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

[russ_watters]

Recall that Bush had free-speech zones penned off at a distance, at his rallies. Even a woman wearing an Obama shirt was ejected from a rally.

Yes, the concept of a "free speech zone" being used to protect one group from the harrassing speech of another is well established. So everyone is clear on just how well established it is, the concept did not originate with Bush as implied here - it has been an established concept for at least two decades, with the earliest mention being during the 1988 DNC. And the legality of the concept was first upheld by the courts following a 1999 WTO conferece.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone#History

 

[D H]

So how is picketing a funeral? You are standing (within some distance) and promoting hatred of soldiers and their families.

How far away do they have to stand to make it legal? A hundred yards? A mile? Nowhere?

I will admit I am very biased in this regard. I am a big fan of the 1st amendment, and I am not a fan of "hate crimes".

 

[JaredJames]

I will admit I am very biased in this regard. I am a big fan of the 1st amendment, and I am not a fan of "hate crimes".

I'm all for freedom of speech, but I draw the line when it comes to preaching hatred and having no respect for your fellow man.

EDIT (missed a bit): There isn't a distance in my mind that makes it right. Do it in the privacy of your own home where it has no effect on anyone else.

 

[Dr Transport]

As vile and disgusting as this protest has become. Let me say a few words. I am a veteran of this conflict, I spent a year deployed in support of Operation Enduring Freedom and put my life on the line and wasn't sure I was coming home in anything but a box on more than one occasion during that year.

Now, I find it appalling that this church is hiding behind the 1st Amendment in spewing this utter trash. Now it has been said in this very thread that standing on a street corner and yelling racial insults is wrong, and am sure that I'd be arrested for it. I am sure that I'd never get a permit to picket a funeral for someone if all I intended on was trashing the color of their skin or religion.

Trashing this Marines funeral and the memory of him is wrong, just plain wrong since he had none of the traits that were being protested against. But, here's the but, (and there is always a but), even as a right-leaning individual I will say that since there were no laws broken, it may be an open and shut case for the Court. I am not a lawyer, so I have no idea how they will respond to this. I am hoping that the Court rules in favor of the dead Marines family, but we'll just have to wait.

I would hope that if there is a higher being (I am not a disbeliever and I am not a Bible toter), they will get their revenge on these hateful individuals by denying them into whatever perfect afterlife there is and their 15 minutes of fame will be overshadowed by an eternity of what ever their punishment is.

 

[JaredJames]

since he had none of the traits that were being protested against.

Does this not come under slander / deformation of character then?

(A beautiful post by the way.)

 

[Hurkyl]

I'm all for freedom of speech, but I draw the line when it comes to preaching hatred and having no respect for your fellow man.

We should shut down speech criticizing politics too, then.

EDIT (missed a bit): There isn't a distance in my mind that makes it right. Do it in the privacy of your own home where it has no effect on anyone else.

So don't throw up "at the funeral" or "on the street corner" or "some distance" as red herrings. Just say "I think the government should ban this speech".

 

[JaredJames]

We should shut down speech criticizing politics too, then.

If it preaches hate and is disrespectful. There's no reason why you can't discuss things in a civilised manner without resorting to throwing attacks at each other.

So don't throw up "at the funeral" or "on the street corner" or "some distance" as red herrings. Just say "I think the government should ban this speech".

The only time I've used street corner is regarding racial slurs and that was to show a comparison between that and what these people do (which is picket on street corners). Simply trying to make the point that those two similar situations would be treated differently. I didn't bring up distance and hadn't commented regarding distance until then, I do think the government should treat both these situations identically.

 

[Vanadium 50]

As Vanadium 50 already mentioned, this (vile) group "complied with local ordinances and police directions."

Technically, I don't know if they complied or not. All I know is that the court found (or the parties stipulated) this to be the case.

I see people making comments about whether laws were broken. I would again encourage people to read the decision - it's clear that this a tort, which is not a case of breaking a law.

 

[BobG]

No one raised a conflict of interest about Supreme Court justices ruling in a case involving someone that protested the funeral of a close friend of theirs? They did the same thing at William Rehnquist's funeral.

Margie Phelps, Fred Phelps's daughter and lawyer for the Westboro Baptist Church is a hard to describe character. Here's an interview she did: http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2010/102010/10092010/569442 . In between the diatribes of hate and the imminent destruction of the United States she actually addresses a couple issues relevant to the case.

