Supreme Ct. to Rule on Funeral Protesting A holes

• Ghmothwdwhso

  I Wear Pants wrote:

  tk421 wrote:

  LJ wrote: I don't consider what the Westboro church is doing to be "peacefully" assembling.

  Who can say? The public doesn't like it, but they are not physically harming anyone. If the Supreme Court rules Westboro can't assemble as they like, what's next? Political protests?
  
  The KKK has the right to assemble and march just like any other group. How is that any different from the Westboro Church?

  Does the KKK plan marches around black people's funerals?

  Watch for "Cbus4life" to chime in shortly.
• Ghmothwdwhso

  Everyone is arguing the legality of this group to make such comments at a private event.
  
  The only way to stop this nonsense is to beat the living shit out of these idiots. They may win in court, but I believe they will think twice the next time they try this.
  
  A few months in jail for assault and battery for some peace and quiet at my relatives/friends funeral (or the next funeral while the protester is recovering) would be worth it.
  
  Some times people need to quit looking for the nanny state to protect them/do the dirty work for them, and take matters into their own hands.
  
  Can you imagine someone protesting a private/family funeral back in the 20's, 30's, etc and before? What a pussified group of people we have become. Sometimes, people just need a punch in the mouth.
• FairwoodKing

  buckeyefalls wrote: Quint,
  
  While I am in no way in favor of them removing Phelps' freedom of speech, since our government has already began taking away other "rights/freedoms" then maybe they need to amend this one to get rid of Phelps and his hateful message.
  
  On the flip side, why don't Americans stand up against this and have a million man march/demonstration in Kansas where this group lives? Stand outside their house and make comments like they do in a civilized way until they promise to stop their hatred. Heck, if they can't get out of their drive way and if millions of people show them how they truly feel about them, maybe they will stop.
  
  However, we let it go on. How unfortunate.

  Exactly who would show up to picket their houses? We gays wouldn't. These crackpots are doing us a favor. Thanks to them, we are getting sympathy from people who otherwise would not bother with us.
  
  Having said that, I must also say that I have great sympathy for the families of the deceased soldiers. These grieving people do not deserve this crap.
• CenterBHSFan

  

  I think I'd like to see some of you take on 20, 30+ people. Do ya think your Chuck Norris? LOL
  
  Anyway, I would love to punch all of'em in the head, but what would be the real point of it?
  
  These people love ALL of the publicity that they're getting. Punching one of them (or several) would only put them on the front page yet again. Every single one of them are lawyers or married to a lawyer. They'd just stall and string things out to keep their name in print longer and possibly leave you without a penny to your name or your family.
  No, I don't think it's worth it.
• WebFire

  In the good old days, the right to bear arms would have taken care of this right to free speech.
• cbus4life

  WebFire wrote: In the good old days, the right to bear arms would have taken care of this right to free speech.

  Nothing like some good ol' vigilante justice.
  
  The right to bear arms wasn't put in there to allow you to more easily kill your neighbors who aren't harming you.
• BCSbunk

  majorspark wrote: People are misunderstanding the first amendment as it applies to free speech. It was intended to prevent the federal government from prohibiting political speech against the government. It was never meant to allow citizens to berate themselves at private funerals. It does not give you the right to cuss out your boss, slander your neighbor, or shout down your political opponent. It gives you the right to say the federal government sucks and why by any public means. It does not give you the right to force your opinion on any other citizen. No citizen should be forced at a private event to listen to your political opinion.

  Majorsparks has it absolutely correct.
• queencitybuckeye

  BCSbunk wrote:

  majorspark wrote: People are misunderstanding the first amendment as it applies to free speech. It was intended to prevent the federal government from prohibiting political speech against the government. It was never meant to allow citizens to berate themselves at private funerals. It does not give you the right to cuss out your boss, slander your neighbor, or shout down your political opponent. It gives you the right to say the federal government sucks and why by any public means. It does not give you the right to force your opinion on any other citizen. No citizen should be forced at a private event to listen to your political opinion.

