Supreme Court ruling on the Westboro Church case

[CathyA]

This just doesn't seem right. Why can't there be an exception to free speech, when what is said is so hateful and hurtful to people who are getting ready to bury their loved ones who have served this nation??
And what I can't believe even more is this church and its hate. "God hates you". "God is glad you're dead". "Pray for more dead soldiers". I just can't believe their hate.

I really think this country will go down eventually, partially because its too concerned with individual rights. (I know, I know........where are you going to draw the line). But it seems that we have so many cancers, but refuse to stop them.

[Alan]

I would agree that this group is about as offensive as any group I've ever seen. But the issue is, do we have a legally protected right not to be offended?

What sort of society would we have if we based our system of laws and individual rights on the notion of not offending someone? I believe in the notion of a strong constitutional Republic, others prefer the notion of a pure Democracy. Should one of us be legally forbidden to share our view?

I believe that once we start criminalizing non-PC speech, this country will be destroyed. Is that what we really want?

[iris lily]

The Westboro Church people, and there are, what, 5 of them? get entirely too much attention from media and everyone else.

People like to focus on them. They are a one trick pony, they are stupid, and stupidity is dull. Stop giving the dullards power. Let's all move on.

[Miss Cellane]

I see this as very similar to the court rulings that have allowed Nazi parties to have parades and marches. "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it," as Voltaire said. If we truly uphold the right to free speech, we have to let even those who repulse us exercise their right to the same free speech.

Cathy, I agree with how you feel. What the members of this church do is incredibly hurtful to the families of those who have fallen in conflict. My father was in the military for 30 years, four of my brothers have served/are still serving, one might be in Afghanistan by the end of the summer. I would not want the Westboro Church people anywhere near their funerals.

But it appears that the church members get all the necessary permits and permissions, they stay a certain distance away and follow all the rules. If we are going to be the country we say we are, we have to allow them to do this.

Instead of focusing on the Westboro church members, try to take heart from the actions of the Patriot Guard Riders, which started as a group of bikers who formed a physical shield to protect families from the sight of the Westboro church members, but which has greatly expanded from that: /http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Guard_Riders

[Bastelmutti]

If we truly uphold the right to free speech, we have to let even those who repulse us exercise their right to the same free speech.

I agree.

[Gina]

If we truly uphold the right to free speech, we have to let even those who repulse us exercise their right to the same free speech.

That's about it. Upholding the rights of even those who are obviously despicable, the rights of everyday people are also upheld. Speech is either 'free' or it isn't.

The SCOTUS vote should have been 9-0 on this issue.

[CathyA]

Would you all feel this way if they were outside your child's funeral, spewing this crap? I understand exactly what you all mean. But are there ways around situations like this? Like not allowing them even more than 1000' away? I know its a slippery slope, but what rights do good, decent people have in these kinds of situations?
I also want to add that I probably am reacting to this even more because of my upbringing as a hateful minister's daughter. (the minister was hateful, not me!) People who say they are representing some religious belief that is the exact opposite of what their "god" would say drive me nuts.
I understand their objection to war, but that position can be expressed without all this hate and vitriol.

[Reyes]

If we were to find a way around this group (as in carving a special place for denying them the freedom to speech) what group would be next? This group is so small I don't know why they get the attention they do.

As to keeping them a certain number of feet away, I am thinking they do not have the right to go on private property (as with a funeral home) so in a sense they can be kept at bay depending on the layout of the funeral home.

Trust me, I hate what they say. Their message after all is that god hates the US because they US tolerates gay people. While their actions at funerals is indeed horrible for the families involved, it is also horrible for the LGBT community as the LGBT community is the primary target of this group.

[treehugger]

Would you all feel this way if they were outside your child's funeral, spewing this crap?

Yes, almost definitely (even though I've never had a child die, so I could of course never really know how I'd feel hypothetically). But I really, really believe in free speech and the constitution and, like Alan said, "What sort of society would we have if we based our system of laws and individual rights on the notion of not offending someone?"

Sure they are rediculously offensive, but they are also completely rediculous, and I actually think that takes a little of the sting away. No one can possible take them seriously as rational Americans, as religious people, as anyone worth listening to.

[Bastelmutti]

Would you all feel this way if they were outside your child's funeral, spewing this crap?

Yes, because if we forbid them from speaking freely, then what's to stop someone else to forbid me from speaking out against the war or any other issue I believe in? Protesting the Iraq and Afghanistan wars was somewhat controversial at first, and some people were definitely "offended" by the protests. That's just one example - pick your issue.

[Bastelmutti]

Sure they are rediculously offensive, but they are also completely rediculous, and I actually think that takes a little of the sting away. No one can possible take them seriously as rational Americans, as religious people, as anyone worth listening to.

