SCotUS rules in favor of Westboro Church

[C_Felix]

http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/03/02/scotus.westboro.church/index.html?hpt=C1

Don't like them.
Don't like the ruling.

But, the Constitution wins, as it should.

 

[commandlinegamer]

Sad, but not I suppose, all that surprising.

 

[JamesDillon]

Opinion here. Sounds right to me.

 

[JoelKatz]

Jerks must be allowed to be jerks, that decent people may be allowed to be decent people.

 

[JimBenArm]

Still makes me throw up in my mouth a little.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Jerks must be allowed to be jerks...

Tell that to Phil Plait.

 

[dudalb]

I hate the Westboro church, but the court ruling was right.You got to give people the right to be total idiots and Alpha Hotels.

 

[Aepervius]

whereas i agree that (from the pov of the first amendement) the governement should not impose restriction on free speech, IMHO that is not the issue here. The free speech right does not include a right to force other private person to listen to you. I see no reason not to have certain building as no-demonstration zone, independent of the speech (that is , not only restricted to those guy but to anybody to do a picketing) , and that would include cemetery. I dunno if it is the same in the US, but cemetery here around have a right of dignity respect of the beraved visiting thier dead, and thus you can't make a raucus or disturb the ebraved.

It seems essentially Scotus says free speech is so sacred, that the beraved has no right not to want to be disturbed by it.


Essentially I think that is one of the multiple reason I disagree with free speech, but agree to the right of expression.

 

[AvalonXQ]

whereas i agree that (from the pov of the first amendement) the governement should not impose restriction on free speech, IMHO that is not the issue here. The free speech right does not include a right to force other private person to listen to you. I see no reason not to have certain building as no-demonstration zone, independent of the speech (that is , not only restricted to those guy but to anybody to do a picketing) , and that would include cemetery. I dunno if it is the same in the US, but cemetery here around have a right of dignity respect of the beraved visiting thier dead, and thus you can't make a raucus or disturb the ebraved.

It seems essentially Scotus says free speech is so sacred, that the beraved has no right not to want to be disturbed by it.


Essentially I think that is one of the multiple reason I disagree with free speech, but agree to the right of expression.

The issue of a "captive audience" was specifically addressed. Roberts said in his opinion that the protesters were far away from the service, and that the family couldn't see any more than the tops of the signs as they drove past.

 

[A Laughing Baby]

They should have ruled in favor of WB, and I'm glad they did.

 

[JamesDillon]

whereas i agree that (from the pov of the first amendement) the governement should not impose restriction on free speech, IMHO that is not the issue here. The free speech right does not include a right to force other private person to listen to you. I see no reason not to have certain building as no-demonstration zone, independent of the speech (that is , not only restricted to those guy but to anybody to do a picketing) , and that would include cemetery. I dunno if it is the same in the US, but cemetery here around have a right of dignity respect of the beraved visiting thier dead, and thus you can't make a raucus or disturb the ebraved.

It seems essentially Scotus says free speech is so sacred, that the beraved has no right not to want to be disturbed by it.


Essentially I think that is one of the multiple reason I disagree with free speech, but agree to the right of expression.

Did you even read the opinion? It specifically states that the protesters did not go to the cemetery, that they complied with police orders to remain on public property 1,000 feet from the church, and that the deceased's father didn't see what was written on the signs as he was driving to the service, but only learned their content on the evening news.

 

[Neally]

Don't like the ruling.

But, the Constitution wins, as it should.

Contradiction. You don't like the right to free speech, but you like the other parts of the constitution?

 

[gnome]

Not so much a contradiction. It's possible to be unhappy with an outcome, but still accept that the law requires it. In fact, for a person of intellectual integrity this should be observed commonly.

A lot of people have never divorced their opinion of an outcome from their opinion of its justification.

 

[Neally]

Not so much a contradiction. It's possible to be unhappy with an outcome, but still accept that the law requires it. In fact, for a person of intellectual integrity this should be observed commonly.

A lot of people have never divorced their opinion of an outcome from their opinion of its justification.

If by unhappy outcome you mean the protesters continue their rants, I'll buy that. If by unhappy outcome you mean the right to free speech is upheld, even when you disagree with what's being said, I say contradiction.

 

[MatildaGage]

What's with the "god's view" sign with the character from V in a rifle sight? That makes no sense. Should be gawd loves V for being the symbol of a group that fought against scientology.

Oh wait. Of course it doesn't make sense. It's Westboro. nevermind

 

[Khan]

What's with the "god's view" sign with the character from V in a rifle sight? That makes no sense. Should be gawd loves V for being the symbol of a group that fought against scientology.

Oh wait. Of course it doesn't make sense. It's Westboro. nevermind

Ha, Westboro hates Anonymous after they accused Anon of hacking several of their sites(and then having their main site hacked and a message posted over the course of a 10 minute interview.)


For the case, I dislike the Westboro Church greatly(I live in the same city as them), but the court ruling was constitutionally correct, and that's what the court was created to do.

 

[Thunder]

cemeteries are private property. so they can't protest in the cemetery, right?

as long as they can't come into the cemetery and have to stay on public streets, freedom of speech should trump the right to not be bothered.

 

[Cleon]

I agree with the ruling. Entirely. Let them protest on public property to their cold, shriveled little hearts' desire. If they don't have the right to voice their opinions, then nobody does.

In a few years, Phelps will be dead, and his crazy little cult will suddenly realize they have **** to do and take the opportunity to stop acting like douchebags in public. At that point, Phelps' lonely, forgotten grave will suddenly become the #1 destination for gay sex tourism.

So relax, wait it out, and take comfort in the fact that the civilized world will have the last laugh.

 

[MatildaGage]

Oh, yeah, I forgot about that.

Interesting some people think Palin's website with the rifle sight was ok while I'm guessing they think Westboro's signs are not. Go figure.

 

[commandlinegamer]

Oh, yeah, I forgot about that.

Interesting some people think Palin's website with the rifle sight was ok while I'm guessing they think Westboro's signs are not. Go figure.

Perhaps because it can be seen as slightly more of an invitation to violence.