Weatboro dexision

[Anonymous]

SCOTUS handed down its ruling on the Westboro Church's abominable harassment of families of fallen soldiers: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/03/us/03scotus.html?hp. Much as I despise the Church, I have to agree with the decision, since I can easily envision cases where people might find some of my own strongly held opinions objectionable. What do the rest of you think? Anyone agree with Alito's minority opinion?

[Anonymous]

Oops, that should have been Westboro in the title. Careless finger and weakening eyesight, I guess.

[Anonymous]

I agree with the decision, as much as I hate Westboro.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I agree with the decision, as much as I hate Westboro.

Free speech wins. Thank God.

[Anonymous]

I am a big believer in free speech. But I disagree with the decision.

We do not have the absolute right to say whatever we want. We can't yell "fire" in crowded theatre. There are laws in place protected people against libel and slander.

I agree with Justice Alito. The church's right to free speech should be protected. But they should not be allowed to use another person's grief for their gain.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:I am a big believer in free speech. But I disagree with the decision.

We do not have the absolute right to say whatever we want. We can't yell "fire" in crowded theatre. There are laws in place protected people against libel and slander.

Actually you can yell "fire" in a crowded theater, especially if there is actually a fire. But, even if there is not a fire, you can do it. See Brandenburg v. Ohio.

[Anonymous]

The supreme court made the right call. As offensive as Westboro is, they are allowed to be offensive under the first amendment.

[Anonymous]

This organization should not be allowed to exist, and it seems First Amendment laws go too far.

[Anonymous]

They are just doing it all for publicity. Stop paying attention to them and the fun they get out of what they do will be gone

[Anonymous]

https://twitter.com/SarahPalinUSA:

Common sense & decency absent as wacko "church" allowed hate msgs spewed@ soldiers' funerals but we can't invoke God's name in public square

IMHO, one of the most dangerous things about Palin is her reliance on common sense. Basically, it reduces to thinking that her opinion ought to be law. It just stands to reason (for her) that an opinion she she finds objectionable ought not to be allowed. Not that I disagree with her about Westboro, or about the fact that they are way out of bounds in their demonstrations. But the worthy goal of shutting them up does not justify infringing on the First Amendment. At least not without a lot more explanation than she gives.

BTW, I have heard God's name in the public square plenty often. What percentage of political speeches do you estimate end with "God bless the United States of America"?

[Anonymous]

My co-workers and I had a lively debate about this. Some seemed to thin that it would be a slippery-slope if the SCOTUS didn't side with the First Amendment. However, I disagree. The Westboro church has plenty of other places to demonstrate that actually relate to what they believe. Protest at the state or national politicians offices and work buildings. They are the ones making the laws that the Westboro church finds offensive. But a funeral, of a young person, who had absolutely nothing to do with the laws they are protesting? I think the protections of the First Amendment have been overdone.
Also, you can be prosecuted for falsely yelling fire in a theater. In Brandenburg v Ohio, SCOTUS held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless it is directed to inciting and likely to incite imminent lawless action. In his opinion, Justice Douglas dealt with the classic example of a man "falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic." In order to explain why someone could be legitimately prosecuted for this, Douglas called it an example in which "speech is brigaded with action."

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Also, you can be prosecuted for falsely yelling fire in a theater. In Brandenburg v Ohio, SCOTUS held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless it is directed to inciting and likely to incite imminent lawless action. In his opinion, Justice Douglas dealt with the classic example of a man "falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic." In order to explain why someone could be legitimately prosecuted for this, Douglas called it an example in which "speech is brigaded with action."

Douglas did not write the decision You are referring to his concurrence. As you note, Brandenburg v. Ohio replaced the "clear and present danger" test with the "imminent lawless action" test. If you falsely yell fire in a crowded theater, you are not advocating imminent lawless action.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My co-workers and I had a lively debate about this. Some seemed to thin that it would be a slippery-slope if the SCOTUS didn't side with the First Amendment. However, I disagree. The Westboro church has plenty of other places to demonstrate that actually relate to what they believe. Protest at the state or national politicians offices and work buildings. They are the ones making the laws that the Westboro church finds offensive. But a funeral, of a young person, who had absolutely nothing to do with the laws they are protesting? I think the protections of the First Amendment have been overdone.
Also, you can be prosecuted for falsely yelling fire in a theater. In Brandenburg v Ohio, SCOTUS held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless it is directed to inciting and likely to incite imminent lawless action. In his opinion, Justice Douglas dealt with the classic example of a man "falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic." In order to explain why someone could be legitimately prosecuted for this, Douglas called it an example in which "speech is brigaded with action."

I don't think there is any incitement to action by Westboro, other than beseeching God to act against gays, but speech to God is also protected by the First Amendment. Don't get me wrong, though, I would love to see reasoning that would stop those Westboro freaks from preying on people's grief.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
I don't think there is any incitement to action by Westboro, other than beseeching God to act against gays, but speech to God is also protected by the First Amendment. Don't get me wrong, though, I would love to see reasoning that would stop those Westboro freaks from preying on people's grief.

Political speech is restricted during political conventions. During the RNC and DNC, the set up "free speech zones" underneath an underpass or something and all the protesters have to stay there. Whatever makes those legal can probably be used to keep WBC well away from the funeral. I just don't know what the justification is for the conventions. Personally, I'd rather see that restriction lifted rather than have it imposed on WBC (who I agree are a bunch of jerks).

[Anonymous]

Hate the church but suspect the decision was the correct one.