Good point.

[Miss Cellane]

The Westboro church isn't protesting the war. They have a very strong anti-gay stance. They feel that the current war is a judgment on the US for the over-all liberal attitude the US in general takes towards homosexuals. (Please note that my opinion on the matter is very, very different from the Westboro church. I'm trying to explain them, not defend them.)

So, given the US military's stance towards homosexuals, there's a subtle irony in the Westboro church's choice of picketing military funerals to further their anti-gay agenda.

I would not want them anywhere near a funeral of a family member. I don't want them protesting at *any* funeral. I don't agree in any way with any published opinion, stance, agenda, whatever that I have heard/read/seen about them. I think targeting funerals, where families are in mourning, is despicable.

But if they follow the laws that we as a country/state/city have set up for holding a protest, we have to let them protest. They have every right to their views, just as I have every right to mine. I'm sure the members of that church would consider me as wrong and misguided and mixed up as I consider them.

There are things that can be done. The 1000 foot distance can be increased, if enough people care to change the rules and laws. That increase would be for everyone, though, not just this one group. So the ramifications of that change would have to be examined.

Bottom line, once we start censoring free speech, where do we draw the line? Who gets to decide what's appropriate and what's not? The same sort of struggle has gone on with pornography--what's art? What's porn? What's neither? Can you take a picture of your naked one year old? Is that porn or a family photo?

There are no easy answers here.

Bear in mind that the Westboro church targets funerals specifically because it's something that catches the public's attention. The best way to deal with people like this is to ignore them, however hard that might be.

[Gina]

What the Westboro church does not understand is by being so toxic in their anti gay activities that indirectly they are supporting gay rights as rational people run the other direction.

It reminds me of the old days when a major church used to condemn racy movies and call them sinful - and that act alone increased box office for the film.

[ApatheticNoMore]

I'm pretty much if not a total absolutist on free speech. So yea, let them protest. If an honest forensics is ever done of this country's decline I doubt excessive civil liberties will ever be found to be the cause.

That they are silly and boring and so on sure. That many people with a lot more to add to the public dialogue, have their protests shut down much more fiercely than these jokers, well yea (see how people who protest the major party conventions are treated, see how Ray McGovern was treated for protesting Hillary's warmongering, etc. etc.). In fact they probably have their protest shut down more fiercely perhaps BECAUSE they pose some real danger to the status quo. Westboro is pretty politically insignificant, pretty much noone takes them seriously, they protest at funerals (wtf) rather than at the capitol, which may get them media coverage, but probably doesn't get them any real power etc. So I think this ruling gives the illusion we have more free speech than we actually do at this point in time, but hey we're not completely without free speech yet, and the ruling in and of itself is correct.

[Bastelmutti]

The Westboro church isn't protesting the war. They have a very strong anti-gay stance.

I don't know if this was in response to what I wrote, or not - if not, please disregard!

I didn't say that they were protesting the war (I know who they are). I said that if curtail their freedom of speech, then what's to say the next guy won't want to curtail mine when I'm protesting the war (as an example of free speech - it could be any issue).

[loosechickens]

Another absolutist free speech advocate here. Where the rubber meets the road on free speech is just this kind of case, where the speech itself is hateful, ugly and despicable. But.....we either have free speech in this country or we don't, and as ugly as their speech is, I will defend their right to speak it.

If they are disturbing funerals, laws can be passed to make them stay so many feet away from a funeral, and that law would apply to any other group wanting to make statements there. That is not interfering with their free speech. They may have to stand down the block and spew the hatred, but we must not restrain their right to do so.

And in actuality, as some have pointed out, they ARE so ugly and their speech is so hateful that they have probably done more than any group of a few dozen people in the country to advance the cause of gay rights, and to shine a bright light on homophobia.

I am a big fan of "get all the information out there and truth will eventually sort itself out", and this is no exception. I may hate the guts of Fred Phelps and his family, but I defend completely their right to free speech. Because if we lose THAT right, our country really WILL go down the tubes. And who is to decide which group to stifle today and which group to stifle tomorrow?

I hate the speech of people like Glenn Beck, too......but I'd defend his right to spew inaccuracies and downright untruths as long as there are people willing to listen to him. I WILL laugh at him and ridicule lots of what he says, however. He has free speech, and so do I.

Face it, the Phelps family is laughable, more than dangerous. And receive WAY more publicity than they deserve. The best way to handle them is to laugh them to death, not to stifle what they are saying.

