Supreme court case: Protests at funerals

• Manic wrote on 2010-10-07 00:39
  This is what drives me crazy about churches. Do they really think this will change peoples beliefs? Crashing a FUNERAL with signs saying God hates them?! Really? They have it all wrong.
  
  What they should be holding is signs saying God still loves them(edit: but NOT at a funeral). They are supposed to be showing God's love...
• Phunkie wrote on 2010-10-07 00:43
  Man, if any of these people picketed one of my loved one's funerals, I'd get arrested for throwing fists and beating the crap out of those people. Maybe not the kids, but definitely that old hag.
  
  Not even lying.
  
  
  But remember friends, love is louder than hate. Always louder.
  
  http://loveislouder.com/
• Spartaaaaa wrote on 2010-10-07 00:53
  I wish people had a little more tolerance for intolerance in this country...
• Phunkie wrote on 2010-10-07 00:54

  Quote from Spartaaaaa;177778:

  I wish people had a little more tolerance for intolerance in this country...

  
  
  I wish people had some damn respect for others in this country.
• Time wrote on 2010-10-07 01:18

  Quote from Phunkie;177779:

  I wish people had some damn respect for others in this country.

  
  
  Yeah, people abuse their rights.....I mean, the freedom of speech is great, but do you really have to use it as an excuse to be disrespectful to others.
• EndlessDreams wrote on 2010-10-07 15:47

  Quote from Phunkie;177779:

  I wish people had some damn respect for others in this country.

  
  
  While you can wish that, it isn't illegal to disrespect someone. At least, it isn't illegal in the US constitution, which the Supreme Court is responsible for interpreting. Maybe in different countries and some obscure state law, there may have some law that makes attempts at making disrespect illegal.
  
  Also, different people can interpret what is disrespect differently.
  
  One can say that your signature and post is disrespectful. Of course, you will either argue that it isn't and/or that you have the right to express it.
  
  Spartaaaaa is right, people should have more tolerance for the intolerance. It is part of the Freedom of Expression/Press/Religion.
  
  

  Quote from Timexpo;177810:

  Yeah, people abuse their rights.....I mean, the freedom of speech is great, but do you really have to use it as an excuse to be disrespectful to others.

  
  
  Is it really an abuse of their rights when Free Speech is their right? Free Speech is there to protect the people, whose speech is disrespectful to someone, from being censored. Think political debates, "hot" issues debates, complaints about the government, and etc.
  
  If everyone just agree with each other speech contents, the right of Free Speech isn't really tested.
• Cryosite wrote on 2010-10-07 17:07
  There was a time when it was considered disrespectful for a black person to not give up their seat towards the front of the bus to a white person.
• Phunkie wrote on 2010-10-07 17:41

  Quote from EndlessDreams;178255:

  One can say that your signature and post is disrespectful. Of course, you will either argue that it isn't and/or that you have the right to express it.
  
  Spartaaaaa is right, people should have more tolerance for the intolerance. It is part of the Freedom of Expression/Press/Religion.

  
  
  I don't disagree with you. You have the right to express it.
  
  It shouldn't be illegal to express your opinion. Just like it shouldn't be legal to kill someone in revenge.
  
  What should be illegal is the degree of harassment the victims have to tolerate from these kinds of people? Holding up signs is one thing, but having "epithets" with the names of the fallen? Or going up to people and cursing them families because their fallen loved one was gay?
  
  Give me a break.
  
  Just because you have the "right" to express yourself freely does not mean that you should get away with these kinds of offenses.
  
  I have the right to go up to a innocent, little kid and call him all the worst things, but should I exercise that right? Probably not.
  
  Detrimental harassment or "hate speech" should not be a law protected by the Constitution. America is too tolerant of the intolerant, if you ask me.
  
  Call your teacher or boss a fag who should burn in hell and you'll likely get expelled or fired. Why defend these idiots who claim to have the right to "protest peacefully" at funerals of people they don't even know?
  
  How can you defend them? I do not.
  
  And I would not be surprised if someone one day decides to drive their van into their group and injures them all. Why? Because their speech incites conflict, anger. You are hitting someone when they are most vulnerable, when their mother died perhaps.
  
  If someone told me that my mother was a b*tch days after she died, I would likely offend that person physically.
  
  Why?
  
  Because even though you have all the right in this country to offend my dead mother, it is not right. At least have the decency not to do it at my mother's funeral. That's offensive and confrontational, no matter how "peaceful" you are.
  
  
  But remember friends, love is louder.
  
  http://loveislouder.com/
  
  I do not and will never defend spreading hate. Even if you are in your right to do so.
  
  Someone has to take a stance, someone has to say, "I've had it," "That's enough."
  
