Supreme Court to hear Wacko Baptist Church Lawsuit

[goldcatt]

For anyone interested, the 4th Circuit decision being appealed:

http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/081026.P.pdf

(PDF Alert - no PACER access required)

Pay attention to the recitation of facts, particularly pages 5 and 6.

 

[Ozmar]

[
The right to free speech should not outweigh the right of others to go about their business in peace.

Only one of those rights is actual stated in the Constitution. I think we should protect that one.

Imagine if CG's logic had been applied during the civil rights era...

 

[WillowTree]

one of these things is not like the other

well, yes... and no.

they're all free speech... and they're all offensive to others. doesn't mean any of them SHOULD be done.

i see where you are going, but there is a personal aspect to showing up at a funeral and screaming god hates fags etc. that just isn't there in the case of the intellectual giants that burn korans, imo.

i see the funeral protests as being tantamount to screaming fire in a crowded theater in terms of protected speech.

The way I see it is this "free speech" is heaping more distress and adding insult to an already bereaved family. I don't know how it should be stopped but it absolutely should be. If it were my family I would not publicize the funeral arrangements. I'd just quietly have a funeral.

 

[Sallow]

This is gonna be a decision that affects us all. None of us has any more freedom of association and speech that does the WBC...and yet their conduct is just intolerable. I am surprised the SCOTUS took up the case, and most of me sides with Mr. Snyder.

Might just be worth a little of my liberty to shut these hateful, vile people up.

It's not about shutting them up. It's about stopping them harrassing others. The right to free speech should not outweigh the right of others to go about their business in peace. As I've said before, I support the Snyder family in this case. It is not just about them. It is about harrassment, pure and simple.

Actually..that's kind of a weak argument. IMHO it would be better to use another clause in the very same amendment to protect the free exercise of a religious ceremony. This should be a very narrow protection as well. That said..no funeral, wedding, or religious service should be subject to harrassment.

 

[goldcatt]

one of these things is not like the other

well, yes... and no.

they're all free speech... and they're all offensive to others. doesn't mean any of them SHOULD be done.

i see where you are going, but there is a personal aspect to showing up at a funeral and screaming god hates fags etc. that just isn't there in the case of the intellectual giants that burn korans, imo.

i see the funeral protests as being tantamount to screaming fire in a crowded theater in terms of protected speech.

The problem in this specific case is that Phelps and Co. were restricted to a protest area several hundred yards from the funeral site. Mr. Snyder testified at the District level that he was not even aware of their presence, and only found out about it after the fact through news coverage and visiting sites on the internet including WBC's website. So in this specific case, he voluntarily sought out something that was not in fact "in his face".

Where the facts are different I agree with you 100%. They're not. This simply isn't the case to use as the vehicle for establishing the rule, in this case the time, place and manner restrictions that already exist worked like a charm and Mr. Snyder did, in fact, by his own testimony under oath bury his son in peace. That's not worth giving up any of my liberties to fix.

 

[Two Thumbs]

As much as phelps and the idiots that follow him need to suffer the consequinces of thier actions...

The right to free speech is there just for this very reason. It's there to protect the speech we don't like. We shut them down once, it will be easier to shut down the next, then the next and the one after that and so on.

Sucks huh?

 

[goldcatt]

As much as phelps and the idiots that follow him need to suffer the consequinces of thier actions...

The right to free speech is there just for this very reason. It's there to protect the speech we don't like. We shut them down once, it will be easier to shut down the next, then the next and the one after that and so on.

Sucks huh?

There really isn't even a need to shut them down. The facts in this case clearly demonstrate that instituting a mandatory buffer zone similar to those already required outside places like abortion clinics solves the problem. The fact that some localities don't already use the restrictions at their disposal to do this is maddening, but placing broad new restrictions on speech and assembly really isn't necessary to solve the problem here. Let them bark at the moon all they want - from a few football fields away.

 

[Madeline]

This is gonna be a decision that affects us all. None of us has any more freedom of association and speech that does the WBC...and yet their conduct is just intolerable. I am surprised the SCOTUS took up the case, and most of me sides with Mr. Snyder.

Might just be worth a little of my liberty to shut these hateful, vile people up.

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
-Benjamin Franklin.

Yes, I know Ozmar. I'm very torn about this. But on a side note, I'd have thought the SCOTUS had already beaten "reasonable restrictions" into the ground...why did they take the case up? What's there left to say on freedom of speech and association on these facts?

 

[Two Thumbs]

As much as phelps and the idiots that follow him need to suffer the consequinces of thier actions...

The right to free speech is there just for this very reason. It's there to protect the speech we don't like. We shut them down once, it will be easier to shut down the next, then the next and the one after that and so on.

Sucks huh?

There really isn't even a need to shut them down. The facts in this case clearly demonstrate that instituting a mandatory buffer zone similar to those already required outside places like abortion clinics solves the problem. The fact that some localities don't already use the restrictions at their disposal to do this is maddening, but placing broad new restrictions on speech and assembly really isn't necessary to solve the problem here. Let them bark at the moon all they want - from a few football fields away.

