Sup. Court Weighs Extent of Free Speech Rights at Funerals

Post Reply
User avatar
Gaybutton
Posts: 21462
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 11:21 am
Location: Thailand
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 1306 times

Sup. Court Weighs Extent of Free Speech Rights at Funerals

Post by Gaybutton »

Supreme Court Weighs Extent of Free Speech Rights at Funerals

By the CNN Wire Staff
October 6, 2010

(CNN) -- The U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments Wednesday in a legal battle that pits the privacy rights of grieving families and the free speech rights of demonstrators.

In 2006, members of the Westboro Baptist Church protested 300 feet from a funeral for Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder in Westminster, Maryland, carrying signs reading "God hates you" and "Thank God for dead soldiers."

Among the teachings of the Topeka, Kansas-based fundamentalist church founded by pastor Fred Phelps is the belief that the deaths of U.S. soldiers is God's punishment for "the sin of homosexuality."

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/10/06 ... google_cnn
fountainhall

Re: Sup. Court Weighs Extent of Free Speech Rights at Funera

Post by fountainhall »

The world has much to be grateful to the US for, but its tolerance of wacky, idiotic and plain crazy groups who assemble under the spurious guise of religion totally defeats me. If the Constitution permits it, then the Constitution should be changed! I realise that won't happen, but I just want to say it! :evil:
User avatar
Bob
Posts: 1046
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 11:03 pm
Been thanked: 37 times

Re: Sup. Court Weighs Extent of Free Speech Rights at Funera

Post by 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; however, people mourning the death of a loved one at a funeral also have rights and, if there is a right of privacy under the US constitution, I can't fathom how it wouldn't be a very significant factor here.

The laws in question don't stop Phelps and his ilk from saying what they want, the laws just establish an area (zone so-to-speak) around a private area (a funeral) where they are not allowed to tread. Balancing the rights to protest and the privacy rights of the funeral participants does not, in my eyes, make these laws unconstitutional as both rights can be reasonably accommodated. The courts have upheld laws prohibiting protests in residential neighborhoods and that too was based on the inappropriateness of the location and privacy concerns and not the content of the speech. I'll be very disappointed if the Supreme Court won't uphold what I view as reasonable and necessary laws and the very strong rights of privacy which private mourners ought to be allowed to exercise without interference.
RichLB
Posts: 1217
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 4:13 pm
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 88 times

Re: Sup. Court Weighs Extent of Free Speech Rights at Funera

Post by RichLB »

I think Bob is spot on. Preventing Phelps from spewing his hate at funerals does not stop him from exercising free speech. Extending the current 300 yard limit currently in effect to several miles still allows him to say what he wishes and is within the intent of the US Constitution.
fountainhall

Re: Sup. Court Weighs Extent of Free Speech Rights at Funera

Post by fountainhall »

Bob wrote: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?
Bob wrote:I'll be very disappointed if the Supreme Court won't uphold what I view as reasonable and necessary laws and the very strong rights of privacy which private mourners ought to be allowed to exercise without interference.
I was always brought up to believe that freedom comes with responsibility. Too often, in my view, those who scream "foul" when claiming they have rights to certain freedoms are the ones who exercise some of their freedoms without any responsibility to and consideration for the other individuals in the communities in which the live. You mention two rights - freedom of speech and the right of privacy. How on earth do you enshrine what could be argued as opposing rights in law so that what happened at the funeral can not happen again?

The problem with having what is virtually a blanket freedom (yes, I know about the "shouting Fire" exceptions) seems to me that you inevitably have to end up with huge lists of exceptions that over time just get even longer an longer and longer. So, you invite more and more idiots like Phelps to highlight new problems which require further additions to the legislation to tighten it. How do you tighten it (always after an event like the Snyder funeral when the damage is done, never before)? Move protestors back to 500 yards from the funeral? What if they bring in loudhailers? If such a group is careful, they could have several blasts of obscenities before the police are on the scene. And one blast is all it takes to destroy the solemnity of a private funeral.

The same is true of the "right" of right-to-life groups to picket perfectly legal abortion clinics. The "free speech" rhetoric at such picketing frequently descends into outright hate. That hate then helps motivate nuts who intimidate women patients, innocent nurses and doctors who are legally going about their business. In some extreme cases, they are motivated to murder doctors. In my view, that is freedom gone crazy!

