Bikers protest Westboro Baptist demonstrators at Arlington burial

[bruno]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/04/AR2010100406662.html?nav=hcmodule

Good for these Bikers. Why the heck these clowns are allowed to destroy the private moments of a grieving family for their own perverse and perverted purposes is beyond me. Perhaps some of these Bikers could emulate Altamonte at the next opportunity and see if the Phelps family is willing to suffer themselves. (I'm not really advocating that but this group and this practice are absolutely abhorrent to me). Personally I hope that in this case before them the Supreme Court eventually finds that like every other right- the right to free speech is not unfettered by the effect that speech has on other rights.

[TheKnight]

I know one of the bikers personally. It's a great thing they do.

[LineInTheSand]

[QUOTE=bruno;138755Why the heck these clowns are allowed to destroy the private moments of a grieving family for their own perverse and perverted purposes is beyond me. [/QUOTE]

Because of that little thing called the Constitution. There is a freedom of speech. I don't remember seeing anything about the "Right to Grieve".

I do not agree with the protests, I am very much against them, but it's their right.

[scoutpilot]

Because of that little thing called the Constitution. There is a freedom of speech. I don't remember seeing anything about the "Right to Grieve".

I do not agree with the protests, I am very much against them, but it's their right.

For such a smarmy answer, that's quite the pedestrian understanding of first amendment limits you have there. In numerous instances the courts have defined reasonable limits to protected speech (obscenity, slander, etc.). If it was obviously protected speech, it wouldn't be before the SCOTUS.

[LineInTheSand]

For such a smarmy answer, that's quite the pedestrian understanding of first amendment limits you have there. In numerous instances the courts have defined reasonable limits to protected speech (obscenity, slander, etc.). If it was obviously protected speech, it wouldn't be before the SCOTUS.

It's before SCOTUS because a previous decision was appealled and overturned, as it should be. This would be a "limit", it would undo not only the "speech" part of the First Amendment, but the "peacable assemble" part as well. Unless you have any examples of it not being "peacable".

Bad taste? Sure, completely agree. Horrible signs? Uh huh, definitely. Protected by the First Amendment? Yep, and that's what SCOTUS will find as well.

[Just_A_Mom]

I don't think it's 'peacable', I think it's provacative. Do you need to have overt violence for it to not be 'peaceable'?
If signs = speech then large provacative, violent signs = loud, provacative, violent speech.
I don't know - that is a question for the courts.

Q. LITS - if they were demonstrating without signs but with a loudspeaker instead - would within the Constitution?

[bruno]

I suspect I understand the constitution as well as any other reasonably educated person who is not a constitutional lawyer. From what is apparent- NOTHING IN LIFE or THE Constitution is absolute. This issue is in front of the Supreme Court now, so clearly there are reasonable interpretations of the Constitution that recognize that there are grounds for limiting speech and assembly. I believe that there are ZERO rights in the constitution that are not somewhat constrained by other rights. There is no recognized absolute right to free speech- Pornography/ obscenity is widely and allowably curtailed; speech that impacts public safety is curtailed; libelous speech is restricted much more in the US than in the UK for example. Similarly freedom to assemble is governed and restricted when it impacts public safety and for other reasons (For example the courts have allowed restrictions on picketing in front of abortion providers) . So while a Freshman in HS might believe that you can say whatever you want and wherever you want it - that doesn't mean that such a right exists or is interpreted that way. In this case I hope that they find that the states do in fact have a compelling interest in limiting the ability to picket funerals. How many State Attorney General's have filed in support of this position? I believe 48 of them when last counted.

[tpg]

Because of that little thing called the Constitution. There is a freedom of speech. I don't remember seeing anything about the "Right to Grieve".

I do not agree with the protests, I am very much against them, but it's their right.

It's before SCOTUS because a previous decision was appealled and overturned, as it should be. This would be a "limit", it would undo not only the "speech" part of the First Amendment, but the "peacable assemble" part as well. Unless you have any examples of it not being "peacable".

Bad taste? Sure, completely agree. Horrible signs? Uh huh, definitely. Protected by the First Amendment? Yep, and that's what SCOTUS will find as well.

You must be referring to the first amendment of the Bill of Rights which reads:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Now I am no lawyer and will not pretend to be. However, I do like to think of myself as a thoughtful person who has been decently educated over the course of my life.

Whenever I read about this group, the first thing that comes to my mind based upon my education is that there is a limit to “Free Speech”. It occurs when free speech conflicts with other values or rights. In the case of the Phelps and the Westboro church, they do have the right to speak their opinion up until it interferes with other people’s right to practice their religion.

I come to this conclusion based upon two items. First is that way back when in the early 70’s when I took government in high school, my teacher at the time, Mrs. Mason, taught us that the founding fathers were real people who had values and wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights with a purpose. When they wrote, they used their values to decide what was important and placed those items first. In the case of the amendment above, note that the only thing listed ahead of free speech is that involving religion and the practice thereof.

The second item is something that I learned from a Marine Captain on Okinawa back ie n the late 70’s. It is John Mill’s “Harm Principle” which can best be described with the use of Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. analogy of ..."The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins."

I am also aware of Joel Feinberg’s “Offense Principle” where he argues that Mill’s “Harm Principle” sets to high of a standard and says that some form of expression should be banned simply because they are “Extremely” offensive. Personally I am not sure if I buy into Feinberg’s arguments, but I do know that he changed the legal landscape to a degree and much more so than I ever would be able too.

I won't even address the assembly part of your comments because that is a non starter. They are in no way petitioning the government at a funeral.

[goaliedad]

I generally don't weigh in on the politically oriented discussions, but I'll put in my $.02, since I haven't seen this particular argument discussed.

OK, let's say the SCOTUS says that Westboro Baptist is within its First Amendment rights demonstrating outside of a cemetary and they now move their protests outside of hospitals where HIV patients are being treated for their similar distasteful reasons.

Now I know that there are rules about noise around hospitals that are constitutional (at least nobody has challenged them), but if these knuckleheads set up their demonstration in the view of patients' rooms, does this fall under the same thinking? There are legitimate rights of people who are vulnerable to have their peace protected and the right to honk your horn (as political speech) is restricted. Does non-noise making political speech get different treatment?

IMHO, the attendees at a funeral are every bit as vulnerable as a hospital patients (yes a few people have died at funerals from the grief) and deserve the same protections from agressive actions that would normally be protected as free speech.

Why this argument hasn't been presented effectively to shut this activity down is beyond me. The First Amendment is not absolute, with plenty of carve outs if you study the law carefully. This isn't a huge reach from an already established (at least in practice) restriction of protecting patients at hospitals.

