While I understand the free speech part of this, there are some things that just aren't right, and what this group does is one of those things.

They are not just conservatives....they are both liberal and conservative...stop making this a partisan issue..think before you speak..

That church is nuts,

but it was an 8-1 decision, and correct.

no, southern babtists are generally associated with the bible belt south and religious right than leftist groups.

That's one of the reasons why I stopped going to church long time ago. Doesn't matter if the person was gay or not. It is just plain wrong and disrespectful to picket at a funeral.

As much as I LOATHE these people, free speech is an American right....but as a comment below states, they are essentially a hate group.

Your religion is NOT an excuse to hate.

This is not an issue of whether or not you agree with what the church is doing. I think the church deserves to burn in hell for its actions. The issue the Court decided was a legal issue, and under our constitution, you sometimes get the bad with the good. The Court, in my opinion was correct ruling the way it did.

you can't just take away free speech from someone because you don't like what they have to say.

btw i am not a supporter and i am gay

Yes, but there is no ruling that sane people cannot counter protest and drown them out. I say each time they go out to protest, people in the community come out in droves and surround them with people so that their signs cannot be seen and sing at the top of their lungs to drown them out. I would gladly participate.

liberal or conservative, this is just wrong

Unfortunately, this is a correct ruling on the First Amendment. However, I would like to see an organized effort of Westboro opponents utilizing our First Amendment rights to harass, erm, "protest" these self-righteous Agents of Satan.

Yes, but there is no ruling that sane people cannot counter protest and drown them out.

CORRECT! That's what the Patriot Guard does -- on VERY LOUD motorcycles!

I attend a Southern Baptist church, as well as tend to vote conservative, but in no way do I think that what these people are doing or stand for is in any way morally right. However, we live in a country where freedom of speech is protected and the decision, however unpalatable, is correct. What needs to be done, at a local level, is amend the laws regarding allowable protests and place them further away from the event itself.

Was what the protesters did unethical and immoral? Yes.

Was it illegal? No, by grounds of the First Amendment, which is why the court ruled the way it did.

Randy, how is this ruling curring favor with the Republican base, who are very pro military and detest the funeral protests? Or is it you just need to blame the Republicans for anything that displeases you?

Randy: Forgive my inferior public school education, but didn't I read that Sotomayor, Ginsberg, and Kagan all voted with the majority here? If so, what the hell are you babbling about?

Uswillwin: What gets me more is that Randy got all of those votes. Do people read the article before they fly off the handle on the Internet?

If they come to my state, a few of us have a plan. We have a giant sheet tied between to giant poles. We'll stand in front of the protesters with our banner open which will at least hide them from the families. If they move, we move. It's pretty simple but effective.

As a vet myself and having personally attended several military funerals. I find this groups action to be completely out of line. Sooner of later they will show up at the wrong one and when the do they will get the beating they have earned for themselves.

However regardless of how worthless these individuals are, the court did do the right thing by upholding our freedom of speech. When we start to pick and choose who has freedom of speech and open up that Pandora's box the fallout from that one will be so far reaching that by the time it is over I can guarantee all of you that the America we will have created will make this seem almost trivial.

You have the right to peacefully protest "The Government" for redress of grievances. I don't see where picketing at a funeral falls in that right, or the point to it, other than to get media hype at the expense of "Private Citizens" grief for a loved one.

I am sure my thoughts won't be popular on this thread. I actually read the court's opinion, and how they came to their conclusion.

These picketers were on public land, therefore, freedom of speech applies. Additionally, it was not considered a private matter (private vs public according to law) because they did not disseminate any information about the soldier in question, but rather ambiguous information about many groups.

The court made a difficult decision, but in the end it is the correct one. If they upheld this judgement against Westboro, then any picketer on public land (e.g. protesters in Wisconsin, Tea Party rallies on the national mall) could also be so judged against.

Personally, I think the WBC is disgusting and vile. But, they also have the freedom of speech, just like I do. I am not willing to take theirs away, because mine will be next.

Another note: the Phelps family are pretty much all lawyers. They do this to manipulate people into suing them, which validates them as an organization.

The court ruling is correct, free speech protection must be given to everyone, or no one will have a free speech protection. As for that so called church, it is a outlawed group not belonging to any recognized religious sect, .

Exodite, be careful not to jump to emotional knee-jerk responses, although I'll admit I've often wondered the same. As much as the WBC disgusts me, and shames all Americans, the integrity of our Constitution trumps all efforts to regulate decency. Therefore, hard as it may be, we WILL defend their RIGHT to be complete jackasses.

As for recourse, I do not condone any violence whatsoever, as I believe humankind is better than that, but admittedly, I am surprised no one has yet acted out in frustration. Besides, Fred Phelps is getting old and will soon encounter the cold, black void of his own misgivings that awaits him. We'll see how well-coordinated the WBC is once he is gone forever....

Do I agree with the church? No. Do I agree with the courts decision? Yes... We as a country keep bitching about our rights being taken away, and it is because of people like these, pushing the envelope towards offencive, that make that happen.

It seems religion would take a step back and realize that it is antics like these, that are causing their pews to be lees and less full.

As much as I cannot stand those bastards, I am happy that the supreme court made the right call. You cannot argue with an 8-1 decision.

First, this is not a church. They are using the word "church".

Second, a family member recently said that our freedoms help us but also hurts us.

This is an example. This case hurts us and unfortunately there is nothing we can do about it. Freedom is a double edge sword.

It's a very sad day for America. Everything I used to love about her is now rapidly coming to an end. I was under the impression that YOUR rights END when they begin to trample MINE. That's every bit as important as free speech, which, btw, I guess we ALL should start yelling "fire" in a crowded venue just to be sure our freedom of speech isn't abridged THERE. Can't yell it in a line going through a detector at the airport. So.................!

"Everyone's equal...............just some are MORE equal than others."

