Sup. Court Weighs Extent of Free Speech Rights at Funerals

[Bob]

Phelps and his group are absolutely disgusting and, of course, they have the right to express what views they want regardless of how abhorent those views are

Why? With respect, tell that to the shattered family of the late Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder. Somehow I don't think it will be of much comfort to them. What moral "right" did Phelps and his group have to indulge in such "absolutely disgusting" behaviour?

Huh? Everybody (including myself) has expressed in so many words our "moral" views (doesn't "disgusting" sort of say that?) about Phelp's protests but what we've been talking about here are the constitutional rights (first amendment) of idiots like Phelps to say things that a vast majority disagree with and find abhorent. So, yes, Phelps has the constitutional right to say abhorent things, he has the right to burn the flag, etc. The issue here is where he has the right to do that and/or whether a state or local goverment can constitutionally limit such protests around or near private funerals. Or at least that's the issue before the Supreme Court.

[Khortose]

I don't think there's anything in the US Constitution to prevent people like the good Reverend Phelps from speaking his piece, but I also don't know of anything in the US Constitution that guarantees a right as to where he can be when he exercises that free speech.

The issue here is where he has the right to do that and/or whether a state or local goverment can constitutionally limit such protests around or near private funerals. Or at least that's the issue before the Supreme Court.

I may be reading this case wrong, but that is not really the issue here. Several states including Washington already have a law in place to protect the privacy of funerals by outlawing ALL protests near a funeral. The issue is whether or not Phelps and his bunch of creeps can be sued for doing so in the absence of such of law, saying that the families privacy was violated. Phelps did have permits and a legal location when they protested. Bob am I reading it wrong or what?

[fountainhall]

I think I have interrupted the debate by bringing in the greater issue of the US Constitution in general rather than restricting it to the issue of free speech. I'll therefore hold off further discussion on the larger issue - unless anyone else chips in.

[Bob]

Bob am I reading it wrong or what?

Nope, you're not - and I was being far too expansive in my comments about this particular case (because there are other specific cases heading to the Supreme Court that deal with the rights of the states (or municipalities) to prohibit this type of protest within so many hundreds of feet of funerals). This case, sitting alone, is the appeal by the Snyders (parents of the deceased soldier) involving a money judgment won against Phelps and his group for invasion of privacy and infliction of emotional distress. The federal jury awarded them $10.9 million, the District Court trial judge reduced that to $5 million, and the Federal Court of Appeals through it out altogether holding that Phelps and his fellow dolts can't be sued for exercising their first amendment rights.

So, while technically the outcome of this case only will formally decide the Snyder's personal issue, many expect the Court to actually clarify the limits a state or local municipality can make on protests such as this one (the Snyders based their lawsuits on causes of action authorized by their state and not based on "federal" causes of action so the issue of limits on state action has to come up - and the only question is whether the review will be expansive enough to give clear signals as to what the Court will later do with the other state laws). While the Snyder's money judgment is certainly important to them (and I hope they win bigtime), the real or broader interest in the case is what the Court says about state limits in general.

[Bob]

God only knows how this case will go. Having missed the podcasts of the oral arguments (I was doing something more important: sleeping), I checked out whatever I could find on the net about what the reporters could read between the lines of the comments by the various Justices. Not surprising, some report that it was "clear" that the Snyders had no chance to win the case whereas others reported that some of the Justices appeared to be ready to carve a new exception into the First Amendment to allow prohibition (and/or punishment via lawsuits) over this type of behavior/speech at a private funeral. It's amazing (although I guess I'm used to it) to see how different reporters clearly heard different messages.

The only true indication to me that maybe a change-is-a-coming is that the Court even agreed to review the case. Given the few cases they take up, the Court's agreement (by a minority) to even hear the appeal tells you somebody up there has an interest in a new review of the parameters of First Amendment expression.

The originalists (with Scalia and Thomas in the lead) have got to wind up their right-wing wackiness on this one as I don't think anybody is going to buy that the founding fathers ever contemplated allowing this type of behavior/speech at a private function. But we'll see.