[scoutpilot]

It's before SCOTUS because a previous decision was appealled and overturned, as it should be. This would be a "limit", it would undo not only the "speech" part of the First Amendment, but the "peacable assemble" part as well. Unless you have any examples of it not being "peacable".

Bad taste? Sure, completely agree. Horrible signs? Uh huh, definitely. Protected by the First Amendment? Yep, and that's what SCOTUS will find as well.

The appeals process is not simply a matter of "I don't like mom's decision so I'll ask dad." There must be an avenue of appeal.

You're far more sure of the outcome than the SCOTUS is, as they agreed to hear the case and did not exclude it yesterday like they did with myriad other cases, which would have upheld the lower court's decision. They see merit in the avenue of appeal that has been taken.

Your understanding of the limits of the various liberties in the First Amendment is submarining your argument. Courts have also upheld that "the right of the people peaceably to assemble" does not grant free reign for any group to do anything, anywhere, anytime they wish. If it did, cities could not require permits to assemble on public land. There are limits which frame these liberties.

In this case, Snyder v. Phelps, et al, the issue at hand is whether the precedents and arguments set forth in New York Times v. Sullivan and Hustler Magazine v. Falwell stand in this case. Specifically, the Hustler case protects injurious speech not based on provable facts about public figures, because even false speech "honestly believed" contributes to the greater public debate which surrounds admittedly pubic figures.

Snyder is arguing that the circuit court was wrong to extend the protection of injurious speech not based on provable facts, even that spoken "out of hatred" to a case involving a private figure instead of a public figure. At the time of the funeral, Snyder himself was certainly not a public figure. Central to the argument is the idea that while speech about a public figure may be distressing and injurious to a reputation, public figures enjoy the opportunity for public redress and recourse against their defamers while private parties do not.

Further, Snyder has argued that the attendees at a funeral constitute a captive audience. When a captive audience is involved, the government may limit the exercise of otherwise protected (free) speech, because the audience has no reasonable recourse to escape such speech. This doctrine has been upheld in many cases, and is used to prevent a wide range of distasteful and injurious speech. Snyder's argument is actually interesting and well-thought-out, as he contends that an individual at the funeral cannot avoid the hateful speech without becoming a non-attendee, just as a student cannot avoid such speech in school without becoming a non-student (hence your public school can limit speech as well).

It's not so cut-and-dried. Saying "that little thing called the Constitution" hardly frames the issues at hand.

[Luigi59]

I generally don't weigh in on the politically oriented discussions, but I'll put in my $.02, since I haven't seen this particular argument discussed.

OK, let's say the SCOTUS says that Westboro Baptist is within its First Amendment rights demonstrating outside of a cemetary and they now move their protests outside of hospitals where HIV patients are being treated for their similar distasteful reasons.

Westboro Baptist already protests outside of hospitals.

VA hospitals, as well as civilian hospitals.

All the while holding their vile, disgusting, hateful, Constitutionally protected signs.

[scoutpilot]

I don't think it's 'peacable', I think it's provacative. Do you need to have overt violence for it to not be 'peaceable'?
If signs = speech then large provacative, violent signs = loud, provacative, violent speech.
I don't know - that is a question for the courts.

Q. LITS - if they were demonstrating without signs but with a loudspeaker instead - would within the Constitution?

You're misconstruing the precedents and definitions of "peaceable." IIRC, unless they specifically incite a breach of the peace, the assemble is protected. A disorderly crowd, or the fear of one, is not enough to abridge the right to assemble.

[goaliedad]

Westboro Baptist already protests outside of hospitals.

VA hospitals, as well as civilian hospitals.

All the while holding their vile, disgusting, hateful, Constitutionally protected signs.

I'm sorry to hear that. :mad:

What I'm trying to wrap my head around is that if they honk their horns, they can be ticketed (and removed if necessary) under local ordinances, but holding signs that have the same effect on the patients inside who can see them cannot be regulated.

And the SCOTUS allegedly protects both verbal and non-verbal speech in the same manner in every case I can think of. I'm scratching my head here...

I for one would be happy to have places where vulnerable people congregate be zoned for reasonable restrictions on speech and behavior. Not an unreasonable restriction and currently done to some degree.

Hopefully, the SCOTUS can keep the ruling simple like this and help the country move on.

Let those folks protest around people who are strong enough to deal with it.

[goldfarb1]

They came to Atlanta around this time a year ago. They were mainly protesting the jewish community here. The three events they put on: a protest of the JCC (as they believed that the JCC was trying to organize jews to rule the world), an AIPAC event in downtown Atlanta (thought zionism was trying to takeover the world), and something at a synagouge. As you can see a completely rediculous organization. A ton of people went to counterprotest.

Watch the youtube videos of WBC protesting at military funerals, its terrible. There was a BBC documentary where a BBC reporter went and lived with the family for a month. If you have an hour to shoot, that'll really get your blood boiling.

[sprog]

You're misconstruing the precedents and definitions of "peaceable." IIRC, unless they specifically incite a breach of the peace, the assemble is protected. A disorderly crowd, or the fear of one, is not enough to abridge the right to assemble.

I think it's the 1969 Brandenburg case which says that an assembly cannot incite "imminent lawless action" and still be protected. This is the current test, although it has roots in the Schenck case, where Justice Holmes famously said that the Constitution does not allow someone to yell "fire" in a crowded theatre. Schenck isn't good law anymore (the "clear and present danger" test was overturned by the "imminent lawless action" test), but the Holmes quote is pretty famous.

Essentially, what you said.

[Luigi59]

Let those folks protest around people who are strong enough to deal with it.

Yes, curiously I have never seen them protesting at the funeral of the Crips, Bloods, or Hell's Angels.

[LineInTheSand]

I just wonder....where do you draw the line?

The signs are terrible. I don't agree with them, and I believe most reasonable people don't either.

If I see a sign with President Bush dressed like Hitler at a "rally" and it incites me to fight....is that sign still protected? If I don't agree with a sign because it's entirely classless, and it gets my blood preasure up....is it still protected?

I hope the answer is yes. I applaud the bikers counter-protests.

These soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen died to protect these rights, as much as it might make us all sick.

I dread the day when our federal government bans classless, offensive posters and words just because SOMEONE doesn't like them.

Maybe no one cares about the slippery slope, however, I do. As much as trimming the Constitution and Bill of Rights makes us feel good...just because someone does something we don't like, it doesn't mean we can ban it. I would venture to guess signs showing support would upset the Westboro protesters....well they're Americans too, so maybe we shouldn't be able to march with Pro-military signs, in the event that we offend some anti-military loser who wants to fight.

Ah forget it, let's just ban mean words and things we don't like. I would like to ban dentist appointments and public speaking engagements. I would also like to ban work, cold rain, and paper cuts.

