SCotUS rules in favor of Westboro Church

[JAStewart]

You can 'not like' the ruling and still support free speech.

I don't like Manchester United but I like football and the Premier League.

_{horrendous logic by me}

 

[C_Felix]

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.

I accept that it is free speech and they have that right.
I support what is in the Constitution.
I'm unhappy that they get to continue their rants.
I have the "intellectual honesty" to accept the ruling as correct and what the ruling should have been, but, I don't like them and what they do.

 

[Aepervius]

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.

You are right, I am wrong. I originally read it as 30 meter (100 feet) so not too far away , near enough to disturb. I withdraw my post 'cause 300 meter is far away enough.

 

[timhau]

You are right, I am wrong.

C'mon, man. That's no way to argue on teh interweb.

 

[Aepervius]

C'mon, man. That's no way to argue on teh interweb.

Oh ! You are right ! (**)

*starts foaming at the mouth and throw a random rant on being right and the other wrong*


(**) and again I did it wrong... (***)

(***) it feels like a recursion.

 

[ehcks]

I want to be angry at this. WBC's protests aren't about any sort of real speech.

They attempt to incite reactions against themselves so they can sue people. That's not speech. That's abuse of the justice system.

But you can't "prove" that. It's glaringly obvious, but you can't show viable evidence of it in a court of law.

 

[Rasmus]

I want to be angry at this. WBC's protests aren't about any sort of real speech.

They attempt to incite reactions against themselves so they can sue people. That's not speech. That's abuse of the justice system.

But you can't "prove" that. It's glaringly obvious, but you can't show viable evidence of it in a court of law.

Even if they outright admitted that I think it should still be covered under the provisions for free speech.

 

[Emet]

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.

Speaking of Palin:

Sarah Palin used Twitter to denounce the ruling, saying, "Common sense & decency absent as wacko 'church' allowed hate msgs spewed@ soldiers' funerals but we can't invoke God's name in public square."

Linky

 

[headscratcher4]

I'm glad I live in a country where -- on occasion at least -- reprehensible speech can still be protected.

 

[One Skunk Todd]

In a few years, Phelps will be dead,

I wonder what THAT protest will be like.

 

[Dorian Gray]

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.

You say wrong. Free speech can become harassment in certain cases. For example, threatening to shove a fork in Charlie Sheen's wife's eye. You would uphold Charlie Sheen's right to say whatever he wanted to under any circumstances?

Then you hate the rule of law. Why do you even live in this country?

 

[fetchbeer]

If trespassing on private property is worse than free speech that borders on hate speech, then would it be legal (or constitutional) for a city government to temporarily cede public lands and roadways to a private entity to prevent protests, and thus limit freedom of speech by some individuals?

 

[3point14]

I'm glad I live in a country where -- on occasion at least -- reprehensible speech can still be protected.

Indeed. How are we supposed to work out who the reprehensible idiots are if they're not alowed to demonstrate that they're reprehensible idiots?

 

[Dorian Gray]

I wonder what THAT protest will be like.

Here's what it will be like: burial and service smack in the middle of private property, giving protesters a choice between trespassing or being ineffectual.

 

[headscratcher4]

Here's what it will be like: burial and service smack in the middle of private property, giving protesters a choice between trespassing or being ineffectual.

A low flying plane trailing a banner buzzing the area might be just the ticket...

 

[3point14]

Here's what it will be like: burial and service smack in the middle of private property, giving protesters a choice between trespassing or being ineffectual.

I suspect, rather than a protest, the some sort of street party may be in order. Large volumes of happy, laughing, dancing people of all ages, genders and walks of life. I would particularly like there to be lots of serving military personel and lots of gay/lesbian/whatever'syourfancy people there too.

Ideally there should be lots of happy, happy joy, joy sounds floating out across the unfortunate piece of ground he's being lowered into.

Just my vision.

 

[Cleon]

I suspect, rather than a protest, the some sort of street party may be in order. Large volumes of happy, laughing, dancing people of all ages, genders and walks of life. I would particularly like there to be lots of serving military personel and lots of gay/lesbian/whatever'syourfancy people there too.

Ideally there should be lots of happy, happy joy, joy sounds floating out across the unfortunate piece of ground he's being lowered into.

Just my vision.

With party hats, kazoos, and a group rendition of "Ding, dong, the witch is dead."

 

[CptColumbo]

I'm glad I live in a country where -- on occasion at least -- reprehensible speech can still be protected.

It's one of the best ways to keep track of the wackos.

 

[A Laughing Baby]

WBC represents the most vile, least popular sort of opinion you can represent in public. Which is exactly why it needs protecting.

 

[Emet]

Westboro Baptist Church Promises To 'Quadruple' Down On Protests After Supreme Court Ruling

A leader of the Westboro Baptist Church told reporters Wednesday that the congregation would "quadruple" the number of funeral protests in the wake of a ruling by the Supreme Court, which found that their controversial demonstrations were protected by the First Amendment, ABC News reports.

Margie J. Phelps, daughter of church leader Fred Phelps and legal counsel for the group, appeared defiant and emboldened by the high court's decision during an interview Wednesday.

"Let me tell you what this church does: Shut up all that talk about infliction of emotional distress," she Phelps said, in response to the claim by Albert Snyder, father of slain marine Matthew Snyder, which had provided the impetus for the lawsuit. "When you're standing there with your young child's body bits and pieces in a coffin, you've been dealt some emotional distress by the Lord your God."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/02/westboro-baptist-church-supreme-court_n_830484.html