I knew Mr. Snyder & gave generously to the fight for his RIGHT to grieve for his son in peace. I truly wish there were a concerted effort to "protest" at the funerals of WBC members & I'd LOVE to picket the funeral of a Supreme Ct. Justice. Karma DOES get her payback, I've learned.

Kill the lawyers.

Now you're being disgusting. Lawyers serve a purpose in society just like any other profession.

Exodite was quoting Shakespeare, Michelle... He wasn't literally calling for the death of legal attorneys.

Westboro is NOT a Southern Baptist Church (or even a church at all IMO), they are twisted hate mongerers, They are NOT as one on here claimed Liberal by any means, But I would not call them Conservative either. They are simply insane and total sociopaths. IT does bother me that when they wee only protesting at Gay funerals and events that most did not care, silence=approval (Though many may not have known the existed).
All that, and being totally cognizant of the pain they attempt to inflict; often successfully; they still have the right to do it. I would fight for their right to do this filth. Then I would just as quickly show up to disrupt and obscure them doing it. That is my freedom. I will also pray that God strikes them down, they will not abide in heaven, hell awaits them for taking Gods message and twisting it into hate (as it does for all who do that)
I have stood face to face with Phelps, I take pride in actually making them wince "Back to the Trailer Park! Back to the Trailer Park!" was my taunt and it was picked up by hundreds of people, as I continued in my March, I was happy to keep hearing it being picked up down the line--then read it in the paper the next day. My little victory.
By the way "God Hates Sweden"? No way, Sweden gave us ABBA, and God would forgive anything Sweden ever did just for that alone! Everyone loves ABBA even if they won't admit it.
People like the Phelps clan (Klan?) truthfully need our attention (and lawsuits) to survive, it wold be best if we gave then neither--their prime source of income is judgements given them when lawsuits fail and they get attorney fees.
By the way I am a 'sodomite' and whatever else that fool wants to call me. I am also a Christian and I know God loves me, every single bit of me, without reservation...even the parts I don't like myself.

This was the right decision of the court. As disgusting as it is is is their right to free speech. that being said, Fred Phelps is getting old. One day he to will have to be buried. I hope and pry he and his twisted family gets back ten fold just what they gave.

Why don't sharks eat lawyers? Professional courtesy! That plus a severe case of indigestion. And all the members of the SC are lawyers!?!

Exodite was quoting Shakespeare, Michelle... He wasn't literally calling for the death of legal attorneys.

Good man, Toasty.

A united court ... and a good decision for "Free Speech" and all of us ...

John Roberts may be leading this court in a new direction ... that will be beneficial to all of us ....

The action of the group is detestable, but "Free Speech" has to trump, sometimes we have to protect the "detestable" to protect ourselves ....

Take the protests to their church, see how they like it. Take to anyplace they go that is public. God dislikes anyone to presume to know his mind, MY god is not in the hate business

Exodite was quoting Shakespeare, Michelle... He wasn't literally calling for the death of legal attorneys.

Based off his other comment, that wouldn't be the logical first conclusion for most people. I don't care who he was quoting, he's being disgusting.

Michelle, would you like me to link you to a custom infographic showing how little I care about your opinion of my opinion?

Westboro is worst of the worst. I agree with the above poster who said laws need to be passed at the local level that designate where and how protests can take place. That's the only way to fight back. We must have free speech, no matter how wrong we think someone's POV is.

Local Law...a right to protest when and where group deems it should be, at a distance of 5,280 feet from where said event to be protested is taking place.

A more public admonishment of Westboro from the Justices, exercising their right to free speech, may have helped sentiment here.

Freedom for all or freedom for none... I agree with this decision. This "church" and the methods they employ are truly disgusting. However, they are not illegal. In any case, silencing them by law does little to defeat the message. A real and lasting defeat could be acheived quite easily by denying these people the attention they crave. Ignore them.. no counter protest, no media attention, no outward appearance that you even acknowlege their presence. Easier said than done, I know.. But it will work. The moment that they lose an audience, they will lose interest.

For my part, I will no longer read, watch or comment on any news story that is about them. Show the media that we aren't interested in this fringe group of reality show wannabes and they will quickly move on to other stories. There are certainly enough stories that actually warrant the publics attention. This simply isn't one of them.

This is not a sad day. Sad situation, but it's a great day. I actually get to agree with a bunch of people I usually disagree with. That said, the court actually made the right decision. Free speech is way to important to let these idiots ruin it for the rest of us.

I would like to address another thing that I have observed. There are some comments discussing some sort of violent reaction should these individuals show up in various neighborhoods. Isn't it great that we still have the freedom to talk about such things? Now, just being hypothetical, if someone does give these people an ass whipping one day, and ends up on trial for assault or worse, who here would vote to acquit said assailant should they be on the jury? Ain't jury nullification grand?

Free speech and actions are two different things. The actions of these hate mongerers are no different from the KKK. Yet, authorities went after the KKK. Disrupting funerals and adding emotional turmoil to the grieving family are not rights guaranteed to anyone. In my community I would be arrested for such a thing. But when the Phelps idiots came here to protest at the Jewish Holocaust Museum and several high schools, the police walked on egg shells. The gay community and supporters picketed also, but showed respect and were not loud.

If Phelps was the real Christian he claimed to be, he would spend this money used for travel on something loving and positive--like feeding the homeless in Witchita, Kansas. There is no way Phelps and his band of mentally deranged idiots can be called Christians. The teachings of Jesus in no way give validity to what these idiots are dioing. They are using religion to hide behind their hateful bigotry.

Is Phelps so afraid of gays because he is secretly gay and ashamed of it? Could be. Preachers have been known to harp loudest on their own secret sin. Being gay is not a sin. So Fred, if you're gay, its OK with God!

Picketing and protests at funerals are despicable. The protesters at funerals should know that it hurts their cause and makes me hate them more than the thing they are protesting against. Funerals are private family moments and no one should ever interfere with them.

