Signs are that the Supremes may rule against WBC

[Puppycow]

http://www.slate.com/id/2270167/

What—you may be wondering—does the stuff you hate have to do with the First Amendment? Well, ordinarily, nothing. But oral argument proves to be a virtual Mardi Gras of hate this morning, and even the justices reveal that if one truly hates certain speech enough, it can go a long way toward shaping one's view of the law. If the old saying—that bad facts make bad law—is true, it's arguably even more true that pissed off jurists (and bad oral advocates) make for very bad precedent.
. . .
Well, wonder no more, my friends. It appears that at least a few of the justices really, really, really just hate the Phelps family and its manner of protest, and they might even be willing to whip up a little new First Amendment law to prove it.

 

[MattusMaximus]

Wow, I really hope this is inaccurate. I think Phelps is one of the biggest douchebags on the planet, but even douchebags have rights under the First Amendment. If the SCOTUS rules against him on this one, I think it doesn't bode well for free speech in the United States.

 

[BenBurch]

Wow, I really hope this is inaccurate. I think Phelps is one of the biggest douchebags on the planet, but even douchebags have rights under the First Amendment. If the SCOTUS rules against him on this one, I think it doesn't bode well for free speech in the United States.

I don't think they can rule against them UNLESS they find that what they are doing is the equivalent of shouting "FIRE!" in a crowded theater. And if they expand that exception, I foresee a century of appeals probing the extent to which that can be used to suppress speech.

 

[MattusMaximus]

I don't think they can rule against them UNLESS they find that what they are doing is the equivalent of shouting "FIRE!" in a crowded theater. And if they expand that exception, I foresee a century of appeals probing the extent to which that can be used to suppress speech.

Yeah, that's what concerns me: a combination of slippery slope & unintended consequences.

The solution to horrible, offensive, or stupid speech is not to shut it down. The solution is more, better speech. Did I mention that Fred Phelps is a douchebag?

 

[BenBurch]

Yeah, that's what concerns me: a combination of slippery slope & unintended consequences.

The solution to horrible, offensive, or stupid speech is not to shut it down. The solution is more, better speech. Did I mention that Fred Phelps is a douchebag?

Or they can take the route they already piloted in Bush v Gore; Making a ruling that explicitly does not set precedent.

 

[fishbob]

The best possible Supreme Court verdict in this case:

To the family of the deceased: We are sorry for your loss, but can not suppress free speach.

To the WBC: We rule that you are now and forever a bunch of flaming $$$holes.

 

[INRM]

This could have dire implications on free-speech. I don't like Fred Phelps, yet I would rather deal with him, than have the courts compromise the First Amendment

 

[MattusMaximus]

This could have dire implications on free-speech. I don't like Fred Phelps, yet I would rather deal with him, than have the courts compromise the First Amendment

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.

 

[Brainster]

I tried to read the article, but Dahlia Lithwick writes in that idiotic present tense that makes it hard to understand what she's saying.

 

[quixotecoyote]

Or they can take the route they already piloted in Bush v Gore; Making a ruling that explicitly does not set precedent.

Following a non-precedent precedent, as it were?

 

[Travis]

Is it possible they will just rule that funerals are private events in which one doesn't necessarily have the absolute right to free speech?

 

[Puppycow]

Is it possible they will just rule that funerals are private events in which one doesn't necessarily have the absolute right to free speech?

But how close can you get to the funeral? Apparently they were some hundreds of feet away.

 

[SezMe]

Or they can take the route they already piloted in Bush v Gore; Making a ruling that explicitly does not set precedent.

I don't think that is possible in this case. By that I mean that no matter how much the ruling might scream "THIS IS NOT A PRECEDENT" it would become one.

 

[leftysergeant]

They could also rule that deliberately causing emotional distress to mourners is a form of disorderly conduct, thus subject to regulation and/or legal sanctions, to the extent that the trash bags from WBC are not allowed to be any place where mourners might have to pass them on the way to or from the funeral.

It might even be an opportunity to delve into the legal concept of "fighting words" as it appears in some state laws.

 

[elbe]

I don't think they can rule against them UNLESS they find that what they are doing is the equivalent of shouting "FIRE!" in a crowded theater. And if they expand that exception, I foresee a century of appeals probing the extent to which that can be used to suppress speech.

I would have guessed they'd go with more of a "fighting words" argument.

 

[Beerina]

If it's a private cemetery, the cemetery owner should kick 'em the hell out.

If it's a public cemetery, Congress (or whoever) should pass a law with a massive restriction zone about a current funeral. You don't have a right to go inside a CIA building and protest in someone's office, why here? It is, however, sad that it would have to come to that.

I can't wait for the funeral of Fred Phelps. While it will, no doubt, be on private property, people could line the streets all around the area.

 

[brodski]

Wait, since when did Diana Ross get to have the last word on the interpretation and application of the US constitution?

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Wow, I really hope this is inaccurate. I think Phelps is one of the biggest douchebags on the planet, but even douchebags have rights under the First Amendment. If the SCOTUS rules against him on this one, I think it doesn't bode well for free speech in the United States.

If they have a right to scream hate at a funeral, I have the right to stomp a mud puddle in their collective asses.

BTW, don't ever drop a few quarts of ammonia near their protests, it stink to high heaven. So don't do that.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I don't think they can rule against them UNLESS they find that what they are doing is the equivalent of shouting "FIRE!" in a crowded theater. And if they expand that exception, I foresee a century of appeals probing the extent to which that can be used to suppress speech.

I think we could invoke the "fighting words" doctrine, and just beat up on the Phelpses every time they show up at a funeral.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I would have guessed they'd go with more of a "fighting words" argument.

Oops--you and leftyseargent beat me to it. However, since no violence was incited, you'd have a difficult time making that argument in this case.