Supreme Court rules for military funeral protesters
March 2, 2011 10:23:35 AM
----------------------------------------

The Supreme Court has ruled that the First Amendment protects fundamentalist church members who mount attention-getting, anti-gay protests outside military funerals.

The court voted 8-1 Wednesday in favor of the Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kan. The decision upheld an appeals court ruling that threw out a $5 million judgment to the father of a dead Marine who sued church members after they picketed his son's funeral.


http://link.email.washingtonpost.com/r/ ... 8NAMV/SN/h

For more information, visit PostPolitics.com.

RT @SarahPalinUSA: Common sense & decency absent as wacko "church" allowed hate msgs spewed@ soldiers' funerals but we can't invoke God's name in public square

Enjoy.




confirmed. That's her account. I'm guessing the Palin media ban is over after that one.

Oh, Sarah, STFU. At long last, just STFU.

RT @SarahPalinUSA: Common sense & decency absent as wacko "church" allowed hate msgs spewed@ soldiers' funerals but we can't invoke God's name in public square

Given the monumental (and justified) public antipathy toward Westboro's antics, decisions like this are a tribute to the value of the independent, lifetime tenured judiciary.

There is a time and a place for everything under the sun.

Picketing a military funeral the way that Westboro does is not the time nor the place. Yes, I understand it, but this is wrong.

The “it isn’t right to do it but they have a right to do it” refrain just doesn’t cut it anymore. I would think that in a civilized society, hate crimes of the type that has evil-doers carrying signs at a funeral reading “Thank God for dead soldiers,” “You’re Going to Hell,” and “God Hates the USA/Thank God for 9/11,” could be and should be deemed illegal.

Canada, Australia, France, Denmark, UK, Sweden and a number of other countries have strong hate speech legislation and no one could honestly make the claim that their citizens are any less free than Americans. Yes, I understand the significance of the 1st Amendment and the importance of free speech. I also understand that laws of good intent can be hijacked by hatemongers who threaten, abuse and insult in acts of psychological terrorism. Why should their actions be any less a crime than physical terrorism?

Mostly the discussions have gone they way they have here. But Mario Piperni asks about hate speech laws.



remainder:
http://mariopiperni.com/hate/the-ugly-s ... speech.php

Given that Westboro’s speech was at a public place on a matter of public concern, that speech is entitled to “special protection” under the First Amendment. Such speech cannot be restricted simply because it is upsetting or arouses contempt. “If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.” Texas v. Johnson, 491 U. S. 397, 414 (1989). Indeed, “the point of all speech protection . . . is to shield just those choices of content that in someone’s eyes are misguided, or even hurtful.” Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston, Inc., 515 U. S. 557, 574 (1995).

The jury here was instructed that it could hold Westboro liable for intentional infliction of emotional distress based on a finding that Westboro’s picketing was “outrageous.”“Outrageousness,” however, is a highly malleable standard with “an inherent subjectiveness about it which would allow a jury to impose liability on the basis of the jurors’ tastes or views, or perhaps on the basis of their dislike of a particular expression.” Hustler, 485 U. S., at 55 (internal quotation marks omitted). In a case such as this, a jury is “unlikely to be neutral with respect to the content of [the]speech,” posing “a real danger of becoming an instrument for the suppression of . . . ‘vehement, caustic, and some-times unpleasan[t]’” expression. Bose Corp., 466 U. S., at 510 (quoting New York Times, 376 U. S., at 270). Such a risk is unacceptable; “in public debate [we] must tolerate insulting, and even outrageous, speech in order to provide adequate ‘breathing space’ to the freedoms protected by the First Amendment.” Boos v. Barry, 485 U. S. 312, 322 (1988) (some internal quotation marks omitted). What Westboro said, in the whole context of how and where it chose to say it, is entitled to “special protection” under the First Amendment, and that protection cannot be overcome by a jury finding that the picketing was outrageous.

<snip>

Westboro believes that America is morally flawed; many Americans might feel the same about Westboro. Westboro’s funeral picketing is certainly hurtful and its contribution to public discourse may be negligible. But Westboro addressed matters of public import on public property, in a peaceful manner, in full compliance with the guidance of local officials. The speech was indeed planned to coincide with Matthew Snyder’s funeral, but did not itself disrupt that funeral, and Westboro’s choice to conduct its picketing at that time and place did not alter the nature of its speech.

Speech is powerful. It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and—as it did here—inflict great pain. On the facts before us, we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker. As a Nation we have chosen a different course—to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate. That choice requires that we shield Wesboro from tort liability for its picketing in this case.

Canada, Australia, France, Denmark, UK, Sweden and a number of other countries have strong hate speech legislation and no one could honestly make the claim that their citizens are any less free than Americans.

Yes, I understand the significance of the 1st Amendment and the importance of free speech.

I also understand that laws of good intent can be hijacked by hatemongers who threaten, abuse and insult in acts of psychological terrorism. Why should their actions be any less a crime than physical terrorism?

So, if I respond point-blank that all those countries have draconian hate speech laws that do, in fact, deprive their citizens of freedom, I guess I'm "dishonest" now. Interesting debate strategy. I guess I'm guilty as charged, then, because I believe that to be the case, as far as those countries' hate speech laws are concerned. They are not only useless in combating racism (in fact, they are counter-productive and encourage racial hostility), but they are an invitation for abuse by their governments, all of which have a demonstrated track record of abusing civil rights throughout history. And don't get me wrong: obviously the US government fits in that category as well. Which is exactly why I prefer speech to be governed by debate, and not by government bureaucrats.

Mostly the discussions have gone they way they have here. But Mario Piperni asks about hate speech laws.



remainder: http://mariopiperni.com/hate/the-ugly-s ... speech.php

Continental European countries may have these 'strong' hate speech laws, but it always depends on the interpretation. From the only issue that made it to the international press a couple of years ago, possibly due to support from US evangelicals, was a case of a Swedish Christian minister who preached his anti-gay gospel once not only in his church to members, but also once on a radio interview to the general public. That appearance got him into difficulties, the initial court case found him guilty of a hate crime, but at appeal he was acquitted. This means that such laws will only counter a real massive breach of law, possibly requiring physical attacks. IIRC most hate speech laws will be used to counter discrimination in general, like denying a business deal in a shop.

One other point where European countries are different to the USA is in what is considered public property and the individuals rights on said public properties. The US goes much farther in freedom, such as allowing any kind of demonstration on public property. In European countries public property can be described as 'available for intended use' to citizens and residents. The side walks as such are considered freely open for transit, but not for protestations and demonstrations. For most countries such 'enhanced use' requires some sort of permit. Based on this background, the Phelps family would not have been able to operate in the same way in public over here, eg their appearance would have been limited to a location far from any funeral.

If we didn't have free speech, how would we know who the assholes are?

I saw a great bumper sticker today that fits here.