Westboro Baptist SC ruling

[scooterbug44]

Unfortunately, slander and libel require some sort of measurable and documented loss or harm so you can't even go after them based on that.

They are the sole reason I joined the Patriot Guard.

I wasn't specifically talking about them - rather to the fact that there ARE limits to free speech or repercussions.

In this case, the father of a veteran sued them for intentionally inflicting emotional distress.

And we are very proud of you for being in it! I still need to buy a patch from you.

 

[LuciferSam]

I'm no constitutional expert (to say the least), but it sounds pretty simple to me. Not sure what Alito was thinking.

Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Agreed. I don't see how anyone has a legal right to stop them under most circumstances, but I was under the impression that they were encroaching on other people's property at times. That is where i would draw the line, but in general it is exactly this kind of objectionable speech that the constitution is intenede to protect. The decisive vote in the SC confirms this.

 

[MrMentalFitness]

As a veteran, I fully support their right to protest. On crutches. With bandages and casts. Fearing for their safety. Running for their lives with good citizens close behind in mourning clothes, bearing baseball bats.

If they showed up at a funeral for somebody in my family, there'd be a raining down of wrathful buttkicking that would give them due pause as to whether to pull such stunts in the future.

 

[30ashopper]

This doesn't seem to jibe with current hate speech laws that are apparently Constitutional.

Ah, never mind:

Laws prohibiting hate speech outside of obscenity, defamation and incitement to riot are illegal in the United States. The United States federal government and state governments are broadly forbidden by the First Amendment of the Constitution from restricting speech. Even in cases where speech encourages illegal violence, instances of incitement qualify as criminal only if the threat of violence is imminent. This strict standard prevents prosecution of many cases of incitement, including prosecution of those advocating violent opposition to the government, and those exhorting violence against racial, ethnic, or gender minorities.

Hate speech - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[scooterbug44]

If they showed up at a funeral for somebody in my family, there'd be a raining down of wrathful buttkicking that would give them due pause as to whether to pull such stunts in the future.

Seriously - it's hard enough to get my family to behave without the added fuel of protesters.

 

[kathydwells]

Hypocrisy in it's finest IMHO. These people preach Christianity but they are nothing but a bunch of hypocrites. Let them show up at a funeral of one of my loved one's that gave their lives fighting for THEIR freedom, and I can tell you right now someone would get very hurt and it wouldn't be me!!!!!

 

[hkem1]

I think it was the correct decision and I think it was a particularly poor usage of the "captive audience" doctrine. "Captive audience" is supposed to refer to people such as high school band members who have to listen to a prayer at a football game because they need the credit, not a family in mourning with protesters over 100 yards away.

I think that Alito's strongest argument revolves around whether the speech involved was of public or private concern.

To put it simply, speech regarding matters of public concern (political speech) has much more protection under the 1st amendment than speech regarding private concerns.

?peech on ?matters of public concern? . . . is ?at the heart of the First Amendment?s protection.? ? Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v. Greenmoss Builders, Inc.,

From the majority opinion

? ?[N]ot all speech is of equal First Amendment importance,? ? however, and where matters of purely private significance are at issue, First Amendment protections are often less rigorous. Hustler, supra, at 56 (quoting Dun & Bradstreet, supra, at 758); see Connick, supra, at 145?147. That is because restricting speech on purely private matters does not implicate the same constitutional concerns as limiting speech on matters of public interest: ?[T]here is
no threat to the free and robust debate of public issues; there is no potential interference with a meaningful dialogue of ideas?; and the ?threat of liability? does not pose the risk of ?a reaction of self-censorship? on matters of public import. Dun & Bradstreet, supra, at 760 (internal quotation marks omitted)

Speech deals with matters of public concern when it can ?be fairly considered as relating to any matter of politi- cal, social, or other concern to the community,? Connick,
supra, at 146, or when it ?is a subject of legitimate news Cite as: 562 U. S. ____ (2011) 7 Opinion of the Court interest; that is, a subject of general interest and of value
and concern to the public,? San Diego, supra, at 83?84. See Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn, 420 U. S. 469, 492?494 (1975); Time, Inc. v. Hill, 385 U. S. 374, 387? 388 (1967). The arguably ?inappropriate or controversial character of a statement is irrelevant to the question whether it deals with a matter of public concern.? Rankin
v. McPherson, 483 U. S. 378, 387 (1987).

So is the speech at hand of public concern and thus due higher protection or not?

From Alito's dissent

Petitioner Albert Snyder is not a public figure.

But respondents, members of the Westboro Baptist Church, deprived him of that elementary right. They first issued a press release and thus turned Matthew?s funeral into a tumultuous media event. They then appeared at the church, approached as closely as they could without trespassing, and launched a malevolent verbal attack on Matthew and his family at a time of acute emotional vulnerability. As a result, Albert Snyder suffered severe and lasting emotional injury. The Court now holds that the First Amendment protected respondents? right to brutalize Mr. Snyder. I cannot agree.

While commentary on the Catholic Church or the United States military constitutes
speech on matters of public concern, speech regarding Matthew Snyder?s purely private conduct does not.

JUSTICE BREYER provides an apt analogy to a case in which the First Amendment would permit recovery in tort for a verbal attack:

?uppose that A were physically to assault B, knowing that the assault (being newsworthy) would provide
A with an opportunity to transmit to the public his
views on a matter of public concern. The constitutionally protected nature of the end would not shield
A?s use of unlawful, unprotected means. And in some
circumstances the use of certain words as means
would be similarly unprotected.? Ante, at 1 (concurring opinion).

This captures what respondents did in this case. Indeed, this is the strategy that they have routinely employed?and that they will now continue to employ? inflicting severe and lasting emotional injury on an ever growing list of innocent victims.

I'm no constitutional expert (to say the least), but it sounds pretty simple to me. Not sure what Alito was thinking.

[/I]

It's not that simple. And the great thing about the court publishing separate opinions/dissents is that you don't have to wonder. First amendment rights are not absolute.

 

[AlphaCrab]

Wow. Just read Sarah Palin's tweet on this--she and I are actually "in agreement" over this bad decision???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? The sky is falling!

 

[sisters4]

Hateful church full of hateful people. They are the reason why people struggle with organized religion. Hopefully they will not get any more attention. I am sickened by them.

 

[idlewind]

I will defend their right to say what they want but I also defend the right of the family to beat the h*** out of them for being such morons. If I am not mistaken Jesus said to love one another and do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Seems like this bunch should go back to the church and read some more.