The fact is that we were over 1,000 feet away if you go as the crow flies, almost 1,500 driving distance. We were out of sight, out of sound, and we had left before the funeral started.

So what they are going to have to do is take hundreds of years of law about privacy, captive audiences, reasonable time/place/manner restrictions [and discard them] as a whole to rule against us. There is no way around that. They would have to uproot. They have never found a privacy interest that far away.

From the minute that soldier dies, every aspect of his life, death, burial, and funeral becomes public fodder. Politicians use those events to politic. The media use those events to tell sensational sappy stories. The military uses those events to hold patriotic pep rallies. The clergy use those events to mug for the cameras because they love to be greeted in the marketplace. The families use those events to have a big worshipfest--a public worshipfest of that dead body.

We watched that go on at these soldiers' funerals for two years before we started picketing at them. We realized that they have turned those funerals into an international public platform. Everybody uses that funeral to engage in expressive activity, and it is all one side of the dialog.

What's being said is, "He is a hero, and God Bless America." Yeah, yeah, yeah. Tell me about what a blessing it is to have your young son cut off in his prime lying there in a closed coffin in little tiny pieces. Have you people taken leave of your senses? So we joined that public debate.

 

[Hurkyl]

If it preaches hate and is disrespectful. There's no reason why you can't discuss things in a civilised manner without resorting to throwing attacks at each other.

Just to be clear -- are you merely opposing uncivilized speech, or are you advocating that it should be illegal?

 

[JaredJames]

Just to be clear -- are you merely opposing uncivilized speech, or are you advocating that it should be illegal?

I oppose uncivilised speech.

Like I said before, what you do in your own home is up to you, but going out and throwing these slurs (racist, against soldiers, sexist, ageist whatever you choose) should be at the very least put under some form of guidelines. How what is being preached effects those it is targeting should be taken into consideration. And I would apply that to any topic of discussion that isn't conducted in a civilised and respectful manner.

There's following the word of the law and then there's being decent and having respect for your fellow man. There are a lot of things you can do within the law but it doesn't mean they are always appropriate. There's a time and a place so to speak. If you really do feel the need to protest soldiers, and you are well within your rights to do so, then a funeral is not the time nor the place (1000ft isn't that far and they clearly targeted an area they knew a funeral would be at). Why not pick a 'neutral' area to do it? Heck my don't they do it outside a US Naval or Army base? (I'd love to see how long they managed to carry that one out for before action was taken - legal or otherwise).

 

[lisab]

I oppose uncivilised speech.

Like I said before, what you do in your own home is up to you, but going out and throwing these slurs (racist, against soldiers, sexist, ageist whatever you choose) should be at the very least put under some form of guidelines. How what is being preached effects those it is targeting should be taken into consideration. And I would apply that to any topic of discussion that isn't conducted in a civilised and respectful manner.

I think we can all agree such speech disagreeable. The question is, should it be illegal?

Free speech that is restricted to your own home...that's not free speech. In fact, I think they even have that in North Korea.

I think there's a cultural divide here...you mention this type of speech being "put under some form of guidelines". This mirrors your statements in another thread about a man's house burning; you thought it should be illegal to allow that to happen. There are plenty of people who, when learning of a lamentable situation, have the thought, "There ought to be a law...!" I recognize this as the response of a person who feels a good deal of empathy - not a bad thing, altogether.

But consider that in the American culture, we aren't so fast to pass laws like that, historically. Having more freedom from laws means idiots will be free to be idiots. That might mean a man can lose his house in a fire because he "forgot" to pay the fee. Or it might mean the rest of us have put up with their disgusting opinions. Freedom isn't all butterflies and unicorns.

I don't mean to derail this thread by referencing another thread - I just noticed a parallel.

 

[D H]

1000ft isn't that far and they clearly targeted an area they knew a funeral would be at

So what is the official limit then? Is a mile too close? How about ten? The next continent?

Who decides what constitutes protesting in a "civilised and respectful manner"? You? Somebody thinks just the opposite of you?

I see from your profile that you are from London. Britain does not feel quite the same about freedom of speech that we do in the US. Witness your laws regarding libel, which only recently came to be questioned with the Simon Singh case. The suit against Simon Singh would never have seen the light of day in the US.

 

[BobG]

If you really do feel the need to protest soldiers, and you are well within your rights to do so, then a funeral is not the time nor the place (1000ft isn't that far and they clearly targeted an area they knew a funeral would be at). Why not pick a 'neutral' area to do it?

