Free Speech or Hate Speech?

[Rakhel]

Supreme Court Weighs Military Funeral Protests: Are They Free Speech?

'World News' Wants to Know What You Think

Do members of the controversial Westboro Baptist Church have a constitutionally protected right to protest at the funerals of members of the military?

That's the question the Supreme Court will take up today as it begins its term.

In the case, Snyder v. Phelps, the father of Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder sued members of the Westboro Church's Phelps family after they protested at his son's funeral.

As they have at many other military funerals, the church members carried signs near the funeral with messages including, "Thank God for dead soldiers and "God hates ****."

Snyder was not gay. The Topeka, Kan., church members say they are protesting the federal government's tolerance of homosexuality and that soldiers' deaths are a divine message about America's sins.


Albert Snyder sued for emotional distress and an invasion of his family's privacy, winning $5 million before the ruling was overturned by a federal appeals court. The court said that Westboro's protest was "rhetorical hyperbole" protected by the First Amendment.

So, what do you think? Are the protests at military funerals a form of free speech?

Supreme Court Weighs Military Funeral Protests: Are They Free Speech? 'World News' Question of the Day - ABC News

 

[HonestJoe]

So, what do you think? Are the protests at military funerals a form of free speech?

It's clearly a form of free speech but slander or shouting at the top of your voice outside someone's bedroom window at 5am are forms of free speech too. They're forms which are restricted and the real question is whether this form of free speech should also be restricted.

I suspect the Consitution could be (and is!) interpreted either way so is probably a poor choice for the be-all and end-all of legal rights. The practical dicision the court needs to come to is based on the damage this free speech causes and whether the extent of that damage justifies restricting it.

 

[linwood]

Supreme Court Weighs Military Funeral Protests: Are They Free Speech?

Yes it is free speech and no it should not be restricted.

 

[Smoke]

So, what do you think? Are the protests at military funerals a form of free speech?

Yes, as long as they're just carrying signs and not disrupting the funeral.

 

[Skwim]

So, what do you think? Are the protests at military funerals a form of free speech?

Absolutely, as long as it doesn't prevent others from doing what they want. i.e. being so loud as to be disruptive. Military personnel do not constitute a protected class, so protests against them or the military itself don't fall under the protection of hate crime laws.

 

[tumbleweed41]

The Topeka, Kan., church members say they are protesting the federal government's tolerance of homosexuality and that soldiers' deaths are a divine message about America's sins.

I'm no Lawyer, but to me, this indicates their free speech is performed in the wrong forum. They should be picketing the federal government, not the funeral of a soldier unrelated to their concerns.
So either it is truly speech directed at the family of the slain soldier, or they need to move their protest to the appropriate venue.

This would be like picketing at a dairy ranch because I do not like the Grocery stores policy on hiring bag-boys.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Speech that doesn't anger or insult somebody is never in danger of being restricted.

 

[Smoke]

Absolutely, as long as it doesn't prevent others from doing what they want. i.e. being so loud as to be disruptive. Military personnel do not constitute a protected class, so protests against them or the military itself don't fall under the protection of hate crime laws.

It doesn't have anything to do with whether the military are a protected class. Hate speech is not a hate crime in the U.S. To be a hate crime, it has to be a crime. If we outlawed hate speech, we'd have to close the churches.

 

[Revoltingest]

Speech that doesn't anger or insult somebody is never in danger of being restricted.

But there is no shortage of people who anger easily, so restriction always looms.

Dereliction Of Duty: The Constitutional Record of President Clinton

"In July 1994....the Department of Housing and Urban Development launched an "investigation" of a married Berkeley couple, Alexandra White and Joseph Deringer. White and Deringer did not want a hotel in their neighborhood to be converted into a homeless shelter, so they organized a fledgling opposition campaign. HUD managers were put off by the citizen resistance to their "fair housing" initiative. The HUD officials threatened White and Deringer with fines in order to set an example for other would-be objectors. [12] According to defense attorney David Bryden, federal investigators asked for every article, flier, and letter to the editor that his clients (White and Deringer) had written. The opinions expressed in those publications were to be used as "evidence" of Fair Housing Act violations."

 

[Skwim]

It doesn't have anything to do with whether the military are a protected class. Hate speech is not a hate crime in the U.S. To be a hate crime, it has to be a crime. If we outlawed hate speech, we'd have to close the churches.

My error. Thanks for correcting me.

 

[gnomon]

Supreme Court Weighs Military Funeral Protests: Are They Free Speech?

'World News' Wants to Know What You Think

Do members of the controversial Westboro Baptist Church have a constitutionally protected right to protest at the funerals of members of the military?

