Washington (CNN) — A Kansas church known for its angry, anti-gay protests at funerals of U.S. troops won an appeal Wednesday at the Supreme Court in a case testing the competing constitutional rights of free speech and privacy.
In an 8-1 ruling, the justices said that members of Westboro Baptist Church had a right to promote what they call a broad-based message on public matters such as wars. The father of a fallen Marine had sued the small church, saying those protests amounted to targeted harassment and an intentional infliction of emotional distress.
"Speech is powerful. It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and — as it did here — inflict great pain. On the facts before us, we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority.
At issue was a delicate test between the privacy rights of grieving families and the free speech rights of demonstrators, however disturbing and provocative their message. Several states have attempted to impose specific limits on when and where the church members can protest.
The church, led by pastor Fred Phelps, believes God is punishing the United States for "the sin of homosexuality" through events including soldiers’ deaths. Members have traveled the country shouting at grieving families at funerals and displaying such signs as "Thank God for dead soldiers," "God blew up the troops" and "AIDS cures fags."
REad full story here http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/03/02/scotus.westboro.church/index.html?hpt=C1
Who the hell comes up with the legal reasoning behind this bullshit decision? How come obscenity is applied to porn when these guys can get away with anything because its their “religion”?
I’m all for the 1st Amendment but if WBC can do this shit to express their Fundamentalist views, Annette Schwartz can perform a 5-man gangbang in the middle of Times Square to express her Libertine views.
Not matter how abhorrent their speech may be, it is not focused on a particular individual. if WBC’s protests had been focused on just Snyder, SCOTUS might have ruled differently. The only to counter WBC’s protests is with counter protests. That type of thing is protected under the First Amendment as well as is the right to peaceably protest.
Do I agree with their decision – absolutely not. And a case could be made for attempting to prosecute them under “Hate Speech” federal guidelines.
As disgusting as WBC, and its message, is, the First Amendment MUST protect unpopular speech. That’s what it’s for. Popular speech doesn’t need protection; it’s popular.
The encouraging thing about this ruling is that if ugly hate speech is protected, the likelihood of entertainment works such as adult movies (though also unpopular in many quarters) losing their protection is likely very slim.
As for WBC, just recently “Anonymous” threatened to take them down in a massive attack. The universe has a way of establishing balance.
“I hate what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it!” – Wrongly attributed to Voltaire, but apt none-the-less…