FARK.com: (6007038) Why the Supreme Court ruled for Westboro

If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

		Why the Supreme Court ruled for Westboro (time.com)		465
		More: Followup

• • •

18587 clicks; posted to Main » on 04 Mar 2011 at 6:56 AM | Favorite | share:

Share this link:

URL:

http://fark.com/go/6007038

Bookmark:

Article Comments close

465 Comments (+0 »)

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all

eraser8		2011-03-04 08:09:39 AM

captain_heroic44: Nah. Not always. Their word is law, but they're not always right.

That's the sort of semantic argument that's used to argue against decisions like Roe v Wade. In fact, it's the same argument Sarah Palin uses to argue against Snyder v Phelps.

We may not always agree with the Court. Hell, future Courts may not always agree with past decisions. But, those decisions ARE RIGHT in the legal sense.

captain_heroic44		2011-03-04 08:12:47 AM

eraser8: captain_heroic44: Nah. Not always. Their word is law, but they're not always right.

That's the sort of semantic argument that's used to argue against decisions like Roe v Wade. In fact, it's the same argument Sarah Palin uses to argue against Snyder v Phelps.

We may not always agree with the Court. Hell, future Courts may not always agree with past decisions. But, those decisions ARE RIGHT in the legal sense.

Nuh uh.

alowishus		2011-03-04 08:13:40 AM

captain_heroic44: But there are values that compete with free speech. Protecting mourners in their time of grief is one of them.

Free speech is vastly more important than ensuring people's feelings aren't hurt.

eraser8		2011-03-04 08:13:47 AM

Darklemming: It causes harm and emotional distress. The court was wrong on this one. Saying people can't protest at a soldiers funeral does not turn us into Nazi Germany.

If their protest didn't cause discomfort, WBC wouldn't need a court or an amendment to affirm their right to picket.

The whole point of freedom of speech is to protect speech that is unpopular, that is distressing, that provokes anger.

Popular speech doesn't need protection. The majority can always take care of itself.

eraser8		2011-03-04 08:14:51 AM

captain_heroic44: eraser8: captain_heroic44: Nah. Not always. Their word is law, but they're not always right.

That's the sort of semantic argument that's used to argue against decisions like Roe v Wade. In fact, it's the same argument Sarah Palin uses to argue against Snyder v Phelps.

We may not always agree with the Court. Hell, future Courts may not always agree with past decisions. But, those decisions ARE RIGHT in the legal sense.

Nuh uh.

Uh huh.

/take that!

Coming on a Bicycle		2011-03-04 08:14:59 AM

In a country where you can sue for letting little Bobby see a little boob, or where mothers are prosecuted for takings baths with their children, can you make a child carry signs like that ?

Sarcastica75		2011-03-04 08:16:00 AM

Y'all need to stop giving these motherf*ckers the attention they want and need is what.

toetag		2011-03-04 08:17:46 AM

The court was correct. Though I see no reason why a local ordinance couldn't be used. Something like "all protests must be done 1000 yards from any funeral home or cemetery". Then bulldoze an abandoned lot and make it the official "protest" area.

Hell we have public nuisance laws. They are a nuisance. If all they did was hold up signs and be quiet, i wouldn't even care. It's the baiting of yelling slander, slurs and hate talk that I think it's over the line.

/yes, i know they are lawyers and the baiting is so they can sue after the initial fall out from the protest.
// if i can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater, why can they use hate speech to fuel such public outrage.

Humorbot 5.0		2011-03-04 08:20:08 AM

Phil Herup: Why did they rule for them?

They had to.

My only question is how Alito found a way to dissent. This should have been unanimous.

It's almost as though Alito was speaking for the obvious moral disagreement on the ruling. I'm sure every single justice, as a person, disagrees with WBC and their actions; However, to be equal under the law, the ruling should be have been obvious before it even got to the SCOTUS.

I do hope that Snyder can find solace in knowing that through all these events, his son's death has protected the constitution immeasurably. If Snyder had won the case, it would set the precedent for being able to stifle The First Amendment.

neversubmit		2011-03-04 08:20:16 AM

Haters give cover to haters while the so called left eats its own. Welcome to The United Nazi States of America. Time is running out.

