Today, in Snyder vs. Phelps, the Supreme Court ruled that Westboro Baptist Church could protest funerals of members of the armed services. In a case which unites free speech advocates from the Liberty Council to the Southern Poverty Law Center, the hateful church can continue spewing venom at grieving friends and family who have lost dads, sons, and brothers.
The Court wrote:
Held: The First Amendment shields Westboro from tort liability for its picketing in this case. Pp. 5–15.
(a) The Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment can serve as a defense in state tort suits, including suits for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
So no matter how disgusting the speech, if it relates to a matter of public interest, there is special protection. More from the Court:
Whether the First Amendment prohibits holding Westboro li-able for its speech in this case turns largely on whether that speech is of public or private concern, as determined by all the circumstancesof the case. “[S]peech on public issues occupies the ‘ “highest rung of the hierarchy of First Amendment values” ’ and is entitled to special protection.” Connick v. Myers, 461 U. S. 138, 145. Although theboundaries of what constitutes speech on matters of public concern are not well defined, this Court has said that speech is of public con-cern when it can “be fairly considered as relating to any matter of po-litical, social, or other concern to the community,” id., at 146, or when it “is a subject of general interest and of value and concern to thepublic,” San Diego v. Roe, 543 U. S. 77, 83–84. A statement’s argua-bly “inappropriate or controversial character . . . is irrelevant to the question whether it deals with a matter of public concern.” Rankin v. McPherson, 483 U. S. 378, 387. Pp. 5–7.
While a victory for free speech, the decision could hurt the fund raising efforts of far right groups who may have trouble convincing donors that religious speech will soon be penalized because of the gay agenda. If the Supreme Court can uphold Westboro’s claims to free speech, then there is no threat to the nation’s preachers, and advocacy groups.
FYI, an article in World magazine is reporting this about the ruling:
FYI, an article in World magazine is reporting this about the ruling:
Why? They’ll just continue saying it anyway. Say it enough, and people will believe it, they won’t bother checking to see whether it’s true, because it’s a fine, upstanding God-Fearing Christian group that says it. Since when have facts ever bothered those organisations, IFI, Coral Ridge etc ?
I agree with Mary and John, as much as I had to admit it. This is a protected right
I have to agree with the Supreme Court on this one, as much as it pains me as a gay American. From what I gathered from the opinion, Mr. (he is not entitled to the title, “Rev.”) Phelps and his band of hateful followers were not protesting at the burial site. They were protesting within the specified pre-approved location. Mr. Snyder didn’t see the protesters or their signs; he heard of them after the fact while sitting in front of the TV set.
Mr. Phelps’ choice of this location is as much an exercise of his free speech as speech itself. In his own, admittedly distorted worldview. the death of Mr. Synder’s son is “proof” that God hates our way of life and the broader society’s limited tolerance of it. Mr. Phelps is, I believe, behaving as if he thought of himself as a prophet who is pointing to the proof of God’s wrath. He is “bearing witness” to God’s witness by pointing to the “signs” that “He” is punishing us.
I’d like to see Justice Samuel A. Alito offer a limiting principle that would help us understand why he, as an appeals court judge for the third circuit, voted to strike down as unconstitutional Pennsylvania’s gay-inclusive hate crime law and upholding the right of anti-gay preachers to protest at a gay pride festival while invoking “fighting words” doctrine to protect Mr. Snyder from Mr. Phelps. Does he have a limiting principle to help us understand what he considers “fighting words” and what he merely considers offensive speech? or is he more inclined to favor the party that is engaging in an activity that is clearly in line with his ideological worldview?
Why? They’ll just continue saying it anyway. Say it enough, and people will believe it, they won’t bother checking to see whether it’s true, because it’s a fine, upstanding God-Fearing Christian group that says it. Since when have facts ever bothered those organisations, IFI, Coral Ridge etc ?
Agreed. Just waiting for the changing of the guard – when one generation dies and another moves in.
I have the feeling that sooner or later we will all hear about trouble within this organization. Almost seems like the template for it.
I agree with Mary and John, as much as I had to admit it. This is a protected right
I have to agree with the Supreme Court on this one, as much as it pains me as a gay American. From what I gathered from the opinion, Mr. (he is not entitled to the title, “Rev.”) Phelps and his band of hateful followers were not protesting at the burial site. They were protesting within the specified pre-approved location. Mr. Snyder didn’t see the protesters or their signs; he heard of them after the fact while sitting in front of the TV set.
Mr. Phelps’ choice of this location is as much an exercise of his free speech as speech itself. In his own, admittedly distorted worldview. the death of Mr. Synder’s son is “proof” that God hates our way of life and the broader society’s limited tolerance of it. Mr. Phelps is, I believe, behaving as if he thought of himself as a prophet who is pointing to the proof of God’s wrath. He is “bearing witness” to God’s witness by pointing to the “signs” that “He” is punishing us.
