, request that protest A be made on another day.

I will give some credit in this case, they were gone before the funeral. But still, being on the same day at the same location (and they admit to targeting the funeral) is enough for me to want these guidelines in place so that time and money isn't wasted due to these issues which could be avoided.

You've said you want there to be guidelines, but you haven't really laid out what they would be. You can't just request they hold their protest at another time because it's obvious they'll just say no. You also can't take into account the content of their speech when you decide whether or not to issue a permit; so you need rules in place that would prevent this sort of thing from occurring without actually mentioning the specific conflict between events that is taking place.

A rule like you can't have a rally if there's a funeral in town is unlikely to pass Constitutional muster. What specific wording would you suggest that would not open up the town to millions of dollars in liability when they're sued for infringing on first amendment rights?

 

[Gokul43201]

Well they say they want soldiers to die (and others, but we'll stick to the subject here). That in it's broadest sense is showing support for people killing them and wanting them to do it. It's promoting violence towards the troops. "fightin' words" if I've ever heard them.

Your everyday definitions are not useful. There is a very specific definition of 'fighting words' as it applies within first amendment cases. D H took the effort to provide this definition - it doesn't help at all that you completely ignore the legal definition and choose to go with your own version.

And by your definition "Support the troops" should also count as fighting words, as it shows support for some people killing others.

 

[BoomBoom]

I really think there should be a Gay Pride Parade held every Sunday up and down the street in front of this church! ...and by all means, it should be as lewd as the law will allow!

 

[mugaliens]

None of the freedoms granted in our Constitution or its amendments are absolutely. All have limits involving reasonability and rationality. For example, 2A guarantees the right to keep and bear arms. It doesn't not extend to trailering a howitzer along for a weekend camping trip. Similarly, 1A's restrictions including a prohibition against shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater when no such fire exists, as doing so unnecessarily harms (endangers) those who're attending the show.

Protesting a funeral is a gross violation of 1A rights as it causes harm to the friends and family who are in mourning.

It is, however, encroaching on a slippery slope...

In most locales, a permit must be obtained before staging a protest, and permits are often refused on grounds that a protest is likely to create a disturbance of the peace. This sounds like a great time for communities to simply enact and enforce the permitting process.

 

[Office_Shredder]

Protesting a funeral is a gross violation of 1A rights as it causes harm to the friends and family who are in mourning.

Where does it guarantee this in the first amendment? Just because an action isn't constitutionally protected doesn't mean that its opposite is

 

[Astronuc]

Westboro's funeral protest clearly troubles Supreme Court
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/10/06/101689/supreme-court-divided-about-protecting.html

US military funeral protest case opens in supreme court
http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2010/oct/07/us-military-funeral-protest-supreme-court

The high court agreed to consider whether the protesters' message is protected by the First Amendment or limited by the competing privacy and religious rights of the mourners.
. . . .
A funeral for the fallen Marine was held in March 2006 in Westminster, Md. Snyder, 20, died from a non-combat-related vehicle accident on March 3, 2006, while supporting Operation Iraqi Freedom.

According to a Web site created in Snyder's honor, his relatives filed the civil lawsuit against the Westboro Baptist Church to "bring an end to the reign of terror and abuse that they inflicted" upon grieving families of U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/03/30/marines-father-ordered-pay-protesters-court-fees/

I looked into Maryland's anti-harassment statute some time ago. I can't find all the information at the moment, but this is one article I found.

§123 of Article 27 of the Maryland Code makes it a misdemeanor to "follow another person in or about a public place or maliciously engage in a course of conduct that alarms or seriously annoys another person."

To be guilty, the defendant must have acted without an otherwise legal purpose and have engaged in the forbidden conduct "with intent to harass, alarm, or annoy" "after reasonable warning or request to desist," according to the statute. "This section does not apply to any peaceable activity intended to express political views or provide information to others."

Adapted from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4183/is_20010920/ai_n10048016/

Snyder's case is legally weak because it's not clear that folks of Westboro Baptist Church have violated any law. Phelps et al did their homework, obtained permits, and complied with restrictions as to where they protested, i.e., they did not approach the Snyder family or attendees of the funeral, and then they apparently left before the funeral started. It doesn't appear that they were asked to leave. Furthermore, they are making a political statement.

US military funeral protest case opens in supreme court
http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2010/oct/07/us-military-funeral-protest-supreme-court


I think the purpose of Snyder's case is that he wishes to stop Phelps et al from protesting at or near funerals of fallen servicepersons, but he is not seeking to prevent Phelps from protesting.

Perhaps the protests at specific funerals could be considered a form of harassment or torment. The issue then becomes, do the actions of Phelps et al meet the test with respect to harassment or torment. Does their action contribute to the emotional pain for already grieving folks?

 

[Gokul43201]

Protesting a funeral is a gross violation of 1A rights as it causes harm to the friends and family who are in mourning.

How? What harm was caused (or was capable of being caused) in this case?

It is, however, encroaching on a slippery slope...

In most locales, a permit must be obtained before staging a protest, and permits are often refused on grounds that a protest is likely to create a disturbance of the peace. This sounds like a great time for communities to simply enact and enforce the permitting process.

Permits for protest are exactly the manner in which this form of speech is regulated. As has been pointed out numerous times in this thread, Westboro Baptist obtained the necessary permits and conducted the protest in accordance with the all the imposed restrictions (i.e., maintaining some minimum distance from the location, dispersing the protest before the funeral started, etc.).

 

[JaredJames]

I think the purpose of Snyder's case is that he wishes to stop Phelps et al from protesting at or near funerals of fallen servicepersons, but he is not seeking to prevent Phelps from protesting.

I've given up arguing here, it is clear that viewpoints are different and I feel there is a responsibility of the government to restrict such vile actions and others believe they should be allowed to do it.

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.