Signs are that the Supremes may rule against WBC

[shemp]

I just want to know what the WBC did to piss off Diana Ross?

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I just want to know what the WBC did to piss off Diana Ross?

They told her there was indeed a mountain high enough.

 

[INRM]

MattusMaximus,

Agreed. It's not that I worry about the courts abusing and/or misusing a ruling by the SCOTUS, it's that I worry the politicians will do so. There are those whom I think are just waiting for an opening (real or perceived) from the courts to start limiting speech.

Exactly.

 

[marksman]

Why hasn't someone like Queer Alliance or National GLBTA done a 24-hour-a-day protest at the Westboro Church with signs that read "God Hates Fred Phelps" or "Gays are God's way of saying Fred Phelps is a Douche"?

The problem is he does this at soldier's funerals. It's just as inappropriate to have a Queer Alliance counter-protest at a soldier's funeral as it is to have Phelps there. Neiter has anything to do with the soldier and is insensitive to the grieving family.

I think it shows restraint and good taste that people are not posing antagonistic counter-protests at these funerals. Let the families mourn.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I dislike the Phelps crew as much as anyone here, but this is a case in which SCOTUS should err on the side of liberty rather than safety.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

The problem is he does this at soldier's funerals. It's just as inappropriate to have a Queer Alliance counter-protest at a soldier's funeral as it is to have Phelps there. Neiter has anything to do with the soldier and is insensitive to the grieving family.

I think it shows restraint and good taste that people are not posing antagonistic counter-protests at these funerals. Let the families mourn.

Agreed. There are so many arenas where you can demonstrate, funerals should be off-limits.

 

[Praktik]

Im just wondering, if the Supreme Court ruling ends up with private funerals being off-limits to protesters - is there really a slippery slope there?

I mean, we already have "free speech zones" when it comes to big multi-national meetings, or political conventions - so if speech can be segregated to spaces some ways off from the meeting, isn't there already a precedent that could be used to support similar segregation from private funerals?

I guess I'm left wondering "what's the harm" to allowing private funerals to proceed unimpeded...

 

[brenn]

I dislike the Phelps crew as much as anyone here, but this is a case in which SCOTUS should err on the side of liberty rather than safety.

How do you mean, exactly?

I am surprised that so many people see this case as a first amendment issue and want to side with Phelps, even where there is not necesssarily a legal reason to think the first amendment is related to this case.

The point of the first amendment is to prevent GOVERNMENT from intruding on free speech. This case is about a private party (so not directly subject to the bill of rights prohibitions) suing another private party over speech directed at him. The only argument that this case even involves the constitution is that the guy suing WBC did so in a court. Finding private use of courts to be a "state action" subject to the bill of rights is pretty rare.

I am only aware of twice in the past when the court ruled that you could rely on the bill of rights to prevent a court from granting a judgment in a private suit and both are generally considered to be cases where the court stretched the law a little too far to achieve a result that was otherwise not available.

Here is a surprisingly good article about it:
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2010-03-22/news/bal-op.fredphelps22mar22_1_1st-amendment-westboro-baptist-church-first-amendment

I don't think most people understand, it isn't the guy suing Phelps who is trying to fundamentally change the law - he is supported by the current law. Phelps side is the one trying to change the law - this isn't a case about cutting back frist amendment restrictions, it is a case about extending the first amendment to cover non-government action.

 

[brenn]

I guess I'm left wondering "what's the harm" to allowing private funerals to proceed unimpeded...

None - it is called a "time, place or manner" restriction and is constitutional, even where the government is doing the restricting.

The scary thing about this case is that the 1st Amendment restricts what the Government can do and there has to be a government actor involved for the bill of rights to be involved. This case is trying to stretch bill of rights limitations on the government to also limit individuals (this was a private suit, not a criminal charge by government agents). THAT may be a very slippery slope.

 

[hgc]

How do you mean, exactly?

I am surprised that so many people see this case as a first amendment issue and want to side with Phelps, even where there is not necesssarily a legal reason to think the first amendment is related to this case.

The point of the first amendment is to prevent GOVERNMENT from intruding on free speech. This case is about a private party (so not directly subject to the bill of rights prohibitions) suing another private party over speech directed at him. The only argument that this case even involves the constitution is that the guy suing WBC did so in a court. Finding private use of courts to be a "state action" subject to the bill of rights is pretty rare.

I am only aware of twice in the past when the court ruled that you could rely on the bill of rights to prevent a court from granting a judgment in a private suit and both are generally considered to be cases where the court stretched the law a little too far to achieve a result that was otherwise not available.

Here is a surprisingly good article about it:
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2010-03-22/news/bal-op.fredphelps22mar22_1_1st-amendment-westboro-baptist-church-first-amendment

I don't think most people understand, it isn't the guy suing Phelps who is trying to fundamentally change the law - he is supported by the current law. Phelps side is the one trying to change the law - this isn't a case about cutting back frist amendment restrictions, it is a case about extending the first amendment to cover non-government action.

I guess I'm not that well versed on this case then. Who but the government (barring mob rule) could restrict Phelps from conducting his demonstrations on public property (sidewalk, etc) in the vicinity of the funerals.

 

[NoScotsman]

The door for this bs was opened with "hate speech" legislation... and "speech zones"...

Watch out for that slope ... it's getting slippery.

