Free Speech Battle: Protesting At Private Funerals. - Pastor And Group Protest At Soldiers Funeral Causing 1st Amendment War.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

First off, I think the protesters are disgusting...

At the same time though this is a tough one. Being as they were on public property with their protest, there's a fine line that you have to wonder if it's ok or not ok.

I don't think you can ban this kind of activity without backlash on other things as well.

Will be interesting to see how the SCOTUS rules in October...

---

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Supreme_Court/states-file-supreme-court-fred-phelps-westboro-baptist/story?id=10770402

Forty-eight states and the District of Columbia are backing the family of fallen Marine Matthew Snyder in a pending U.S. Supreme Court case that could decide the constitutionality of laws restricting protests at private family funerals.

Lance Cpl. Snyder, who was deployed to Iraq in 2006, was killed just a month later in an accident. His funeral in Maryland was disrupted by demonstrators led by Kansas pastor Fred W. Phelps, yelling, among other things, that America's military is evil because it defends a country that tolerates homosexuality.

Snyder's family sued, but an appeals court said the hecklers were exercising their right to free speech.

Now, all but two state attorneys general have signed a "friend of the court" brief, to be filed tomorrow, that argues the First Amendment should not apply to some "intrusive and harassing" forms of expression.

"Funeral goers are a captive audience and they are engaged in a deeply personal and private mourning process," said Kansas Attorney General Steve Six, who drafted the brief. "The Constitution does not give the respondent the right to hijack solemn proceedings such as funerals in order to spread their hateful ideas."

The respondent, Phelps, has staged loud protests with members of his Westboro Baptist Church at military funerals around the country. He argues his signs, bearing messages such as "You're in hell" and "God hates you," are protected forms of speech.

Court observers called the near-universal state support for Snyder and funeral protest laws "exceptional" and say their brief will likely affect the justices when they weigh the case this fall. Only Maine and Virginia have withheld support for the "amicus curiae" brief.

But Phelps' supporters, including his daughter Megan Phelps, say the states' brief does not change the facts of the case or weaken their constitutional argument.

"The only way you can criminalize standing peacefully on a public sidewalk with Scriptural concepts on hotly-debated public issues is to repeal the 1st Amendment," said Phelps via Twitter. "They're willing to sacrifice the freedoms they claim Matt Snyder fought for on the altar of shutting up our message," she tweeted. "This opposition epitomizes why the 1st Amend. was passed: corrupt gov't trying to shut up religious messages they hate."

In a separate show of support for Snyder Friday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, filed a "friend of the court" brief joined by 42 Senators.

Senators Support Snyder in Brief Opposing Funeral Pickets

Reid has called Phelps' demonstration at the Snyder funeral an "ugly protest" and says state and federal law should "continue to protect, as it long has, the rights of all private persons -- including the families of fallen soldiers -- to mourn their loved ones at a peaceful and solemn funeral."

The Respect for America's Fallen Heroes Act, enacted by Congress and signed by President George W. Bush in May 2006, bars protesters from the property of federal cemeteries without permission and limits the duration and location of any protest approved to be performed. More than 40 states have enacted similar laws.

"In our brief to the Supreme Court, we will be arguing in part that such laws are constitutional and should be upheld," said Six. A summary of the brief provided to ABC News shows the states will argue that their "funeral picketing/protest" laws are constitutional because of an expected right to privacy at a burial and because mourners are a "captive audience" to their dead, leaving them little choice but be subjected to the message of protesters. "Parents, siblings, family, close friends, and neighbors cannot be expected to skip a loved one's funeral in order to avoid the malicious and intentionally hurtful messages the Phelpses love to use to target mourners," the summary reads.

The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case earlier this year on appeal by Albert Snyder, Lance Cpl. Snyder's father.

Snyder first sued Phelps and his congregation claiming that their protest at his son's private funeral was an invasion of the family's privacy and inflicted emotional distress. A U.S. district court ruled in Snyder's favor and awarded a judgment of $5 million. But a federal appeals court overturned that decision, finding that the protest signs weren't aimed at Snyder specifically and said the statements are "protected by the Constitution."

"We are constrained to agree that these signs are entitled to First Amendment protection," the three-judge panel wrote.

The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the case in October.

[ValerieA 350]

What on earth is wrong with these people?

I'm surprised that it remained a peaceful protest. If I was there, and I am normally a non-violent person, it would NOT have remained peaceful. "Thank God for dead soldiers"? "God hates fags.com"? I would have been ripping that sign to pieces and tearing that bib right off of her. How dare they be so insensitive to a family's mourning. And how dare they protest a soldier because they do not agree with government policy. Despicable.

[Saddle Bronc 124]

The issue is actually rather simple. The funeral is private, ergo any uninvited--including Phelpsians--have no business/say about it; not First-amendment issue at all, but one of trespassing--of which Phelpsians are guilty, and should be penalised!

[Obama 2012 1,714]

The issue is actually rather simple. The funeral is private, ergo any uninvited--including Phelpsians--have no business/say about it; not First-amendment issue at all, but one of trespassing--of which Phelpsians are guilty, and should be penalised!

They were along a public street and never stepped onto private property. It makes a difference.

[Heracles 417]

They were along a public street and never stepped onto private property. It makes a difference.

Why? Does the Constitution not apply on private property?

I did enjoy your comment about the SCOTUS. Why even have a democracy when ultimately the judicial system gets to call the shots?

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Why? Does the Constitution not apply on private property?

I did enjoy your comment about the SCOTUS. Why even have a democracy when ultimately the judicial system gets to call the shots?

