We’re not sure how to react to this piece of news. The U.S. Supreme Court voted 8-1 in favor of Westboro Baptist Church, ruling in support of the group’s First Amendment right to mount anti-gay protests outside of military funerals. As you may know, the church argues that God is punishing America for their tolerance of homosexuality by killing soldiers overseas, and they’re infamous for their various picket signs, such as “God Hates Fags” and “Thank God For Dead Soldiers”.
Here’s what Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. had to say on this matter: “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… we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker.” He went on to explain that our nation’s commitment to free speech must protect “even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate.”
And then there’s Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., the lone vote against this ruling. He likened the protests to fighting words stating that, “In order to have a society in which public issues can be openly and vigorously debated, it is not necessary to allow the brutalization of innocent victims.”
From an entirely legal standpoint, we can certainly understand why this decision was made. But you’ve got to admit–it still kind of sucks. On the other hand, some folks within our community disagree with that sentiment, claiming that the visibility of Phelps’ clan helps our case by highlighting unreasonable hatred and bigotry. Where do you stand on this topic?
– Dewitt
As both a law student and a gay man I agree wholeheartedly with the quote from Justice Roberts.
The emotional response towards those who would protest against discrimination in marriage laws is often very different than the one that is brought about about by the Phelps clan. That makes the legal concepts behind this ruling all that much more important. If one could simply silence another (or a group) through the court system the court would have allowed emotion to overrule the neutrality and blindness that the legal system strives for.
As painful as it may be, we must celebrate the Court’s decision upholding this group’s constitutional freedoms for it demonstrates that at least one branch of our government is still commited to upholding the freedoms guaranteed us by our constitution.
Given our ‘right to free speech’, I can ignore these people, unless they infringe on others ‘right to privacy’. So, I think that it was more disgusting, when the Supreme Court gave corporations the ‘right to influence elections’, than this issue is.
A Court that’s blind to human emotion and judge solely on laws established is an unwise court. We cannot forget that to every case brought to court there’s a legal side and an emotion side of the issue. To be fair is to look at both side of the case and up held the best possible solution. Just because there are free speech does not mean one can abuse it. And certainly one does have what we call the right to privacy (to be left alone as pointed out by the court in previous case *forgot the name), no matter who we are.
The WBC certainly overstep their right to free speech when they invade the privacy of others to showcase their ugly morality.
“On the other hand, some folks within our community disagree with that sentiment, claiming that the visibility of Phelps’ clan helps our case by highlighting unreasonable hatred and bigotry.”
I tend to believe this. The Phelps were here several years ago to protest a gay/straight club at a local high school. There were 8 of them and over 300 on the other side.
You Americans should be happy that you have such a sacred right to freedom of speech. Of course, this means stupid people have the right to speak freely too, but that’s much better than in many places in Europe where you have to be careful not to offend religious beliefs or whatever…
Free Speech= WBC is an incestuous group who condone their patriarchal leader having sex with their sisters and brothers and daughters and sons!
I can also see the reasoning behind the decision. I could care less if these people protest in front of public events, it just pains me that they specifically target funerals, which in my opinion, are private events. These people who lost their lives have nothing to do with the cause that Westboro is fighting against. They are the innocent victims here, and there has to be some way to protect their privacy.
As much as I hate to admit it, I agree with the Supreme Court ruling. However, it discusses me to see people like the Phelps, pushing hatred and and bigotry, in the name of our Lord, and hiding behind the First Amendment
Free speech is free speech, even when we don’t like it.
The issue of the invasion of privacy is misplaced in the case of WBC’s protests, as referred to by Nhan Tran above. When one is in a public space (park, street, square, etc.) there is no assumption of privacy. Since WBC doesn’t invade private property to conduct their demonstrations, for example entering the church where a funeral is being conducted, there is no invasion of privacy. As vile as they are, as hateful, as heartless and cruel, they none the less enjoy free speech protection. It’s useful to remember that there are many people in this country who feel that any expression of gay love, gay pride, support for gay equality, are profoundly provocative acts undeserving of any constitutional protections. If the suppression of Westboro Baptist Church was upheld, what argument could one advance to defend ourselves against those who would silence us?
