Comments | gsa_lj: SCOTUS takes on Fred Phelps

tko_ak in gsa_lj

SCOTUS takes on Fred Phelps

Mar 08, 2010 19:59

The Supreme Court has agreed to take on a case about whether Fred Phelps and his Westboro cult can protest military funeralsEveryone agrees that Phelps and his clan are anti-humanity, but do they have a constitutional right to protest funerals of service men and women? What do you think ( Read more... )

law, discussion, free speech, fred phelps, hate

Comments 12

right March 9 2010, 05:06:02 UTC

If the Supreme Court rules against Phelps (it won't), I hope they wait until after that old douche croaks so I can picket his funeral when he dies.

a_tergo_lupi March 9 2010, 14:51:54 UTC

Unless he's a service member, it won't matter a wit.

yep_i_am_dennis March 9 2010, 05:23:53 UTC

Personally, I know free speech is free speech and people have the right, but we so have to draw the line somewhere. Like with this. I just..uggh. If someone protested my father's funeral, I would have NO problem beating the ever living shit out of them

fabfemmeboy March 9 2010, 05:34:44 UTC

You mean as opposed to the right to protest other funerals would be okay? It's just the military aspect that pisses you off? Bringing hundreds of people to tell Judy Shepard that her son was burning in hell and got what he deserved wasn't nearly as bad as four guys standing outside a military funeral?

As for whether they have a constitutional right...no. A funeral is a private event; it is not a public forum. The courts have long held that the right to protest at a non-public event is severely restricted.

tko_ak March 9 2010, 05:36:17 UTC

Meow.

No, I don't think anyone should be protesting any funeral. But this case revolves around them protesting military funerals, which is why I mentioned it.

Public exploitation john1082 March 9 2010, 06:14:58 UTC

Public exploitation of a private event has never been examined by the 'divine nine'.

Re: Public exploitation fabfemmeboy March 9 2010, 07:30:01 UTC

No, but I never said that they had examined this specific type of speech. But the court has heard a number of cases in which there was little or no protection for free speech because it was not a traditionally public forum. For example, you don't have the right to protest on private corporate property, and if you try they're going to kick you out, because the corporate workplace is not an area that is traditionally meant for public exchange of ideas. High school is a "quasi-public forum," meaning that it is an area where some free speech is allowed but it's not unlimited. Sidewalks and public squares are public fora, so the limits on free speech are significantly fewer. Basically, under existing law, people are free to "exploit" whatever they want - turn on tv and you'll see as much - but it doesn't mean they can do it quite however they want.

Thread 5

particle_mann March 9 2010, 06:29:51 UTC

tko_ak, sorry, but free speech is precisely for all the things we find repugnant, disgusting, disagreeable, and just plain sick (like, y'know, homosexuality was thought of even a generation ago, let alone the 17 or 1800s). As disgusting as WBC and their ilk are, as long as they're on public property and aren't committing force or fraud against anyone, their rights have to be respected-otherwise yours, mine, and everyone else's is forfeit.

And no, I don't like it any better than you do :P

daemonnoire March 9 2010, 14:58:48 UTC

They do have the right to protest the funerals, so long as they are doing it from public grounds. What I really want the court to rule on is the subject of their "hyperbolic" statements about the character of the deceased. They can protest all they want, but they damn sure better not be allowed to call him a rapist and get away with it. Hyperbolic my ass.