Supreme Court: OK to peddle God of Hate

Read Time:1 Minute, 30 Second

The Constitution is not a sacred document passed down from some deity, and ruled as infallible.  It is a model for behavior by both the government and the people.  To take a constructionist point of view in all cases can work against the very spirit of the Founding Fathers.  I would seriously doubt that they would have condoned, or protected, the behavior of the Westboro Baptist Monsters.  This ruling is a travesty and an insult to the military, their families, and all of those who enjoy a lifestyle that doesn’t agree with the rules of these dangerous fanatics.  I can only hope that “Anonymous” will one day “settle their hash.”  If there was ever a growing cancer that needs to be excised it the tumor that makes up the Westboro Baptist Church and their God of hate.  Here is the story in summary:

The Supreme Court, in an 8-1 decision, ruled Wednesday that members of the renegade Westboro Baptist Church have a constitutionally protected right to protest military funerals, though their demonstrations are widely despised and deplored.

The case presented the justices with a high-profile question about the breadth of First Amendment speech and assembly protections. A majority of justices ruled that these fundamental rights outweigh the concerns of grieving family members who would rather not deal with the obnoxious protesters from the Kansas church.

In doing so, the judges upheld a lower-court decision to invalidate a $5 million judgment in favor of the father of a dead Marine whose funeral was targeted by the protesters.

In its opinion, the Supreme Court wrote that the United States protects “even hurtful speech” on public issues so that “public debate is not stifled.” It ruled that the First Amendment shields the church from being held liable for picketing.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

About Post Author

Professor Mike

Professor Mike is a left-leaning, dog loving, political junkie. He has written dozens of articles for Substack, Medium, Simily, and Tribel. Professor Mike has been published at Smerconish.com, among others. He is a strong proponent of the environment, and a passionate protector of animals. In addition he is a fierce anti-Trumper. Take a moment and share his work.
Happy
Happy
0 %
Sad
Sad
0 %
Excited
Excited
0 %
Sleepy
Sleepy
0 %
Angry
Angry
0 %
Surprise
Surprise
0 %
0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of

27 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
13 years ago

and?…this is a surprise?

‘Here we go here we go…here we go here we go here we go…ooooo’

Humanity…you really think your ‘views’ matter one jot?

Arrogant bastards all.

Your views amount to squat.

That’s the way it is.

Sadly.

If your views actually mattered in the scheme of things I would actually vote for you in whatever capacity.

Don’t hold your breath for my vote.

You actually don’t count.

…oh dear…

Reply to  Four Dinners
13 years ago

Well, it is comforting to know that if we follow your skewed logic 4Dinners, then you don’t count either, nor does your point of view.

You do seem metaphorically speaking, to adore the sound of your own voice..which is quite telling in and of itself.

As for arrogant, have you looked in a mirror lately?

Thank you so much for stopping by, now just make sure that door doesn’t hit you in the ass when you leave…metaphorically speaking of course.

Stimpson
13 years ago

Look, what the WBC A-holes do is hurtful and repugnant. But we should be careful not to categorize all offensive speech as hate speech, and democratic societies should be careful (very careful) about limiting speech.

I say come down on a group like a ton of bricks when it calls for the destruction of people of a certain racial or ethnic identity, or faith or sexual orientation. But the WBC A-holes declaring homosexuality wrong? Not hate speech, if you ask me (as much as I intensely dislike it). The Phelps clan publicly exalting over the death of soldiers? Not something for the state to squash, as offensive as it is.

When a group crosses the line and calls for the murder of gays or Jews or whatever – that is when the state has a right and duty to step in.

At least that’s how I see it.

BTW, Justice Alito said Mr. Snyder had a right “to bury his son in peace.” Now, remember, Alito’s a so-called strict constructionist. Someone should ask him where in the Constitution there’s a right to bury a loved one in peace. Just sayin’.

Reply to  Stimpson
13 years ago

Someone should ask him where in the Constitution there’s a right to bury a loved one in peace. As I noted, one of the issues used to bring this suit was intrusion upon seclusion. Again from Alito’s dissent:

I would therefore hold that, in this setting, the First Amendment permits a private figure to recover for the intentional infliction of emotional distress caused by speech on a matter of private concern. Matthew Snyder was not a public figure, and as such, his family had the right and should of been allowed to bury their son without it becoming a circus, which is what the assholes at Westboro want.