[scoutpilot]

I just wonder....where do you draw the line?

The signs are terrible. I don't agree with them, and I believe most reasonable people don't either.

If I see a sign with President Bush dressed like Hitler at a "rally" and it incites me to fight....is that sign still protected? If I don't agree with a sign because it's entirely classless, and it gets my blood preasure up....is it still protected?

I hope the answer is yes. I applaud the bikers counter-protests.

These soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen died to protect these rights, as much as it might make us all sick.

I dread the day when our federal government bans classless, offensive posters and words just because SOMEONE doesn't like them.

Maybe no one cares about the slippery slope, however, I do. As much as trimming the Constitution and Bill of Rights makes us feel good...just because someone does something we don't like, it doesn't mean we can ban it. I would venture to guess signs showing support would upset the Westboro protesters....well they're Americans too, so maybe we shouldn't be able to march with Pro-military signs, in the event that we offend some anti-military loser who wants to fight.

Ah forget it, let's just ban mean words and things we don't like. I would like to ban dentist appointments and public speaking engagements. I would also like to ban work, cold rain, and paper cuts.

There's a reason the slippery slope is frequently a logical fallacy. In this case, it most certainly is. That's quite the straw man you've set up. By your reasoning, free speech allows people to say ANYTHING, no matter how dangerous, injurious, or maliciously false. Is it a fair characterization of your viewpoint to say that you think anything less is an erosion of free speech and will lead us down the "slippery slope" to censorship of all speech?

[LineInTheSand]

Over simplification....again.


Actions that HURT other or are DANGEROUS are already exceptions. You would attempt to take this a step further. That would actually illustrate that slippery slope CERTAINLY applies here.

"I don't like what they have on their signs" therefore it shouldn't be on those signs or I shouldn't have to look at them.

These signs are libel. They aren't naming specific people. Yes, they attack the military, but so do a select few in Congress or presidential hopefuls.

"dangerous, injurious, or maliciously false" please show me what is dangerous here? Who is being injuried, and why? And who is judging their outragious statements as false? Do you think the Supreme Court will declare that "God Loves "F##s" or that members of the military are in Heaven. Despite the extremely poor taste of the signs, and how much I disagree with everything the Westboro Baptist Church stands for in these protests, I don't think the Supreme Court will be rulling on the intent of God, at least, not this court. So what is "dangerous, injurious, or maliciously false"?

Soutpilot, that is the dilemma. Now, who is being hurt here? What rights are being violated?

[goaliedad]

And yet I'm still puzzled as to why this has gone into a constitutional debate.

We regulate behavior around hospitals, protecting those who are weak from illness, so why can't we regulate behavior around cemetaries, protecting those who are weak from loss, another condition that is typically beyond our control?

I don't care about what political statement or non-political (commercial) statement is being made. The example of a non-political statement would be to having an electronic billboard on the primary access road to a cemetary playing scenes from the latest graphic gory movie - not political speech, but none the less behavior that can and should be regulated as a detriment to a necessary public service. This is not dissimilar to keeping adult video shops away from schools and other places young people congregate as they need protection because they are vulnerable.

No the reason this is NEWS is that the political views expressed are very extreme and the media loves to stir the pot (getting advertising eyes and generate income) by feeding these people ultimate goal - the need for attention. Public figures make statements to piggyback on the attention for their own purposes.

Call me a cynic, but this whole thing wouldn't be an issue if the media didn't make it one. Just have ordinances on the books prohibiting behavior of any type that disturbs the proscribed use of a cemetary or hospital and quickly arrest the knuckleheads who violate the ordiance. Turn off the TV when the reporters broadcast this wailing by the protesters and contact the advertisers on that broadcast with your feelings about the news coverage. I personally have changed the channel whenever I see those news stories. I read the headlines about the appeal to the SCOTUS, but I'm not following the case. That is why I was unaware of the hospital protests. I find the existance of this news story to be an indictment of our society in how we sensationalize things rather than deal with things like this.

I don't condemn those who follow it. In many ways it is like rubber-necking at an auto accident - hard to avoid at times, but generally only bad things come from rubber-necking (never heard a positive thing). I suspect the same can be said of this case.

[scoutpilot]

Over simplification....again.

Yes, you have been doing it from step one.

Actions that HURT other or are DANGEROUS are already exceptions. You would attempt to take this a step further. That would actually illustrate that slippery slope CERTAINLY applies here.

Nope. You're falling into the Non Causa Pro Causa fallacy. You're saying that A leads to B which leads to C which leads to D. Your argument is formally correct but logical unsound. You cannot assume B and C to be true or inevitable without proving the inevitability and causation at each step. If you read the court opinions, you will see that there's no evidence of the causality you're assuming. In reality, over the past 100 years, first amendment protections have been expanded by courts in the face of public opposition--the exact opposite result of the slippery slope to which you say any new limitation of distasteful speech leads. I won't even go into the vagueness fallacy, but needless to say, unless you can show a cogent argument for each intermediate step, it can't be called a slippery slope.

These signs are libel.

Nope.

"dangerous, injurious, or maliciously false" please show me what is dangerous here? Who is being injuried, and why? And who is judging their outragious statements as false? Do you think the Supreme Court will declare that "God Loves "F##s" or that members of the military are in Heaven. Despite the extremely poor taste of the signs, and how much I disagree with everything the Westboro Baptist Church stands for in these protests, I don't think the Supreme Court will be rulling on the intent of God, at least, not this court. So what is "dangerous, injurious, or maliciously false"?

Read the case. Seriously. Read NY Times v. Sullivan. Read Hustler v. Falwell. Otherwise, you'll keep missing the point.

[LineInTheSand]

Yes, you have been doing it from step one.



Nope. You're falling into the Non Causa Pro Causa fallacy. You're saying that A leads to B which leads to C which leads to D. Your argument is formally correct but logical unsound. You cannot assume B and C to be true or inevitable without proving the inevitability and causation at each step. If you read the court opinions, you will see that there's no evidence of the causality you're assuming. In reality, over the past 100 years, first amendment protections have been expanded by courts in the face of public opposition--the exact opposite result of the slippery slope to which you say any new limitation of distasteful speech leads. I won't even go into the vagueness fallacy, but needless to say, unless you can show a cogent argument for each intermediate step, it can't be called a slippery slope.



Nope.



Read the case. Seriously. Read NY Times v. Sullivan. Read Hustler v. Falwell. Otherwise, you'll keep missing the point.


Maybe I should say "slippery slope may exist" as if the Supreme Court rules the way it should, nothing will slip here.

Meant to say "not Libel".