Shugga Bear,

I am a Christian. Please don't lump all of us in with this Bozo and his group. My God loves all. And would never approve of what they are doing. They are an occult hiding in the "Church Shield" for legal purposes. They preach hate on all levels. They are not Christians. They are what the Bible states, "Wolves in Sheep's Clothing!!"

BW, you can't compare these bozos to the klan. They are not the same. While their actions are despicable, they're not killing and lynching. They're not physically hurting anyone. They're making some noise. It's awful, but the court wisely decided being awful isn't illegal. Don't get too worked up about it. Church vans are notoriously unsafe. As much as these idiots are on the road, something will happen. The odds are not on their side, and their God probably isn't either.

Sally -

While I appreciate your restoring my comment, I must confess to being confused by your suspending Exodite.

Good thing the Bard isn't alive to post here. You'd probably suspend him!

In his play, Henry VI, he wrote:

All:
God save your majesty!

Cade:
I thank you, good people—there shall be no money; all shall eat
and drink on my score, and I will apparel them all in one livery,
that they may agree like brothers, and worship me their lord.

Dick:
The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.

Cade:
Nay, that I mean to do.

Henry The Sixth, Part 2, Act 4, scene 2, 71-78.

by William Shakespeare

I understand Exodite isn't Shakespeare, but then again, you're not the Supreme Court - hasn't some right been violated here? I say spare the lawyers and sue!

;-p

Randy from Maine.

I've been this route with Sally before. There is a difference between violating the rules of Newsvine, and her just deleting something she disagrees with. Freedom of speech might involve something you don't like, but it doesn't deserve to be deleted. She never answered me int he past. Most of the posts on these vines have something I disagree with, but it doesn't mean I want them deleted. If it is someone's opinion that another person should die, so be it. They are not directly threatening anyone.

yes- where is tyler?

I believe there should be protests at their church daily......

Joker69 - You may not understand the fine points of the law. What you are saying is on the brink of prohibited free speech. I hope you recognize the difference.

My motto is "Almost doesn't count".

This group must have members that pass away as well. Why doesn't someone protest against them. They need to know how it feels. Southern Baptist Church groups should be amoung those who protest.

Someone needs to muzzle those Westboro Idiots. Even my ultra conservative Christian Mother-in-law thinks they need to be tossed out of the country.

This is infuriating, we have been waiting for the Law to do something about these Extremists and they do nothing! All you Christians need to police your own, before someone does something stupid.

are they nuts is correct and one day a grieving family member will attack them and very likely use deadly force and then they will cry and not be able to accept that the acts against them are their fault/

And by the way if I was on a jury that heard such a case I would agree with the family instead of these provocateurs

Maybe we will get lucky and the Westboro Baptist church will accidentally protest the WTO then it will be ok for the government to deny them the right to protest.

Anybody want to bet what would happen if a nasty group of protestors started yelling outside the homes of a supreme court judge?

You'd be out of there faster than a teenager caught brastrap in hand in his girlfriends bedroom. You'd be in jail for years.

This country is really, really in trouble.

I guess the old saying of "If you want to get something done right, you have to do it yourself" is right. This is like the feds abandoning Arizona to the illegals.

SO, it's up to US folks. Time for a visit to Westboro?

...

On a positive note, Phelps is so very old that he'll likely be dead in a few years.
His demise will likely take the hot air out of their "organization". Of course, they are reaping the benefit of religious organizations' tax exempt status, so doubtful they will go away completely - why give up that cash cow?

Do I agree with the church? No. Do I agree with the courts decision? Yes... We as a country keep bitching about our rights being taken away, and it is because of people like these, pushing the envelope towards offencive, that make that happen.

It seems religion would take a step back and realize that it is antics like these, that are causing their pews to be lees and less full.

On a positive note, Phelps is so very old that he'll likely be dead in a few years.

He's already indoctrinated his grandchildren into hate. Look up the youtube videos of Westboro children as young as 4 singing and dancing that God hates fags and America.

Just to keep this real Westboro is not affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention. They are an independent church choosing to call themselves Baptist.

Randy, to call this a right wing church based ruling by the Supreme Court is just plain stupid. Like the article stated, media groups like the AP supported the ruling based on the constitutional right to free speech.

I'm curious as to who the lone dissenting justice was, and I'm looking forward to reading their decision.

I wonder how FOX is going to report this......

@Flynavy: What do you want to bet: Scalia or Thomas ?

While I would have liked to have seen a banning of protests at Funerals. Something, I guess is reserved for politicians. This was in no way a right wing decision.

That sounds like child abuse. Teaching hate to kids? Where are the Gay activists? Where is Al and Jesse?

Joker69-Sactown

Nothing that a few gallons of gas and a match won't fix. Especially if mass is in session. Hah, I love this free speech stuff. Works both ways.

Do you know the difference between Assault and Assault and battering charges? Free speech isn't FREE speech - thanks to tards like these at the Baptist church. Do you really want to go down the path of giving up your rights because someone misuses theirs? I don't.

The WBC is not concerned with correcting anyone's morals.

This is a scam organization. Topeka has known this for years. The fellow hides behind the very generous policies we have in the US that protect religious organizations. He has figured out how to scam people.

Some of his children are lawyers (as is he) and some are in sociology/psychology. The sociologist/psychologists look for something that is way beyond the pale and will provoke people to anger and action. The lawyers then sue the people who act to "infringe the rights of the church members." They then collect money.

What I want to know is whether the SCOTUS upheld the finding against the father who sued them. Now, that was outrageous.

But, the best way to deal with Phelps and his clan is either to resurrect the investigations against him (apparently for pederastry) or against his other family members (I understand there is some child abuse that's been reported) or to figure out a way to deprive his "church" of its tax exempt status.

Or, well, to just laugh at them. This is a transparent attempt to provoke people--it is about as sophisticated as school yard taunts. Maybe if a bunch of comedians showed up at WBC protests and started making fun of them and getting people to laugh instead of being angry?

