Justices appear set to limit funeral protests

[Elmore Furth]

The tea leaf readers seem to think they know something. We'll see

By David G. Savage, Tribune Washington Bureau

October 6, 2010|11:37 a.m.

Washington — The Supreme Court justices, hearing arguments Wednesday in a funeral protest case, sounded as though they are inclined to set a limit to the free-speech rule to permit lawsuits against those who target ordinary citizens with especially personal and hurtful attacks.

The First Amendment says the government may not infringe the freedom of speech, but it is less clear whether it also shields speakers from private lawsuits.

At issue Wednesday was whether the Maryland father of a Marine killed in Iraq could sue a Kansas family which protested near his funeral. The Phelps family not only held signs that said "Thank God for IEDs," but they also put on their website a message that accused Albert Snyder of having raised his son "to defy the Creator" and "serve the devil."

A Maryland court awarded Snyder $5 million in damages, but the award was thrown out on free-speech grounds.


Justices appear set to limit funeral protests

[RKP5637]

1. Good!!! n/t

[no_hypocrisy]

2. Protestors should be distanced from abortion clinics. They calculate

their shouting and noise will mutilate a patient in the middle of her procedure by disturbing the physician.

[napi21]

3. Let's HOPE! There will always be AH's in the world, but

you sure should be able to keep them away from someone who is grieving.

[bluestateguy]

4. I wonder if this case is a relevant precedent

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaplinsky_v._New_Hampshire

[independent_voter]

5. Fred Phelps is a nut job, and represents no one but himself

believe it or not, he was a civil rights lawyer (long disbarred) in the 1960s fighting Jim Crow laws

his antics do not represent preachers, Kansans or civil rights lawyers

see for yourself

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Phelps


the real issue with him, is at what level should society intervene with a mentally ill person and declare them incompetant. he was declared incompetant to practice law decades ago

[RZM]

6. How close was 'near' I wonder?

They should set a limit as to how far away they have to be to give the service-goers privacy, but that's about it. You shouldn't be able to sue over this, IMO. As lame as the Phelps-ers are, they should be able to express their lunacy in public without having to pay millions, as long as the privacy of the funeral is protected.

[ejpoeta]

10. how about taking a page from dubya's playbook and putting them a half a mile away in

'free speech zones'. i believe in free speech, but this is ridiculous. has anyone considered protesting outside these folks houses? maybe that would give them some pause?

[RZM]

11. I have no problem with giving them a taste of their own medicine

As long as the counter-protesters don't violate the law. I agree that this is ridiculous, but so are plenty of other examples of protected speech. I'm not so sure about free speech zones though. We should certainly give the funeral-goers enough space to carry out their services in private. Don't know how far that should be but 1/2 of a mile sounds like a bit much.

[ejpoeta]

12. i believe they have the right as we all need to have the right to protest.

there has to be something to do to protect the mourners. this is an assault on them. it's one thing to protest a representative or company or something, but these are private citizens at a private funeral. and the only reason i say we could protest these people is maybe if they are inundated with protests maybe they'd stop. but then it might make them do it more because they are getting attention. it's just heartbreaking. and i think there is a special place in hell for people like this group.

[RZM]

13. That's why there should be an agreed-upon distance, IMO

I'll agree that these people are awful. Few figures can manage to unite Sean Hannity and DU on a single issue, but Fred Phelps is one of them.

[leveymg]

7. Political speech is political speech. Where's the line between a public & private person?

These "church" people are the worst kind of heartless political provocateurs (they're extreme wingers), and their targets are normal people who have already been victimized. What they're doing is a form of harassment akin to assault or libel.

But, there is a political motive to their actions, so no matter how hurtful, IMHO it is First Amendment protected speech, and (regrettably) must be protected.

[babylonsister]

8. Rec'd. If so, I'm shocked and happy to read this. nt

[DirkGently]

9. Be interesting to see on what grounds, if any the SC finds the Phelps' could be sued for mean speech

People ticked off at the Phelps family whackos ought to be careful what they wish for. Any law that shuts up someone you disagree with can be used to shut you up as well. If viciously insulting someone is held to be a viable cause of action, everyone here could be hearing from Rush Limbaugh's lawyers.

[mike_c]

14. I'm with Phelps on this one....

Sorry, but free means free, not free sometimes or some places. If the CONTENT of the speech is legal a mile away, it should be legal outside the funeral doors. Yes, it's odious. That's the price we pay for civil rights, IMO. It's worth it.

[Festivito]

15. If asked to leave, they've had their free speech and are then trampling the free speech of others.

That is, the free speech of the family projecting speech of quiet and solitude in the wake of a loved ones death was being trampled by the free speech of the Phelps' crowd, and thus the Phelps' crowd should be charged with a civil rights charge for denying the family of the family's free speech right.

I'm playing an idea that rights should compete with rights, and not that rules should compete with rights.