Mein Fuhrer I Can Walk		2011-03-04 08:21:10 AM

I don't like that it had to be decided in their case, but it is the right decision.

leegalizit		2011-03-04 08:21:55 AM

Fred Phelps secretly loves it.

Secret Agent X23		2011-03-04 08:22:44 AM

toetag: Hell we have public nuisance laws. They are a nuisance. If all they did was hold up signs and be quiet, i wouldn't even care. It's the baiting of yelling slander, slurs and hate talk that I think it's over the line.

Yeah, but the problem is that everything they do is very well-calculated not to cross the legal line. Regardless of what you think of what they believe (or what they claim to believe), they know exactly what they're doing when they go into action.

xria		2011-03-04 08:25:33 AM

Sid_6.7: God punished Sodom and Gomorrah, presumably in part or in whole due to the willingness of the inhabitants to engage in homosexual behavior.

Angels do not have a sex when they are mentioned in the Bible (and more explicitly in original texts they are referred to by gender neutral pronouns), so attempting to rape them is not homosexual behaviour (it isn't really heterosexual behaviour under most normal definitions either). Also the passages clearly talk about the main (previous) crimes of Sodom and Gomorrah being about not being hospitable to strangers and charitable to the poor, the attempted rape of angels was just the final straw. Even if you assume the angels in question were male, then it seems strange to ignore the rape part as being the problem rather than the theoretical homosexuality.

id10ts		2011-03-04 08:25:56 AM

I will agree with the court, but I don't think too many law enforcement or military will be willing to defend their first amendment rights.

stevetherobot		2011-03-04 08:27:29 AM

Feeling that protesters ruined his son's funeral, held in a Roman Catholic church in Westminster, Md., Snyder got depressed.

...

the court noted that Westboro "stayed well away from the memorial service" - some 1,000 feet. When driving to the funeral, Snyder saw only the tops of the signs; only later, on a television broadcast, did he see the sinister speech.

toetag		2011-03-04 08:29:34 AM

Secret Agent X23: Yeah, but the problem is that everything they do is very well-calculated not to cross the legal line. Regardless of what you think of what they believe (or what they claim to believe), they know exactly what they're doing when they go into action.

I know. I slashied the fact they are lawyers.

I personally like the idea of a town ordinance and setting up a public protest area where all protests are held.

Not a constitutional lawyer or anything but wouldn't that allow them their 1st amendment rights and since everyone is held to the same law, they can't say it's specifically about their protest...

JimmyFartpants		2011-03-04 08:30:02 AM

Did anybody else hear them talk about this case yesterday morning on Fox & Friends?

According to their spin, Fred Phelps is a "left wing loon who's angry about the military policies against homosexuality".

*facepalm.

fruitloop		2011-03-04 08:30:06 AM

Look, these nutbags have been protesting something somewhere every day for like 20 years. Ignoring them isn't going to make them go away. Time has proven that.

Fighting fire with fire (counter-protests, silly signs) isn't working either. And violence is right out. We need a new plan. We need to get a certain group on the side of the people against the WBC - and that group is the Tea Party.

Check this out. (new window) 6 WBC knuckleheads showed up to protest something, 800 counter-protesters appeared, and extra police were called in for crowd/traffic control. City and County police, meaning taxpayer dollars were used so the WBC could exercise their first amendment rights.

Now if the Tea Party can get people all worked up over taxpayers indirectly funding abortions and public broadcasting, couldn't that same reasoning be used to get people worked up about taxpayers indirectly funding hate speech?

Not much else has really worked, so it's worth a shot. Get Bachmann on the phone!

justadadX3		2011-03-04 08:32:21 AM

I am not a Constitutional Scholar by any means - more like a slightly more informed than average observer. I wholeheartedly support the concept of 1st amendment - and the Gvt not being able to stifle opposition speech, however - here is my take on why I think this is wrong.

1. The 1st amendment is specifically a restriction on the Government - preventing the passage of laws that limit speech.
2. This was a tort case for damages suffered by one party at the hands of another - no State implemented law there. Jury decides if party suffered damages - and if so makes an award.

Can someone please explain why/how someone damaging another is exempt from tort action because the damage was done through speech?