I'm saying A has led to B and B is now leading to C. I simplify because I know the crowd and I don't think we need to go in depth. And you're wrong, which is what you'll find once you sit back and watch how it plays out. The signs are protected, and will continue to be protected. I hope as long as those signs find their way to burials, there are good, freedom loving, military-appreciating people who counter it.

You haven't said how it's dangerous yet.

[scoutpilot]

The signs are protected, and will continue to be protected.

If you only look at the words themselves, yes. It's easy to draw conclusions when you look at a third of the argument.

If the supreme court saw no reason to debate, they wouldn't hear the case. Clearly they don't see the issue as a non-starter.

[LineInTheSand]

If you only look at the words themselves, yes. It's easy to draw conclusions when you look at a third of the argument.

If the supreme court saw no reason to debate, they wouldn't hear the case. Clearly they don't see the issue as a non-starter.

Well, there could be a variety of reasons. A Supreme Court decision would set a precident for these kinds of assembly. I wouldn't assume that the reasoning to hear a case is to destroy someone's right to peacable assemble. I'm not sure if that's the direction you think it's headed.

They haven't been banned, and there hasn't been an indication that that's where it's headed. I assume that the Supreme Court may want to weigh in to settle it, as it's an ongoing issue.

You still haven't described what is "dangerous, injurious, or maliciously false."

[bruno]

This isn't Freedom of speech- this is malicious speech that was intended to wound and has done so. It's hijacking the principle of free speech to claim that others have the right to deliberately inflict harm -either physical or mental on other private citizens. The argument that there is no recourse because we are worried about some mythical "Slippery Slope" is basically as feeble an argument as that advanced by Abraham Lincoln's opponents who protested his actions suspending Habius Corpus at the outset of the Civil War- The law exists to protect it's citizens and unless you are seriously arguing that a PRIVATE Citizen has no right or expectation of privacy and relief from harrassment - this case isn't gonna be decided by some abstract construct like a "slippery slope that will threaten the future of protected political speech". This is basically about verbal assault and harrassment of private citizens- which is exactly what the lower court found intitially. Yes the 4th Circuit overturned but I believe that the SCOTUS is going to side with the lower court

The Veterans of Foreign Wars, among the groups on Snyder's side, counters in its brief, "If Albert Snyder, a grieving father of an American hero, cannot seek remedy from (Phelps and his relatives) for the emotional torment (they) viciously imposed upon him, what purpose do our laws serve?"

"You only get one chance to do a burial," adds Harrisburg, Pa., lawyer Timothy Nieman, who wrote the VFW's filing. He says the Westboro protest created "a circus atmosphere at a private, sanctified time."
For Snyder, the case is not about speech rights, but personal harassment. Many federal and state officials agree.

Washington lawyer Walter Dellinger, representing Senate leaders, tells the high court that free speech on public issues "does not encompass insults and verbal abuse intended to invade a private memorial ceremony and injure its participants."

He says protesters can take a stand in virtually any public place, but they cannot "hijack (a family's) private funeral as a vehicle for expression of their own hate."

Joining Snyder are 48 states — all except Maine and Virginia, which did not weigh in on the case — and the District of Columbia. In his appeal on behalf of Snyder, lawyer Sean Summers urges the court to focus on the targeted nature of the Phelpses' conduct against private people who Summers says were not public figures in a public debate.

[goaliedad]

This isn't Freedom of speech- this is malicious speech that was intended to wound and has done so. It's hijacking the principle of free speech to claim that others have the right to deliberately inflict harm -either physical or mental on other private citizens. The argument that there is no recourse because we are worried about some mythical "Slippery Slope" is basically as feeble an argument as that advanced by Abraham Lincoln's opponents who protested his actions suspending Habius Corpus at the outset of the Civil War- The law exists to protect it's citizens and unless you are seriously arguing that a PRIVATE Citizen has no right or expectation of privacy and relief from harrassment - this case isn't gonna be decided by some abstract construct like a "slippery slope that will threaten the future of protected political speech". This is basically about verbal assault and harrassment of private citizens- which is exactly what the lower court found intitially. Yes the 4th Circuit overturned but I believe that the SCOTUS is going to side with the lower court

:thumb:

Let's hope the courts do more with less here. No need to twist words to define the limits of the First Amendment.

As to those who argue that the family were unaware of the protesters during the funeral but learned of it afterwards, I say if you walked around school all day and people were smiling as they passed you and when you got home and took off your coat and found the "kick me" sign taped on it, are you no less hurt than if you found it during the day when people were smiling? No, it ruined your day and that cannot be taken away.

[scoutpilot]

You still haven't described what is "dangerous, injurious, or maliciously false."

How many times do you need to be directed to the case itself, or to my second post describing the actual issues of merit in this case? The original tort which started the whole case was predicated on speech which is intended to cause emotional distress or injury, which is prohibited under Maryland law. As the case has evolved to its current point, the question is whether such intentionally emotionally damaging speech (i.e. "Thank God for dead soldiers" at a military funeral) is

Moreover, if you actually read the post in which I used the phrase "dangerous, injurious, or maliciously false" you'll note that I was referring to your characterization of any abridgment of free speech as the top of the slippery slope to a totalitarian state of censorship, as evidenced by your statement which read:

Maybe no one cares about the slippery slope, however, I do. As much as trimming the Constitution and Bill of Rights makes us feel good...just because someone does something we don't like, it doesn't mean we can ban it.

Clearly, the Supreme Court and lower courts have upheld that when someone says something "we don't like" that has delterious consequences on the greater good, it can at times be abridged. Hence, you can't shout fire in a theater or bring porn to school.

It seems that you have yet to address the two precedents which are actually in question in this case. I think you're capable of far better than that. Yet, you seem intent on arguing only your opinions. It's honestly hard to debate the case when you won't talk about the case itself.

Had you read the case, the speech itself was already determined to be intentionally emotionally damaging to the plaintiff. However, the court used the precedent from the Hustler case and extended it to the Phelps party, which reuqired the cognitive leap that they 1) qualify as "media" and 2) the issues themselves meet the standard of a "public figure" in lieu of an individual. Snyder is arguing that the Westboro clan is not a media figure, but his more cogent and effective argument is that the issues may be public, but the damage is inflicted not on the public but on him, a private and therefore very un-public figure. The thrust of the appeal is that the standard which Hustler v. Falwell introduced was predicated on a desire to protect speech which, even though it may be injurious and false and malicious, contributes to the greater debate of a public figure and is necessary in a democracy. Snyder's argument is that his son's funeral is not part of the national debate, and thus their deliberately injurious speech is not afforded protection.