Otherwise, don't be very surprised one someone makes good on the threats against the lives of WBC members. Violence is wrong--but you know, I won't shed any more tears over them than I did over Ted Bundy's execution.

I was wondering who the lone justice was also. Ninety Percent of this country wants to see Westboro shut down. The question is; What can we do about them now that the Law has failed?

Sad. But the Constitution is never convenient and I guess this is the downside. We all have the right to protect these families so I hope each community whose soldier is being buried is able to counter these idiots with their voices.

I accept the ruling as it stands today but like all abusers of a right have a right to abuse, this door swings both ways. I hope they will learn it is not just their abusive voices that count if communities make sure mourners are protected peacefully, graciously, legally and in overwhelming numbers.

I think what best sums this situation up is

'Just because you have the right do do it, doesn't make it right to do it'

On a philosophical level I defend the Westboro Church's right to protest, but that doesn't mean that I like what they have to say or the manner in which they choose to say it one damn bit!

Ellie

You are a jerk of the first order. Roberts was a Bush appointee, the republikans were very happy with themselves at the time with him.

I wonder how FOX is going to report this...

Clearly, this will give them new license to turn up the volume on their own brand of homophobia.

Justice Alito is America's hero in this very dark hour.

Thank god for George W. Bush who appointed him.

Wow Ellie, Fox "news" really got to you. Must be rather comforting for you to only rely on one source of biased information as God's truth.

Hey Westboro Baptist Church:

God hates dead soulless opportunistic a-holes.

MOS in Colorado,

They'll show up once they start telling people God hates black homosexuals.

I really hope that we don't see violent actions against the protesters, however, because this would mean they won. I would hate to see a grieving family member under arrest for striking out and I would hate to see another cash award given to this group who is simply playing the system.

As difficult as it may be, ignoring them is the best solution. The more press they get the better their chances of inciting someone to take action, ie giving them another person to sue.

I hate this! I despise them! But the 1st amendment is after the the 1st amendment. We just can't have it both ways. But, I hate it! But, I love the 1st amendment. Damn.

After reading this,I'd like to invite members of the Hell's Angel's 'Motorcycle Afficionado' Club to reside at ALL Military funerals.....Some of them have served,so They have a better sense of America than our court system ,and our politicians do..(BOTH parties).......And please don't collapse this comment,as it would;" offend me,and violate my 1st Ammendment rights........which I have fought for............U.S.Army Disabled Veteran

DUH101... No, not Scalia or Thomas.

They vote as a block. Thomas does everything Scalia tells him to. If Scalia says "crap", Thomas starts checking his pants

I'm guessing Alito, or Breyer dissented.

Uh, I don't think bringing a gang of criminals is really the best way to prove a point, JW...

wayloud - Just to keep this real Westboro is not affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention. They are an independent church choosing to call themselves Baptist.

What Westboro teaches about gays is very similar if not identical to what most of the SBC teaches. The only difference is the level of publicity of that irrational hate, and that Westboro uses its homophobia as a full-time job.

Both Westboro and the SBC want to use our secular law to impose their bizarre beliefs about gays on everyone else.

FLYNAVY1;

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the opinion for the court.

Justice Samuel Alito dissented.

There ya go.

The 'church' is in reality a cult. Phelps is a lawyer as are eleven of his children. Interestingly enoungh, Phelps was a civil rights lawyer and received an award from the NAACP. He was quoted as saying "god hates fags, not blacks." They make money suing people who go after them and why they still have 'church' status escapes me since they are not a church. The definition of a cult is a large group with religious leanings led by a chrismatic leader. Remove the leader and the church dissolves.

The SCOTUs ruling is interesting in view of the legislation on 'hate speech' since this is a perfect example of hate speech. Guess this is more of the selective aspects of legislation in 21st century America.

Michelle, this Supreme Court would probably parole Charles Manson. And as far as the 1st Amendment goes, you probably worship Assange as a saint.

You are pa-thec-tic.

Ninety Percent of this country wants to see Westboro shut down.

Count me among the 90%. But that's not the point: Freedom of speech is a right independent of majority opinion. It protects criticism of government and the expression or advocacy of unpopular ideas. The constraints on free speech are well established: It cannot be obscene according the definition of obscenity in the Miller decision (this case doesn't come close to meeting that definition, however broadly some of us might define obscene); it cannot advocate child pornography; it cannot incite imminent violence; and it must conform to minimal truth in advertising standards.

The question is; What can we do about them now that the Law has failed?

Judging from the comments so far, the law has succeeded: Unpopular speech has been protected. Undermining freedom of speech is a slippery slope. Detach yourself from the content of the admittedly repulsive speech and ask yourself where you would stand if the Obama administration had cracked down on Tea Party rallies?

Good decision, bad people. Nothing wrong with punching the jerk out, but you can't say he can't speak.

It would be great when one of the a holes die to picket their funeral with signs that say "Thank God For Another Dead WBC Member". Im sure these pricks might feel alittle different then. Sorry but an eye for an eye might be the only way to get though.

How does this ruling impact the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress?

Lynn Grant, are you seriously that ignorant? You would agree to trample someones rights because they are doing or saying something that is disliked? So, since I don't like what you are writing, the law should be empowered to come into your home and take your computer or shut off your internet? Maybe you are the one who needs to be muzzled. You also wrote:

Someone needs to muzzle those Westboro Idiots. Even my ultra conservative Christian Mother-in-law thinks they need to be tossed out of the country.

This is infuriating, we have been waiting for the Law to do something about these Extremists and they do nothing! All you Christians need to police your own, before someone does something stupid.

Of course you had to also make it political with the comment about your mother-in-law. Why don't you educate yourself before you spout off. In my opinion all it does is make you look stupid, but then again if the shoe fits...right.

