-
SEQUESTER: The Horror!
March 1, 2013 | 4 comments
-
SOTU Preview: Human Props, Budget Fights, and Wedge Issues
February 12, 2013 | 0 comments
-
Hello, I Must Be Going
August 14, 2012 | 18 comments
-
Weekend Political Wrap-Up, Paul Ryan Edition
August 12, 2012 | 16 comments
-
Esquire Blogger Sees Paul Ryan, Shreds His Safety Net
August 11, 2012 | 13 comments
The Spectacle Blog
The Supreme Court ruled that the Westboro lunatics — a “church” made up primarily of Fred Phelps’ family — have the right to picket fallen soldiers’ funerals. On the one hand, I agree with Chief Justice John Roberts that the First Amendment protects even vile speech. On the other, there is something to Justice Sam Alito’s dissent that this amounts to a vicious verbal assault more than legitimate speech. As was the case in the neo-Nazi march through a community of Holocaust survivors, I’m uneasy with the argument that defecating on people’s graves constitutes free speech — especially if the right to punch such people in the nose isn’t similarly protected.
What do you think?
Pete| 3.2.11 @ 11:30AM
Seems like a victory for low class lawyers as much as a victory for free speech.
CalMark| 3.2.11 @ 11:33AM
Disgusting.
So now the right to free speech means the right to disrupt military funerals with treason and sedition, now raised to the status of Constitutionally-protected--nay, mandated!--peaceable gathering.
Meanwhile, pro-life protestors keep getting arrested, prosecuted, and destroyed in leftist courts. And any organization that objects to homosexuality gets run out of the adoption business. Not only with the blessing, but with the active connivance--there's no other word--of the courts.
So "vile" speech is more acceptable than traditional values. Somewhere, Roger Taney and Earl Warren are smiling and shaking hands.
Warrior | 3.2.11 @ 12:31PM
My guess would be that this is being addressed by too many lawyers. If the group is shouting loudly and disrupting the peace, they should be appropriately charged. Any number of town or county ordinances can cover the allowable decibel level.
hm_contrib| 3.2.11 @ 1:17PM
No one was "run out" of the adoption business. Organizations that "object" to homosexuality are free to do so, but those that run in states with anti-discrimination laws that include sexual orientation *chose* - of their own free will - to leave the adoption business rather than place children with gay couples. Just as an adoption agency that "objected" to mixed-race families may choose to leave the adoption business lest it run afoul of racial anti-discrimination laws, or a restaurant may choose to close rather than serve minorities after the CRA '64 was passed, so do these companies choose to do so when sexual orientation is added to anti-discrim laws.
But make no mistake - those organizations that left the adoption business decided that helping NO children, that leaving the adoption business entirely, was better than placing kids that need homes with loving gay families. It was their choice, not some specter of an Orwellian state forcing them out of business. Choosing to discriminate has consequences in a free society.
kingsmill| 3.2.11 @ 11:44AM
First Amendment jurisprudence brought to it's knees.
Sean| 3.2.11 @ 11:47AM
Let us see the Westboro Baptist church do this in the Supreme court chambers. Then you will see how far free speech goes.
gym| 3.2.11 @ 12:04PM
My 'feelings' indicate that protesting at a funeral is very distasteful speech.
However, in the interpretation of the written Constitution, Amendments and other laws - there may not currently be a clear written constraint on all of the types of 'freedom of speech' that may be confronted. And that is o.k.
But, perhaps a local ordinance, or local law could provide some cemetary sites some guidelines for mutual respect.
p.s. Due to the potential threat of injuries to others, I do believe that the Supreme Court ruled that a person can not mis-use the freedom of speech to not responsibly, and fakely, scream 'fire' (or something similar) in a crowded theatre - causing imminent danger. (1919, Schenck v. US).
Apparently the court did not see the Westboro case as rising to being imminent danger to others.
I think that it is generally good that the court is making rulings based upon the laws that are already written. (and not being an activist and making the laws say what they think the laws should say).
If a another law is needed, that is up to the law making branches of government (Cities, counties, states etc.) to consider. To avoid unintended consequences, think it through and be careful in making new law since public demonstrations and signs along sidewalks are done for a variety of good, or bad, reasons - and with sometimes good, or bad / vulgar signs - and sometimes some very awkward, or distasteful locations.