So, as I said...argue the actual case, not a philosophical stance on the first amendment. Or if you can't, don't. But endlessly repeating "you didn't answer my question" when the thread contains that answer from the get-go, and you have been referred to said answer, isn't an argument.

[Luigi59]

First Amendment expert Floyd Abrams, who argued for The New York Times in the Pentagon Papers case and the Judith Miller CIA leak case and has argued 15 cases before the Supreme Court (most recently the Citizens United decision), talked with NEWSWEEK about how the court is likely to rule in Snyder v. Westboro Baptist Church, and what the ramifications of the case will be.

Excerpts:

"How does the Supreme Court decide to hear this case over any other?"

"For one thing, the court of appeals for the fourth circuit, which did rule in favor of the church, wrote a very broad opinion, and the Supreme Court, even if they agree with it, might want a more narrow one. Of course another reason [could be that] they thought the lower court was wrong. One reason they take cases is because they think it’s decided so badly and is going to have an impact on the system. I heard Justice Thomas once give a speech saying that sometimes they take it just because it’s interesting."

"What do you think the consequences would be if the court were to rule against Westboro Baptist Church?"

"If the court were to do so, they would try very hard to write as narrow an opinion as they could. I don’t think they can do it. For one thing, we have protected hate speech, and I don’t think the court is going to move away from that for a moment, not in this case and not in the foreseeable future."

"So you feel strongly that the court will rule in favor of the church?"

"I think so. You know, the prime reason why I’m not so sure comes back to the question you asked a few minutes ago: why’d they take this case? They don’t usually take cases to affirm. If they were satisfied with what happened in the lower court, they don’t need to take it. I don’t think that they will reverse, but there is a chance."

[scoutpilot]

You know, the prime reason why I’m not so sure comes back to the question you asked a few minutes ago: why’d they take this case? They don’t usually take cases to affirm. If they were satisfied with what happened in the lower court, they don’t need to take it. I don’t think that they will reverse, but there is a chance."

Exactly. That certainly doesn't mean they'll overturn the decision, but one has to wonder, especially since they turned down so many yesterday. If they do write that narrow opinion, my personal and non-attorney opinion is that they'll dig into what defines a public figure vice a private figure for the purposes of protected speech. There's no chance, in my mind, that they'll rule against the content of the speech. But they may rule against the protection of that admittedly malicious speech in the venue that Westboro has chosen to make it heard, based on the public v. private debate.

Either way, the opinion will be interesting. I highly doubt they took it just to say "Gosh, that circuit court really nailed it!"

[goaliedad]

I'm not sure the SCOTUS likes these things that much. I just think they feel the need to weigh in because so much has been said.

If they really want to put this to bed, they'll keep it simple, which points to siding with the original decision that the political speech is not the issue, but the harm to the family which was not the target of the political speech as they are not public figures. The church can stand on a soap box all day and make any statement, but can't stand on an innocent citizen's back and make any statement.

They'll get a lot fewer of these cases this way and can actually spend their time on more consequential matters.

Then again my way to deal with flag burners is to cite them for unauthorized burning (doesn't matter if it is a flag or a bedsheet) in a public place as a safety hazard. They can burn flags all day long on their own private property (if zoned apprpriately for public safety purposes) or in the bonfire pit of a public park (as long as the material burned doesn't give off noxious gases). Ignore the rhetoric and focus on the technical behavior.

BTW, if the folks from Westboro win, my bet is that there will be thousands of military vets protesting at the cemetery when that old preacher passes. He will get his...

[McCoy]

I just read something about these idiots earlier (not the bikers). Pisses me off like you wouldn't believe. I don't know how the family could handle it, because I'd completely understand if the father went up and decked one of 'em.

[goldfarb1]

Looks like we'll find out pretty soon what SCOTUS thinks of this..

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2010/1006/Supreme-Court-Can-Westboro-Baptist-Church-protest-military-funerals

[bruno]

Attorney general of Maryland had an article on this case in today's Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/05/AR2010100503827.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
...They stood at the entrance of the church where the funeral was held, waving signs that said "Thank God for Dead Soldiers," "God Hates Fags" and "God Hates You."

They followed their protest by publishing a poem on the Internet entitled "The Burden of Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder," which stated that Matthew's parents "taught Matthew to defy his creator" and "raised him for the devil."

So they targeted this individual family for harrassment.
....The Constitution creates an impressive framework of rights that should be robustly defended. But these rights were created by the people, for the people, and when they are invoked to evade responsibility for wrongs committed against the people, their value is diminished. In deciding Snyder, the Supreme Court should be careful not to let the boundaries of our rights be set purely by those who wish to abuse them. To do otherwise would bring dishonor to those, like Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder, who fought to protect them.
Exactly.

[LineInTheSand]

Maybe he can head on down to Washington DC, pull the Bill of Rights out from under the many inches of glass it's protected under and take a pair of scissors to the parts he doesn't agree with. Wouldn't want those protections to hurt his eyes or offend him in any way.

[Luigi59]

Attorney general of Maryland had an article on this case in today's Washington Post:

"They stood at the entrance of the church where the funeral was held.."


The AG of MD is not telling the truth, according to the papers filed in the case.

"The seven picketers stood in a place designated by a priest and by the police, over a thousand feet from the funeral. They sang songs and waved signs that included the messages: “You’re Going to Hell,” and “Thank God for Dead Soldiers.” The demonstration was neither visible nor audible to those attending the funeral."

His credibility is in question.

[scoutpilot]

The AG of MD is not telling the truth, according to the papers filed in the case.

"The seven picketers stood in a place designated by a priest and by the police, over a thousand feet from the funeral. They sang songs and waved signs that included the messages: “You’re Going to Hell,” and “Thank God for Dead Soldiers.” The demonstration was neither visible nor audible to those attending the funeral."

His credibility is in question.

You love to question the credibility of anyone you don't agree with. Somehow, I doubt the AG would risk a libel accusation.

I give you credit for actually reading the case though. It's more than some others are willing to do...

[Luigi59]

You love to question the credibility of anyone you don't agree with. Somehow, I doubt the AG would risk a libel accusation.


You can believe some outside opinion printed in a newspaper (and we know how factual they always are) given by a non-party in the case (the AG of MD), or you can believe the facts that will be presented as sworn evidence (punishable by felony perjury) before the highest court in the United States.

:rolleyes:

[LineInTheSand]

You love to question the credibility of anyone you don't agree with. Somehow, I doubt the AG would risk a libel accusation.

I give you credit for actually reading the case though. It's more than some others are willing to do...

I also assume governors don't want to be caught with prostitutes and generals know when to keep their mouths shut....

It's slip-ups that make the press world go round.

I appreciate your assumption that people will agree with you after reading the case....

