Westboro Baptist Church Taken to US Supreme Court

[Crystal Shards]

United Against Westboro Baptist Church Facebook Group

Kansas supports Snyder against Westboro Baptist Church

Snyder's Site

The Westboro Baptist Church's Proposal For The Corrupt, Constitution-Hating Congress

The Westboro Baptist Church's Defense

I really advise at least scanning all of those links before commenting.

Basically what happened was that Albert Snyder's son, Matthew, died in service, and his funeral was protested by Fred Phelps and other members of the Westboro Baptist Church. Snyder then sued the WBC in the District Court of Maryland and was awarded $10.9 million for the charges of intentional infliction of emotional distress and invasion of privacy. Then, the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed the decision and dismissed the case in its entirety, stating that the WBC's actions were completely protected by the First Amendment even if the defendants intentionally harmed Mr. Snyder. Then, the Fourth Circuit ordered Mr. Snyder to pay the WBC’s costs. Mr. Snyder decided to take it higher--to the USSC. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari on March 8, 2010.

There are pros and cons to the USSC siding with either party is that it will affect how the US treats cases of censorship in years to come. On one hand, the WBC is right: this is censorship. On the other hand, Snyder is right: it causes emotional distress and can lead to dangerous situations.

My opinion: These people are protesting against the very people who give them the right to protest everything under the sun. I am very pro-freedom of speech, but I don't believe that there's anything to be gained by protesting at a funeral of any kind, let alone one of someone who has given his or her life for our country. I think the point of protecting freedom of speech is to protect dissenting viewpoints, not to protect hate speech. This is exactly what the WBC does. It antagonizes people specifically to antagonize. It's not trying to change the country in a positive manner or anything. It's just protesting for the sake of protesting. They thrive on hurting people. That's not worth protecting in my opinion.

[Le Communard]

If they can prove that the Speach intended Intentional Harm--i.e. that it was the content and manner of the specific speach itself, and not the ideas it represented--I think they might have a case. The Constitution protects dissenting opnions, no matter what the fourm, and the law only has a place in things when two rights come into conflict: in this case, the rights of the protesters to speak vs. the rights of the family to be protected from assult, both physical and mental. I think if the family can prove the protestes caused significant distress, then it really comes down to how the court plays out. This one will be iteresting to watch becuse IMHO, Kennedy could go either way, so argumets are actully significant. I suspect after Citizens United, though, that the court will rule in favor of Westboro, the argument for Synder being a little too "liberal touchy-feely". Anything involving a so-called "collective right" or "implied right" is not very popular right now in rightest jurisprudence--although it may also come down to the specifics and degrees of the case, I've been surprised before.

These people are protesting against the very people who give them the right to protest everything under the sun. I am very pro-freedom of speech, but I don't believe that there's anything to be gained by protesting at a funeral of any kind, let alone one of someone who has given his or her life for our country. I think the point of protecting freedom of speech is to protect dissenting viewpoints, not to protect hate speech. This is exactly what the WBC does. It antagonizes people specifically to antagonize. It's not trying to change the country in a positive manner or anything. It's just protesting for the sake of protesting. They thrive on hurting people. That's not worth protecting in my opinion.

I disagree. It's not the place of Government to stop Hate Speech, although I believe it is our duty as private citizens to combat it wherever it appears. The law shouldn't be in the business of second guessing intentions--as I said, speech should only be limited where it impinges upon the rights of others.

Edited May 20, 2010 by Le Communard

[Fayt Zelpher]

My view has always been simple, yet obviously biased by personal experience. Freedom of Religion implies Freedom FROM Religion as well. You've got the right to follow your beliefs and support your religious ideas and ideals, but I've got the right to ask you to not do so on my property and to not pester me repeatedly, to the point that you become a nuisance or a threat to my safety and well-being.

As far as I am concerned, if the WBC's protest was deliberately designed to be hateful, persecutory, obviously prejudiced, or clearly designed to incite anger, it should be an easy victory for the other side.

In any case, this is a guy who paid the ultimate price in defense of his country. I don't support the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan by a long shot, but you don't dishonor the soldiers who fight and die there. That's just wrong on many levels, and no amount of censorship law or free speech law is going to change that fact. Therefore, I must say that the WBC is in the wrong here, even if the letter of the law states otherwise.

I disagree. It's not the place of Government to stop Hate Speech, although I believe it is our duty as private citizens to combat it wherever it appears. The law shouldn't be in the business of second guessing intentions--as I said, speech should only be limited where it impinges upon the rights of others.

I think you're forgetting something - this speech is clearly infringing on the right of Matthew Snyder's family to give him a proper funeral and burial, one that has the dignity and respect that should be afforded a fallen soldier.