Stimpson
Reply to  Dusty Taylor
13 years ago

But again, as I said, Alito is a strict contructionist. What he wrote contradicts his own belief that what’s actually in the Constitution is all that counts. There is nothing – absolutely nothing – in the First Amendment about a private individual being protected from having his/her feelings hurt on a matter of private concern.

Here’s what the First Amendment says:
“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.”

I’m looking … Nope, nothing about what Scalia’s going on about. NOTHING. Zippo. Nada. Zilch.

Stimpson
Reply to  Stimpson
13 years ago

Though perhaps I’m being too harsh on Alito. He has hedged on whether he’s a strict constructionist. Maybe it’s mean to hold him to that standard.

… Nah, screw it. He’s a Dubya appointee. He deserves mean treatment. 🙂

Reply to  Stimpson
13 years ago

Stimpson, SCOTUS cited several 1st Amendment cases in their ruling, which Alito went after. I found the most interesting one to be Hustler v Falwell. Hustler won because Jerry baby was a public figure. Still, it made me snicker a bit. 😉

Jess
13 years ago

Oh and her highness, has twittered a tweet. I have to tell you though, you gotta take the red pill before you will make sense of what I am about to post here

Courtesy of Bible Spice, Our Lady of Perpetual Victimhood.
“Common sense and decency absent as wacky “church” allowed hate messages spewed @soldiers funerals, but we can’t invoke God’s name in the public square. Someone this stupid really deserves to be in a padded room somewhere they can’t hurt themselves. Does she just not get that these horrible people are indeed doing the invoking of the name or is she just not really bright? I report you decide.

Reply to  Jess
13 years ago

As usual Jess, the half-governor of AK misses the entire point of the suit. No surprise there. Her reading comprehension really friggin sucks imho..and she wants to run our entire nation? Scary..very scary, that someone so damn dense can receive so much publicity and ink, and that a percentage of our population thinks she should lead our country.

I heard she can’t walk and chew gum at the same time. 😉

Jess
Reply to  Dusty
13 years ago

I laughed at her bringing up God’s name and not being allowed to shout it in the public square. Um dumbass that’s just what they were doing. She needs to lay off the meth I’m thinking.

Brandy C
13 years ago

I am open about being bisexual and defending the gay communities , however my anger for this artical has nothing to do with any of that… Im pissed they are allowed to protest at a fallen heros expense !

13 years ago

I know that I hold an opinion that most people here, do not support because they believe the 1st Amendment protects all speech. From Alito’s dissenting opinion:

Our profound national commitment to free and open debate is not a license for the vicious verbal assault that occurred in this case.

Petitioner Albert Snyder is not a public figure. He is simply a parent whose son, Marine Lance Corporal Matthew Snyder, was killed in Iraq. 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. They first issued a press release and thus turned Matthew’s funeral into a tumultuous media event. They then appeared at the church, approached as closely as they could without trespassing, and launched a malevolent verbal attack on Matthew and his family at a time of acute emotional vulnerability. As a result, Albert Snyder suffered severe and lasting emotional injury.1 The Court now holds that the First Amendment protected respondents’ right to brutalize Mr. Snyder. I cannot agree. And neither can I.

Jess
Reply to  Dusty
13 years ago

Till they incorporate hate speech into our documents, this is okay for morons to keep doing whether or not we like it. They protested at Gwen Araujos funeral, Matthew Shepard, where were the great protectors against hate speech then?

I’m sorry to disagree Dusty, because I know we are on the same side and all, but I can’t and won’t go with losing my ability to say what I want wherever I want, just because 12 idiots take it to a place that is indecent. WE need to fight back against the Phelpses and the idiots that do this, so they are driven under rocks where they should be, not our government.

The ONLY reason this was turned into a media event is that free media was not doing it’s job ignoring these inbred idiots. How many of them are they anyway, 12-20 of them and they continually are in the news. If we didn’t give them the airtime to spew the hate they would be the marginalized group they deserve to be.

Reply to  Jess
13 years ago

Jess, I totally get your pov on this..but like I said..there were rights that were stomped on by these jerkwads, and SCOTUS has now ruled that any other right is trumped by the 1st amendment right of others.

I just hope more Americans keep suing this idiots, so eventually there will be an issue that is considered more important than the right to spew hate speech.

States are going after these guys with their own laws that keep them away from the protests, allow them to only do it before or after the funeral..just as an example. I say bravo to them. Maybe more suits will bankrupt these intellectually challenged fools.

1st amendment rights are also the issue when it comes to picketing/harassing abortion clinics or the providers. Rachel Maddow has done some really great pieces on this part of the 1st amendment issue and how these homegrown terrorists abuse the free speech issue.