 

[jdp]

How do you mean, exactly? This case is about a private party (so not directly subject to the bill of rights prohibitions) suing another private party over speech directed at him.

It seems from reading the transcript that one of the questions at issue (explored as part of Phelps' argument) was whether the solider was a private party to begin with. I (as probably do most people here) believe he was. That aside, the materials they marched with were clearly hyperbole which the 4th circuit ruled is protected speech. Also, it's not clear that the signs were necessarily directed at the soldier explicitly, something I think would be necessary to sue for slander and such. Though the poem or whatever they posted later on clearly was, so there might be a cause of action on that by itself. In the trial they refer a lot to the 'Hustler v Falwel'.

None - it is called a "time, place or manner" restriction and is constitutional, even where the government is doing the restricting.

Sure those restrictions can apply, and by all accounts the Phelps' followed all applicable laws. They were apparently far enough away that those attending the funeral didn't see or hear them (at least 1,000 feet I believe). The father didn't even see it (apparently) until he saw it on the news.

So if the defendants were out of sight and ear shot of the plaintiffs, the signs they carried were clearly hyperbole, and don't necessarily target the deceased then how does the father even have grounds to sue?

ETA: Here is a good link with all the briefs http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/snyder-v-phelps

 

[brenn]

I guess I'm not that well versed on this case then. Who but the government (barring mob rule) could restrict Phelps from conducting his demonstrations on public property (sidewalk, etc) in the vicinity of the funerals.

Well, the case at the supreme court is about him being sued by the father of a Marine after they protested at his son's funeral and nobody "restricted" him - they ordered him to pay money damages to the guy who sued him.

The government connection is simply that the private lawsuit uses the civil court system and the judgment comes from a government judge, although the verdict is a from a jury.

 

[brenn]

It seems from reading the transcript that one of the questions at issue (explored as part of Phelps' argument) was whether the solider was a private party to begin with. I (as probably do most people here) believe he was.

So to make him a state actor he'd have to be acting with government authority at the time of the event. Problem is, it was HIS funeral, so that's pretty much a legal impossibility. Add to that, the fact that the Marine was not a party to the lawsuit.

That aside, the materials they marched with were clearly hyperbole which the 4th circuit ruled is protected speech.

Protected from? There is no 1st Amendment protection against free speech infringment by anyone who is not the government - heck, before the 14th amendment, there wasn't even protection against governments other than the United States. Notice how it starts with "Congress shall..."

So if the defendants were out of sight and ear shot of the plaintiffs, the signs they carried were clearly hyperbole, and don't necessarily target the deceased then how does the father even have grounds to sue?

There is plenty of evidence of what the WBC intended and a history showing where they direct their protests and, most importantly, a jury agreed that he had proven it.

 

[jdp]

Protected from? There is no 1st Amendment protection against free speech infringment by anyone who is not the government - heck, before the 14th amendment, there wasn't even protection against governments other than the United States. Notice how it starts with "Congress shall..."

Not necessarily true. In Hustler V. Falwell the SCOTUS held that:

Parodies of public figures which could not reasonably be taken as true are protected against civil liability by the First Amendment, even if intended to cause emotional distress.

One of the questions that Phelps' explored was "were the actions of the family ahead of the funeral enough to make him a public figure."

There is plenty of evidence of what the WBC intended and a history showing where they direct their protests and, most importantly, a jury agreed that he had proven it.

And the Fourth Circuit disagreed.

 

[BenBurch]

I guess I'm not that well versed on this case then. Who but the government (barring mob rule) could restrict Phelps from conducting his demonstrations on public property (sidewalk, etc) in the vicinity of the funerals.

In many places, it is illegal to picket somebody's home. And this has been ruled constitutional.

 

[jdp]

In many places, it is illegal to picket somebody's home. And this has been ruled constitutional.

This is true, and Alito asked Phelps about this during her argument, around page 49 of the transcript.

JUSTICE ALITO: Well, I thought the targeted picketing of a person's house is not protected by the First Amendment.

MS. PHELPS: Focused picketing, per Frisby, directly in front of, can be regulated. And even in Frisby [v. Schultz], the Court --

JUSTICE ALITO: What's the difference between that and picketing around the site of the funeral?

MS. PHELPS: Proximity, Justice Alito. Because the captive audience doctrine, as fleshed out in those abortion picketing cases, what you were looking at was is it practical for the person to avoid it without having to run a gauntlet?

I can see a difference here though since these folks were out of sight and earshot.

 

[hgc]

This is true, and Alito asked Phelps about this during her argument, around page 49 of the transcript.

I can see a difference here though since these folks were out of sight and earshot.

Yeah, that crazy lady (Margie Phelps, attorney-at-law) makes an interesting argument.

Apropos of nothing directly related to this case, here she is talking to reporters outside the Supreme Court afterwards:

"Your destruction is imminent," Phelps told more than 100 journalists assembled on the court steps. "And when it comes, don't stand there and say the servants of God didn't warn you."

Read more: http://www.kansascity.com/2010/10/06/2284524/westboro-attorney-unflappable.html#ixzz12tzN0WFO

Forum note: I just pasted in the quote from the article, and the "Read more" link pasted in automatically. How did that happen? Is that a feature of KS Star's website or the forum?

 

[Praktik]

no thats the site, I've seen that cropping up all over the place

 

[hgc]

no thats the site, I've seen that cropping up all over the place

Good stuff. It's very convenient.