Edited May 18, 2010 by Fayt Zelpher

[Le Communard]

I think you're forgetting something - this speech is clearly infringing on the right of Matthew Snyder's family to give him a proper funeral and burial, one that has the dignity and respect that should be afforded a fallen soldier.

There's no right--either written or implied--in the Constitution to burial as a soldier. Disrespectful speech is clearly protected by the first amendment: American law isn't in the business of "right and wrong".

Edited May 18, 2010 by Le Communard

[Narga_Rocks]

Besides, apparently they had like 7 guys 1000+ feet away and there were two other protesting groups on the property. Were the other two groups sued? And if you make something public...

Now, granted I don't exactly like some of what is on their signs. The message aside, using "fag" is clearly inflammatory, though I don't know if their signs in this case used that word. But that's the annoying thing about free speech and the right to protest. A funeral, in theory, would be something you'd think would be free from protests, however I'd only agree to that for private funerals. Once you make them public, certain things become permitted. Not to mention the evidently left once the funeral began. Or claim to have departed.

There are plenty of other examples in which free speech is "clearly infringing on the right of group A to do event B", why should this example of free speech have to pay? And why 10+ million dollars? That amount is clearly exorbitant.

[Defeatist Elitist]

While Fred Phelps is a useless dumbshit, I still believe that each person has the right to say what they want. Hate speech is a difficult and blurred line on this subject, but I don't know if he should be denied his freedom of speech because of it.

[Crystal Shards]

Oh I fully support their right to be assholes, I just don't think a funeral is the place to do it, and I don't think that kind of shit should be protected. When shit like this is protected, something that defiles something so sacred to so many people and betters society in no way possible... there's a problem with the law. I do hesitate to outlaw it completely, but I think a good compromise would be to disallow protests without the deceased's permission. That way, when Fred Phelps dies, and he will sometime soon if we're lucky, his family can have the same respect that Snyder's family should have gotten.

[Defeatist Elitist]

Oh I fully support their right to be assholes, I just don't think a funeral is the place to do it, and I don't think that kind of shit should be protected. When shit like this is protected, something that defiles something so sacred to so many people and betters society in no way possible... there's a problem with the law. I do hesitate to outlaw it completely, but I think a good compromise would be to disallow protests without the deceased's permission. That way, when Fred Phelps dies, and he will sometime soon if we're lucky, his family can have the same respect that Snyder's family should have gotten.

I'd probably agree with something similar to that. I tend not to go into saying something is sacred or whatever, so it should be protected, but I do agree that there should be some way to get a semi private funeral, but one in which the public can attend, but I don't know if that should be completely standard.

I actually keep thinking of it like a contract or something. One that can be easily signed, and only carries one rider, but that rider is "don't be a dick". I don't mean it literally, but I think it sort of conveys the spirit. I don't know if it should be the deceased's permission though...

Edited May 20, 2010 by ZXValaRevan

[Kintenbo]

The absolute best thing to do is ignore these lot. Luckily, they are not violent, so ignoring them won't cause them to riot. I personally feel sorry for them, since they are brainwashed by their Bible twisting father/grandfather. They can talk and talk all they want, but it will only get people mad. Speech shouldn't be restricted just so long as the speakers aren't violent, even in these folks' case. Naturally, as a Baptist myself, I am disturbed by these folk. I admit I'm a bit fascinated by them, how such corruption can be so possible. I am very much certain that Fred Phelps is definitely the root of the Westboro Baptist Church problem. This is what happens when pastors/other forms of church leaders pretend to be infallible and do away with the biblical democracy that goes along with church decisions (a certain denomination is very guilty of this straying, but I won't get off subject). If someone like Fred was to become Pastor in my church, I wouldn't doubt for a second we'd vote him straight out!

[Judas]

"Intentional infliction of emotional distress" is some seriously subjective shit. If that's grounds for a fine, then the government will be out of debt in no time.

[Crystal Shards]

I'd probably agree with something similar to that. I tend not to go into saying something is sacred or whatever, so it should be protected, but I do agree that there should be some way to get a semi private funeral, but one in which the public can attend, but I don't know if that should be completely standard.

I actually keep thinking of it like a contract or something. One that can be easily signed, and only carries one rider, but that rider is "don't be a dick". I don't mean it literally, but I think it sort of conveys the spirit. I don't know if it should be the deceased's permission though...

It could be the deceased or deceased family's permission. Obviously with the deceased it would need to be in a will or something. For example, a deceased person could have a clause in their will saying, "Anyone who wants to assemble at or near my funeral should be granted permission," or if that gets too tricky, then leave it up to the family as to what they believe the deceased would have wanted.

And by sacred I do not mean it in the religious sense, only that it's a matter that is extremely close to the heart. It's the same thing with weddings and the like. These are matters that, if the parties involved don't want them to become political, they should have the right to avoid those kinds of situations.

Edited May 21, 2010 by Crystal Shards