No one at the funeral saw or heard the protestors personally. They saw news accounts on TV and on the internet later on.

Their protest would have had to have been banned from any public place at all for the Snyders to not have seen it.

As much as I think the Phelps clan is a despicable gaggle of freaks, I don't quite see why the Supreme Court decided to take this case.

At least in the Shirvell-Armstrong case, Shirvell was focusing his rants on a single person. The Phelps clan pulls this at funerals for many servicemen and at the funerals of various public officials (Rehnquist being one). They don't focus their efforts on any single individual.

 

[JaredJames]

I think there's a cultural divide here...you mention this type of speech being "put under some form of guidelines". This mirrors your statements in another thread about a man's house burning; you thought it should be illegal to allow that to happen. There are plenty of people who, when learning of a lamentable situation, have the thought, "There ought to be a law...!" I recognize this as the response of a person who feels a good deal of empathy - not a bad thing, altogether.

But consider that in the American culture, we aren't so fast to pass laws like that, historically. Having more freedom from laws means idiots will be free to be idiots. That might mean a man can lose his house in a fire because he "forgot" to pay the fee. Or it might mean the rest of us have put up with their disgusting opinions. Freedom isn't all butterflies and unicorns.

There certainly is a parallel. My views are fairly consistent. I consider myself a very caring person and yes, I do empathise with a lot of issues people face.

I personally feel that situations such as this law suit, and the fire issue from the other thread could be avoided so simply. I'm saying guidelines because you could avoid this sort of situation occurring by regulating these controversial events to some degree.

I agree with freedom of speech to some degree (as I stated before). Now if these people want to protest, that is their right. However, in a situation like this where they have clearly targeted the funeral they are using freedom of speech to hide behind in order to show their hatred and intolerance not simply of other peoples beliefs, but directly aimed at specific people (Mr and Mrs Snyder - the article says the church posted a poem against the family on their site as well so it didn't stop at the picket line). I don't see what the problem is here with the government being able to say "you know what guys, do it another day". That way you aren't hindering the freedom of speech, they still get the chance to make a statement. The difference is you are granting the family the right to mourn their son without facing such an altercation as the one that has appeared now.

It all comes down to common decency and showing some respect.

So what is the official limit then? Is a mile too close? How about ten? The next continent?

Who decides what constitutes protesting in a "civilised and respectful manner"? You? Somebody thinks just the opposite of you?

Again, as above regarding the limit issue. It isn't so much a distance thing, but more a circumstances issue. Instead of allowing them to clearly target a family / group, just get them to protest on a different day. I think that allowing them to target the family in question in such a way is wrong.

With regards to respectful, that comes down to the circumstances. To judge it you would simply have to look at what / why a group is protesting and see if it has the potential to cause an issue. In this case they were after a particular event and so it's easy to see what sort of problems it could cause. If there wasn't a clear issue (no events on that day) that could cause problems, then by all means let the picket occur.

I hope that explains what I mean by respectful, civilised may be slightly more difficult to explain from my viewpoint and I'll try to work out the best way to explain it.

 

[Evo]

I think Justice Ginsberg's point is spot on.

Justice Ginsburg neatly summed up the issue in its most basic terms: "This is a case about exploiting a private family's grief, and the question is: Why should the First Amendment tolerate exploiting this Marine's family when you have so many other forums for getting across your message?"

By not being allowed to target private citizens in person, or close proximity, their First Ammendment rights are not being taken away. They have plenty of places and mediums in which they can do their hate mongering.

 

[JaredJames]

I think Justice Ginsberg's point is spot on.

By not being allowed to target private citizens in person, or close proximity, their First Ammendment rights are not being taken away. They have plenty of places and mediums in which they can do their hate mongering.

Exactly. As I said above, if they really must protest using freedom of speech, why can't the government simply issue a permit for a day other than that in question, when there isn't a potential conflict to occur.

Also, they have posted a poem on their site (as per the OP article). So they clearly do have the means to protest without the need for targeting funerals.

Oh these people are sick:

Thank god for 13 more dead troops. We are praying for 13,000 more.

From their website. Disgusting.

 

[DR13]

Justice Potter Stewart stated in his concurring opinion in Jacobellis v. Ohio, "I know it when I see it". Though this was in reference to the definition of hardcore porogrphy it is applicable to this situation. It is tough to have one single definition when it comes to free speech. But we, as a society, know what is right and what is wrong. And this specific situation is wrong, just use common sense people.