I don't like that idea either. That's a restriction on the freedom of speech and is, or should be banned as unconstitutional.

People have the right to make complete asses of themselves in public. that's the sucky part of freedom, you have to tolerate the assholes.

If people really want justice, buy the land around them and put up permanent signs degrading that church.

 

[goldcatt]

As much as phelps and the idiots that follow him need to suffer the consequinces of thier actions...

The right to free speech is there just for this very reason. It's there to protect the speech we don't like. We shut them down once, it will be easier to shut down the next, then the next and the one after that and so on.

Sucks huh?

There really isn't even a need to shut them down. The facts in this case clearly demonstrate that instituting a mandatory buffer zone similar to those already required outside places like abortion clinics solves the problem. The fact that some localities don't already use the restrictions at their disposal to do this is maddening, but placing broad new restrictions on speech and assembly really isn't necessary to solve the problem here. Let them bark at the moon all they want - from a few football fields away.

I don't like that idea either. That's a restriction on the freedom of speech and is, or should be banned as unconstitutional.

People have the right to make complete asses of themselves in public. that's the sucky part of freedom, you have to tolerate the assholes.

If people really want justice, buy the land around them and put up permanent signs degrading that church.

Whether you agree with it or not, it's a restriction that at least already exists under standard time, place and manner restrictions. Not a broad new rule with serious and hopefully unintended consequences for third parties, freedom of the press, opening the door to liability for offensive speech in general, and...well, read that 4th Circuit decision I linked to if you have the chance. IMO, they got it right and did a good job of laying out the issues here. Making WBC pay just isn't worth it.

 

[Care4all]

This is gonna be a decision that affects us all. None of us has any more freedom of association and speech that does the WBC...and yet their conduct is just intolerable. I am surprised the SCOTUS took up the case, and most of me sides with Mr. Snyder.

Might just be worth a little of my liberty to shut these hateful, vile people up.

It's not about shutting them up. It's about stopping them harrassing others. The right to free speech should not outweigh the right of others to go about their business in peace. As I've said before, I support the Snyder family in this case. It is not just about them. It is about harrassment, pure and simple.

Except Mr snyder did NOT even know they were there at the funeral....they were far enough away that he was totally unaware during the services is what I had read.

and that he did NOT know they were there protesting, until he saw it on the news that evening.

 

[Madeline]

This link is a terrific analysis of the applicable law. Cert had to have been granted last term, so Kagan was not among the justices when they voted to take this up. But they should make her write the opinion, so we can all see how much of a "strict constructionist" she is.

http://www.cardozolawreview.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=152:griffin2010353&catid=21:funerals-fire-and-brimstone&Itemid=26

 

[goldcatt]

This is gonna be a decision that affects us all. None of us has any more freedom of association and speech that does the WBC...and yet their conduct is just intolerable. I am surprised the SCOTUS took up the case, and most of me sides with Mr. Snyder.

Might just be worth a little of my liberty to shut these hateful, vile people up.

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
-Benjamin Franklin.

Yes, I know Ozmar. I'm very torn about this. But on a side note, I'd have thought the SCOTUS had already beaten "reasonable restrictions" into the ground...why did they take the case up? What's there left to say on freedom of speech and association on these facts?

I'm not sure they've ever addressed tort liability for third party dissemination of speech, not this way with the press involved and where the "victim" is a private individual. Hopefully they just want to set the 4th Circuit's ruling in stone, or keep the rule but with a different analysis. Otherwise I can see me having a meltdown similar to the one I had for a week over Citizens United.

 

[DiamondDave]

It's not about shutting them up. It's about stopping them harrassing others. The right to free speech should not outweigh the right of others to go about their business in peace. As I've said before, I support the Snyder family in this case. It is not just about them. It is about harrassment, pure and simple.

yes. but one could make the same claim about the anti-choice extremists who harass women entering abortion clinics.... not that i'd mind those people having to leave women alone...

as much as i find the WBC intolerable on a personal level and think anyone who does what they do deserves a major arse-kicking... i think i'd err on the side of freedom of speech. it's too easy to extrapolate out to everything else that vexes us.

I absolutely would make the same case about the pro-lifers.... and I'm pro-life. I think what they do to women entering abortion clinics is disgraceful. I too would like them to leave those women alone. Their right to free speech does not include the right to harass anyone.

I agree with you 100% on this

 

[California Girl]

This is gonna be a decision that affects us all. None of us has any more freedom of association and speech that does the WBC...and yet their conduct is just intolerable. I am surprised the SCOTUS took up the case, and most of me sides with Mr. Snyder.

Might just be worth a little of my liberty to shut these hateful, vile people up.

It's not about shutting them up. It's about stopping them harrassing others. The right to free speech should not outweigh the right of others to go about their business in peace. As I've said before, I support the Snyder family in this case. It is not just about them. It is about harrassment, pure and simple.