Eric Damon| 3.2.11 @ 12:17PM
The problem with what you propose is that the Constitution trumps any local law that conflicts with said Constitution. Therefore, with this ruling the SCOTUS has put up a barrier to municipalities banning such protests, because they have been ruled to be protected speech. The only thing the families have to fall back on would be possible trespassing charges, but the Westboro people generally protest on public streets adjacent to or very near the funerals.
I guess that the majority are on solid ground when looking at this issue through the stare decisis lens, but that lens has been greatly distorted through the years by terrible rulings that make nearly every utterance or protest protected speech.
Akaky| 3.2.11 @ 12:09PM
I'm all for this decision; the Westboro Baptist Church doing their thing at military funerals. Great. Wonderful. That's their right. With rights, however, come consequences, and I think that if the families and comrades of the fallen take umbrage at the presence of the Westboro Baptist Church and demonstrate such umbrage by breaking as many Westboro bones as can break before the cops intervene then the Westboro faithful will have to accept this as a necessary corollary of their right to invade the grief of a fallen soldier's family. As for Justice Roberts, I am sure he is on solid constitutional grounds, but there used to be something called common decency in this country; it's too bad that the courts won't uphold that anymore.
Ricco| 3.2.11 @ 1:33PM
You sound worse than Rep Michael Capuano (D-MA) of "you need to get out on the streets and get a little bloody when necessary" fame.
When someone, by design or by accident "George Tillers" someone from the WBC, will you be happy? Will you admit your culpability and take responsibility for your role?
Irresponsible . Simply irresponsible.
And, if so inclined, please spare us the Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Paine, Hale and Lee quotes.
Akaky| 3.2.11 @ 2:03PM
To answer your three questions, yes, yes, and yes. As I noted above, there was a time in this country when common decency prevailed and no matter how much you disagreed with the government's policy, you didn't inflict your disagreement on the families of the soldiers who died trying to carry out that policy. The Westboro Baptist Church has chosen to disregard common decency and turn the knife in the wound of these families. And why? Publicity. Read up on that group of clowns. They are complete media whores who do this because it gets their ugly cause into the public eye. Having chosen to disregard the feelings of others, I have no sympathy for the inevitable shrieks and wails the Westboros will no doubt split the skies with when someone decides that they've had enough and that while the Supreme Court says that the WBC may picket military funerals, they're not going to picket his son's funeral. As for my sounding worse that Mr. Capuano, tough; Mr. Capuano advocates getting a little bloody to preserve the economic privileges of a bureaucratic oligarchy; I am simply pointing out that rights have consequences. Given the Westboro Baptist Church's taste for publicity, I'd say that they'd be more than happy to get their Neanderthal skulls pummeled by an outraged citizenry.
Ricco| 3.4.11 @ 11:37AM
Thanks you for making my point.
Stephanie| 3.2.11 @ 12:48PM
Maybe we should start to attend military funerals with super soakers filled with vietnamese rotten fish sauce and splash those jerks.
jharp| 3.2.11 @ 12:48PM
"What do you think?"
Clearly, the SCOTUS is NOT the final arbiter!
Ask Red Phillips.
This one needs to be taken up with Glenn Beck.
SBD| 3.2.11 @ 12:50PM
This decision is extremely disappointing. The purpose of the first amendment is to protect written and spoken speech and assembly in the context of airing grievances with the government. In my view it does not mean anyone can go anywhere and everywhere and turn any private, or even public, function into a forum to harass or defame.
For instance, you cannot go into the House of Representative's visitors gallery and demonstrate, even though it is the "people's house." There is an understanding that certain behavior cannot be allowed to disrupt the proceedings. But for the peons, those who have given their lives for their country, apparently no such respect or consideration is required.
Pete2| 3.2.11 @ 1:10PM
The full story has not been told here. The Court did not address the issue of local ordinances which stopped the "church" from protesting too close to the funeral. They left the Maryland law intact in this case. In other words, while you have the right to "speak", others retain the right not to hear you by putting much distance between you and them, by local law if needed. That is my impression of this ruling. The Westboro baptist Chuech has the right to their insanity but laws could put that "right" a mile away from the intended target.
