High court rules for anti-gay funeral protesters

High court rules for anti-gay funeral protesters
Decision upholds ruling throwing out $5 million judgment to father of dead Marine who sued church for picketing son's funeral


http://msnbcmedia1.msn.com/j/MSNBC/Components/Photo/_new/g-cvr-110203-scotus-picket-730a.grid-8x2.jpg%20High%20court%20rules%20for%20anti-gay%20funeral%20protesters


WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that the First Amendment protects fundamentalist church members who mount attention-getting, anti-gay protests outside military funerals.

The court voted 8-1 in favor of the Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kan. The decision upheld an appeals court ruling that threw out a $5 million judgment to the father of a dead Marine who sued church members after they picketed his son's funeral.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the opinion for the court.

Justice Samuel Alito dissented.

It was a huge victory for a group whose antics have outraged many, including veterans groups, according to NBC News' justice correspondent Pete Williams.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41868004/ns ... _politics/


I'm more irritated by this than I am a picture of Muslims praying...

Free speech is a good thing even from idiots.

As much as I dislike these yahoos, I'm afraid I have to agree... You silence them today, who's next?

Nut cases have rights, too --- something that was proven in Skokie.

Seems everybody is in agreement on this.

My understanding of the exercising of one's rights has always been that you are free to exercise your rights until it interferes with the rights of another. I could understand the picketing, kept a certain distance away just as it is for the picketing of abortion clinics and what not, but I can't understand how their right to free speech extends to loudness which interferes with the lives of others. Does this ruling mean that pro-life protesters can raise a ruckus which disrupts the normal course of business as part of their protests? How about noise ordinances that prohibit me from being loud enough to disturb my neighbors and deny to them the peaceful enjoyment of their property? If my right to be loud and obnoxious trumps the rights of others, then how in the world can the police require that I turn down my stereo when the neighbors complain?

If your rights are not restricted if/when they infringe upon mine, are there any realistic limits left?

PS
I think heard this morning that this ruling upheld that local ordinances restricting how close these clowns could be to funerals could still stand.

And that is the rub Grady. I can understand why they are allowed to peacefully protest, but when voices are raised with the intent to disrupt, then the protest is no longer peaceful, it becomes offensive in nature. Not offensive as in I am offended, but offensive as it relates to an attack undertaken to damage or otherwise infringe upon the rights of others. I can see the use of bullhorns or other amplification of voices at a demonstration to ensure that all of those in attendance can hear the speakers, but the use of those same devices for no other reason than to disrupt the activities of those not attending the demonstration goes above and beyond the exercising of one's own rights and enters the arena of intending to deprive others of theirs IMNTBHO.

I will agree that wide latitude should be given, especially when the most basic of rights is at stake, but clearly in this instance the intent of the loudness of their speech is to force others to listen to what they are saying. The most basic understanding of our system of government is that it was constituted to protect the rights of the individual from acts of force and fraud intended to remove from them their individual rights and individual liberty. From the outset the understanding was that your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose. Acting in a manner intended to force me to listen to you violates that basic precept, doesn't it? You have been promised the right to petition the government, not another individual, regarding any grievances you might harbor. Forcing me as an individual to listen to you when I do not wish to do so is a denial of my rights to associate with whom I choose isn't it?

They should be allowed to protest and they should also be allowed to be sprayed with acid while they protest. Their logic needs to be confronted. Maybe the acid will bring them around.

Albert Snyder was surfing the Internet for tributes to his son from other soldiers and strangers when he came upon a poem on the church's website that attacked Matthew's parents for the way they brought up their son.

I believe that the court was wrong. What brought the suit was not the protest of public policy on war but rather the personal attack on how the Snyders raised their son. The Constitution recognizes free political speech on public matters. It does not recognize public attack upon a private individual or family on private matters. How you raise your children is private, not public.