I am a christian and it is not my job to 'police' anyone. I do not agree with what these self proclaimed 'christians' are doing, because it is obvious to me that they do not read and follow the teachings of the bible. They will pay for their sins and the sins of those whom they taught their hate filled wordd to. BUT DO NOT LUMP ALL CHRISTIANS TOGETHER for the actions of a few....hmmm I do beleive that is called profiling. Would you like it if I said all democrats are the same, all black people are the same, all white people are the same???? In each and every group people are different and follow different paths. That alone does not make them all good or bad, sinners or nonsinners, etc.

The comments you have made are liken to Nazi Germany...ohh such a bad word there right, but again if the shoe fits, wear it. Read your history books peole, many of the comments I read on these sites are no different than the feelings many had during that time period in their country. We as a people in the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA of all people should know better and reread our own history and remember all the scarifices made.

None of us are perfect, nor shall we be ever. But own desire to be treated with respect should be honored whether someone agrees with our views or not. A funeral is a time of mourning not a time to spew hate messages. I understand that MD has made some new laws that will help prevent this in the future, I just they enforce them.

On a side note, I would start picketing these peoples personal homes [not with hate] and see how they like their privacy shatterd when large groups stand in front of their house talking about how God does not hate. NO WHERE IN THE BIBLE DOES IT SAY GOD HATED ANYTHING>

What kind of an idiot do you have to be in order to blame this SC decision on Obama?

Let's face it: the church sucks, no doubt about that. But if you start banning various forms of speech, it will never end. The decision is a painful one, but the court ruled correctly - as much as I hate to say it. If you don't like it, you will need to try to change the constitution.

I don't care for the "speech" offered by virtually any conservative. But in no way do I think such speech should be banned. Likewise, I couldn't possibly disagree more with the anti-American attitudes expressed by the church, but the law allows them to do what they do.

It's America. You have the right to be as moronic as you want. And I'd have it no other way.

I believe the article stated Alito was the dissenter.

As for Westboro - the very best thing we all could collectively do is ignore them. It's easier said than done, i realize, but I suspect their existence is about attention - and others have said, profitting off of countersuits.

The other aspect of this that is driving me up the wall - I see on these boards any time there is a discussion about "radical islamists" calls from ignorant christians "why arent the moderate muslims silencing them, denouncing them, doing everything they can to make it clear they are not us"...

and ya know, im wondering the same thing about the christian community here in america...groups like Focus on the Family, NOM, and others that spread a milder brand of hate and fear towards homosexuals are just as much a part of the problem as WBC is...though, somehow all of this is tolerated by the larger more "moderate" christian community that actually practices what jesus preaches - love thy neighbor as they self, he who is without sin cast the first stone, do unto others as you'd have done to you...and so on.

I really, really would like to see the REAL CHRISTIANS OF AMERICA STAND UP and SPEAK OUT. though, I suspect our media wouldnt give them a voice...not when its better to cover the trash that is WBC.

@what, Fly Navy, et.al.: as I previously mentioned, wrote my post based on the first blub that came out, before the more complete article.

I agree with you Fly, I can't wait to see Alito's reasoning. IMO there can be no justification for removing first amendment rights.

Likewise, I would applaud someone exercising their 2nd Amendment rights against the Phelps clan while expressing their opinion of the protests. I wonder what a jury would have to say about that? :)

Hate reigns + free speech wins! I am so sorry for the families of those warriors who have given their lives & others who have been caught in the crosshairs of the hateful Phelps clan.

As far as I am concerned, the Phelps' are the new breed of terrorists residing within our US borders.

8 out of 9 sided with that group of idiots???? This is what happens when we turn our country over to a bunch of liberal sissies!

This moron does not know his behind from a hole in the ground and proves it. The supreme court is not liberal but conservative 5-4 if you take a conservatives view of it and in reality 6-3. The opinion was backed by 4 conservatives and 4 so called liberals and was correct as it is free speech just like letting the Nazi's march in a Jewish neighborhood. Both decisions were painful and both were correct. Both were the wrong thing to do but are protected. Take you liberal hate message back to your cave

YES THEY ARE NUTS- and there is MORE to come I am sure!.

Public comment or private grief- the court is holding high the opinion on speech but at the cost of private grief. I want to read the entire opinion but THIS is what you get...

This was not a liberal decision or a conservative decision. It is recognition of the 1st amendment of the Constitution. There really wasn't a "decision" that needed to be made. I certainly don't agree with what these people are saying, but taking away their right to say it would be a step towards the collapse of the Constitution.

I'd like to point out to the people on this thread who have been saying "Christians need to police your own," etc - these people are in no way following a Christ-like way of life, ie, what it is to be a Christian. John 15:12 says "This is my commandment: Love each other as I have loved you." It's pretty simple. Please don't take the actions of these loud, hateful few and use it as a representation of true Christians.

What this so called church is doing at funerals is not Christian at all, but there are many protesters in this country who cry their fair share of hate and malice towards others who don't agree with their views. Anybody remember the 60's??? Protesters voice their own beliefs and views, why should some get away with it and others don't.

God Bless our soldiers who have truly given their lives to try and protect us. These men and women who have sacrificed their lives, and the ones who have had their lives permanently altered with horrific injuries should never be forgotten or treated with disrespect. We owe them!

To all of you who see this as a political football take a second to thank the Court for defending the right to free speech. Even though the speech of this church is deplorable it is protected by our constitution.

What if the court had decided it was not protected speech?

Would your speech here with all of the opposing views be tolerated?

Would the union protesters speech be protected? Some of those signs are a little over the top don't you think?.

I for one am please that the Court ruled this way. In no way does that indicate support for the Wesboro bunch. But it is a big win for freedom and liberty.

I have to wonder for those who oppose the ruling what their motive could be. Do you really think that only speech that you agree with should be allowed? Who get to decide if your speech is illegal?

Do you see how upset people get for censorship by collapsing posts on here? If a bureaucrat got that power we would all come unglued.