Occam's Tool| 3.2.11 @ 1:54PM
We just need Wisconsin cops protecting them. You know, half-hearted ones.
John Carnal| 3.2.11 @ 2:12PM
If it passes the fire-in-a-crowded-theater test it is allowed. Emotional damage is not bodily harm. Emotional damage can be mitigated by free will. What part of "free speech" don't we understand?
jharp| 3.2.11 @ 2:46PM
"What part of "free speech" don't we understand?"
The dumbasses here don't even understand that the SCOTUS is the final arbiter of our laws.
Akaky| 3.2.11 @ 3:32PM
Is that so, jh? My my my, the things you learn at TAS. So which part of Scott v. Sanborn is still the final word these days?
jharp| 3.2.11 @ 3:41PM
"So which part of Scott v. Sanborn is still the final word these days?"
God you people are stupid.
The SCOTUS can and does reverse it's previous rulings.
Akaky| 3.2.11 @ 3:49PM
The Supreme Court never overturned its decision in the Scott case, jh.
jharp| 3.2.11 @ 4:09PM
The Constitution was amended you imbecile.
God you people are stupid.
Akaky| 3.2.11 @ 4:34PM
Really? When did the Supreme Court do this, because you said that the Court is the final arbiter of our laws and I trust your statements implicitly.
jharp| 3.2.11 @ 4:59PM
"you said that the Court is the final arbiter of our laws"
They are you dumbsh*t. They are the ones who decide if a law passes Constitutional muster or not. They are the final arbiter.
And if we don't like it, like say Dred Scott, we amend the constitution.
You really ought to learn how our government works.
Good God you people are stupid.
Akaky| 3.2.11 @ 5:43PM
I'm sorry, but there seems to be a logical inconsistency in your argument. You say that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of our laws, but then if the people don't like it, they can change the decision. There can't be two final arbiters of something; that would render the word final meaningless.
jharp| 3.2.11 @ 6:42PM
"You say that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of our laws, but then if the people don't like it, they can change the decision"
You are a blithering idiot.
Did you not take 7th grade civics?
The SCOTUS is the final arbiter of the constitutionality of any law. Their rulings are final. If we don't like it we must amend the constitution.
Are you really so effing stupid that you don't understand this very basic principle of how our government works?
God conservatives are stupid.
Akaky| 3.2.11 @ 7:21PM
I'm sorry I'm blithering, but I've read the Constitution; I've even read it in the version without the pictures; and I don't recall seeing the Supreme Court having that power anywhere in there. Am I reading the wrong Constitution?
jharp| 3.2.11 @ 8:18PM
I'm not sure what Constitution you are reading.
But you clearly are an incredible dumbass and are completely ignorant of the role of the SCOTUS.
Seriously, why do you think the teatards and the other conservative ignoramuses fight so hard for conservative Supreme Court Justices?
Go take a civics class at your local junior high school. It'll help you with the basics.
God you people are stupid.
Akaky| 3.3.11 @ 10:46AM
I'm reading the US Constitution, jh, the one that says nothing about the Supreme Court having the power of judicial review, a power the Court granted itself in the Marbury v. Madison decision of 1803. You know, jh, I really do like troll taunting, especially lefty trolls like you, but your sophomoric rants are hardly worth reading, much less responding to. You really should take a look at Strunk & White's The Elements of Style. It helps.
jharp| 3.3.11 @ 12:30PM
"your sophomoric rants are hardly worth reading, much less responding to."
Really? And that's why you read them and respond to them?
God you people are stupid.
Stephanie| 3.3.11 @ 12:16PM
jharp, can't you just shut the fuck up or leave this site? God liberals are so useless!
Occam's Tool| 3.4.11 @ 2:22AM
Indeed, madam, they are. But you are profoundly useful.
*******************************************
My own preference for a good outcome to this would be for one of the employers of a member of the church to fire that member for "egregious asshattery." That would get that very appropriate phrase into the legal vocabulary starting with the trial for wrongful termination, which would be lost by the plaintiff.
Occam's Tool| 3.4.11 @ 2:18AM
Scott versus Sandford. Sorry. Furthermore, the final arbiter argument was derived from John Marshall's rulings---constitutionality is not fully described in the Constitution to be the capability of the Court alone.