I understand what you're saying CathyA....and given your upbringing and the experiences of your past, I recognize that these folks, the Phelps, are doubly ugly to you. But...........even if it were my kid's funeral, I wouldn't change my mind. And if it were my kid who served in the U.S. Marines, he'd be the first to agree that the rights of the Phelps to scream hatred and ugliness at his funeral was a large part of what he served to defend.

[bae]

I see this as very similar to the court rulings that have allowed Nazi parties to have parades and marches. "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it," as Voltaire said. If we truly uphold the right to free speech, we have to let even those who repulse us exercise their right to the same free speech.


Exactly so.

[Kat]

I agree that what this group is saying/doing is horrible. These families are grieving a terrible loss and should be shown some respect. However, we do have the freedom of speech in this country. And that freedom is extended to everyone, not just people who say things we like and agree with. In my opinion, saying, "You are entitled to say anything you'd except x, y, and z" isn't really free speech. And yes, doing that would be a *very* slippery slope.

[Spartana]

I see this as very similar to the court rulings that have allowed Nazi parties to have parades and marches. "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it," as Voltaire said. If we truly uphold the right to free speech, we have to let even those who repulse us exercise their right to the same free speech.


I totally agree. Unfortunately this message is often lost on immigrants to this country. Immigrants who come here in search of just those freedoms. I lived in an area of SoCal called "Little Saigon" in Westminster several years ago. This area has the largest Vietnamese population in the world outside of Vietnam. Most of the population were originally South Vietnamese refugees. A shop owner put up picture of Ho Chi Minh in his shop and we had near riots in the streets by the local South Vietnamese immigrants. Mass protests, some which became violent towards the shop owner, demanding he remove the picture. Made the national news for several weeks. The court sided with the shop owner saying that while it was repulsive and incited hate in the south viet community, it was a part of the policical freedoms we had inthis country. The shop owner was evicted from his shop and his business and livelihood was destroyed. And while I understand the repulsion of the local people at the photo, I also was saddened to see that they didn't respect the right to free speech they had in this country - a right they had lost many people in their own country fighting for. Anyways, the mass protests won out and the pic was taken down and the shop owner expelled. So I guess I look at it like this - what if it was someone putting up a picture of Christ in a Jewish community? Or Buddha in a Christian community? One person's hate is another's belief and who's to deny either of them the right of freedom of speech.

As for Cathy A - I agree that this Church is so utterly offensive and repulsive, but yet, if it were me or mine being buried after serving my country, I would stand all the more proud at the gravestite and listen to the crazy church ranting, knowing that this fredom - and the freedom of all people in this country - is what my child gave his life for.

[CathyA]

Thanks everyone. I appreciate your perspectives.

[KayLR]

If not this, then what exactly constitutes a hate crime? I know every state has different statutes, but good grief!

This is an example, Alabama's statute:
It is the right of every person, regardless of race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, or physical or mental disability, to be secure and protected from threats of reasonable fear, intimidation, harassment, and physical harm caused by activities of groups and individuals.
It is not the intent, by enactment of this section, to interfere with the exercise of rights protected by the Constitution of the State of Alabama or the United States

These people are so sickening. Narcissistic sociopaths who seem to have the only motive of exercising what seems to be a loophole in the system.

[bae]

The US generally doesn't have "hate crime" laws that reckon speech and assembly as crimes, since the Supreme Court has been pretty consistent in supporting the 1st Amendment, and the 1st Amendment has been held to apply to the states via incorporation through the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution.

[jp1]

What the Westboro church does not understand is by being so toxic in their anti gay activities that indirectly they are supporting gay rights as rational people run the other direction.

It reminds me of the old days when a major church used to condemn racy movies and call them sinful - and that act alone increased box office for the film.

Recently I read about debate on a state bill somewhere (virginia maybe?) over whether to honor gay marriages done elsewhere. One of the legislators who had been against the bill changed his mind after listening to all the public comments during an open session for comments. His reaction basically amounted to "all the anti-gay people were presenting negative, hateful views about gay people, and all the pro-gay people were talking about the desire to have equal rights and a chance at personal happiness. All the anti-gay comments supporting the bill helped me realize that this bill is wrong."

Personally I agree with loosechickens. Free speech means free speech, no matter how dreadfully repugnant it is. Rational people can see these hateful idiots for what they are without the law silencing them. When the day comes that Fred Phelps dies I hope that I and many many others are able to make it to his funeral to celebrate with a loud protest against his life's work. His family (most of his church members are his family) deserve nothing less.

[Gregg]

That's about it. Upholding the rights of even those who are obviously despicable, the rights of everyday people are also upheld. Speech is either 'free' or it isn't.

The SCOTUS vote should have been 9-0 on this issue.

+1