Indeed they are taking anti-gay to a shameful, all new height of unChristian (Jesus hates sin but he doesn't hate sinners) but our Constitution protects freedom of religion and of speech. I find it ironic that they are protesting at military funerals when it is our military that protects the Constitution which protects their right to protest. God protect our troops from all their enemies; enemies w/in and w/o. Btw, I find it typical that it was a Republican that did not uphold the Constitution. The end does not justify the means. Just like this church's disagreeing w/ homosexuality does not justify it protests (which the Constitution allows). So I do NOT support this group or hate but I do support the Constitution.

What people must do is what the good people of Harrisonville MO. did. They "escorted" them to their vans and said "adios". It's all up to decent people to rally around the grieving families of soldiers and protect them from this scum who hides behind their "church".

People must ban together and insist that cities make laws making it illegal to protest at funerals. WBC can say whatever they like but not in earshot of a funeral. It's the only way to control their vile filth.

This is outrageous. To all the people who say this is protected because you have the right to counter their actions, that is ridiculous. A funeral is not the place for a debate and conflict. Yes they do have a right to say what they want, but that does not give them the right to infringe on this man's one and only chance to burry his son. They could have done it the day before of the day after. They are not after free speech they are just trying to incite violence and make themselves look like the victims. I see the government once again will not protect me, my family, or common sense so you must take matters into your own hands.

Justwonderin - My city has the Patriot Guard that performs a motorcade during funerals of fallen soldiers. They also stand guard when WBC pickets. They rev their engines as the family drives by so that they don't have to here the vile, putrid, hate that is spewed by WBC.

Toasty - it is a fallicy that Hells Angels are criminals. Not all people who ride bikes are bad people. Take me, I have a clean record other than a speeding ticket here or there, but I have a Harley. We don't have a chapter in my city, but they and most all motorcycle clubs do good within their community by donating money from poker runs to various organizations and as mentioned previously by guarding military funerals among other things.

Sig - I was wondering the same thing. If the poem that was written used Matthew's parent's names, then could they not sue the writer of the poem for slander or libel? That would be interesting to see. The parent's wouldn't be suing the church just the writer.

I'm not saying that all motorcyclists are criminals... Just that the Hell's Angels are, you know, KNOWN for just that. It's kind of their thing.

This group must have members that pass away as well. Why doesn't someone protest against them. They need to know how it feels. Southern Baptist Church groups should be amoung those who protest.

I believe the leader of this church is elderly. It would be very fitting to bring busloads of picketers for his funeral. They could hold signs that say "God hates bigots."

That being said, I think the Supreme Court got this one right. Just because you can legally do a thing, though, it doesn't mean you should do that thing.

Frankly, I'm amazed that somebody didn't off this p**** already. Shocking behavior.

I understand the court's decision to uphold free speech - free speech is a right and it is not relevant whether or not that speech is popular.

However, there is a point at which "free speech" becomes illegal. That's why there are laws against defamation of character, etc. And if you replace the word "gays" and "homosexuals" in the WBC's slogans with "blacks" or "jews" their actions would be illegal. It's not about the protesting of funerals, as horrible as that is, it's about the antigay protests which should be against the law.

The Supreme Court is not supreme. There is another court that supercedes all the courts in America and around the world. Unfortunately that court's justice is not rendered until the final judgement day. God will deal with all who are unjust. That is small consolation to the individuals and families who the Westboro morons confront.

Millions of babies have been murdered because of a SC decision. Other injustices have been either allowed or perpetrated because of faulty human judgement. All of those injustices will one day be made right.

Every religion and faith has adherents who belittle those who act out of love and truth. The people of the Westboro church are no more Baptist than George Carlin was. They are misguided but they are not alone. In today's world, people who bring violence in any form in the name of their faith or religion are doing an injustice to their fellow humans. God will deal with them all - Christians, Jews, Muslims or any other.

I believe homosexuality is a sin because I see in the Bible that God created man and woman as partners (and because it is condemned). God made us a certain way on purpose. I will never be convinced that men or women are born to love people of their own gender in the way that homosexuals would have us believe. I know many of you think I am am wrong in this matter and that is all right by me. My point is what do I (and we should do) about the fact that I think homosexuality is a moral choice and not what God intended? I think I should (and do) respect all who disagree and lovingly try to persuade or enlighten them. It is the same with abortion. I believe God hates the destruction of human life, but what do I do about it? I try to persuade and convince people in a way that they will at least listen to me.

The Westboro people have lost sight of a loving God who wants all to come to him and repair their broken relationships with him. People will never see the love of God if we keep spewing hatred. I choose to love those I disagree with because that is what Jesus did and I want to be like him. I will pray for the SC, the Westboro Morons, and all others who think I see as wrong.

Sorry this is so long. Thanks to those who stuck around through all of this.

Brandon-2581971,

Although I sympathize with you position, I must respectfully disagree. Free speech is either free or it isn't. There is no middle ground.

I totally support your right to go and protest the Wesboro Church however and make your voice heard. I hope your sign is better than theirs. Itis not the Governments business to do it for you.

Catjmj,

I applaud the Patriot Guard and everyone else who helps keep these nut jobs away from soldiers funerals. Their dedication and service cannot be appreciated enough. I am very happy that they have an opportunity to exercise their free speech unfettered.

Let Freedom Ring!

"Alito strongly disagreed. "Our profound national commitment to free and open debate is not a license for the vicious verbal assault that occurred in this case," he said." --- Kudos to Justice Alito

I love the Hells Angels. They are no more criminals than the Wall Street guys, they just don't wear suits. And they sell goods and services-you get something for your money when you deal with them-unlike the Wall Street guys who just take your money and run.

The Hell's Angels are an American icon. And many of them served for the country. I think they should show up at all the protests held by this twisted group. Freedom of assembly y'know. They could stand in a line right in front of the protesters, arms crossed, and slowly move them back one step at a time. The don't have to say a word!

My husband and I ride bikes. We also have multiple degrees and work with the juvenile justice system.

While the protests were painful, the majority wrote that the Constitution protects even hurtful speech on public issues.