Anderson Cooper on CNN has recently been highlighting horrible cases of bullying, one by a state official of a gay student president, and the extent to which those who bully will go. Yet all this is done in the name of freedom of speech!
Khortose

Re: Sup. Court Weighs Extent of Free Speech Rights at Funera

Post by Khortose »

fountainhall wrote: The problem with having what is virtually a blanket freedom (yes, I know about the "shouting Fire" exceptions) seems to me that you inevitably have to end up with huge lists of exceptions that over time just get even longer an longer and longer. So, you invite more and more idiots like Phelps to highlight new problems which require further additions to the legislation to tighten it.
The same is true of the "right" of right-to-life groups to picket perfectly legal abortion clinics. The "free speech" rhetoric at such picketing frequently descends into outright hate. That hate then helps motivate nuts who intimidate women patients, innocent nurses and doctors who are legally going about their business. In some extreme cases, they are motivated to murder doctors. In my view, that is freedom gone crazy!
Anderson Cooper on CNN has recently been highlighting horrible cases of bullying, one by a state official of a gay student president, and the extent to which those who bully will go. Yet all this is done in the name of freedom of speech!
Yes, it is. Now look at the other side of this issue. I am gay, and I suspect so are many of the members of this board. The protest movement in the USA started in the late fifties with gays marching and picketing legislatures and government officials. The public was horrified that these "criminals" could be so open and brazen and demanded they be stopped. Wow, it turns out they could not stop them as Americans they had the right to free speech. This same circumstances permitted Unions to picket, blacks to get civil rights, Margret Sanger to demand abortion rights, and "my God" women to vote.

The problem is that who is the judge of what is okay free speech, and what is not. Please do not tell me common sense, because common sense was on the other side in all of the above examples I mentioned. Right now we only have two exceptions that I know of. Shouting fire in the theater or inciting immediate violence. I wish there was a actual right to privacy written into the constitution that would clearly take care of this case, but there is not. The right to privacy is an inferred right that dates back to England's right not to have to testify against yourself. It is not explicate in the Constitution. Liberal courts have expanded this inferred right, but conservative courts have restricted it. I hate Phelps and his money making machine (his family are lawyers and they make money suing people that have physically attacked them and municipalities that try to deny them permits), but if you do not protect speech that is abhorrent to you, one day you may find your right to free speech is also restricted.

Finally, by having a Constitution we are protected in that the Rule of Law" becomes higher then the rule of the majority. This is why we seldom change our Constitution and we are very careful when we do. It is far better to permit the occasional nut case then to tamper with what keeps us all safe in our lives from interferences by others. While the UK is a great and sensible country, and seems to operate well without a Constitution, it was not always so. The days and times that Charles Dickens so eloquently wrote about are not that long ago, and who knows they may come back again.
User avatar
Gaybutton
Posts: 21462
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 11:21 am
Location: Thailand
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 1306 times

Re: Sup. Court Weighs Extent of Free Speech Rights at Funera

Post by Gaybutton »

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. Regarding the issue of the funerals, where does it say anything that allows him to be right there harassing funerals? The state can't stop him from speaking, but maybe the state can do something about where he can be to do that speaking.

I'm somewhat surprised that there hasn't been any incidents yet where parents are trying to bury their fallen son, then along comes Reverend Phelps, and it didn't end with the necessity of a second funeral. In all honesty, if that ever happens, a prosecutor wouldn't want me on the grand jury or on the courtroom jury. If I were on the grand jury I would refuse to indict. If I were on the courtroom jury I would refuse to convict.
fountainhall

Re: Sup. Court Weighs Extent of Free Speech Rights at Funera

Post by fountainhall »

Khortose wrote:Now look at the other side of this issue. I am gay, and I suspect so are many of the members of this board. The protest movement in the USA started in the late fifties with gays marching and picketing legislatures and government officials. The public was horrified that these "criminals" could be so open and brazen and demanded they be stopped. Wow, it turns out they could not stop them as Americans they had the right to free speech. This same circumstances permitted Unions to picket, blacks to get civil rights, Margret Sanger to demand abortion rights, and "my God" women to vote . . . The problem is that who is the judge of what is okay free speech, and what is not. Please do not tell me common sense, because common sense was on the other side in all of the above examples I mentioned.
I fully understand your point, and accept a great deal of it. I, too, am gay. I grew up in the 1960s afraid to express my sexuality etc. I, too, owe a debt to those who made it possible for me to live an open and happy existence instead of being firmly locked in the closet with the key in my hand. Similarly, my sister and all her friends are no doubt grateful to those who promoted – and sometimes died for – universal suffrage. Further, I have never read the US constitution and only know what I do from hearsay. However, I believe I am able – to a certain extent – to appreciate both sides of this particular issue.