We're not and never were supposed to be a democracy.

Actually the part of the problem (as i've mentioned plenty of times before) is the fact we've gotten away from a true representative republic that we started out as.

As far as the SCOTUS goes, their job is supposed to take and decide if something is or is not constitutional. Though this often gets bastardized as most justices these days are party hacks themselves, so it's really a game of roulette of what you're going to get for a ruling.

As far as the private property thing goes, the government has little to no say as to what goes on off of public property... Your land is your land and someone cannot encroach upon it without risk of getting their head blown off.

Edited June 1, 2010 by Paul and Vanessa

[Saddle Bronc 124]

They were along a public street and never stepped onto private property. It makes a difference.

Technically, no; otherwise, apartment dwellers would NOT be able to complain about excessive noise from their neighbours (in our Balto complex, the immediate neighbours played stereo at very high volume, and slammed entrance door--such that it would actually SHAKE OUR BEDROOM WINDOW, which was "considerable distance" away). Phelpsians CAN be penalised for coming too close to private funerals.

[Heracles 417]

We're not and never were supposed to be a democracy.

Actually the part of the problem (as i've mentioned plenty of times before) is the fact we've gotten away from a true representative republic that we started out as.

As far as the SCOTUS goes, their job is supposed to take and decide if something is or is not constitutional. Though this often gets bastardized as most justices these days are party hacks themselves, so it's really a game of roulette of what you're going to get for a ruling.

As far as the private property thing goes, the government has little to no say as to what goes on off of public property... Your land is your land and someone cannot encroach upon it without risk of getting their head blown off.

So you prefer a handful of idiots you don't even select to be in power and ultimately decide the fate of your country do you? And what a fine job they have done. Do you wonder why ever other first world country has shunned this approach to running a country?

Okay, so you live and die by and for the Constitution yet strangely enough it does not apply to private matters. Sounds logical - Noooooooottttt

Evidently, the smartest thing the youngest country ever did was not implement some broad-bushed and unchangeable bill of rights. The result speaks for itself and vice-versa. This sort of idiocy would not be permitted there period.

Edited June 1, 2010 by Booyah!

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Technically, no; otherwise, apartment dwellers would NOT be able to complain about excessive noise from their neighbours (in our Balto complex, the immediate neighbours played stereo at very high volume, and slammed entrance door--such that it would actually SHAKE OUR BEDROOM WINDOW, which was "considerable distance" away). Phelpsians CAN be penalised for coming too close to private funerals.

Playing loud music isn't a "free speech" issue. Arguing so is completely absurd.

Someone on a public street holding a sign in protest of government action, even if it so happens to be 'near' a private activity, is still free speech. Now if they're yelling and screaming and causing a disturbanc otherwise, then that enters into a whole other issue. So long as they're not obstructing the activity though, then there's not much of a case...

So you prefer a handful of idiots you don't even select to be in power and ultimately decide the fate of your country do you? And what a fine job they have done. Do you wonder why ever other first world country has shunned this approach to running a country?

Okay, so you live and die by and for the Constitution yet strangely enough it does not apply to private matters. Sounds logical - Noooooooottttt

Again, we've gotten away from our intended model. I've gone over this a hundred times with you. We are no where near the constitutional representative republic we are supposed to be....

There's always an inherent difference between public and private..

[Heracles 417]

Again, we've gotten away from our intended model. I've gone over this a hundred times with you. We are no where near the constitutional representative republic we are supposed to be....

There's always an inherent difference between public and private..

Actually, the model you propose is similar to what is going on with the SCOTUS. Where a handful of people [supreme court] gets to decide the fate of the country based on their opinions and their personal bias towards the law. Take any law and its interpretation will change depending on someone's ideological views.

Personally, I prefer to have a say on how my country is run and any decisions that can impact the country for years to come. It's also why the government we vote into office, in countries like AUS, does not need to seek permission from their supreme court to make decisions. Thus a government for the people, by the people. Once again, the result of this speaks for itself.

Edited June 1, 2010 by Booyah!

[Ban Hammer 13,625]

What on earth is wrong with these people?

I'm surprised that it remained a peaceful protest. If I was there, and I am normally a non-violent person, it would NOT have remained peaceful. "Thank God for dead soldiers"? "God hates fags.com"? I would have been ripping that sign to pieces and tearing that bib right off of her. How dare they be so insensitive to a family's mourning. And how dare they protest a soldier because they do not agree with government policy. Despicable.

personally, i'd rather see a group of hell's angel's have a run in with them.

[ValerieA 350]

personally, i'd rather see a group of hell's angel's have a run in with them.

Are you saying I'm not enough of a badass?

But yeah, I see your point. Plus, it would be them going to jail for assault rather than me.

[Ban Hammer 13,625]

Are you saying I'm not enough of a badass?

But yeah, I see your point. Plus, it would be them going to jail for assault rather than me.

what are you gonna do, peck at their ankles?

[GabiandVi 34]

It's this sort of thing that tempts me to overlook the constitution. As it is, they had a "right" to do what they did. But I don't see how it would be against the constution to make it an offense to protest within a designated distance from something like a funeral. I know we would be getting into sticky territory, but we already restrict some free speech and other rights around schools, etc. We can temporarily restrict parking and traffic for parades. And cops will overrule the traffic lights for a funeral procession. Can't we just add a restriction for this sort of thing? Or maybe not.

But there has to be some legal way to stick it to these idiots.

[ValerieA 350]

what are you gonna do, peck at their ankles?