  Majorsparks has it absolutely correct.

  Except for case law that makes it clear that free speech rights include most speech and not just the political.
• majorspark

  

  queencitybuckeye wrote:

  BCSbunk wrote:

  majorspark wrote: People are misunderstanding the first amendment as it applies to free speech. It was intended to prevent the federal government from prohibiting political speech against the government. It was never meant to allow citizens to berate themselves at private funerals. It does not give you the right to cuss out your boss, slander your neighbor, or shout down your political opponent. It gives you the right to say the federal government sucks and why by any public means. It does not give you the right to force your opinion on any other citizen. No citizen should be forced at a private event to listen to your political opinion.

  Majorsparks has it absolutely correct.

  Except for case law that makes it clear that free speech rights include most speech and not just the political.

  And case law is never wrong.
• WebFire

  cbus4life wrote:

  WebFire wrote: In the good old days, the right to bear arms would have taken care of this right to free speech.

  Nothing like some good ol' vigilante justice.
  
  The right to bear arms wasn't put in there to allow you to more easily kill your neighbors who aren't harming you.

  Yes I know. Can't we just have fun sometimes? Why so serious?
• rocketalum

  Also no one has addressed the actual tort being addressed here. Everyone is mentioning 'free speech' but the first post quite clearly stated this is not a free speech case it's a Tort case for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress. Here's just a quick copy and paste from my old law school notes.
  
  The tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress has four elements: (1) the defendant must act intentionally or recklessly; (2) the defendant's conduct must be extreme and outrageous; and (3) the conduct must be the cause (4) of severe emotional distress.
  
  So protection under the 1st amendment has nothing to do with this. All Snyder needs to do is prove those 4 elements against the church and he should win. For further clarification a test used by many courts to determine what is "extreme and outrageous" is as follows.
  
  conduct must be "so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community."
  
  I'm honestly not sure how the appellate court decided to overrule. It seems like all the elements are their to me.
• Quint

  

  rocketalum wrote: Also no one has addressed the actual tort being addressed here. Everyone is mentioning 'free speech' but the first post quite clearly stated this is not a free speech case it's a Tort case for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress. Here's just a quick copy and paste from my old law school notes.
  
  The tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress has four elements: (1) the defendant must act intentionally or recklessly; (2) the defendant's conduct must be extreme and outrageous; and (3) the conduct must be the cause (4) of severe emotional distress.
  
  So protection under the 1st amendment has nothing to do with this. All Snyder needs to do is prove those 4 elements against the church and he should win. For further clarification a test used by many courts to determine what is "extreme and outrageous" is as follows.
  
  conduct must be "so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community."
  
  I'm honestly not sure how the appellate court decided to overrule. It seems like all the elements are their to me.

  I believe the appellate court reversed on the grounds that free speech must be protected by not recognizing the tort. I don't know the specifics, but I'm pretty sure the First Amendment defense was used in some form for this case. This is a free speech issue. If I had to argue, I would say the First Amendment bars the court from determining that this conduct is extreme and outrageous; thus, the claim would fail on the second element of IIED.
• queencitybuckeye

  majorspark wrote:

  queencitybuckeye wrote:

  BCSbunk wrote:

  majorspark wrote: People are misunderstanding the first amendment as it applies to free speech. It was intended to prevent the federal government from prohibiting political speech against the government. It was never meant to allow citizens to berate themselves at private funerals. It does not give you the right to cuss out your boss, slander your neighbor, or shout down your political opponent. It gives you the right to say the federal government sucks and why by any public means. It does not give you the right to force your opinion on any other citizen. No citizen should be forced at a private event to listen to your political opinion.

  Majorsparks has it absolutely correct.

  Except for case law that makes it clear that free speech rights include most speech and not just the political.

  And case law is never wrong.

