Snyder v. Phelps (2011)

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snyder_v._Phelps

[NewYorkExpress]

Dissent

[Grumpier Than Thou]

Dissent. Picketing a funeral is not a matter of free speech.

[Sol]

Majority.

Dissent. Picketing a funeral is not a matter of free speech.

Why?

[Pessimistic Antineutrino]

No matter how much of a massive, vile HP Phelps is, I can't see how he is breaking the law.

[Deus Naturae]

Majority.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

As much as I wanted to side with the dissent (and had originally taken that position when the case was first moving through the courts), I side with the majority.  The problem with WBC's actions are that they are distant and removed enough that they cannot fall under IIED.  To hold that they did would be a very broad holding that could have disastrous consequences.

[dead0man]

No matter how much of a massive, vile HP Phelps is, I can't see how he is breaking the law.

[tmthforu94]

Just another reminder that I need to take the short drive to Topeka and spit on their lawn...

I'd probably vote in the majority, as difficult as that is.

[Badger]

No matter how much of a massive, vile HP Phelps is, I can't see how he is breaking the law.

[Brewer]

Dissent. Picketing a funeral is not a matter of free speech.

Erm...how?

[Antonio the Sixth]

Dissent.

[Mechaman]

Majority.

It sucks that the Phelps resort to this sort of behavior, but the day when one can not express their rights to free expression and speech out of concern for another person's feelings would be a scary day for this country.  One day it will be about giving vets a proper funeral free from extreme homophobes, the next it will be about banning protests at Chic-Fil-A.  It goes both ways.

This is the part where I go into the other room and curse loudly for siding with the Phelps on an issue, and maybe punch another hole in the wall.

[Consciously Unconscious]

People have the right to do stupid things and make people hate them.  It's not like WBC has been particularly violent. 

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

For me, the question here essentially boils down to is the deceased service member's individual contribution to this country's policies insignificant enough to justify time and place restrictions on protests of those policies at eir funeral.  I think it is.  If Phelps were to engage in this type of protest outside a military cemetery, without regard to any funerals that might be taking place within, then while I would not think any better of him, I'd agree he had the right to make such a protest.

I could even, as horrible as it would be, support him having the right to protest at a funeral of a service member who had advocated ending DADT (or even advocated DADT over the previous ban on gays serving) because then there would be the linkage between what Phelps is protesting and the individual for whom services are being held.

Really, the only question for me is whether the time and place restrictions sought here are the sort that should be enforced after the fact via a civil suit or ahead of time via guidelines for civil protest.  Only in that sense can I see the defendant having reason to prevail as he did comply with all the governmental hurdle that were in place to have his protest where he did.

[Lief 🗽]

Dissent.

[H. Ross Peron]

No matter how much of a massive, vile HP Phelps is, I can't see how he is breaking the law.

Also lol at the lefties siding with Alito

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Majority

[Antonio the Sixth]

No matter how much of a massive, vile HP Phelps is, I can't see how he is breaking the law.

Also lol at the lefties siding with Alito

Broken clock, etc.

[Sol]

Question for the dissenters- why? What's your constitutional rationale?

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

Majority, but only because in this particular case the protesters were a reasonable distance from the funeral.

I usually side with First Amendment advocates on most issues, but I do believe that someone's rights to free speech ends at the point that it infringes on some else's fundamental rights.  The family of a slain soldier - or anyone for that matter - should have a reasonable expectation that their private burial service would not be disrupted by a protest that is audible or exceedingly visible at the location of the service.

[minionofmidas]

the defendant did comply with all the governmental hurdle that were in place to have his protest where he did.

Basically, that ought to be case open and shut right there.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

the defendant did comply with all the governmental hurdle that were in place to have his protest where he did.

Basically, that ought to be case open and shut right there.

Only if you believe that only governments should be able to act to enforce rights.  I don't.  Government is a useful tool for a society, but it should never be the only one.

[minionofmidas]

Well yeah, I would think that if Snyder had sued the local authorities for allowing the Phelpses there, he might conceivably have a case.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Question for the dissenters- why? What's your constitutional rationale?

The Framers' intent has obviously never been to protect all forms of speech. Categories of speech have always been held as deserving varying degrees of constitutional protection, and governmental restrictions on time, place and manner of expressions have been deemed legitimate in many cases. It's not really a stretch to consider than in these circumstances, the manner of the speech (violent, unwarranted insults) and its time and place (a person's funeral) are circumstances exceptional enough to warrant restrictions.