What Do You Think?

[janetyu]

I agree with the Supreme Court they have every right. But as with many things just because we have the right or ability it does not mean we should do it. There is a time and place for everything and at a funeral is neither the time nor the place.

I wonder how that group would like it if a bunch of people showed up at a funeral of one of their members yelling, “Thank Goodness another Idiot gone.” Or far worse statements.

I have trouble even writing such a disrespectful suggestion even to simply make a point.

Actually I have trouble believing that anyone in that church group has ever read the Christian Bible. Or if they have, if they have a high enough of an IQ to grasp the meaning of the words. Especially little parts like, “do to others as you would have others do to you.” Or the story of the good Samaritan?

Like I said just because we have the right and the ability to do something does not mean we should do it.


copied from:
http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20110302/FEATURES10/303020096/

U.S. Supreme Court court rules for military funeral protesters
2011

Reporter Peter Smith contributed to this report.


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.

Matthew Snyder died in Iraq in 2006 and his body was returned to the United States for burial. Members of the Westboro Baptist Church, who have picketed military funerals for several years, decided to protest outside the Westminster, Md., church where Snyder's funeral was to be held.

“What Westboro said, in the whole context of how and where it chose to say it, is entitled to ‘special protection' under the First Amendment,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion, “and that protection cannot be overcome by a jury finding that the picketing was outrageous.”
Justice Samuel Alito dissented.

The decision revived painful memories for Maureen Wilcox of Vine Grove, Ky., about a Westboro church protest at the 2007 funeral of her son-in-law, Kentucky Army National Guard Pfc. Sammie Phillips, who was killed in Iraq.

She agreed with Justice Alito, who said free-speech rights do not extend to the “brutalization of innocent victims.”

Her message to the Supreme Court majority: “When you bury your son and protesters tell you his life has no value, then you tell me it’s OK.”
The Rev. Fred Phelps and other family members who make up most of the Westboro Baptist Church have picketed many military funerals in their quest to draw attention to their incendiary view that U.S. deaths in Afghanistan and Iraq are God's punishment for the nation's tolerance of homosexuality.

They showed up with their usual signs, including “Thank God for dead soldiers,” “You're Going to Hell,” “God Hates the USA/Thank God for 9/11,” and one that combined the U.S. Marine Corps motto, Semper Fi, with a slur against gay men.

The church members drew counter-demonstrators, as well as media coverage and a heavy police presence. The result was a spectacle that led to altering the route of the funeral procession.

Several weeks later, 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.

Soon after, Albert Snyder filed a lawsuit accusing the Phelpses of intentionally inflicting emotional distress. He won $11 million at trial, later reduced by a judge to $5 million.

The federal appeals court in Richmond, Va., threw out the verdict and said the U.S. Constitution shielded the church members from liability.
While distancing themselves from the church's message, media organizations, including The Associated Press, urged the court to side with the Phelps family because of concerns that a victory for Snyder could erode speech rights.

Attorneys general from Kentucky, Indiana and 46 other states submitted a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of the Snyders. They argued that states have the right to enact laws guarding the privacy of funeral attendees, who are a “captive audience” because they can't be expected to skip loved one's funerals to avoid to “intrusive and harassing” protests.
While those planning Phillips' funeral at Stithton Baptist Church in Radcliffe, Ky., sought to mitigate the protests — such as using trucks to screen the view of protesters and the roar of motorcycles to drown out their chants — the Westboro group's presence was painful, Wilcox said.

“I know freedom of speech is a big thing,” she said. “But there's a time and a place where things aren’t just right, and I think that the funeral of a soldier needs to be protected.”

Kentucky and Indiana both in recent years enacted laws barring disorderly conduct near funerals or burials — within 300 feet in Kentucky and 500 feet in Indiana. A previous Kentucky law restricting funeral protests was blocked by a federal judge.

Whether laws on disorderly conduct will stand up under the Westboro precedent depends on how they're applied, said Daniel Conkle, a professor of law and adjunct professor of religious studies at Indiana University.

“There’s a key First Amendment principle, that the government is generally not permitted to regulate the content or viewpoint of speech,” he said.

The Maryland lawsuit clearly involved the content of the message, he said. But if disorderly conduct laws are applied to protesters being loud or threatening, regardless of their message, it would have a better chance of being upheld, he said.

The Indiana law, “is itself potentially ambiguous in terms of when and where it might apply,” he said. But “Indiana courts would be well advised to construe this law in such a way that the law is deemed to apply without regard to the particular messages that might be displayed.”

Allison Martin, spokeswoman for Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway, said her office believes the Kentucky law isn’t affected because the Supreme Court decision deals with a civil lawsuit and affirms the right of governments to regulate public activity.

In fact, the Supreme Court ruled in the Maryland case that governments can regulate some speech “subject to reasonable time, place or manner restrictions.” It said "content neutral" laws would “raise very different questions” from the Maryland case.