 

[JaredJames]

Justice Potter Stewart stated in his concurring opinion in Jacobellis v. Ohio, "I know it when I see it". Though this was in reference to the definition of hardcore porogrphy it is applicable to this situation. It is tough to have one single definition when it comes to free speech. But we, as a society, know what is right and what is wrong. And this specific situation is wrong, just use common sense people.

Hear, hear!

 

[Proton Soup]

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...h&sa=X&ei=0fCwTLSKE5CosAOz56GmDA&ved=0CBIQkAE

http://definitions.uslegal.com/h/hate-speech/

great, so anything offensive. doesn't leave much.

 

[Proton Soup]

No one raised a conflict of interest about Supreme Court justices ruling in a case involving someone that protested the funeral of a close friend of theirs? They did the same thing at William Rehnquist's funeral.

Margie Phelps, Fred Phelps's daughter and lawyer for the Westboro Baptist Church is a hard to describe character. Here's an interview she did: http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2010/102010/10092010/569442 . In between the diatribes of hate and the imminent destruction of the United States she actually addresses a couple issues relevant to the case.

that just blows me away. everything i see in the media about these protests (including the protests themselves) makes me think they are mentally ill. but there she sounds quite lucid, and because of the points she makes, those points will completely slip past most people.

 

[JaredJames]

I do find it ironic that they preach hatred for all us fags* , and then they become lawyers and nurses.

* Any person not a member of their church by their definition.

 

[Hurkyl]

I oppose uncivilised speech.

Okay then. It would be nice if you would make this very clear, so the rest of us know when you aren't making comments relevant to the issue of the legality of it all.

There's following the word of the law and then there's being decent and having respect for your fellow man. There are a lot of things you can do within the law but it doesn't mean they are always appropriate. There's a time and a place so to speak.

All said, I can sympathize with them -- did you notice the quote BobG posted?

From the minute that soldier dies, every aspect of his life, death, burial, and funeral becomes public fodder. Politicians use those events to politic. The media use those events to tell sensational sappy stories. The military uses those events to hold patriotic pep rallies. The clergy use those events to mug for the cameras because they love to be greeted in the marketplace. The families use those events to have a big worshipfest--a public worshipfest of that dead body.

We watched that go on at these soldiers' funerals for two years before we started picketing at them. We realized that they have turned those funerals into an international public platform. Everybody uses that funeral to engage in expressive activity, and it is all one side of the dialog.

What's being said is, "He is a hero, and God Bless America." Yeah, yeah, yeah. Tell me about what a blessing it is to have your young son cut off in his prime lying there in a closed coffin in little tiny pieces. Have you people taken leave of your senses? So we joined that public debate.​

In my experience being a moderator, one thing I've learned is that it is really, really unfair to allow comments to which a response would be inappropriate. For example,

• It is unfair to do nothing about off-hand political comments in an unrelated thread, but then frown on people who would respond to it because they are derailing the thread. (if it happens, I put the primary blame on the person who made the original comment)
• It is unfair to forbid religious discussion, but at the same time to allow people to say things like "religion is a myth"

It is similarly unfair if we do not decry those who would turn a funeral into a political message as much or more than those who would picket that message "at" the funeral. And I mean this both as related to public opinion and as related to legal issues.

 

[BobG]

In my experience being a moderator...

You might have a tougher time moderating Supreme Court oral hearings:

Alito ups the ante: He envisions a "grandmother who has raised a son who was killed in Afghanistan or in Iraq" who goes to visit the gravesite and is approached by a war protester who says he is so happy her grandson was killed by an IED. "Now, is that protected by the First Amendment?" he asks. Phelps replies that maybe it would incite a violent reaction by the listener, so Alito qualifies, "She is an elderly person, she's not in a position to punch someone in the nose." And Scalia with the assist: "And she's a Quaker, too!"

Up In Their Grill

 

[JaredJames]

Okay then. It would be nice if you would make this very clear, so the rest of us know when you aren't making comments relevant to the issue of the legality of it all.

I think this is relevant to the legality of it. These people are hiding behind freedom of speech to preach hatred.

"Them's fightin' words" was used earlier. I don't see why this isn't considered just that. These people preach that they want soldiers to die and that they deserve to. (They also believe 9/11 was justified). So how is this not "fightin' words"?

 

[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.