The Supreme Court has upheld the right of the Westboro Baptist Church to protest in its inimitable fashion at military funerals and similar events, as long as they don’t disrupt the funeral itself or otherwise fail to stick to the rules set by local authorities for protests. Here’s the opinion, authored by Chief Justice Roberts. The lone dissenter was Justice Alito.
The opinion’s bottom line is more or less what you’d expect.
Westboro addressed matters of public import on public property, in a peaceful manner, in full compliance with the guidance of local officials. The speech was indeed planned to coincide with Matthew Snyder’s funeral, but did not itself disrupt that funeral, and Westboro’s choice to conduct its picketing at that time and place did not alter the nature of its speech…. As a Nation we have chosen … to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate. That choice requires that we shield Westboro from tort liability for its picketing in this case.
Justice Alito saw the situation quite differently.
[F]unerals are unique events at which special protection against emotional assaults is in order…. Allowing family members to have a few hours of peace without harassment does not undermine public debate…. 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.
What do you think?
I’m a bit surprised there was this much consensus, especially from a majority increasingly hostile to the Constitution. We don’t have Constitutional free speech in order to protect popular, safe speech.
This court has been pretty consistent on speech issues.
<
p>Alito … wow. He’s not “Scalito,” he’s like a pale echo.
<
p>
I am VERY glad that the case wasn’t made that military funerals are somehow ‘special’. It’s like when there’s a death penalty, but only if you kill a cop.
<
p>You have speech, you have the penalty. WHO is involved is not the point. Nobody is more special.
However it should also protect open and peaceful protest at political party conventions and financial forums. Free speech cages display the contempt those of authority hold for our freedoms.
<
p>“The final test of civilization of a people is the respect they have for law.” –Lewis F. Korns
I’m troubled by a nagging sense that some fundamental principle of justice demands the presence of a few dozen ill-wishers at Fred Phelps’ funeral with signs and banners proclaiming: “Good Riddance, Asshole!”
But why limit it to a few dozen?
Knowing virtually nothing about the law, I like the “free political speech is free political speech” angle, erring on the side of allowing it.
<
p>My question: where do these folks get the money to do this? The traveling, the court cases, etc. Where does the money come from?
they run their own law firm, file suit against anyone that tries to stop their protests, and basically survive off of the monetary damages they’re awarded.
By winning the ultimate victory for themselves, they just killed their cash cow?
The 1st Amendment serves as restraint on Government not private torts which preexist the Bill of Rights.
Torts are enforced by the government. So if the First Amendment requires that the government not interfere with a certain kind of speech, it seems to follow that that speech may not be penalized via a tort judgment.
but maybe they think they can enforce contracts themselves with a private police force, like Al Capone or something.
Libertarians believe that the role of government is to resolve disputes that arise through the courts. Well at least this one, that puts a lot of stock in Milton Friedman does.
that New York Times v. Sullivan, among several other cases, directly contradicts discernente’s claim as a matter of precedent.
and “Thank God for IED’s”- I wonder what difference it would make, either in the public conversation or the Court treatment of the case, if the group expressing those sentiments were dark-skinned, crazy, Islamic fundamentalists instead of white, crazy, Christian fundamentalists. Wasn’t there once some talk of using “aid and comfort” statutes to prosecute those who verbally express support or sympathy for terrorists or insurgents?
Our public conversations always seem to link terrorism with Islam. Has everyone forgotten Timothy McVeigh? (I recall that some were initially quite sure that the Oklahoma City bombings were the work of “towel heads.”)
and perhaps I’m in the minority here, but I think what these Westboro Baptist crazy people do extends beyond free speech and infringes on the rights of others. I don’t think the state should be obligated to protect what those people do when those people are infringing on the rights of others… and yes, dozens of crazy Westboro baptist types — creating a media storm wherever they go, driving hundreds of others to counterprotest — is an infringement on a family’s right to peacefully mourn the loss of their son or daughter who fought for this country, for example, or anyone for that matter. At the very least, there should be a mandated distance that they’d have to be from the funeral for me to not think it an infringement — far enough that members of family couldn’t see or hear those assholes at the funeral.
Exactly where and how is the line drawn? This isn’t just a funeral issue — we do the same things in MA with woman’s clinics. What rights [peaceful mourning, …] supersede the right of folks to peacefully assemble?
<
p>Furthermore, what the hell ever happened to a mother’s advice in fourth grade? There’s only like a dozen of ’em at any one place. Just ignore them. Seriously. Pretend that you don’t even see them. Don’t give the attention whores the satisfaction. Why is this so dang hard for people?
if they were standing outside your son’s funeral- though I agree with the Court’s decision.
…and maybe a buffer is reasonable like at polling places. Hate to break it to you though – right to protest is constitutionally protected; right to mourn in peace, not so much.
is protected, it’s true. The right to protest where you want to, in view of the people you want to view it – not so much. It’s bipartisan neglect. And most recently.
…in the interest of crowd control, like at national conventions, free speech zones are appropriate, though I do think the Bush crowd overdid in sheltering him from dissent. In the Clinton case (not the best link, BTW as that site clearly only told one side) it sounds like someone in an enclosed venue was being disruptive a la the healthcare “Town Hells”, and I would have had him removed too.
Really? McGovern was at a Clinton speech where she was going on about Freedom of Speech and how it must be preserved, blah blah blah. As she was doing so, McGovern stood up and turned his back to her. He did not say anything, or wave a sign, or anything of the sort. Hillary kept on with her Freedom speech as McGovern was thrown to the floor and hustled out of the room, all in her field of view. If you call standing up and turning around “disruptive,” I’d say you have an awfully low threshold.
<
p>Just so we’re clear here, are you saying freedom to protest is only OK outdoors, as opposed to “in an enclosed venue?”
The caption on the video used “interrupted” and I’d still like to hear the other side. Frankly I find it hard to believe anyone could be escorted out just for turning around. He did start yelling toward the end. Maybe overzealous guards. If I were speaking I would remain focused and ignore distractions, just like I ignore a crying baby on the occasions that’s come up during public speaking.
<
p>Your last sentence is correct in my view. I said throughout the “Town Hell” season in the summer of 2009 that people could scream themselves hoarse outside the venue. Inside, manners should prevail. If dissenters wanted to approach the mike and ask a pointed question or offer criticism, great, but if they just scream rudely and try to shut down the event then they should be escorted out.
Let’s not forget that. I’m not trying to suggest that they shouldn’t be able to do what they do, I’m suggesting something more akin to a buffer zone. I just think the buffer zone should be a little wider than the (fully constitutional, no qualms about it) women’s clinic law we already have in Massachusetts.
<
p>Yes, the Westboro whackos have a right to free speech, but those who mourn the loss of their loved ones have a right to it, as well — and the mourning that takes place at a funeral is both free speech and freedom of religion. If Westboro whackos are demonstrating so close to the funeral as to drown out the mourners’ ability to mourn, that infringes on their rights in my opinion — and should be restricted.
Many states have put those kinds of restrictions in place, most likely as a result of the Westboro activities. They haven’t been tested in court yet. From Roberts’ opinion:
<
p>
and/or the abortion protest buffers ever been tested in court, David?
The Supreme Court upheld an abortion protest buffer zone against a First Amendment challenge in Madsen v. Women’s Health Center in 1994. Some aspects of the zone were ruled to violate the Constitution, but a 36-foot zone around the entrance was upheld.
Bob Dylan, Masters of War, 1963.