[LineInTheSand]

You can believe some outside opinion printed in a newspaper (and we know how factual they always are) given by a non-party in the case (the AG of MD), or you can believe the facts that will be presented as sworn evidence (punishable by felony perjury) before the highest court in the United States.

:rolleyes:

Whatever fits someone's point of view, that's what they'll general use as support, however unfounded it may be.


It's with the Supreme Court now...we'll see what happens.

[sprog]

The AG of MD is not telling the truth, according to the papers filed in the case.

"The seven picketers stood in a place designated by a priest and by the police, over a thousand feet from the funeral. They sang songs and waved signs that included the messages: “You’re Going to Hell,” and “Thank God for Dead Soldiers.” The demonstration was neither visible nor audible to those attending the funeral."

His credibility is in question.

Purely out of my own curiosity, does this quote come from the respondent's or the petitioner's brief? Or neither?

[scoutpilot]

Purely out of my own curiosity, does this quote come from the respondent's or the petitioner's brief? Or neither?

Stop asking questions! The Sea Lawyers have decided that the AG is lying. It's a done deal.

Next you'll ask dumb questions like "Did all the protestors stand 1000' away?" and "Did they stand near the church at any point?"

You lawyers...always wanting to find out the whole truth. Next you'll want to argue the merits of the case instead of resorting to hyperbole about shredding the bill of rights.

I've had enough of you, sir. Good day! :thumb:

[sprog]

Stop asking questions! The Sea Lawyers have decided that the AG is lying. It's a done deal.

Next you'll ask dumb questions like "Did all the protestors stand 1000' away?" and "Did they stand near the church at any point?"

You lawyers...always wanting to find out the whole truth. Next you'll want to argue the merits of the case instead of resorting to hyperbole about shredding the bill of rights.

I've had enough of you, sir. Good day! :thumb:

It may very well be from one of the lower courts' opinions on the case. I was just curious if it is a direct quote from such an opinion, or if one of the advocates drafted it in their brief to SCOTUS. I'm too lazy to research it.

[LineInTheSand]

His decision was made well before anything was discussed here.

[LineInTheSand]

"Nobody believes the official spokesman....but everybody trusts an unidentified source."

- Ron Nessen

[Luigi59]

It may very well be from one of the lower courts' opinions on the case. I was just curious if it is a direct quote from such an opinion, or if one of the advocates drafted it in their brief to SCOTUS. I'm too lazy to research it.

Their location was (and still is) confirmed by many of the eyewitness, video, and written news accounts of the protest in Westminster, Maryland. The Patriot Guard riders were also there, further insulating the funeral from the 7 members of Westboro who were holding signs. None of this took place on the grounds of St Johns.

I don't think at any time has their location been in question, their location is a statement of fact, it was set up ahead of time by the MD State Police, Westminster City Police, and the Carroll County Sheriff's Department, at the request of Westboro Baptist Church.

The AG of MD was/is simply ignorant of this fact.

[Luigi59]

Stop asking questions! The Sea Lawyers have decided that the AG is lying. It's a done deal.

Next you'll ask dumb questions like "Did all the protestors stand 1000' away?" and "Did they stand near the church at any point?"



Funny how facts can always win over misstatements and ad-hominem attacks such as these. :rolleyes:

A simple reading of the PACER documents from the Court of Appeals would "learn you up" on the facts of the case, instead of relying on your own "knowledge" of what really happened.

It was undisputed at trial that Defendants complied
with local ordinances and police directions
with respect to being a certain distance from the
church. Furthermore, it was established at trial that
Snyder did not actually see the signs until he saw a
television program later that day with footage of the
Phelps family at his son’s funeral.

http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/081026.P.pdf

Or you can continue to put your faith in The Washington Post's interview of the AG of MD.

:rolleyes:

[sprog]

Funny how facts can always win over misstatements and ad-hominem attacks such as these. :rolleyes:

A simple reading of the PACER documents form the Court of Appeals would "learn you up" on the facts of the case, instead of relying on your own "knowledge" of what really happened.

It was undisputed at trial that Defendants complied
with local ordinances and police directions
with respect to being a certain distance from the
church. Furthermore, it was established at trial that
Snyder did not actually see the signs until he saw a
television program later that day with footage of the
Phelps family at his son’s funeral.

http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/081026.P.pdf

Or you can continue to put your faith in The Washington Post's interview of the AG of MD.

:rolleyes:

This is all I was asking. The facts that you laid out were undisputed at trial, and the language of your earlier quote seems to come from the 4th Circuit's opinion.

[scoutpilot]

On second thought, everything that can be said to certain people has been said. I don't feel like a vacation.

If people have something to say besides the usual defaming of elected officials and the knee-jerk hair-on-fire schtick, this discussion could go somewhere. If those folks could be bothered to read the case and debate the merits.

[LineInTheSand]

You're right Scoutpilot, it's far more entertaining to attack those who you don't agree with.

We need to get that out of the way now, before that's banned too, because someone's feelings were hurt.



I don't like the group or their signs. I would hate for them to be around someone I cared for who died serving this country...but it's a right. Maybe you don't agree with that, but I would be interested in where that line is drawn.

I saw the AG of MD at a Nationals game, in the $325 President's Club seats. He's not a disinterested judge on the highest court. He is an elected official. Unfortunately, that drive to be re-elected determines who some in government approach issues, on both sides of the isle.

I'm sure he's well versed in law. He is no Supreme Court justice however. Maybe we should just wait and see what the Supreme Court as to say about it.

[scoutpilot]

You're right Scoutpilot, it's far more entertaining to attack those who you don't agree with.

You mean like ADM Fowler or the President or Katie Miller? If we ban that, many a poster of a certain affiliation will be rendered mute.

Now that we actually have the issues laid out and have rendered the hair-on-fire reactions moot, you want the thread to go silent pending the outcome? Got it. No real discussion, just Fox News-style sensationalism.

Maybe I can get a souvenir piece of the shredded Constitution.

[Luigi59]

If people have something to say besides the usual defaming of elected officials and the knee-jerk hair-on-fire schtick, this discussion could go somewhere.

Defaming an elected official? :confused:

Now who is exaggerating!

The AG of MD was caught, in print, lying about the facts of the case.

He stated:

They stood at the entrance of the church where the funeral was held, waving signs...

Which is indisputably a LIE. The AG of Maryland WAS LYING. And he was quoted in print by The Washington Post.

Yes, I am calling him out. He lied about the facts of the case to the WP.

And you want to defend him? :screwy:

Defame? That's laughable. The truth is always a defense to any claim of defamation, libel, or slander. The truth is the truth.

Talk about a "sea lawyer"!

[scoutpilot]

Defaming an elected official? :confused:

Now who is exaggerating!