Not trolling here - looking for a real and reasoned explanation (I know - I came to the wrong place) - but clearly some on here understand and can explain such matters reasonably.

ursomniac		2011-03-04 08:32:55 AM

People talk about the lulzfest that will happen when Phelps kicks the bucket. I wonder what the degree of schadenfruede will ensue should one of the WBC (grand)kids fall victim to disease, etc. leading to an untimely death.

wademh		2011-03-04 08:33:26 AM

and yet, I grow sympathetic with a sentiment expressed by Sean Connery about when it's OK to slap a woman.

"Women are pretty good at this. They can't leave it alone. They want to have the last word; then you give them the last word, but they're not happy with the last word. They want to say it again and get into a really provocative situation. Then, I think it's absolutely right."

So, we've let the Westboro folks have their free speech, and let them have it again, and by now anyone who can possibly care has heard them, so slapping their filthy mouths shut is in no way prohibiting the expression of their ideas but rather the stopping the mind numbing inanity of the trollish attention whoring repetition.

capnmonkey		2011-03-04 08:33:40 AM

I'm not sure what everyone saying this is a cut and dry first amendment issue is basing that opinion upon.
Things that are simple issues don't get to the supreme court... especially when the SC has the same outcome as the court of appeals, but goes a step further to clarify a constitutional issue that it doesn't necessarily have to. (Court of appeals decided the case without relying on the first amendment)

I guess the power of fark to make experts from link readers is still in full effect...

Biv		2011-03-04 08:33:52 AM

Phil Herup: Why did they rule for them?

They had to.

My only question is how Alito found a way to dissent. This should have been unanimous.

You people suck at the politics. Someone HAD to dissent. You can't have a unanimous decision in favor of the WBC. Alito drew the short straw.

eraser8		2011-03-04 08:35:19 AM

fruitloop: Now if the Tea Party can get people all worked up over taxpayers indirectly funding abortions and public broadcasting, couldn't that same reasoning be used to get people worked up about taxpayers indirectly funding hate speech?

Sarah Palin has already come out strongly against WBC. Frankly, I don't think it's going to make a difference...maybe that's because Sarah Palin has jumped the shark.

Anyhoo, I still think ignoring them is the best gameplan. If they're ignored, their source of revenue -- lawsuits -- is cut off. Since the whole circus is pretty much a family affair, no money from lawsuits = no WBC.

Biv		2011-03-04 08:35:44 AM

Also remember this was not a first amendment case. It was a slander case. So there is some wiggle room.

YouPeopleAreCrazy		2011-03-04 08:37:29 AM

Aar1012: Just remembers what will happen when one of them keels over.

Sign at ol Freddies funeral:

Fred
We are glad you
are wormfood

The Planet

ole prophet		2011-03-04 08:38:30 AM

As much disdain I have for these people, they are protected. The more they are sued, yelled at and talked about the more "power" they get. The best thing to do is ignore until they do something illegal to get attention and nail them to the wall.

DarnoKonrad		2011-03-04 08:39:30 AM

justadadX3: I am not a Constitutional Scholar by any means - more like a slightly more informed than average observer. I wholeheartedly support the concept of 1st amendment - and the Gvt not being able to stifle opposition speech, however - here is my take on why I think this is wrong.

1. The 1st amendment is specifically a restriction on the Government - preventing the passage of laws that limit speech.
2. This was a tort case for damages suffered by one party at the hands of another - no State implemented law there. Jury decides if party suffered damages - and if so makes an award.

Can someone please explain why/how someone damaging another is exempt from tort action because the damage was done through speech?

Not trolling here - looking for a real and reasoned explanation (I know - I came to the wrong place) - but clearly some on here understand and can explain such matters reasonably.

My understand is because the monitory reward was punitive. And because the 1st Amendment is incorporated under the 14th, the prohibition on restricting the 1st Amendment applies to all of governance, not just congress. So a court can't go punishing people for opening their dumb mouths.

Spanky_McFarksalot		2011-03-04 08:41:16 AM

its speech thats not popular that needs to be protected.

As much as I dislike this group, as long as they can spew their garbage I can spew mine.

theMightyRegeya		2011-03-04 08:41:39 AM

gunsmack: If the law protects hatemongering douchebags, the law needs to be amended.