Except Mr snyder did NOT even know they were there at the funeral....they were far enough away that he was totally unaware during the services is what I had read.

and that he did NOT know they were there protesting, until he saw it on the news that evening.

From personal experience, I doubt they could tell you who was standing next to them at the funeral. That's irrelevant. I support the right of the Phelps bunch to rant and rave about their hatred..... just not at a funeral, wedding, or any other private event. Their right do not outweigh other people's rights.

 

[Bill O'Olberman]

It's not about shutting them up. It's about stopping them harrassing others. The right to free speech should not outweigh the right of others to go about their business in peace. As I've said before, I support the Snyder family in this case. It is not just about them. It is about harrassment, pure and simple.

Except Mr snyder did NOT even know they were there at the funeral....they were far enough away that he was totally unaware during the services is what I had read.

and that he did NOT know they were there protesting, until he saw it on the news that evening.

From personal experience, I doubt they could tell you who was standing next to them at the funeral. That's irrelevant. I support the right of the Phelps bunch to rant and rave about their hatred..... just not at a funeral, wedding, or any other private event. Their right do not outweigh other people's rights.

But in this case they were clearly not AT the funeral. It seems they were close, were at a distance so people at the funeral could not see or hear them, and complied with local ordinances. You might not remember who was next to you but you would certainly remember a bunch of people holding picket signs screaming God hates fags if you saw them.

They were no way infringing on the privacy of the Snyder family at the funeral. The only reason this is an issue is because the media gave these assholes coverage when they should just be ignored.

 

[goldcatt]

Except Mr snyder did NOT even know they were there at the funeral....they were far enough away that he was totally unaware during the services is what I had read.

and that he did NOT know they were there protesting, until he saw it on the news that evening.

From personal experience, I doubt they could tell you who was standing next to them at the funeral. That's irrelevant. I support the right of the Phelps bunch to rant and rave about their hatred..... just not at a funeral, wedding, or any other private event. Their right do not outweigh other people's rights.

But in this case they were clearly not AT the funeral. It seems they were close, were at a distance so people at the funeral could not see or hear them, and complied with local ordinances. You might not remember who was next to you but you would certainly remember a bunch of people holding picket signs screaming God hates fags if you saw them.

They were no way infringing on the privacy of the Snyder family at the funeral. The only reason this is an issue is because the media gave these assholes coverage when they should just be ignored.

Actually what Mr. Snyder sued over wasn't even the media coverage, it was the "documentary" of the protest at the funeral the WBC published on their website. He was alerted to their presence at the funeral after the fact by the news coverage, but go back and read the 4th Circuit decision - the award he was given at the trial level that they overturned was based almost entirely on his voluntarily seeking out and watching the WBC's propaganda, published by them on their internet site.

Frankly, I'm seriously disturbed at the concept that IIED liability can be assessed based on this kind of voluntary behavior. It doesn't matter that it's the WBC involved. The rule that would be established is too broad and too restrictive.

 

[Middleman]

I believe that this is not free speech, it's harassment. I'm also pro-life, but I don't believe in getting in the face of women going to abortion clinics, I think that is also harassment. But, those two things aren't much different than Michael Moore with his bullhorn outside some bigwig's home, trying to get his to come out. I happen to think that is harassment as well, even though I really enjoyed the movie 'Roger and Me'.

And I don't think those things are equivalent to burning a Koran in a neutral location, or at ones own church. I think burning a Koran outside a Mosque, on the other hand, might be another story.

 

[Middleman]

This is gonna be a decision that affects us all. None of us has any more freedom of association and speech that does the WBC...and yet their conduct is just intolerable. I am surprised the SCOTUS took up the case, and most of me sides with Mr. Snyder.

Might just be worth a little of my liberty to shut these hateful, vile people up.

It's not about shutting them up. It's about stopping them harrassing others. The right to free speech should not outweigh the right of others to go about their business in peace. As I've said before, I support the Snyder family in this case. It is not just about them. It is about harrassment, pure and simple.

Except Mr snyder did NOT even know they were there at the funeral....they were far enough away that he was totally unaware during the services is what I had read.

and that he did NOT know they were there protesting, until he saw it on the news that evening.

If that is so, then Mr Snyder seems to be wanting to make more of this than he should.

 

[Ozmar]

This is gonna be a decision that affects us all. None of us has any more freedom of association and speech that does the WBC...and yet their conduct is just intolerable. I am surprised the SCOTUS took up the case, and most of me sides with Mr. Snyder.

Might just be worth a little of my liberty to shut these hateful, vile people up.

It's not about shutting them up. It's about stopping them harrassing others. The right to free speech should not outweigh the right of others to go about their business in peace. As I've said before, I support the Snyder family in this case. It is not just about them. It is about harrassment, pure and simple.

Actually..that's kind of a weak argument. IMHO it would be better to use another clause in the very same amendment to protect the free exercise of a religious ceremony. This should be a very narrow protection as well. That said..no funeral, wedding, or religious service should be subject to harrassment.

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.