"What Westboro said, in the whole context of how and where it chose to say it, is entitled to 'special protection' under the First Amendment," Roberts wrote, "and that protection cannot be overcome by a jury finding that the picketing was outrageous."

What?!?!?!? "Special Protection"????? "Outrageous?" More like offensive and disrespectful. No longer is there such a thing as appropriate behavior for a serious event.

Recently we have had to listen to the Left malign Republican and Conservative leaders in a quest to lay blame where none belonged. Then the President steps in "asking for more civility." Now with this ruling, is the Left going to increase their "Outrageous" commentary? (Since they really never stopped, just toned it down a bit.)

Obviously, localities are going to have to take care of this problem.

The problem with the Bill of Rights is that there is always a very fine line between where one person's rights end and another person's rights begin. To me, the SCOTUS failed to address that fine line in this decision and in every other 1st Amendment decision over the course of the history of this nation. I doubt that it will ever be addressed.

But, the IRS CAN and needs to take action against WBC by removing their tax-exempt status. They are nothing but a family corporation using their religion to write off all of their ill-gotten court gained "earnings."

I loathe these people with the heat of a supernova. But there was no other way for the SC to rule. I'm sure they aren't any happier about it than we all are.
Westboro is not a church. They are a terrorist organization using the Christian religion as a shield.

Toasty,and Catjmj;; That was just a way of me venting my frustration at this.Not condoning violence. Although the Hell's Angels probably have a HIGHER number of veterans in thier members than the Supreme Court,..or congress,the senate,and the White house for that matter.The scarey thing is; as a whole,I have no doubt in my military mind that every serviceman,and woman, have no second thoughts in defending our Constituition.....Even as it's abused and twisted by our"lawmakers"(BOTH parties)...and this cult calling itself a church......as for our military members,past and present;.ALL gave some....and Some have given ALL ...without thanks from some cults,so they have the "right??!!??!?" to commit a HATE CRIME at military funerals.I hope this isn't the 'new' American way..........U.S.Army Disabled Veteran

Pastorized: So you're pretty much a raging lunatic, amirite?

what would jesus do ? what would rambo do ?

Wow, this opens the door for ALL radical groups, or individuals participating in groups, calling for the overthrow of our Republic.

U.S. Code, Title 18, Part I, Chapter 115, Article 2385: Advocating overthrow of the government:

Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government; or

Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so; or

Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes thereof—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.

Source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002385----000-.html

Yep, figure this Administration to direct the AG to uphold the above Code since they are refusing to uphold current LAWS signed by the President(s) and their lame excuse for doing so will be based upon this SC decision.

Reposting because original thread's first entry was collapsed:

This entire matter of free speech is one of the most challenging in any society.

One of the greatest French writers and philosophers, Voltaire, offered this view in the mid-1700's:

"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

Voltaire himself was imprisoned for his views - which were strongly anti-clerical, critical of the government, and by standards of his day often outrageous.

The principle of free speech in the U.S. was put into the Constitution - FIRST of the Bill of Rights - because the Founders had lived all their lives under a government that most definitely did not allow free speech.

One of the great moments of American Colonial history came in 1735, when newspaper publisher John Peter Zenger, accused of seditious libel for criticizing New York's governor, was found innocent by a jury. The case established a precedent for free speech and made a lasting impression on the colonists. But the British Crown continued to oppress publishers, writers, and public speakers.

What Westboro says is revolting and offensive. What Westboro is not doing is shoulting "Fire!" in a crowded theater - a form of speech that is not protected.

On due thought, I must agree with Voltaire - and the Supreme Court.

TinStars "Please don't take the actions of these loud, hateful few and use it as a representation of true Christians."

I dont suspect thats going to happen any sooner than christians stop thinking all muslims are terrorists, or at the very least their "silence" on the subject suggests they "silently" support those terrorists.

However, WBC does have a lot in common with other christians - namely their disgust for homosexuals. The level by which they display it may differ...but I struggle to find a vast difference between groups like WBC and NOM, or Focus on the Family - other than the hateful protesting at funerals.

However, NOM and Focus on the Family, and mormon groups...have no problem dumping money, time and energy on destroying gay people and ensuring they'll never see equal rights in this SECULAR NATION we live in.

So to me, they may be apples and oranges...but their still the same - FRUIT.

You people are giving them exactly what they want . . . ATTENTION.

Did you know that they called off the Arizona shooting protest because a radio station agreed to give them air time? That is all they want, publicity and attention.

This is an extreme right group that twists the Bible to fit their position. Ironically, EVERY right-wing group twists the Bible to fit their position . . . this group just goes to the extreme with it. As Jessica pointed out, show me one "Christian" group that has not said the EXACT same thing about homosexuality. It's funny that the Christians here will say these people are nothing like them, but agree with their views of homosexuality. Just look at ANY forum on gay marriage and you will see just how traditional "Christians" feel about it.

If the individual has a soul, a conscience, he does not require a written law, written by man, to dictate what is evil and what is ethical! This ragged, moldering piece of paper, written hundreds of years ago, has no relevancy of today. This rotting chunk of paper was crafted when this nation participated in witch burnings, slavery and the genocide of the Native Americans, a document reflecting and condoning pure evil. I would have thought we would have evolved to a higher worldview and paradigm. By now.

That we condone the wicked rantings, cruelty and evil of this tiny group of, Christian hate mongers, no more conscious of evil versus basic human decency than voodoo and witch burnings, says much about the quality of the education and collective morals of a society that cares more about a rotting piece of an evil history than simple, basic human decency.

These evil, cruel, human trash hate mongers should be burned at the stake, along with the idiots that believe a rotting piece of paper is the holy grail. The holy grail is the human heart, full of compassion and love and that little something that tells our souls and hearts, when a word, a sign or an action is evil -- regardless of paper laws, written by mere men, written hundreds of years ago.

What idiots.