/when is a grieving family member going to do the right thing and open fire on these worthless scumbags?
//no jury in the world would convict

iirc most states have laws establishing a perimeter around funerals now.

macdaddy357		2011-03-04 08:43:02 AM

If they had been protesting against a politician, the court would have ruled against them. The powerful have special rights the rest of us do not. Consider the man who turned his back while Hillary Clinton was giving a speech, and got the jackboots.

DarnoKonrad		2011-03-04 08:43:51 AM

ole prophet: As much disdain I have for these people, they are protected. The more they are sued, yelled at and talked about the more "power" they get. The best thing to do is ignore until they do something illegal to get attention and nail them to the wall.

doubtful (new window)

The 'group' is a family of highly respect lawyers who know exactly what they're doing.

capnmonkey		2011-03-04 08:44:46 AM

macdaddy357: If they had been protesting against a politician, the court would have ruled against them. The powerful have special rights the rest of us do not. Consider the man who turned his back while Hillary Clinton was giving a speech, and got the jackboots.

Actually, they would have even more protection if their speech was directed at a politician rather than a private citizen.

The constitution doesn't really provide many protections as between two private citizens.

Biv		2011-03-04 08:45:36 AM

Adolf Oliver Nipples		2011-03-04 08:46:37 AM

NewportBarGuy: Why is Samuel Alito such a gigantic cockbag?

Not even the New York Times had anything negative to say about Alito's dissent. He may not have been "right", but his points were still well-received.

Personally, I like that he had the integrity to take a position on the other side of the issue.

Incidentally, does that mean that the 4 Justices that are consistently on the losing side of an issue are "cockbags"? They're wrong, after all.

CatfoodSpork: Where was the Supreme Court when any people with signs along George W. Bush's transportation routes were sent to tiny, hidden "first amendment zones" out of site of the parade route?

Here's a little trivia about the Supreme Court: they cannot rule on a legal precept unless someone challenges it. So, where was your lawsuit, or did you expect that they would just pick the issue out of the ether (which they cannot do)?

SnakeMittens		2011-03-04 08:47:25 AM

bulldg4life: 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.

End of story.

So, some group can exercise their religion on my property without my permission; free their speech on my property; assemble peaceably on my property; redress grievances on my property? I have no right to privacy? Well blow me down boys, I have been doing it wrong all along. And I taught my kids wrong also. Nothing more private than burying a child. The real end of the story.

DarnoKonrad		2011-03-04 08:48:52 AM

SnakeMittens: bulldg4life: 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.

End of story.

So, some group can exercise their religion on my property without my permission; free their speech on my property; assemble peaceably on my property; redress grievances on my property? I have no right to privacy? Well blow me down boys, I have been doing it wrong all along. And I taught my kids wrong also. Nothing more private than burying a child. The real end of the story.

No, but they can do all that stuff 1500 feet away on public property.

vudukungfu		2011-03-04 08:51:05 AM

CatfoodSpork: Where was the Supreme Court in 2004 when New York City threw 2000 anti-war protesters (outside the RNC) into jail? Where was the Supreme Court when they threw those protesters into chain-link pens on Pier 57 instead of processing them in an actual city corrections facility? Where the hell is the Supreme Court, seven years later, when our Civil Rights lawsuits are still being held up by the City?

Where was the Supreme Court when any people with signs along George W. Bush's transportation routes were sent to tiny, hidden "first amendment zones" out of site of the parade route?

They were knobslobbering the everloving jizz out of the RNP, as always.

Thunderpipes		2011-03-04 08:51:31 AM

Could advertise at the local nursing home that a farmer's market with really low prices is at the place the Phelps are protesting.

Joe Blowme		2011-03-04 08:52:13 AM

This should be in the same catergory as yelling fire in a crowded theater.

fruitloop		2011-03-04 08:52:50 AM

eraser8: fruitloop: Now if the Tea Party can get people all worked up over taxpayers indirectly funding abortions and public broadcasting, couldn't that same reasoning be used to get people worked up about taxpayers indirectly funding hate speech?

