Snyder's backers make their case to Supreme Court

I think the case needs to focus on what was done, and the intent of how Phelps/Westboro went about it. Free speech is very powerful, and it should always let us air our grievances against the government. When it comes to wether this was protected speech or not, that is a dangerous area for any court to go.

I don't think the intent of the constitution was for this type of expression, where it strongly appears to be a case of intentional distress being inflicted.

I agree with the senators here, that broadening the case to include first amendment rights was the wrong standard to apply.

The senators cited "Intentional infliction of emotional distress, intrusion upon seclusion and civil conspiracy.", and it would be reasonable to conclude that Phelps and Westboro committed these torts.

I don't know if the original case had focused on these and then the Fourth Circuit overturned a lower court by broadening the case to include first amendment rights. But, focus on what really happened here and let My. Synder get on with his life.

Hopefully then Phelps/Westboro will find better venues to protest.

FatherOfFive wrote:

I think the case needs to focus on what was done, and the intent of how Phelps/Westboro went about it. Free speech is very powerful, and it should always let us air our grievances against the government. When it comes to wether this was protected speech or not, that is a dangerous area for any court to go.
I don't think the intent of the constitution was for this type of expression, where it strongly appears to be a case of intentional distress being inflicted.
I agree with the senators here, that broadening the case to include first amendment rights was the wrong standard to apply.
The senators cited "Intentional infliction of emotional distress, intrusion upon seclusion and civil conspiracy.", and it would be reasonable to conclude that Phelps and Westboro committed these torts.
I don't know if the original case had focused on these and then the Fourth Circuit overturned a lower court by broadening the case to include first amendment rights. But, focus on what really happened here and let My. Synder get on with his life.
Hopefully then Phelps/Westboro will find better venues to protest.

I agree with you Sir but then again you don't yell fire in a theater or bomb on a plane. This disrespect to a veteran is much worse than that. Common sense is all that is needed.

I wish the Fourth Circuit would have realized the 1st Amendment simply keeps the Phelps klan out of jail for their pickets. It's not supposed to protect people from getting the pants sued off of them when they use their speech to inflict distress on others.

Oh, my -- I am feeling some distress about your comments, Red ... it seems you've called us a klan. That makes me want to cry and make a really sad face ... it might even bring on depression or a whole host of physical/psychological disorders ... and it might make me stamp my widdie-biddie foot in anger. Yikes - I better make my way speedy quick to the courthouse and make you stop that; shut you down; bankrupt you; get the bitter bikers to rally against you; call the congress con-men, spur some political hacks to action. Or, maybe I could get a perspective and put your rhetoric in it's place --- yonder trashcan, and NOT turn my entire life into one long troll-for-fawning-fake-sympath y fest. Yeesh ... he really is a pussy, isn't he?:)

The US.Supreme court, Should go with Mr.Snyder and is family, The Rev.Phelps did not have the right to do what is did, What would Phelp do if we the people go and protest agains is church, So if the US.Suprem Court go again Mr.Snyder< Should be fired kick the hell out of office, And move the hell out of this Country,

My view is that the First Amendment protects even the most offensive speech in public places, and that the support for Snyder elevates politics over the organic law of the land. The ACLU took a lot of heat when it successfully defended the right of the KKK to march in Skokie IL where many Holocaust survivors lived. Where do you draw the line when you start restricting speech based on its content? I oppose most war but support the warriors. I think most religion is silly, and Westboro is a prime example, but the same First Amendment which permits me to say so protects the right to practice religion, even if it's hateful and hurtful. Deal with the freedom.

MostHighServant wrote:

Oh, my -- I am feeling some distress about your comments, Red ... it seems you've called us a klan. That makes me want to cry and make a really sad face ... it might even bring on depression or a whole host of physical/psychological disorders ... and it might make me stamp my widdie-biddie foot in anger. Yikes - I better make my way speedy quick to the courthouse and make you stop that; shut you down; bankrupt you; get the bitter bikers to rally against you; call the congress con-men, spur some political hacks to action. Or, maybe I could get a perspective and put your rhetoric in it's place --- yonder trashcan, and NOT turn my entire life into one long troll-for-fawning-fake-sympath y fest. Yeesh ... he really is a pussy, isn't he?:)

An absolutely brilliant piece of satire if I do say so myself!