First, though, the Constitution. I personally do not believe that any Constitution should be carved in stone. It is surely one of the lessons of history that man evolves over time. What was true at the end of the 18th century is certainly not all true now. I have no idea when the 2nd Amendment was passed, but it seems to me, and I am sure to most rational people around the world, that no country in the 21st century should have a law on its books permitting almost anyone to own a firearm. In the lawless times when that law was promulgated, it was probably essential. Now it definitely is not. But precious little has changed. Thankfully, most other civilized countries have tightened their gun ownership laws very considerably in the light of such dreadful massacres as that at Dunblane High School in Scotland. I did not notice a similar tightening after Columbine High.

Secondly, Free Speech. The UK does not have a Constitution. A quick check on wikipedia tells us that –
the essence of English common law is that it is made by judges sitting in courts, applying their common sense and knowledge of legal precedent (stare decisis) to the facts before them
So, not much different from US law - and it does say "common sense". However, as far as I can recall, English law does indeed change over time. Very little, I believe, is concrete and it has no Constitution to hamper it. I do not think the campaigns for homosexual law reform in England in the 1950s and 1960s depended upon any law entitling the campaigners to “free speech”. The campaigns and the outcome depended much more on what you rather decry in your post – the determination to right a perceived wrong and the commonsense of a few individuals and organisations who, through their persistence and stubbornness, persuaded the majority of lawmakers and thereby effected a change in the law. This may not have been “common sense” as you describe it, but it was still commonsense.

I reckon much of my thinking has evolved as a result of living in pretty conservative societies. I happened to love living in Japan, a country where individual freedoms have always been secondary to the importance of the group. Living within a set of prescribed and often unwritten rules is actually quite comforting. And even in Japan, homosexuality is gradually becoming accepted by more and more, something that would have been unthinkable 50 years ago.

And so we come back to individual responsibility. Just as drivers have to submit to the rules of the road (which some admittedly violate form time to time), so the individual in any society has to submit to certain rules within that society. It does not mean that you cannot change the rules. But, it seems to me, it imposes greater restraint on the individual than is the case in the USA. And this I believe is beneficial to society as a whole as well as to its individual constituents.

After all, no-one posting on this Board has complete freedom of expression (and thankfully so). There are posting rules, and those who violate them are either warned or kicked out. What is so different?
Gaybutton wrote:If I were on the grand jury I would refuse to indict. If I were on the courtroom jury I would refuse to convict.
Indict who? The parents or the Reverend Phelps (or his followers)?
lvdkeyes
Posts: 3820
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 6:40 pm
Location: Pattaya
Been thanked: 38 times
Contact:

Re: Sup. Court Weighs Extent of Free Speech Rights at Funera

Post by lvdkeyes »

Some people in the US try to hide behind the constitution's position of freedom of speech. Sometimes they are successful and sometimes not. For example, you cannot exercise your right to free speech and yell "Fire" in a crowded public building.

This despicable group of religious nuts has the right to their free speech, but others have their rights also, which I think will end up being what the Supreme court decides. It seems that cemeteries, which are generally privately owned, would be able to block these protests from within the cemetery.
fountainhall

Re: Sup. Court Weighs Extent of Free Speech Rights at Funera

Post by fountainhall »

lvdkeyes wrote:It seems that cemeteries, which are generally privately owned, would be able to block these protests from within the cemetery.
That will be laudable up to a point. But if the graveside is close to the edge of a cemetery, protestors could quite easily congregate outside on a public space and still interrupt the solemnity of the occasion. Limiting protests to within at least a mile of a burial is much more ideal in my view.
Post Reply