Jess
Reply to  Dusty
13 years ago

I don’t think there is a name I have not been called when I do the PP escort thing. I’ve been told, God is going to get me, why would a good Mexican(I’m not by the by, I’m jes exotic brown skinned) want to help girls kill babies. Oh that one really scares me out of my wits when I hear it.

That’s what we have to do, you know they or someone like them will be in your area, protest them and sponsor a dollar an hour or something to your local food bank in their name. Make sure the group sends them a card to thank them too, I find that little touch a little nice and well, mannerly. My mother would approve of my manners 🙂

Reply to  Jess
13 years ago

Jess, when I was younger I too did the escorting patients thing. The gauntlet that those poor women had to go through to get to the clinic doors in San Diego was horrific. I took pleasure in knocking them to their knees when they got in my way.

They couldn’t do anything about it as I was only doing my job as an escort. They tried on several occasions to have me arrested but the cops watched video of the whole thing onsite and refused to arrest me. In fact, several of them were arrested for touching me or the patient in an effort to keep us from entering the bldg. I loved that it backfired on those sick twisted souls. You know Operation Rescue is based in San Diego right? Man, I have some stories to tell about those a-holes.

Jess
13 years ago

I HATE what Phelps does but you know what, bastard has every right to do it till they change the 1st. What’s next the government starts telling you what you can say and who you can say it to, nope not for me. Give me my freedom of speech, to be as nasty as these bastards, and I can go protest them at the top of my lungs every time. Oh and my signs are funnier than theirs so you know 🙂

13 years ago

Hate speech should not be protected speech. You can not yell fire in a crowded theater, so why is it ok to spew hate speech and violate someone else’s rights?

Why does hate speech trump all other rights?

Germany does not protect hate speech, they get it..after Hitler they figured it out..so why can’t we?

This is a moral issue that even folks on the right agree with me about. It costs cities and states thousands to protect these fuckers when they picket an innocent persons funeral. That is wrong on so many levels for me.

Risa
Reply to  Dusty
13 years ago

Dusty, what rights of others are they violating?

I’m with Jess. I’m not willing to give up my freedom of speech to shut these morons up.

As far as the ruling goes, the courts have no jurisdiction over tact and decency, just law. And I’d like it to remain that way.

Reply to  Risa
13 years ago

Snyder filed a diversity action against Phelps, his daughters–who participated in the picketing–and the church (collectively Westboro) alleging, as relevant here, state tort claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress, intrusion upon seclusion, and civil conspiracy. There are three separate ‘rights’ that were used to file this case by the father of the dead soldier Risa. Do you think his rights should be trumped by those of the sick yahoos at Westboro?

This case went through the entire court system. As I stated several times, hate speech isn’t a speech I feel should be protected speech. That is my stand on this issue. I am not one to take this lightly, gawd knows I even think the KKK, who has been represented by the ACLU in many cases, has the right to free speech..when they use certain venues and criteria.

This ruling is very narrow in it’s scope, which leaves the door open for more suits against these disgusting cretins and their hate speech.

FindLaw has the whole case here: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=09-751

13 years ago

Risa makes a good point. It’s how I see it. Yet, the poster expresses my sentiments, clearly. These people are an atrocity. But, how can I expect to be heard if I deny anyone else this same freedom?

I just think of how nasty their lives must be, day in day out consumed with hate and villifing folks who mourn their lost. I would think they wake at night in terror of their own shamefullness… Can you imagine living each day with a heart like that? Torture.

Reply to  Professor Mike
13 years ago

Yeah, I think we’d all like to see ’em take a dirt nap instead of watching the sacred moments of others’ and descecrating it. But there you have it. … America in a nutshell. The slingshot can be deadly but I’d love to sneak up on ’em with one. Bad ole me.

13 years ago

I agree with Risa, and the voices of the outraged public should drown out these hateful extremists. They are fake Christians to be out doing what they do.

Risa
13 years ago

I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, I agree that what WBC is doing at funerals is completely wrong. On the other hand, if we start stifling the free speech of one group, we are heading down a slippery slope towards stifling everyone’s free speech. Where will it end?

13 years ago

The lone dissenter was Alito which freaked me the hell out. I agree with his response to this fuckery:

“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,”

The first amendment right now trumps all other rights. Hate speech should not be protected speech. It’s just wrong.

Previous post Men drowning in depression
Next post Obama: Child soldiers in Yemen is OK!
27
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x