  Right or wrong, it's the law of the land until overturned.
• Swamp Fox

  ...and we all know how long it took slavery to be repealed.
• cbus4life

  Ghmothwdwhso wrote:

  I Wear Pants wrote:

  tk421 wrote:

  LJ wrote: I don't consider what the Westboro church is doing to be "peacefully" assembling.

  Who can say? The public doesn't like it, but they are not physically harming anyone. If the Supreme Court rules Westboro can't assemble as they like, what's next? Political protests?
  
  The KKK has the right to assemble and march just like any other group. How is that any different from the Westboro Church?

  Does the KKK plan marches around black people's funerals?

  Watch for "Cbus4life" to chime in shortly.

  ?
• CenterBHSFan

  

  cbus4life wrote:

  Ghmothwdwhso wrote:

  I Wear Pants wrote:

  tk421 wrote:

  LJ wrote: I don't consider what the Westboro church is doing to be "peacefully" assembling.

  Who can say? The public doesn't like it, but they are not physically harming anyone. If the Supreme Court rules Westboro can't assemble as they like, what's next? Political protests?
  
  The KKK has the right to assemble and march just like any other group. How is that any different from the Westboro Church?

  Does the KKK plan marches around black people's funerals?

  Watch for "Cbus4life" to chime in shortly.

  ?

  Haha! Maybe you're supposed to say "change you can believe in!!!!111!!11" ???
  
  Oh wait...
• rookie_j70

  

  these soulless assholes should be placed in a USMC firing range
• Captain Cavalier

  

  Quint wrote:

  rocketalum wrote: Also no one has addressed the actual tort being addressed here. Everyone is mentioning 'free speech' but the first post quite clearly stated this is not a free speech case it's a Tort case for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress. Here's just a quick copy and paste from my old law school notes.
  
  The tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress has four elements: (1) the defendant must act intentionally or recklessly; (2) the defendant's conduct must be extreme and outrageous; and (3) the conduct must be the cause (4) of severe emotional distress.
  
  So protection under the 1st amendment has nothing to do with this. All Snyder needs to do is prove those 4 elements against the church and he should win. For further clarification a test used by many courts to determine what is "extreme and outrageous" is as follows.
  
  conduct must be "so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community."
  
  I'm honestly not sure how the appellate court decided to overrule. It seems like all the elements are their to me.

  I believe the appellate court reversed on the grounds that free speech must be protected by not recognizing the tort. I don't know the specifics, but I'm pretty sure the First Amendment defense was used in some form for this case.

  They "chickened" out IMO.
  
  Though I believe in free speech, this [size=medium]is[/size] outrageous.
  
  I'm Pro-Life, yet I would be against any "protest" at Tiller's funeral.
  
  If rocket's post is correct, I should think that Snyder has a better than average chance and I would think, and hope, that the majority of Americans would agree.
• Quint

  

  http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_funeral_protests
  
  This is an interesting article on the case. Sounds to me like the SC will rule in favor of First Amendment protection.
• Devils Advocate

  

  When these idiots were in Vandalia a while back, The police had to literally escort them back to their buses to protect them. A Few of the cops were tempted to let the crowd have their way with em. It's a pity, the assholes are protected more than the bereaved family is.
• Quint

  

  These people are inciting violence. . . I cannot comprehend how this would be a form of protected speech. I think the SC should rule that protesting funerals is not protected, because it does incite violence. These people can still get their message out via the internet, reading materials, commercials, etc. So, it is not like the ruling would eliminate their free speech.
  
  I don't know how some lawyers represent people like the Westboro Church. . . this is why I plan on staying away from criminal defense!
• Bigred1995

  

  Quint wrote: These people are inciting violence. . . I cannot comprehend how this would be a form of protected speech. I think the SC should rule that protesting funerals is not protected, because it does incite violence. These people can still get their message out via the internet, reading materials, commercials, etc. So, it is not like the ruling would eliminate their free speech.
  
  I don't know how some lawyers represent people like the Westboro Church. . . this is why I plan on staying away from criminal defense!