  A bully shouldn't have the right to make you feel like sh*t and you shouldn't have to tolerate that kind of harassment, no matter how civil he is, no matter how "peaceful" he is.
  
  These people are RL bullies and we're letting them get away with it. I'm just so sad that you cannot see this.
  
  I just hope the Supreme Court sees it.
• paladin wrote on 2010-10-08 02:36

  Quote from Spartaaaaa;177778:

  I wish people had a little more tolerance for intolerance in this country...

  
  
  Still gotta consider compared to other countries you get alot of toleration here
  I bet in other countries doing something like this would get you pounded on
  In some countries you arent allowed to even do intolerant acts id bet
  
  Thats the main issue with the free speech idea
  When does it cross the line
  This is a good example
• wolfram wrote on 2010-10-08 15:48
  I will say this:
  
  Freedom of speech does not insulate one from the consequences of that speech.
  
  It’s really this simple. Phelps is free to say and do what he does. If in the course of acting technically legally he causes an injury, then he’s responsible for the consequences of his actions.
  
  I.E.
  It’s not illegal to drive your grocery cart around the grocery store. But if you run into an old lady who is bending over in front of you, knock her down and break her hip, you are responsible.
  
  Part II:
  Free speech is easy to protect when it is tasteful. It is harder to protect when it is vile. It still needs protection. The Phelps bunch have a right to protest. We too have a right to go to their businesses, scream louder than them at rallies, and generally make their lives hell so long as it is within the law.
  
  III: I went and read the filings for this case...lawyers are really dumb sometimes.
  
  This is where the appeals court failed. They are free to say what they want. They are also free to do it in public places. However, if a person can legally show that such speech is injurious, it should be subject to a civil court claim. Now, there is usually a difficulty in proving this. So the verdict seems like it might be based on emotion and it would have to be up to the court to decide upon on this part of the action. To find for emotional damages have nothing to do free speech rights. The government is not restricting anyone here. A civil jury found that that the members of Westboro injured the plaintiff emotionally, or "intentional infliction of emotional distress", which he sued for and won. That was the claim that was awarded the 11 million dollar settlement.
  
  TL;DR: Phelps hides behind 1st Amendment rights to avoid paying for emotional distress he is responsible for, claiming that since he is free to protest, under the 1st Amendment, and did it legally he should be acquitted of all consequences.
  The Constitution does not protect you from the consequences of your actions, it only gives you the right to perform those actions.
• Osayidan wrote on 2010-10-08 16:20
  Legally they have every right to, socially they're retards for doing it.
  One might win against them in court on the grounds of causing emotional distress/harassment though. Everyone has the right to protest but if your protesting has undesired effects on people, then you're in trouble.
  
  Don;t forget that it's in america, where a burglar can sue a home owner he tried to burglarize for being trapped in the house.
• TA wrote on 2010-10-08 16:37
  I would consider this to fall under Disturbing the peace. They're attacking very emotional individuals. and it falls under these two clauses, in my opinion: "2) make unreasonable noise so as to disturb other people, or (3) use offensive "fighting words" in public that are inherently likely to provoke a violent response."
  
  While people have a right to protest, they need to respect other people... this is their last chance to be with their loved ones, their time to send them off and say their goodbyes.
  
  I don't imagine I could help myself from snapping and becoming extremely violent and perhaps even having downright murderous intent if it happened to me. It's not right to do that to the families at a funeral... for god's sake, it's a funeral! Have some common human decency...
  
  However....
  
  

  The question of whether the Snyders could file a tort claim even if the church could show it followed all local and state laws in setting up their protest. Evidence shows they stayed at least 1,000 feet from the funeral and obeyed other law enforcement requests. Snyder's father did not realize the protest had taken place until he got home and saw a television news report about it.

  
  
  It doesn't seem as bad as it was made out to sound. I had had the picture in my mind that they were right outside the funeral in plain sight with their signs, yelling obscenities during the procession (which they did not).
  
  Yes, it was at a funeral, but at least 1,000 feet away and the family didn't even notice? I don't think that's unacceptable. Though whether protests should be allowed at funerals or not, that's another topic entirely, and I think that's likely the decision the justices are going to have to make here. And it's not an easy one...
• Juno wrote on 2010-10-08 16:39

  Quote from Zid:

  No matter how permitted it is, according to society, it's indecent, it's inappropriate, it's disrespectful.

  
  
  Yep.
  
  The irony here is that people are taking it to the supreme court like there's actually a case or something. Free speech, as much as I hate to say it, totally covers stuff like this. It really shouldn't take the highest court in the land to point out something so obvious.
  
  There is, however, the issue of the consequences of said free speech. I believe it was mentioned earlier that this part is over and done with the offenders having been convicted. That's what the focus here should be.