The AG of MD was caught, in print, lying about the facts of the case.

He stated:



Which is indisputably a LIE. The AG of Maryland WAS LYING. And he was quoted in print by The Washington Post.

Yes, I am calling him out. He lied about the facts of the case to the WP.

And you want to defend him? :screwy:

Defame? That's laughable. The truth is always a defense to any claim of defamation, libel, or slander. The truth is the truth.

Talk about a "sea lawyer"!

Well, I suppose a sea lawyer has to have gone to sea, so it doesn't apply to you. So it's armchair lawyering. The sea lawyer was for my favorite (and only) Coastie, LITS.

Regardless, he's a liar now? Ten minutes ago he was ignorant, but now he's making premeditated false statements? What evil will you elevate him to next?

[LineInTheSand]

They're only shredding the Bill of Rights right now....different piece of document. They may continue to disregard the Constitution, but it's still under protective glass.

[LineInTheSand]

Well, I suppose a sea lawyer has to have gone to sea, so it doesn't apply to you. So it's armchair lawyering. The sea lawyer was for my favorite (and only) Coastie, LITS.



No, sea lawyer was correct, that's what we called it too, in the wardroom of my ship.


EDIT: Just reread that....didn't realize it was directed at Luigi.

[Luigi59]

Well, I suppose a sea lawyer has to have gone to sea, so it doesn't apply to you. So it's armchair lawyering. The sea lawyer was for my favorite (and only) Coastie, LITS.

Regardless, he's a liar now? Ten minutes ago he was ignorant, but now he's making premeditated false statements? What evil will you elevate him to next?

Well we can start with his radical gun-control advocacy if you'd like.

His amicus briefs filed in support of the DC Govt's gun ban (in the Heller case) and his support for the Illinois gun ban (he believes that the 2nd Amendment does not apply to the States) don't make him many friends in my circle of acquaintance.

His direct quote:

“It’s almost absurd to think that the Second Amendment grants the right to bear arms to an individual,” Gansler says. http://www.washingtonian.com/print/articles/6/173/6732.html

But that's off topic, and gets away from your support of his incorrect facts as stated in The Washington Post about the case.

[goldfarb1]

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-court-funerals-20101007,0,7401118.story

....and for those who are more visual
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBXsZBZYoMI

[Just_A_Mom]

<H6 class=uiStreamMessage data-ft='{"type":"msg"}'>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/06/AR2010100603950.html?sid=ST2010100602692


http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/09-10/09-751_PetitionerReply.pdf

This is what the case is about:

THE CASE REQUIRES THIS COURT TO BALANCE THE PHELPSES’
INTEREST IN ENGAGING IN TORTIOUS EXPRESSIVE CONDUCT
AGAINST THE COUNTERVAILING INTERESTS OF MR. SNYDER, AS BOTH TARGET AND CAPTIVE AUDIENCE, AND THE STATE OF MARYLAND. THE FOURTH CIRCUIT ERRED BY FAILING TO CONDUCT
THIS BALANCING, LEAVING MR. SNYDER WITHOUT REMEDY FOR
THE HARM HE SUFFERED.
iN THEIR RESPONSE


Lest you all forget - the case is about Balancing the rights of the people. The question being -
Can the Government prevent one person from expressing their 'right of free speech' if doing so will infringe on the rights of another?
Who's rights shall prevail?

FYI: The distance appears to be in dispute. Phelps says he was 1000 ft away. Snyder says Phelps was 200-300 ft away and he disrupted the funeral procession.

[scoutpilot]

http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/09-10/09-751_PetitionerReply.pdf

This is what the case is about:
THE CASE REQUIRES THIS COURT TO BALANCE THE PHELPSES’
INTEREST IN ENGAGING IN TORTIOUS EXPRESSIVE CONDUCT
AGAINST THE COUNTERVAILING INTERESTS OF MR. SNYDER, AS BOTH TARGET AND CAPTIVE AUDIENCE, AND THE STATE OF MARYLAND. THE FOURTH CIRCUIT ERRED BY FAILING TO CONDUCT
THIS BALANCING, LEAVING MR. SNYDER WITHOUT REMEDY FOR
THE HARM HE SUFFERED.
iN THEIR RESPONSE



Lest you all forget - the case is about Balancing the rights of the people. The question being -
Can the Government prevent one person from expressing their 'right of free speech' if doing so will infringe on the rights of another?
Who's rights shall prevail?

FYI: The distance appears to be in dispute. Phelps says he was 1000 ft away. Snyder says Phelps was 200-300 ft away and he disrupted the funeral procession.[/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT]

Seems like I've read all this somewhere before...

[Luigi59]

Snyder says Phelps was 200-300 ft away and he disrupted the funeral procession.[/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT]

From the sworn testimony at the trial:

Furthermore, it was established at trial that
Snyder did not actually see the signs until he saw a
television program later that day with footage of the
Phelps family at his son’s funeral.

http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/081026.P.pdf

Seems like I've read all this somewhere before...

Do you believe everything you read in the newspaper, or would official trial documents perhaps, under penalty of perjury, be a little more reliable?

Doug Gansler says they were at the entrance to the Church, I thought you believed him? :rolleyes:

[Luigi59]

More from the appellate court's ruling:

First, as to the funeral protest itself, the Phelps did not "intrude" or
"pry" upon any private seclusion. The Phelps never intruded
upon a private place because their protest occurred at all times
in a public place that was designated by the police and located
approximately 1,000 feet from the funeral. Further, the Phelps
never confronted Snyder, and Snyder admits he could not see
the protest. Finally, there was no intrusion because the evidence
is undisputed that the church service was never disrupted.
The Phelps never entered the church, and they stopped
protesting when the church service began.

:rolleyes:

[scoutpilot]

From the sworn testimony at the trial:

Furthermore, it was established at trial that
Snyder did not actually see the signs until he saw a
television program later that day with footage of the
Phelps family at his son’s funeral.

http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/081026.P.pdf



Do you believe everything you read in the newspaper, or would official trial documents perhaps, under penalty of perjury, be a little more reliable?

Doug Gansler says they were at the entrance to the Church, I thought you believed him? :rolleyes:

If you stopped shrieking about everyone's perceived injustices against you long enough to actually read and comprehend, you might have picked up that I was referring to her laydown of "this is what the case is about" and the fact that all those issues were laid out by me and others on the first page of this thread, and there's nothing like someone who doesn't read the thread and then pipes in to "clarify" the debate.

This may be hard for you to grasp, but JAM's response was chock full of information, and sometimes people make remarks about a portion of a response, not every last detail.

We all pretty much started ignoring you after you wheeled out your boatload of "red herrings" (in quotation marks because you so dearly love the phrase) about the Maryland AG.