Jeff Spangler wrote:

My view is that the First Amendment protects even the most offensive speech in public places, and that the support for Snyder elevates politics over the organic law of the land. The ACLU took a lot of heat when it successfully defended the right of the KKK to march in Skokie IL where many Holocaust survivors lived. Where do you draw the line when you start restricting speech based on its content? I oppose most war but support the warriors. I think most religion is silly, and Westboro is a prime example, but the same First Amendment which permits me to say so protects the right to practice religion, even if it's hateful and hurtful. Deal with the freedom.

When do you support war?

Westboro will not be forgotten.In life there is mystery.

Why does this have to be turned into anything more than, understanding this father just wants the rights of mourners to do so with dignity. Hatred, violence, hurtful comments, do nothing but hurt an already wounded family PERIOD. The Westboro people are victims of their own hatred. There is nothing faithful, peaceful, or dignified about what they do. Mr. Snyder is every bit the hero his son was, for standing tall to stop this. It is not his intention to do anything to prevent free speech, merely and crucially, he wants funerals and memorials to honor the life of a loved one to be respected. Shame on idiots like "Most high servant" your insensitivity is repugnant. You wouldn't know anything about respect.

Red wrote:

<quoted text>
An absolutely brilliant piece of satire if I do say so myself!

And let me say that it was supposed to be clan not "klan". I'm not a typing major and those mistakes do happen.

Ninth amendment
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Rev. Phelps did so disparge the Snyders......

Let's see a show of hands here....

How many of you know that Albert Snyder never saw the protesters at his son's funeral?
They were 1000 feet away from the church--complying with local laws--and Mr. Snyder only learned of their presence from a televised news story he watched later that day.

In support of overturning the Fourth Circuit's opinion, even Harry Reid and the other 40 senators who filed the amicus brief are unaware of this fact given their statement which said: "If the Fourth Circuit used the correct standard, the senators said, it would have found the Phelpses did not have the right to protest directly outside Snyder's funeral."
One thousand feet away isn't 'directly outside.'
And how is this any different from anti-abortion protesters voicing their opinions outside of clinics and calling women murderers?

If the offensive speech—and it is offensive speech--of the WBC is stopped, then the next-in-line offensive speech will targeted...then the next...and the next....
Eventually it will come down to each and every one of us being silenced by a government to whom we will have given control over that which the constitution wisely and carefully precluded them from having.
If the free speech part of the First Amendment can be gutted, then so too can be the freedom of religion part. Will the government also then be allowed to decide what constitutes a bona fide religion based on the same subjective criteria as they will judge speech?

Albert Snyder has every right to be outraged, but that outrage should not be allowed to become a launch pad to do away with one of the underlying principles this country was founded upon, and one for which his son, ostensibly, died defending.

Mr. Snyder could do more good if he directed his anger and grief over his son’s death towards stopping needless and senseless wars, rather than stopping free speech.
The ugliest speech is far prettier than any war.

If someone out there could give at lease three good reasons for both parties then I think I will be able to make a decision on which one is "right" thank you!

Jeff Spangler wrote:

My view is that the First Amendment protects even the most offensive speech in public places, and that the support for Snyder elevates politics over the organic law of the land. The ACLU took a lot of heat when it successfully defended the right of the KKK to march in Skokie IL where many Holocaust survivors lived. Where do you draw the line when you start restricting speech based on its content? I oppose most war but support the warriors. I think most religion is silly, and Westboro is a prime example, but the same First Amendment which permits me to say so protects the right to practice religion, even if it's hateful and hurtful. Deal with the freedom.

The line is drawn where the speech in question infringes upon the rights of another. That is exactly what Westboro does. There is a right to privacy at a funeral along with the right to practice religion and Westboro violated and continues to violate both.

rhd wrote:

<quoted text>
The line is drawn where the speech in question infringes upon the rights of another. That is exactly what Westboro does. There is a right to privacy at a funeral along with the right to practice religion and Westboro violated and continues to violate both.

In what way, exactly, were the rights of the Snyders infringed? Certainly, you’re not suggesting that one has the right to not be offended. Can you even begin to imagine the restrictions we’d all face if that were the case? There would be no speech, press, TV, films, art, novels or religion for that matter. Everyone is offended by something, somewhere, sometime. That ‘freedom’ thing is often a double-edged sword.
No one from the WBC entered the church where the funeral was held. They carried out their protest in a public, not private, venue.

