Big Victory for Westboro Baptist "Church" in U.S. Supreme Court

I support this decision (0.00 / 0)

I'll defend their right to be assholes because I want to have that right, too.

---

by: huntsu @ Wed Mar 02, 2011 at 22:32:44 PM UTC

Hard to support decision, yet... (0.00 / 0)

Cowardly bullys intimidating the bereaved don't deserve a defense on behave of the rights of the everyday asshole. This decision seems wrong but as Alito is one of the worst jurists in the history of the Supreme Court it must be right. The Bordentown buffer-zone solution should be imitated whenever WBC types show up at military funerals.

mmgth

---

by: mmgth @ Thu Mar 03, 2011 at 01:08:59 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

What we really want to see is no more military funerals (0.00 / 0)

But if the WBC has the right to show up, we have the right as a community to invoke the 500 foot rule and blockade the area around the funeral. After the Moore funeral in Bordentown I doubt the WBC will bother to come back to New Jersey.

Blog: Pick's Place

---

by: jeffpickens @ Thu Mar 03, 2011 at 00:49:59 AM UTC

I wouldn't bet on it. (0.00 / 0)

It's not a particularly snappy signature, but here's what I think we need in the next NJ Democratic State Chair.  

---

by: Rosi Efthim @ Thu Mar 03, 2011 at 03:49:36 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I disagree with the decision (0.00 / 0)

I would like to believe that thoughtful people could elect thoughtful legislators who are capable of writing legislation that could strike a balance between freedom of speech and a right to privacy and the need for common decency in a society that is rapidly losing its sense of what that means.

If adults like those at the WBC continue to act like petulant children with absolutely no respect for others, then they should be treated like children with corresponding reductions with regards to their constitutional rights.  I don't think that anybody should have the right to be an asshole.

---

by: Bertin Lefkovic @ Thu Mar 03, 2011 at 02:01:29 AM UTC

Skokie (4.00 / 1)

One of the most abhorrent 1st Amendent decisions imaginable.  Unfortunately, correctly decided.

I weep.

---

by: SmartyJones @ Thu Mar 03, 2011 at 02:44:52 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I disagree... (0.00 / 0)

...with that decision as well.

---

by: Bertin Lefkovic @ Thu Mar 03, 2011 at 04:36:21 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

So (3.50 / 2)

what do you think of Bradley Manning, Wikileaks, the NYT, the Guardian, Daniel Ellsberg and Glenn Greenwald?

You can't get rid of speech that offends you, hurts you or exposes govenment lies.  Even though a lot of people are trying to.

Many Arab "governments" have done so (with US help) for decades.  Let's see where that gets us.

---

by: SmartyJones @ Thu Mar 03, 2011 at 17:14:28 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

very different (0.00 / 0)

The Nazis that marched on Skokie and the WBC hatemongers have been hurtful for the sake of being hurtful.  I don't think that hate speech for the sake of hate speech needs to be protected.  I think that there should be a standard for speech that requires there to be some objective societal benefit.

I think that a reasonable person could recognize an objective societal benefit for all of the examples that you have provided above.  I defy anyone, including free speech devil's advocates to argue the same on behalf of either the Nazis that marched on Skokie or the WBC hatemongers.

While it is understandable that free speech absolutists fear that any restriction of any kind of speech is a slippery slope that they prefer to avoid, but I have always felt that slippery slope arguements are slippery slope arguments unto themselves and often prevent reasonable people from establishing reasonable boundaries for acceptable public behavior.

---

by: Bertin Lefkovic @ Fri Mar 04, 2011 at 01:45:10 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

With a conservative court (0.00 / 0)

Any non-violent hate speech being allowed as free speech defends the left from same attacks because, as we've seen, the Right can turn anything into what they want their sheep to believe.

If we take free speech from the scum of the WBC, then we should expect the same treatment for anything the right constues to be ahteful from the left.

It isn't about the way we, personally, see it but about how it would apply to all of us.

freedom comes with some pain.

If we don't stand together, we fall alone
That didn't last long.

---

by: Couch Potato Politics @ Fri Mar 04, 2011 at 02:30:19 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I disagree (0.00 / 0)

Can you think of an example of hate speech from the left that could be equated in any way, shape, or form with the Skokie Nazis or the WBC hatemongers?  

Flag-burning is the only thing that comes to mind and that still pales in comparison to what the Skokie Nazis and WBC hatemongers have done.  If push came to shove, I would give up the right to burn the flag in return for the ability to silence Fred Phelps and his ilk.  It is a patently ridiculous and counter-productive form of protest anyway.

Once again, I think that if we applied a standard of objective societal benefit on speech, I think that it could filter out the likes of the Skokie Nazis and the WBC hatemongers.

---

by: Bertin Lefkovic @ Fri Mar 04, 2011 at 04:01:35 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

They claim calling Bush a War Criminal is (0.00 / 0)

And that protesting during "War Time" is treasonous...
I didn't say the reasons are reasonable, just that we can't exempt something just because we don't like it if it isn't calling for violence.