Furthermore, the Dred Scott case was overturned by the Civil War, which is the point here. There are extra-judicial channels that can be used in extremis.
Les shouting and more reasoning, jharp. We are not Clint.
Occam's Tool| 3.4.11 @ 2:12AM
Uh, no they aren't. Actually, if you look at the capability of impeachment and the power of the purse, it becomes obvious that the legislative branch has the most intrinsic powers of the three---it just happens to be split up 535 ways.
What part of "only an animal interferes with a parent burying their child" do you not understand, Jharp? Oh, I forgot---like all bacteria, you reproduce by fission.
Akaky| 3.2.11 @ 3:45PM
"Emotional damage can be mitigated by free will."
A singularly cold look at the human condition, John, and one that smacks of preferring people as an abstraction instead of individual human beings. Do you tell the parents of a dying child that they can mitigate their grief through free will (or as Cher puts it in Moonstruck, Snap out of it!) or do you say you're so terribly sorry to hear this awful news and comfort them in their troubles?
George S| 3.2.11 @ 2:32PM
Rulings affect the state, not the individual. The state cannot forcibly suppress speech or assembly unless there is a legitimate public policy in play (i.e., preventing harm, damage to property, financial accountability, etc.). The individual on the other hand...
... if you insult my wife, that may be protected speech but only from the state. I will apply my own resolution. If there are criminal charges arising from that, then I face a jury. How sympathetic a jury may be all depends on the proportionality of my response; a broken nose is one thing, use of a weapon is another. So, nothing has really changed. Insult the solemn dignity of a military funeral (protected by the First Amendment) and any response will be proportionally weighed by a jury. Provided a police force comprised of some ex-military is professionally neutral. (I wonder if these protesters dare to desecrate the service of a fallen police officer? )
By the way, I don't think vicious dogs -- struggling to break free from their tethers -- are subject to the jurisdiction of the First Amendment. Not that I'm suggesting anything, just a legal observation. After all, isn't this "all about the law"?
JimH| 3.2.11 @ 3:01PM
I seem to recall that in law a priciple existed known as 'fighting words' where it is deemed that sufficient provocation can be given for a violent response. If these A** clowns don't fit the bill, no one does. While these days I would not be surprised if the police made an arrest of those dealing with the matter directly, I don't know if you could find a jury to convict, even if you could get a DA to prosecute.
Derek Leaberry| 3.2.11 @ 4:21PM
This was a very bad decision, an endorsement of a radical interpretation of First Amendment rights. Yes, the vile Phelps clan have a right to free speech. But they should not be allowed to interfere with a funeral, one of the most solemn, poignant events in the lives of men. Just as the police must be allowed to arrest a man screaming his lungs out at two in the morning, so should the police be allowed to restrain the antics of incorrigible villains like the Phelps and their disorderly ways.
The Founding Fathers supported free speech but they were not a rabble of left-libertarians. The Constitution not only was an attempt to unite the states, it was a document whose sinew was that of ordered liberty not anarchy. Hamilton and Madison were not 18th Century Kropotkins.
Casey Abell| 3.2.11 @ 4:27PM
The Westboro scumbags didn't come close to the fighting words standard. They didn't invade the church and shout obscenities in the faces of the fallen soldier's family. They picketed peacefully about 1,000 feet from the church and actually obeyed the Maryland ordinance - left in place by the decision - which prohibits demonstrations within a certain distance of a funeral.
Unless we want a really fast descent to hate speech tribunals, this ruling was necessary. An extremely distasteful case, but the correct legal outcome.
Tish | 3.2.11 @ 9:30PM
If the Westboro bunch had conducted their protest at a military installation, I would concur with SCOTUS. But Westboro targeted a specific family, secure in the knowledge that the bereaved could take no direct action against them.
kurye | 3.3.11 @ 9:15AM
"What part of "free speech" don't we understand?"
The dumbasses here don't even understand that the SCOTUS is the final arbiter of our laws.
NoLib| 3.3.11 @ 2:40PM
You channeling the harpster? Pathetic .
Stephanie| 3.3.11 @ 3:41PM
What can you expect from kurye? Just click on his handle: he's a goddam turk, for chrissake! Ready to force shariah down our throats and molest little jewish boys. We definitely need a moderator on TAS!