[bruno]

Alright folks- the SCOTUS has heard the case and until they release their findings- probably in April there really isn't much else to discuss on this one. Let's not turn this into another attack on each other- so unless there is something of substance to add about the arguments made in front of the Supreme Court yesterday (of which there are a number of stories out )- let's let this thread slide into oblivion until the court comes out with its decision.

[Luigi59]

We all pretty much started ignoring you after you wheeled out your boatload of "red herrings" (in quotation marks because you so dearly love the phrase) about the Maryland AG.

Just as we all started laughing at you when you proclaimed a belief in the Doug Gansler "at the entrance of the church" quote in The Washington Post, despite sworn court testimony and video evidence of the contrary.

The evidence has been presented in court.

It's your choice to believe it, or The Washington Post's interview with non-party in the case.

[Luigi59]

let's let this thread slide into oblivion until the court comes out with its decision.

Have the indicated a time frame as to when they may render a decision? The end of this year? Spring? I would hope it doesn't go out longer than a few months.

[goldfarb1]

Have the indicated a time frame as to when they may render a decision? The end of this year? Spring? I would hope it doesn't go out longer than a few months.

Yes, early next year. Sometime between Jan and March probably.

[Just_A_Mom]

Here is an interview with Albert Snyder that was on CNN American Morning:

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/10/07/snyder-pastor-phelps-actions-cause-emotional-stress/?hpt=T2

Read/watch it for yourself but here are a few excerpts:


And it wasn't just about them showing up at the funeral. It was about what they did before and after the funeral. Two days before that funeral, they sent out notices to press and emerge - you know, the authorities. This notice had matt's picture on it. It has a military coffin. Underneath it, it's burial of an ass. Then it went on to say we'll be protesting at St. John's Catholic dog kennel.



I knew they were go to come there. They stood 30 feet from the main vehicle entrance of the church, and what the vehicle procession had to be rerouted, we still came within 300 feet of the church.

[Just_A_Mom]

http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/09-10/09-751_Petitioner.pdf

Open this document and read Mr Snyder's account of the facts beginning on page 13.
(they differ somewhat from Luigi's and are more in line with the MD AG)

[Luigi59]

http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/09-10/09-751_Petitioner.pdf

Open this document and read Mr Snyder's account of the facts beginning on page 13.
(they differ somewhat from Luigi's and are more in line with the MD AG)

So you're saying that Snyder committed perjury? :confused:

After all, he testified under oath at the trial (and the court found it to be "undisputed") that he could not see, nor did he see, any protesters until later on TV.

Why would he change his story after the fact?

Oh, that's right - $11,000,000.
:rolleyes:

[Luigi59]

http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/09-10/09-751_Petitioner.pdf

Open this document and read Mr Snyder's account of the facts beginning on page 13.
(they differ somewhat from Luigi's and are more in line with the MD AG)

http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/09-10/09-751_Respondent.pdf

Open this document and read Ms. Phelp's account of the facts beginning at the bottom of page 6 and on to page 7.
(they differ somewhat from Just_A_Mom and scoutpliot's and are completely out of line with the statement of the MD AG).

Especially this part:

A professionally-made video (Supplemental Joint Appendix,
last page), and aerial photos of the scene
(Supplemental Joint Appendix 1 and 12), reflect that
it was physically impossible for anyone going to the
funeral to see WBC’s picketers (Appendix, Vol. IX,
2475-2491; Vol. XV, 3796 and DVD, Joint Supplemental
Appendix, last page [Ex. 19, admitted 10/25/07];
Vol. VIII, 2218-2219, 2294; Vol. IX, 2366, 2495).

:rolleyes:

[Christcorp]

Who really cares. What I care about is:

1. Protesters have the right to express themselves, without others standing in their way.
2. Mourners have the right to express themselves, (Grieve), without others standing in their way.
3. I have the right to NOT respect someone who isn't considerate towards another person's right to express. (In this case, to grieve).

They have made it clear that if they COULD, they'd attend the actual funeral and express themselves. Whether they do or not, is enough for me to NOT RESPECT them. I can respect their right to express themselves, but I don't have to respect them for being insensitive slobs who are "Protesting" at the wrong forum. They should be protesting at the front gate of a military installation; in front of Federal buildings; on Pennsylvania Avenue. NOT at an individual's funeral, where others are trying to "Express themselves" via mourning, grieving, and paying respects. In other words; whether the protesters followed the letter of the law or not and stayed "X" amount of feet from the church or cemetery, the fact remains that they DON'T respect the mourner's rights, like they expect others to respect theirs. If they did, they'd be protesting at a more appropriate location, in front of individuals who have some affect on their grievance. Being they don't respect the mourners, I don't respect them. They can all rot in hell for all I care.

Anyone will be hard pressed to find anyone more Pro-1st/2nd amendment than I am. I will support the rights of flag burners and those who call me a baby killer. But rights work both way. You don't protest mourners. You don't protest grievers. When you do, you are directly affecting THEIR RIGHT to express themselves. I WILL NOT respect that. If they had been protesting at a federal building, I would be defending them 100%.

[scoutpilot]

http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/09-10/09-751_Respondent.pdf

Open this document and read Ms. Phelp's account of the facts beginning at the bottom of page 6 and on to page 7.
(they differ somewhat from Just_A_Mom and scoutpliot's and are completely out of line with the statement of the MD AG).

Especially this part:

A professionally-made video (Supplemental Joint Appendix,
last page), and aerial photos of the scene
(Supplemental Joint Appendix 1 and 12), reflect that
it was physically impossible for anyone going to the
funeral to see WBC’s picketers (Appendix, Vol. IX,
2475-2491; Vol. XV, 3796 and DVD, Joint Supplemental
Appendix, last page [Ex. 19, admitted 10/25/07];
Vol. VIII, 2218-2219, 2294; Vol. IX, 2366, 2495).

:rolleyes:

Once again, I am forced to derail your wild accusations with a dose of reality.

NEVER have I posted any claims about where the protestors were or were not. I simply pointed out that you frequently try to decry the credibility of those with whom you do not agree. In this case, it was the Maryland AG. In this thread you have, in order, claimed him to be lacking credibility, a liar, ignorant, and then again a liar.

I have ASKED questions about the issues, including the protestors' location, challenged your juvenile accusations against those you don't like, and repeatedly asked that people discuss the current arguments in this case and not their personal prejudices.

To use your phrase, truth is always a defense. So there's the truth.

[bruno]

and with that- I believe that this thread will come to a close. Too many posters focusing on other posters- or blasting away at the Maryland AG rather than reviewing the case and the arguments made to the Supreme Court yesterday