Anyhoo, I still think ignoring them is the best gameplan. If they're ignored, their source of revenue -- lawsuits -- is cut off. Since the whole circus is pretty much a family affair, no money from lawsuits = no WBC.

I don't know. They'd probably figure out a way to sue people for not paying attention to them. Precedent has been set. (new window, precedent starts around the 4:03 mark)

/sorry, that was just silly

Ikimasen		2011-03-04 08:53:32 AM

You guys are doing it again, you think that the First Amendment means that you can say anything you anywhere any time and it doesn't. You think that interpreting the constitution is as simple as "THOMAS SAID IT I BELIEVE IT THAT SETTLES IT."

I can't get inside your clothes to yell in your face.

You, as you well know, can't yell fire in a crowded theater.

The decision that was being made wasn't whether or not speech can be limited. It can and it is, every single day. The decision here was whether or not this was the kind of speech, in the location, near the person, at the event, that can or cannot be limited.

The decision was wrong, they should be moved even farther away. 1000 feet isn't enough.

YouNeedJesus		2011-03-04 08:53:49 AM

WBC vs. Anonymous should bring lulz, either way.

img87.imageshack.us

Biv		2011-03-04 08:55:28 AM

CatfoodSpork: fark the Supreme Court!

Bunch of Hypocrites.

They let the WBC go around picketing private citizens personal matters. They can just harass whoever they want, whenever they want.

Where was the Supreme Court in 2004 when New York City threw 2000 anti-war protesters (outside the RNC) into jail? Where was the Supreme Court when they threw those protesters into chain-link pens on Pier 57 instead of processing them in an actual city corrections facility? Where the hell is the Supreme Court, seven years later, when our Civil Rights lawsuits are still being held up by the City?

Where was the Supreme Court when any people with signs along George W. Bush's transportation routes were sent to tiny, hidden "first amendment zones" out of site of the parade route?

The only conclusion I can draw is that protesting the wealthy benefactors of the Republican Party is not political speech worthwhile of protections, but picketing the private matters of poor, grieving people is important to the public discourse.

You are a retard.

You have the right to assemble. You have to right to free speech.

You do not have the right to do it any farking place you want. You also do not have the right to disrupt services or public events.

Obama's people do the same thing. Get over yourself and stop looking through partisan blinders.

TigerStar		2011-03-04 08:59:16 AM

rynthetyn: I hate Westboro with every fiber of my being, but I'm glad that I live in a country where they're free to say the kinds of reprehensible stuff they say.

Except for Muslims and Union people. America is the most exceptional country in the world and we didn't get there by expecting to be treated like human beings.

Biv		2011-03-04 09:00:49 AM

TigerStar: rynthetyn: I hate Westboro with every fiber of my being, but I'm glad that I live in a country where they're free to say the kinds of reprehensible stuff they say.

Except for Muslims and Union people. America is the most exceptional country in the world and we didn't get there by expecting to be treated like human beings.

The last time I checked the free speech of Muslims and union folks have not been restricted.

Phil Herup		2011-03-04 09:01:49 AM

Biv: Phil Herup: Why did they rule for them?

They had to.

My only question is how Alito found a way to dissent. This should have been unanimous.

You people suck at the politics. Someone HAD to dissent. You can't have a unanimous decision in favor of the WBC. Alito drew the short straw.

Politics in the SCOTUS? That is not supposed to happen and the reason they are given lifetime appointments to the bench.

We should always be concerned when obvious matters have any dissent. Alito should have known better. An example of a more egregious error in judgement is Heller v DC. That should have also been unanimous, but 4 ideologues decided to go against the Constitution on that one.

wraithmare		2011-03-04 09:02:35 AM

Enh. It's just a piece of paper.

StrangeQ		2011-03-04 09:02:38 AM

Chariset: MaudlinMutantMollusk: "When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross."

They're trolls. Do you think they believe a word of what's on those signs?

Yes, they do. You call them trolls because it makes you feel better. You want to tell yourself that you've beaten them because you know what they are up to, but you're wrong. There is evil in the world, and the Phelps are an example of it. Everything about them is repugnant to a civilized and rational mind, but do not think for one moment that they do not believe every word that they say.

Displayed 50 of 465 comments