I’d like to see Justice Samuel A. Alito offer a limiting principle that would help us understand why he, as an appeals court judge for the third circuit, voted to strike down as unconstitutional Pennsylvania’s gay-inclusive hate crime law and upholding the right of anti-gay preachers to protest at a gay pride festival while invoking “fighting words” doctrine to protect Mr. Snyder from Mr. Phelps. Does he have a limiting principle to help us understand what he considers “fighting words” and what he merely considers offensive speech? or is he more inclined to favor the party that is engaging in an activity that is clearly in line with his ideological worldview?
Agreed. Just waiting for the changing of the guard – when one generation dies and another moves in.
I have the feeling that sooner or later we will all hear about trouble within this organization. Almost seems like the template for it.
In similar, first ammendment news:
Seventh Circuit Reaffirms High School Students’ Rights to Wear “Be Happy, Not Gay” T-Shirts
I know. Sickening as they are – this is a protected right.
My understanding is that the Philly 7 actually broke the law, and not because they were protesting. There are protesters at every single gay-related event here in Philly, and they never get arrested as long as they stay in the designated protest zone, which is protected by police. I’m not exactly a PrideFest person, but I’ve gone to see the protesters and have several photos with them over the years. I’ve yet to see any of them get arrested. They make themselves a ludicrous spectacle; getting themselves arrested would only help their cause – so people just let them be.
I agree with the ruling, as heinous as Westboro is. The principals of free speech need to be protected.
Ahh… it was Alito who would draw the line in the sand. I think many an American would agree with him.
“Our profound national commitment to free and open debate is not a license for the vicious verbal assault that occurred in this case,” Alito wrote. “Mr. Snyder wanted what is surely the right of any parent who experiences such an incalculable loss: to bury his son in peace. But respondents, members of the Westboro Baptist Church, deprived him of that elementary right.”
The whole idea of public purpose behind the protests did not in Alito’s mind negate private and personal damage. I would go further and point out that it is a very private act which is the reason Westboro protests. I like Alito’s thinking here: “In order to have a society in which public issues can be openly and vigorously debated, it is not necessary to allow the brutalization of innocent victims like petitioner.”
Who was in dissent?
In similar, first ammendment news:
Seventh Circuit Reaffirms High School Students’ Rights to Wear “Be Happy, Not Gay” T-Shirts
I guess you’re right about that. Actually, do we know for sure that this ruling also applies to Westboro protests against gays? How does this square with a case like the Philadelphia Seven?
If Snyder’s son had been gay, would the ruling have been different? I’m wondering if, underneath it all, there wasn’t the sentiment that Snyder had ‘no standing’–that the defamation was directed against policy rather than against an individual.
While ‘freedom of speech’ has been a prevailing preoccupation of mine since my teens, I abhor the fact that the venomous hate-speech of Westboro has received this apparent sanction. I find myself aching to stop or silence the insanity being spouted by Phelps and his small but vocal band.
BTW…this is a cult.
Secondly…bummer…but Freedom of Speech makes us a tougher and more tolerant country than France.
I know. Sickening as they are – this is a protected right.
My understanding is that the Philly 7 actually broke the law, and not because they were protesting. There are protesters at every single gay-related event here in Philly, and they never get arrested as long as they stay in the designated protest zone, which is protected by police. I’m not exactly a PrideFest person, but I’ve gone to see the protesters and have several photos with them over the years. I’ve yet to see any of them get arrested. They make themselves a ludicrous spectacle; getting themselves arrested would only help their cause – so people just let them be.
I agree with the ruling, as heinous as Westboro is. The principals of free speech need to be protected.
Ahh… it was Alito who would draw the line in the sand. I think many an American would agree with him.
“Our profound national commitment to free and open debate is not a license for the vicious verbal assault that occurred in this case,” Alito wrote. “Mr. Snyder wanted what is surely the right of any parent who experiences such an incalculable loss: to bury his son in peace. But respondents, members of the Westboro Baptist Church, deprived him of that elementary right.”
The whole idea of public purpose behind the protests did not in Alito’s mind negate private and personal damage. I would go further and point out that it is a very private act which is the reason Westboro protests. I like Alito’s thinking here: “In order to have a society in which public issues can be openly and vigorously debated, it is not necessary to allow the brutalization of innocent victims like petitioner.”
Who was in dissent?
I guess you’re right about that. Actually, do we know for sure that this ruling also applies to Westboro protests against gays? How does this square with a case like the Philadelphia Seven?
If Snyder’s son had been gay, would the ruling have been different? I’m wondering if, underneath it all, there wasn’t the sentiment that Snyder had ‘no standing’–that the defamation was directed against policy rather than against an individual.
While ‘freedom of speech’ has been a prevailing preoccupation of mine since my teens, I abhor the fact that the venomous hate-speech of Westboro has received this apparent sanction. I find myself aching to stop or silence the insanity being spouted by Phelps and his small but vocal band.
BTW…this is a cult.
Secondly…bummer…but Freedom of Speech makes us a tougher and more tolerant country than France.