No, actually, having an emotional court system is a terrible idea and it turns out to be incredibly impartial and arbitrary.
It’s important to keep in mind that gays benefit from free speech far more than we suffer from hate speech (as odious as hate speech is). Freedom of speech is what has allowed gays to demand social and legal equality. You can’t pursue goals like marriage equality if you’re not free to make your case publicly. Once you start limiting who can say what, it is the opinions of minorities like us that are most likely to be curtailed.
I think you mean ‘incredibly partial’. But I agree. Judges need to base their rulings on law and reason, and not on emotion.
*partial, not impartial.
To quote a great person ” I may disagree with what you are saying, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it”
Yeah, I saw that as soon as I posted it, and was like “oops!”
Fuck “helping the gay cause” people should not have to look at that trash when going to pay last respects to a loved one. That’s bullshit, it’s human decency. If they have that right they should have to protest a mile away from the location. I remember them protesting at a childs funeral. That’s the problem here in the US we give too many rights to criminals and the like. A FUNERAL should be the exception!
The government doesn’t get to legislate “decency.” Nor should they.
I’m with adam t. on this one.
they certainly have the right to say their will freely, but to violate and disrespect the privacy and intimacy of the funerals and mess with their grieving?
this is a highly psychological campaign! people in funerals are grieving and extremely vulnerable to poisonous ideas.
hate to those baptists
I think funeral attendees should be classified as a captive audience participating in a sacred rite. I also think that protesters claiming that the deceased are going to hell do, in fact, disrupt that rite. I am, however, not on the same side as the law, apparently.
I think the problem all too often is that the media amplifies what would otherwise be a whimper in a roar. Their message isn’t news-worthy. Let them say what they want, but in much the same way that the media don’t report on bomb threats for fear of giving terrorist organisations a voice, perhaps don’t report on messages aimed at vilifying and marginalizing social groups.
I agree with you 100%, a line should be drawn with a funeral. period.
The question is “how far is too far?” Just because the Court gives these sick, twisted bastards the right to spread their filth, does anybody think that they will stop at this point? With this validation of their activities, the WBC will become bolder and keep pushing harder until they encounter the wrong crowd supporting a slain service person and violence against them will occur (I’m frankly surprised it hasn’t by now). Then what will the Court say with blood on their hands when they could have ruled otherwise? It’s the same as when a jury ignores the “letter of the law” and renders a verdict using the “spirit of the law”. The bottom line: it didn’t have to happen this way.
I guess you didn’t read my entire sentence, where I said that a court who ignore human emotion and judge solely on the law is deem unwise. I definitely did not said to rule case on human emotion, I pointed that judges should consider the sides that make us human.
No that is not what I have in mind when I said privacy is invaded. A funeral is a certainly no public place to be.
I feel the same, I was never against free speech. Hell they can said whatever the hell they want, but not invading other privacy. I feel that the court should have ruled that free speech is important but not at the cost of other people privacy and the right to being left alone.
All I have to say on this is that the bitch who is holding the sign that says God hates the U.S.A can take her closet dyke ass to another country ^_^ one that won’t tolerate her bigot free speech and would hang her for such protests….
I think it’s impossible to have a clear-cut opinion that is 100% for or against the ruling. To quote Aristotle, “The law is reason, free from passion.” Yes, the Supreme Court is right in every legal sense to rule in favor of the hatemonger’s freedom of speech. I do not like the decision, but it was, unfortunately, the correct one. It is unfortunate that people do not understand that, while we do have the right to freedom of speech, we do have the responsibility to exercise that freedom at the right place and the right time. I believe it was absolutely callous and unbelievable that Phelps and his gang would protest at a funeral (A FUNERAL!) His whole movement is completely illogical, unfounded, and unreasonable. I’m not religious at all. I’m on the border between atheism and agnosticism, but I do know that Christianity is supposed to preach tolerance and love for one’s neighbor rather than hate and judgment, something that is simply the right, humane thing to do. And, the last time I checked, God did not hate anyone. I would say that if anyone will be burning in hell, it will be Phelps and his Satan-worshipping followers.
