What the SC/Westboro protest decision REALLY means

[Ravi]

Not if there's a law backing them off. It's NOT a "free speech" issue. It's a "public safety" issue. They are free to speak at designated times and places, just like any other political organization. Can the Tea party hold a major rally without the proper permits being in order? We don't need luck, just legislators willing to introduce the legislstion. One big aspect of this whole discussion that's getting missed is that the SC left things open for just such a law.

I don't see it as a public safety issue..they are not committing any violence and they are not committing any crimes. Any ordinance that would restrict their ability would also restrict everyone's ability.

Unless there is a compelling reason to suspend some group's rights then there should be no suspension of rights.

Being offensive to the majority is NOT a compelling reason.

Then what's the compelling reason for any politcal rally be it Dems, Reps, Nazis or Commies to be forced to apply for permits and follow local safety regulations? When it's put on that stance and construed narrowly and specifically, I don't see how 1st amendment would apply, if it didn't also apply to the aforementioned parties. Their freedom of speech isn't being violated, anymore than limting where and when someone may hold a generic political rally.

If you make one group apply for a permit then all must apply for a permit. Then you get in to turning down certain groups because they offend you...and again, that would be back to being unconstitutional.

 

[dilloduck]

I don't see it as a public safety issue..they are not committing any violence and they are not committing any crimes. Any ordinance that would restrict their ability would also restrict everyone's ability.

Unless there is a compelling reason to suspend some group's rights then there should be no suspension of rights.

Being offensive to the majority is NOT a compelling reason.

Then what's the compelling reason for any politcal rally be it Dems, Reps, Nazis or Commies to be forced to apply for permits and follow local safety regulations? When it's put on that stance and construed narrowly and specifically, I don't see how 1st amendment would apply, if it didn't also apply to the aforementioned parties. Their freedom of speech isn't being violated, anymore than limting where and when someone may hold a generic political rally.

If you make one group apply for a permit then all must apply for a permit. Then you get in to turning down certain groups because they offend you...and again, that would be back to being unconstitutional.

Simple----don't use "it offends me" as a reason to deny permits.

 

[konradv]

I don't see it as a public safety issue..they are not committing any violence and they are not committing any crimes. Any ordinance that would restrict their ability would also restrict everyone's ability.

Unless there is a compelling reason to suspend some group's rights then there should be no suspension of rights.

Being offensive to the majority is NOT a compelling reason.

Then what's the compelling reason for any politcal rally be it Dems, Reps, Nazis or Commies to be forced to apply for permits and follow local safety regulations? When it's put on that stance and construed narrowly and specifically, I don't see how 1st amendment would apply, if it didn't also apply to the aforementioned parties. Their freedom of speech isn't being violated, anymore than limting where and when someone may hold a generic political rally.

If you make one group apply for a permit then all must apply for a permit. Then you get in to turning down certain groups because they offend you...and again, that would be back to being unconstitutional.

That already happens. Try holding a rally downtown without the proper permits and police notification. It's not about turning away groups, but keeping them at a distance from what should be solemn, private events, like funerals.

 

[Care4all]

Then what's the compelling reason for any politcal rally be it Dems, Reps, Nazis or Commies to be forced to apply for permits and follow local safety regulations? When it's put on that stance and construed narrowly and specifically, I don't see how 1st amendment would apply, if it didn't also apply to the aforementioned parties. Their freedom of speech isn't being violated, anymore than limting where and when someone may hold a generic political rally.

If you make one group apply for a permit then all must apply for a permit. Then you get in to turning down certain groups because they offend you...and again, that would be back to being unconstitutional.

That already happens. Try holding a rally downtown without the proper permits and police notification. It's not about turning away groups, but keeping them at a distance from what should be solemn, private events, like funerals.

Are you saying the protesters were not kept at a Distance from the funeral of Mr Snyder's son?

THEY WERE kept at a distance from the funeral so pleaseeeeeeee, for the love of God, what is your complaint Kon?

 

[konradv]

I don't see it as a public safety issue..they are not committing any violence and they are not committing any crimes. Any ordinance that would restrict their ability would also restrict everyone's ability.

Unless there is a compelling reason to suspend some group's rights then there should be no suspension of rights.

Being offensive to the majority is NOT a compelling reason.

Then what's the compelling reason for any politcal rally be it Dems, Reps, Nazis or Commies to be forced to apply for permits and follow local safety regulations? When it's put on that stance and construed narrowly and specifically, I don't see how 1st amendment would apply, if it didn't also apply to the aforementioned parties. Their freedom of speech isn't being violated, anymore than limting where and when someone may hold a generic political rally.

Kon...

the local gvt DID LIMIT the location of the scummy protesters....they positioned them in a place where NO ONE at the funeral even knew they were there....no one at the funeral saw them or heard them.....

What more do you want the local authorities to do, that they did not do?

I know nothing of the sort and without a cite, your version is quite suspect. Where is all this suddenly coming from? Sounds fishy to me , because I'll wager I'm a lot closer to that community than you are and they were WELL AWARE that the protestors were there!!!

 

[Care4all]

Then what's the compelling reason for any politcal rally be it Dems, Reps, Nazis or Commies to be forced to apply for permits and follow local safety regulations? When it's put on that stance and construed narrowly and specifically, I don't see how 1st amendment would apply, if it didn't also apply to the aforementioned parties. Their freedom of speech isn't being violated, anymore than limting where and when someone may hold a generic political rally.

