Westboro Funeral Pickets Are Protected Speech

[Digging4Truth]

Your thoughts?

Westboro Funeral Pickets Are Protected Speech, High Court Rules
By Lee Ross
Published March 02, 2011
FoxNews.com

Nov. 11, 2010: Members of the Westboro Baptist Church hold anti-gay signs at Arlington National Cemetery in Virginia on Veterans Day.

Reuters

Nov. 11, 2010: Members of the Westboro Baptist Church hold anti-gay signs at Arlington National Cemetery in Virginia on Veterans Day.

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.

For years, the Westboro protesters have popped up at places across the country to voice their displeasure with government policies they think promote homosexuality. They did so in 2006 at the funeral for Matthew Snyder, a Marine killed in Iraq. He was not gay and had no connection to the Westboro cause, but the funeral provided the protesters an opportunity to speak out against government policies.

Father Albert Snyder certainly didn't want anything do with the picketers when he buried his son. "I want them to stop doing this to our military men and women," Snyder told Fox News in October before the arguments. "I want the judges to hear that this case is not about free speech, it's about targeted harassment."

In the days leading up to the funeral, Westboro parishioners, including leader Fred Phelps, notified local authorities of their intention to picket the service. They were kept 1,000 feet away from the church and because of the use of an alternative entrance for church-goers there was no disruption to the memorial. Seven protesters held numerous signs including some that read, "Thank God for Dead Soldiers;" "God Hates Fags;" and "You're Going to Hell." There were no arrests.

Snyder filed a lawsuit against Phelps based on the protest and a subsequent post on the Westboro website about his son Matthew.

A jury awarded Snyder nearly $11 million in damages for the intentional infliction of emotional distress and invasion of privacy. That award was later cut in half and then the Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals set aside the decision in its entirety, ruling that the protests were absolutely protected by the First Amendment.

That decision was upheld by the Supreme Court.

A group of 21 news organizations joined a brief defending Westboro's case. While calling their views "inexplicable and hateful," they expressed concern that a ruling against the church would chill the activities of anyone who wants to speak out on a controversial issue and "threatens to expand dramatically the risk of liability for news media coverage and commentary."

One of the media groups that joined the brief is Dow Jones whose parent company also owns Fox News.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011...#ixzz1FSV4yx4g

[Uncle Joe]

One of the unfortunate prices we pay for free speech. This group has given Christianity a horrible reputation to the unsaved, which makes some think all Christians are like that.

[Digging4Truth]

Originally Posted by Uncle Joe

One of the unfortunate prices we pay for free speech. This group has given Christianity a horrible reputation to the unsaved, which makes some think all Christians are like that.

Agreed.

Allowing ignorance like this is a necessary evil if we intend on ensuring our own free speech.

[scotty]

Sick , sick , sick .

I do like that the press labels them as a "renegade" church. That pretty much puts them in the "cult" grouping.

[Ferd]

in light of the Pentecostal family in England thread, this decsion has a bit of a different feel for me.

Phelps and company are the worst abusers of free speech I can think of, and it would be easy for the court to shut them up and it would be very acceptable to most of us if the court did just that....

but such a thing would be a clear jumping off point to limit speech in churches concerning sin.

Given time, God will handle any who act in his name. but as a nation, we need to be careful we do not walk the road England and other nations seem far to willing to walk.

[MissBrattified]

Yes, it's free speech. They are a disturbing group of people, but they have free speech in this country and any attempt to remove their freedoms will also affect ours.

If you want to immerse yourself in all things WBC and develop a quick affinity for the Patriot Guard Riders, watch "Fall From Grace." It's on Netflix instant play.

[Twisp]

I am glad that free speech was protected.

It is horrible the way this church are using their free speech, but it is their right to do so.

[Digging4Truth]

The comments in this thread are encouraging. We are all disgusted by their actions but to see so many with such a good understanding of free speech is, indeed, refreshing.

[Sam]

Originally Posted by Digging4Truth

The comments in this thread are encouraging. We are all disgusted by their actions but to see so many with such a good understanding of free speech is, indeed, refreshing.

I think the Court had to uphold their right to free speech.
Free speech is not just speech that certain people agree with.

Now, if we could jest get rid of some of this PC (Politically Correct) junk that we all have to tip toe around.

[sandie]

Don't most employers have an "at will" clause in their employment records?

I've never worked for anyone that didn't have the "at will" clause.

From Wikipedia,
At-will employment is a doctrine of American law that defines an employment relationship in which either party can break the relationship with no liability, provided there was no express contract for a definite term governing the employment relationship and that the employer does not belong to a collective bargaining group (i.e., has not recognized a union). Under this legal doctrine:

“ any hiring is presumed to be "at will"; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals "for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all," and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work.[1] ”

Several exceptions to the doctrine exist, especially if unlawful discrimination is involved regarding the termination of an employee. "At-will employment" also does not by itself make terminated employees ineligible for unemployment claims and compensation if they are terminated without cause.

As a means of downsizing, such as closing an unprofitable factory, a company may terminate employees en masse. However, there are legal limitations upon the employer's ability to terminate without reason.