That's the question the Supreme Court will take up today as it begins its term.

In the case, Snyder v. Phelps, the father of Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder sued members of the Westboro Church's Phelps family after they protested at his son's funeral.

As they have at many other military funerals, the church members carried signs near the funeral with messages including, "Thank God for dead soldiers and "God hates ****."

Snyder was not gay. The Topeka, Kan., church members say they are protesting the federal government's tolerance of homosexuality and that soldiers' deaths are a divine message about America's sins.


Albert Snyder sued for emotional distress and an invasion of his family's privacy, winning $5 million before the ruling was overturned by a federal appeals court. The court said that Westboro's protest was "rhetorical hyperbole" protected by the First Amendment.

So, what do you think? Are the protests at military funerals a form of free speech?

Supreme Court Weighs Military Funeral Protests: Are They Free Speech? 'World News' Question of the Day - ABC News

Of course it's free speech.

The fact that the WBC also acts within accordance of local ordinances also means that this group of idiots we all love to hate are actually better at what they do than anarchists who usually violate laws and ordinances to practice their speech.

And yet this particular case which is nothing more than an over-hyped news story and pile of emotionalized crap gets picked up by the SCOTUS. This story shows more than anything our misplaced priorities as a nation.

 

[Engyo]

Yes it is free speech and no it should not be restricted.

As long as the biker-gang counter-protestors are not restricted either.

 

[Smoke]

I don't know why people get so worked up about this one tiny congregation of misfits, anyway. There's no fundamental difference between what they say and what the Southern Baptist Convention, the LDS Church, and the Roman Catholic Church say.

 

[Duck]

I don't know why people get so worked up about this one tiny congregation of misfits, anyway. There's no fundamental difference between what they say and what the Southern Baptist Convention, the LDS Church, and the Roman Catholic Church say.

But the other groups:

1) Have more members
2) Have more $$
3) Have better PR departments (mostly)
and last, but not least,
4) Phrase their hate a little more subtly.

 

[linwood]

As long as the biker-gang counter-protestors are not restricted either.

Agreed.

 

[Duck]

Supreme Court Weighs Military Funeral Protests: Are They Free Speech?

'World News' Wants to Know What You Think

Do members of the controversial Westboro Baptist Church have a constitutionally protected right to protest at the funerals of members of the military?

That's the question the Supreme Court will take up today as it begins its term.

In the case, Snyder v. Phelps, the father of Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder sued members of the Westboro Church's Phelps family after they protested at his son's funeral.

As they have at many other military funerals, the church members carried signs near the funeral with messages including, "Thank God for dead soldiers and "God hates ****."

Snyder was not gay. The Topeka, Kan., church members say they are protesting the federal government's tolerance of homosexuality and that soldiers' deaths are a divine message about America's sins.


Albert Snyder sued for emotional distress and an invasion of his family's privacy, winning $5 million before the ruling was overturned by a federal appeals court. The court said that Westboro's protest was "rhetorical hyperbole" protected by the First Amendment.

So, what do you think? Are the protests at military funerals a form of free speech?

Supreme Court Weighs Military Funeral Protests: Are They Free Speech? 'World News' Question of the Day - ABC News

Free speech, definitely. As much as I would prefer that all of these people fell into the pothole that ate manhattan, they do, no matter how unpleasant it is for me to admit this, have the right to protest and picket all they want.

I really think that it is telling that the vast majority of people in the U.S. that are all frothing at the mouth about these people didn't care or notice when all the WBC was doing was celebrating AIDS deaths, or the murder of LGBT people, or pro-gay rights events.

 

[Smoke]

I really think that it is telling that the vast majority of people in the U.S. that are all frothing at the mouth about these people didn't care or notice when all the WBC was doing was celebrating AIDS deaths, or the murder of LGBT people

Protesting at soldiers' funerals is the first time they've diverged in a small way from mainstream Christianity, though the message is still entirely consistent with that of Catholicism, Mormonism, the Southern Baptist Convention, and the National Association of Evangelicals.

 

[tomato1236]

When someone anonymously burns their church with them inside, we can just picket their funeral.

 

[Duck]

Protesting at soldiers' funerals is the first time they've diverged from mainstream Christian teaching.

True, so maybe that was what set everyone off? Perfectly fine to hate on teh gheys, but volunteer soldiers in a questionable war for oil?

 

[Duck]

When someone anonymously burns their church with them inside, we can just picket their funeral.

I have recently tagged my savings account with the moniker 'funerary party fund' and intend to host a celebration when a number of bigots pass away (most of them are old so most likely by natural causes).