There is no such ‘line’ as the one you think, or wish, exists. Just about all types of speech are protected, particularly--and especially--offensive speech. If it weren’t, why would protection be needed at all?
There are only a very few exceptions--nine, actually--to protected speech, and they are narrowly tailored, as they should be. They are:

Obscenity
Fighting words
Defamation (includes libel, slander)
Child pornography
Perjury
Blackmail
Incitement to imminent lawless action
True threats
Solicitations to commit crimes.

The WBC's speech did not meet the standard for any of those categories.

God will get them eventually...hateful sacks of shat they are

The Fourth Estate wrote:

<quoted text>
In what way, exactly, were the rights of the Snyders infringed? Certainly, you’re not suggesting that one has the right to not be offended. Can you even begin to imagine the restrictions we’d all face if that were the case? There would be no speech, press, TV, films, art, novels or religion for that matter. Everyone is offended by something, somewhere, sometime. That ‘freedom’ thing is often a double-edged sword.
No one from the WBC entered the church where the funeral was held. They carried out their protest in a public, not private, venue.
There is no such ‘line’ as the one you think, or wish, exists. Just about all types of speech are protected, particularly--and especially--offensive speech. If it weren’t, why would protection be needed at all?
There are only a very few exceptions--nine, actually--to protected speech, and they are narrowly tailored, as they should be. They are:
Obscenity
Fighting words
Defamation (includes libel, slander)
Child pornography
Perjury
Blackmail
Incitement to imminent lawless action
True threats
Solicitations to commit crimes.
The WBC's speech did not meet the standard for any of those categories.

Invasion of Privacy. The Snyders had the right to bury their son without being harassed by these clowns. I didn't say anything about their tripe being offensive even though it certainly is. What they do is harass people at their most vulnerable time and harassment is against the law. If there wasn't something wrong with what Westboro is doing, the Supreme Court would not have agreed to hear the case.

The Fourth Estate wrote:

<quoted text>
In what way, exactly, were the rights of the Snyders infringed? Certainly, you’re not suggesting that one has the right to not be offended. Can you even begin to imagine the restrictions we’d all face if that were the case? There would be no speech, press, TV, films, art, novels or religion for that matter. Everyone is offended by something, somewhere, sometime. That ‘freedom’ thing is often a double-edged sword.
No one from the WBC entered the church where the funeral was held. They carried out their protest in a public, not private, venue.
There is no such ‘line’ as the one you think, or wish, exists. Just about all types of speech are protected, particularly--and especially--offensive speech. If it weren’t, why would protection be needed at all?
There are only a very few exceptions--nine, actually--to protected speech, and they are narrowly tailored, as they should be. They are:
Obscenity
Fighting words
Defamation (includes libel, slander)
Child pornography
Perjury
Blackmail
Incitement to imminent lawless action
True threats
Solicitations to commit crimes.
The WBC's speech did not meet the standard for any of those categories.

You have to a liberal attorney, ACLU member. Our soldiers deserve more rights and respect that anyone else, period. I could care less if they were protesting 1000 yards away on public property.These young men give their lives and some wackos want to defame him. Then we have these liberal people who hide behind their interpretation of the law. I hope the US Supreme Court agrees that no one has the right to protest any funeral of a fallen soldier.
You state 9 examples:
Fighting words; can't get more fighting words than their signs against our soldiers and their families.
Defamation; Here again was this man any of the things their horrible signs carry and the spew from their mouths?
Incitement to imminent lawless action; can't rile people more than their acts do. One day a "lawless action" will occur.

At what point do we say enough is enough??

Jeff Spangler wrote:

My view is that the First Amendment protects even the most offensive speech in public places, and that the support for Snyder elevates politics over the organic law of the land. The ACLU took a lot of heat when it successfully defended the right of the KKK to march in Skokie IL where many Holocaust survivors lived. Where do you draw the line when you start restricting speech based on its content? I oppose most war but support the warriors. I think most religion is silly, and Westboro is a prime example, but the same First Amendment which permits me to say so protects the right to practice religion, even if it's hateful and hurtful. Deal with the freedom.

I support the troops but not the war, bull crap. That is exactly what the so called peace demonstrators said when the our guys came home from VietNam.
Then they literally spit in their faces. I was there so do not try and say it did not happen.
At least we got to bury one of our family members in peace.