These people are attornies (WBC members) and have done their research to the umpteenth degree so they know exactly how far they can go and they rely on lawsuits to fund their "Missions".

I don't like it, nor do I agree with it but it is protected by law. There is no "BUT" or "other-than" in the 1st ammendment. It is a simple statement of the right to speak ones mind without fear of government interference.

Who decides the limit or application that objective societal standard you refer to? Politicians?
Right-wingers? Left-wingers? ACLU? Christian Coalition? Tea Party? Once a level is set regarding non-violent speech, where does the level sit? It can't simply apply to one group but must serve to restrict or permit ALL.

Your suggestion edges too close to the slippery-slope of policing ALL speech to one groups interests over anothers.

If you called a politicican a war-mongering baby-killer, you just exceeded that suggested objective societal standard if the decision is left to a right-leaning court under a right-wing movement (like we have at the moment). placards and signs of soldiers injured and kille din war to protest a war would meet the standard.

Slippery-slope, my friend, slippery-slope.

If we don't stand together, we fall alone
That didn't last long.

---

by: Couch Potato Politics @ Fri Mar 04, 2011 at 05:33:20 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I have already written about... (0.00 / 0)

...what I think about slippery-slope arguments.  They are a slippery-slope argument unto themselves.

I think that most, if not all, political speech, regardless of what people on the left or the right thinks of it should be protected by the 1st Amendment, but I think that what the Skokie Nazis and the WBC hatemongers have done ceases to be political speech, because their intent is not to advocate a point of view, but instead to cause pain and suffering.

For all intents and purposes, I think that an argument could be made that such forms of speech could be considered an act of emotional violence, which should not be viewed any differently as an act of physical violence.

We have recently seen NJ pass the toughest anti-bullying legislation in the country.  What makes it especially important about this legislation is that it treats acts of emotional violence and physical violence equally.  I could be wrong, but I do not remember anybody challenging this legislation as a violation of any bully's 1st Amendment rights.  Why is that?

Is there a significant difference between someone being emotionally terrorized by a bully or people being emotionally terrorized by groups like the Skokie Nazis and the WBC hatemongers?  I don't think so.  If anti-bullying legislation is constitutional, so should legislation that bans speech whose intent is geared more towards inflicting pain and suffering than making a political statement.

---

by: Bertin Lefkovic @ Fri Mar 04, 2011 at 06:23:46 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

As much as it sickens me... (0.00 / 0)

I have to accept that, yes, they have the right to spew their offensive and bigotted hate speech because they live in America.

But, I am heartened to know that many more will stand together to express their own freedom of speech and freedom to congregate to block and hide these animals from those who want nothing more than to lay their loved ones to rest in peace with respect and honor.

We can't choose who gets to speak their mind in public without expecting the same to be forced on us by those that don't agree.

This is a family of bigots who will eventually disappear from public life as they die off or become more and more irrelevant with the deterence of good people standing for respect.

What is more offensive is that they are funded by "Clients" who hire them for court representation.
Turns out this vessels of hatred are a fully operating and legitimate family of attornies and paralegals with a specialty in family and civil law (suing people).

They are actually highly sought in the home state because they are so good at it.

If the people in their state would stop hiring them, they'd run out of money and be forced to curtail their activities.  

If we don't stand together, we fall alone
That didn't last long.

---

by: Couch Potato Politics @ Thu Mar 03, 2011 at 02:47:13 AM UTC

I struggle with this myself (0.00 / 0)

There's something uniquely American about this concept of an almost absolute right to free speech. After all, many other countries, countries which few people would ever say are not "free" societies, have very deliberate restraints on free speech when that speech is deemed to serve no other purpose than to degrade, injure, incite or cause fear. I think immediately of Germany's severe restrictions on the display or publication of Nazi or Nazi-like material. Even the fascist salute is restricted. The UK has famously prohibited the entry into the country of people whose speech they deem incendiary, albeit not always consistently. My own home country of Brazil considers racist comments in places of business or over the airwaves a criminal offense.

So to those of us who have lived in other countries where the actions of an organization like WBC would simply not be tolerated, the absolutist approach to free speech can seem puzzling.

I suppose a relatively strict reading of the first amendment can produce the decision like this latest one of the Supreme Court so, on those grounds, perhaps there is little to dispute about it aside from the grotesque consequence of it with respect to the lunatics at WBC. I'd just remind people that other societies that have witnessed firsthand the consequences of unrestrained incendiary speech (eg Germany) have chosen a different path and don't seem any worse off for it. The sticking point is deciding where and how to draw a distinction between freedom to speak one's mind and freedom to speak that serves only to harm.

---

by: Alex @ Fri Mar 04, 2011 at 14:00:46 PM UTC

Snyder v Phelps (0.00 / 0)

http://www.supremecourt.gov/op...

---

by: SmartyJones @ Fri Mar 04, 2011 at 15:01:47 PM UTC