  One of the daughters of Fred Phelps is a lawyer!
• tk421

  

  Quint wrote: These people are inciting violence. . . I cannot comprehend how this would be a form of protected speech. I think the SC should rule that protesting funerals is not protected, because it does incite violence. These people can still get their message out via the internet, reading materials, commercials, etc. So, it is not like the ruling would eliminate their free speech.
  
  I don't know how some lawyers represent people like the Westboro Church. . . this is why I plan on staying away from criminal defense!

  They point to the undisputed facts of the case. Westboro contacted police before its protest, which was conducted in a designated area on public land — 1,000 feet from the church where the Mass was held in Westminster, Md.
  
  The protesters — Phelps and six family members — broke no laws. Snyder knew they were present, but he did not see their signs or hear their statements until he turned on the news at his son's wake.

  They broke no laws. As much as what they are doing is distasteful, they have the same legal right to assemble and protest as any other group in America. The SC can not single out one specific group and tell them they don't have the right to protest. This case will be decided in favor of First Amendment rights.
• Quint

  

  tk421 wrote:

  Quint wrote: These people are inciting violence. . . I cannot comprehend how this would be a form of protected speech. I think the SC should rule that protesting funerals is not protected, because it does incite violence. These people can still get their message out via the internet, reading materials, commercials, etc. So, it is not like the ruling would eliminate their free speech.
  
  I don't know how some lawyers represent people like the Westboro Church. . . this is why I plan on staying away from criminal defense!

  They point to the undisputed facts of the case. Westboro contacted police before its protest, which was conducted in a designated area on public land — 1,000 feet from the church where the Mass was held in Westminster, Md.
  
  The protesters — Phelps and six family members — broke no laws. Snyder knew they were present, but he did not see their signs or hear their statements until he turned on the news at his son's wake.

  They broke no laws. As much as what they are doing is distasteful, they have the same legal right to assemble and protest as any other group in America. The SC can not single out one specific group and tell them they don't have the right to protest. This case will be decided in favor of First Amendment rights.

  First, I would like to preface this with the fact that this is all just the personal opinion of a second year law student who is actually still in the midst of learning about the application of the First Amendment; thus, if someone knows First Amendment law, please point out the flaws in my argument because I am very interested in this case.
  
  I don't think the church group should be singled out. The Court just needs to do a blanket rule, and hold that any protest of any funeral by any person is a type of expression that incites violence; thus, it is not protected by the First Amendment. I think the Court can make this a very narrow holding without abridging the rights of citizens. All they have to do is extend the definition of "fighting words."
  
  In Chaplinski, the court held that "insulting or 'fighting words,' those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace" are not protected by the First Amendment. Later, in Cohen, the Court elaborated that the words must be personally abusive or directed at a person, and that offensiveness was not enough.
  
  I think it is quite obvious that what they are doing is causing a lot of people to get very angry and violent (as evidenced by the police escorts). This is understandable because of the emotions that flow when going to a funeral for a fallen soldier, family member, friend, girlfriend, etc. It doesn't matter who is being buried. If someone is protesting the funeral because of any reason, there is a high possibility that people will become violently angry. If my brother died, and a group decided to protest the funeral because they didn't agree with how courts handled probate, I would be pissed. I would probably become violent. I'm sure many people would feel the same regardless of the group protesting the funeral.
  
  The difficult part is proving that what the church is doing is directed at the people at the funeral. The church claims to be protesting in general and they are not aiming at the individual families. However, I don't think you can separate the two. If you are protesting at a funeral, I think it is implied that you are directing your expressions to the grieving family.
  
  In my opinion, this is not protected speech according to the precedent of the Court regarding fighting words.
• CenterBHSFan

  

  I think almost all of the family are either lawyers, schooling to be a lawyer, or married to a lawyer. It's in the tradition of Fred Phelps.
  
  Apparently, they were in Wheeling over the weekend. I never knew that they were going to be in the area else I'd have protested them!
  I heard on the radio that they contacted Wheeling police and let them know they were coming and requested security, which they were given.