Unfortunately, the Court refused to rule them as a captive audience because they were far enough away from the protestors, who were also given permission by police to set up a demonstration. It was a legal protest.
If they restrict Westboro, who is next? I think the “church” is reprehensible. Would be funny is someone’s brakes went out on their car and plowed through them. If that happened and I was on the jusry, I’d say NOT GUILTY!!!!
Sadly we have to allow this type of free expression of speech…despite it’s incredibly misguided, inappropriate, hate-mongoring stance. It’s so sad how all of these people have been brain-washed into thinking that this is okay. Can they really believe that the God they supposedly serve is using such a sequitious route to punish us by killing those who serve in the military. I’m not sure that I’d want to serve such a manipulative being myself. These people just really show how we take our own wounds and project them out on to others and even onto their God. They really do break my heart and I can only hope that one day they will wake up and see that love and acceptance are the keys to living a joyful life and living in harmony with the Creator. We always get back whatever energy we send out…and since it amplifies on the way back, these people better take cover because they clearly have a lot of hate coming back at them.
***First I don’t really believe what I’m about to post I’m just being hypothetical.*** So now I won’t get tackled by security guards if I wear a: I HATE OBAMA! HE SHOULD BE HANGED BECAUSE HE’S A N*GER t-shirt when I visit the White House or start screaming kill Obama kill Obama. That is free speech right? Or maybe I can tell all my customers at work to fuck off? If I get fired I could just use this ruling as a defense. There’s free speech but there is something call respect and common decency.
You probably would get tackled if you visited the White House with such a shirt or shouting such words; not because of free speech but because you would be viewed as a security risk as a potential assassin. Same with telling customers at work to f*ck off; you’d be fired for a policy violation or horrible customer service not free speech.
My only problem with the ruling is wheter this will come back and bite us on the ass; as far as bullying in the schools go. I’m told it won’t but I think it will. On another note, I think if you REALLY WANTED to take down Westboro Baptist Church, you would challange their not-for-profit status as a church. And, why not? Some churches who supported Prop 8 in California are under investigation right now. Someone needs to step up to the plate and do it, for the good of all.
As a journalist, I have to agree with the Supreme Court and say that they made the right decision. The First Amendment wasn’t written to protect the speech of you and me, or the masses… it was written to protect the speech of those who have viewpoints that challenge the norm and cause uneasiness, whether it’s in a good or bad way.
But as a person, it really upsets me that people like the Westboro church feel and think this way. All this unnecessary hatred and bigotry just brings society down as a whole.
Normally I would come down on the side of free speech. This group, however, uses its First Amendment rights to inflict emotional trauma on those whose sacrifices protect our free speech and other rights.
Using First Amendment rights to attack those who preserve our rights should not be a protected activity. At least half the states joined in this lawsuit — opposing Westboro’s activities. (Some media organizations supported Westboro.) We are a self-governing people. This problem should be addressed legislatively. If these people can be kept 1000 feet from military burial services, why not 2000 feet or 5,280 feet or more. Take care of those who protect your rights, or don’t expect your rights to be protected.
Speaking as a bad Christian, I think a group which tells us to mourn for our sins by engaging in an activity described as “emotional terrorism” is a kind of religiosity that is phony, and anti-Christian.
Good example of pointing out the hypocrisy of the ruling.
As a Funeral Director, I can tell you that an announced/published funeral service is indeed a public place.
Curious. There may be laws protecting their free speech. But, don’t the owners of the land have the right to not allow them to practice their free speech on or near private property? Where are these idiots showing up? There is such a thing as a restraining order, couldn’t one be filed to keep the church away from these funerals? Say no contact within 50 miles?
I think if I was the Mayor of a city, I would file a restraining order keeping them out of my town forever. Say what you want, but, step foot inside the line, and it’s $1,000.000.00 fine payable now, with no retractions.
As both a 20 year veteran of the US Navy and a gay man I find Phelps and his followers disgusting POS who should find another country to live in. Their rhetoric is nothing more than provocative hogwash. Protesting at service members funerals is disgusting. Who in the Hell do you think fought and died for your freedom of speech Fred Phelps?