Kon...

the local gvt DID LIMIT the location of the scummy protesters....they positioned them in a place where NO ONE at the funeral even knew they were there....no one at the funeral saw them or heard them.....

What more do you want the local authorities to do, that they did not do?

I know nothing of the sort and without a cite, your version is quite suspect. Where is all this suddenly coming from? Sounds fishy to me , because I'll wager I'm a lot closer to that community than you are and they were WELL AWARE that the protestors were there!!!

It has been in the news dear from the very beginning....the entire snyder case is there for you to read....google it.

Mr Snyder DID NOT SEE ANYONE from the protest and DID NOT HEAR anyone at the protest....

He ONLY learned of what they said and did, on the News that evening.

THAT'S A FACT.....with this case.

Now there could be other cases of westboro where this is different....but we are discussing the supreme court decision on THIS CASE.

 

[Ravi]

Then what's the compelling reason for any politcal rally be it Dems, Reps, Nazis or Commies to be forced to apply for permits and follow local safety regulations? When it's put on that stance and construed narrowly and specifically, I don't see how 1st amendment would apply, if it didn't also apply to the aforementioned parties. Their freedom of speech isn't being violated, anymore than limting where and when someone may hold a generic political rally.

If you make one group apply for a permit then all must apply for a permit. Then you get in to turning down certain groups because they offend you...and again, that would be back to being unconstitutional.

Simple----don't use "it offends me" as a reason to deny permits.

A reason for rejection would eventually have to be given. If they dot all their eyes and cross all their teas there is no legitimate reason to refuse one group but not another.

 

[Sheldon]

What the decision REALLY means is that carefully crafted laws need to be written about what's permissible at a funeral to balance privacy and free speech rights. I heard that a big part of the decision involved the fact that there was no such law that the WBC had broken. Apparently, a law could be crafted that would pass Constitutional muster, like a buffer zone, for example. It's not like anyone's preventing the WBC from speaking, only where and when. It happens all the time and is permitted by the 1st Amendment in the "right of the people peaceably to assemble" clause, which has been interpreted to mean NOT that people may assemble wherever and whenever they please, but that the government has a vested interest in the logistics in the name of "peaceful assembly". IMO, a good case can be made for the WBC's "disturbing the peace", but first the law must be written.

Yup.

Directly from the Court's opinion:

That said, “[e]ven protected speech is not equally permissible in all places and at all times.” Id., at 479 (quoting Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Defense & Ed. Fund, Inc. , 473 U. S. 788, 799 (1985) ). 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” that are consistent with the standards announced in this Court’s precedents. Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence , 468 U. S. 288, 293 (1984) . Maryland now has a law imposing restrictions on funeral picketing, Md. Crim. Law Code Ann. §10–205 (Lexis Supp. 2010), as do 43 other States and the Federal Government. See Brief for American Legion as Amicus Curiae 18–19, n. 2 (listing statutes). To the extent these laws are content neutral, they raise very different questions from the tort verdict at issue in this case. Maryland’s law, however, was not in effect at the time of the events at issue here, so we have no occasion to consider how it might apply to facts such as those before us, or whether it or other similar regulations are constitutional. 5

We have identified a few limited situations where the location of targeted picketing can be regulated under provisions that the Court has determined to be content neutral. In Frisby , for example, we upheld a ban on such picketing “before or about” a particular residence, 487 U. S., at 477. In Madsen v. Women’s Health Center, Inc. , we approved an injunction requiring a buffer zone between protesters and an abortion clinic entrance. 512 U. S. 753, 768 (1994) . The facts here are obviously quite different, both with respect to the activity being regulated and the means of restricting those activities.

SNYDER v. PHELPS

About two-thirds the way down.

 

[konradv]

Kon...

the local gvt DID LIMIT the location of the scummy protesters....they positioned them in a place where NO ONE at the funeral even knew they were there....no one at the funeral saw them or heard them.....

What more do you want the local authorities to do, that they did not do?

I know nothing of the sort and without a cite, your version is quite suspect. Where is all this suddenly coming from? Sounds fishy to me , because I'll wager I'm a lot closer to that community than you are and they were WELL AWARE that the protestors were there!!!

It has been in the news dear from the very beginning....the entire snyder case is there for you to read....google it.

Mr Snyder DID NOT SEE ANYONE from the protest and DID NOT HEAR anyone at the protest....

He ONLY learned of what they said and did, on the News that evening.

THAT'S A FACT.....with this case.

Now there could be other cases of westboro where this is different....but we are discussing the supreme court decision on THIS CASE.

It's up to you to cite your info, not to send me off to look for it. Come on!!! You should know that!

 

[Sheldon]

I know nothing of the sort and without a cite, your version is quite suspect. Where is all this suddenly coming from? Sounds fishy to me , because I'll wager I'm a lot closer to that community than you are and they were WELL AWARE that the protestors were there!!!

It has been in the news dear from the very beginning....the entire snyder case is there for you to read....google it.

Mr Snyder DID NOT SEE ANYONE from the protest and DID NOT HEAR anyone at the protest....

He ONLY learned of what they said and did, on the News that evening.

THAT'S A FACT.....with this case.

Now there could be other cases of westboro where this is different....but we are discussing the supreme court decision on THIS CASE.

It's up to you to cite your info, not to send me off to look for it. Come on!!! You should know that!

Click on the link right about that post. The Court lays it all out.