How can a private matter such as the death of a son, regardless that the sons death was in the line of duty while serving his country, become a public matter or concern as justice breyer wrote?

Addressing public concerns at private services should not be covered by free speech. Addressing public matters should be done only in public places and a funeral home should not be considered a public place due to the fact that it hosts private family matters. And if funeral homes are to be considered public places then the law should allow funerals to be held at private residences with all the privacy of such a residence guaranteed as it is to most private residences.

If I was to address, publically, outside a mosque that I or god have no tolerance for muslims and all muslims will burn in hell and are terrorists, would I be protected for addressing my public concern? Or would I be in some violation for what most would consider a hate speech? Even though I was practicing my right to free speech, how would it be viewed by the courts?

roguemoon55

I love the Hells Angels. They are no more criminals than the Wall Street guys, they just don't wear suits. And they sell goods and services-you get something for your money when you deal with them-unlike the Wall Street guys who just take your money and run.

The Hell's Angels are an American icon. And many of them served for the country. I think they should show up at all the protests held by this twisted group. Freedom of assembly y'know. They could stand in a line right in front of the protesters, arms crossed, and slowly move them back one step at a time. The don't have to say a word!

My husband and I ride bikes. We also have multiple degrees and work with the juvenile justice system.

Actually they are deadly. Comparing them to wallstreet guys does not clean them up. I think you are mixing their initial history with who runs today. They do not clean up that easily nor do they want to. Many dead people can testify that the Hells Angels can be much more brutal than someone who rides bikes on weekends may fully understand or appreciate.

This is a despicable ruling from the Supreme court. Just as these people are despicable for tainting our war heroes, if not more.

As much as I hate this ruling, (yes, I am a conservstive), have to respect the court for upholding the first amendment. (yeck, that just left a bitter taste in my mouth). We can't have it both ways. I hear how are rights are being stripped away, yet the high court of our land, has upheld one of most sacred rights. Like it or not, they did the right thing.

As for the church and its minions, I too do not know how they are able to keep their church status. But then, that is a slippery slope, all its own.

I can not convey into words, how repugnant these people are to me. I am not religious, and I dont believe in the church, or any religion for that matter, but I am spiritual, and if God can see fit to smote these cretins, I'll have a very nice day.

With all the people in this country outraged at this churchs protesting at dead soldiers funerals, I think it' time to organize a protest outside this protesting congragations church. Phelps church. There should be a never ending protest over how this church protests. The protest could last 24 hours a day until it stops this sick and emotionally damaging protest at funerals.

I say organize the protest to last 24 hours a day with a never ending cycle of people rotating in and out of the protest. With the millions of people who are tired and outraged at the Phelps church, it should be no problem getting a never ending cycle of people as protesters. Let's see how Phelps likes it and how the courts would view it.

The divide is growing greater and greater. This will encourage the nuts to interrupt anything. They believe that no one should have any privacy or sanctity against their right to cheapen the most important and private events of everyone....If death and mourning can be turned into a political event, they will be starting up with weddings, births, hospitals, courts, etc. You will never be able to observe any part of life or death without an idiot getting his publicity by being in your face....with the media following along behind...

@Skor - amazing! You condemn the Constitution (a "rotting chunk of paper"...interesting...but it's on parchment, aka animal skin) because it was written at a time when, in YOUR history book, people were burning witches (You're about a hundred years late on that one) yet follow up that these people should be burned at the stake.

It's true that a person shouldn't need someone to tell him what's right and wrong for him to make the "right" decision about morals, but the WBC is a very clear example of that not being enough. Our country needs laws to keep people like them from killing people just because they disagree. And I certainly don't think anyone thinks the Constitution is the "Holy Grail," but it does a dam fine job of protecting the rights of the people in this country.

1. These people do not represent Christianity or any follower of Christ.

2. The ruling was correct. I do not agree with these people and feel we, as Americans, should find a way to protect our fallen heroes from this trash, however as much as I hate to say, the correct ruling was given.

3. The ruling protects all of our rights to free speech. What needs to be examined is the intent of these fools and exactly how the abuse of their rights are causing civil harm to our society. This disrespect is affecting all of us either directly or indirectly and we need to find a solution that does not weaken our rights to free speech. Unfortunately, I do not have one.

Westboro is worst of the worst. I agree with the above poster who said laws need to be passed at the local level that designate where and how protests can take place. That's the only way to fight back. We must have free speech, no matter how wrong we think someone's POV is.

Local Law...a right to protest when and where group deems it should be, at a distance of 5,280 feet from where said event to be protested is taking place.

A more public admonishment of Westboro from the Justices, exercising their right to free speech, may have helped sentiment here.

They should have charged them with Defamation of Character. They cannot prove that these people are going to Hell. Also, it mentioned in the article that they wrote a blog about the parenting of the desceased. They are portraying these people negatively and giving false statements. This is not freedom of speech. Even on this board you could have your comment removed if it is too negative.

Cue -

1. These people do not represent Christianity or any follower of Christ.

That's right, because Christianity and "followers of Christ" love their homosexual brothers and sisters. Just look at all the "Christians" who support equality for homosexuals.

Yup, you are absolutely right. The vast majority of Christians do not agree with the Westboro stance on homosexuality. You are all very accepting and loving of the gay population.

/sarcasm off

The church used to concern its self with the moral code of its followers but now it is involved in politics and it wants to concern its self with the moral code of all people and not just its followers. They have crossed the line and they have begun to interfere in the lives of people who do not attend their church. We are going to get to a point where it is necessary to stop the churches interference in our politics and in our lives.

"Why do some Liberals want the Constitution to be a living document".

Scalia criticized those who believe in what he called the "living Constitution."

"That's the argument of flexibility and it goes something like this: The Constitution is over 200 years old and societies change. It has to change with society, like a living organism, or it will become brittle and break."

"But you would have to be an idiot to believe that," Scalia said. "The Constitution is not a living organism, it is a legal document. It says something and doesn't say other things."

Proponents of the living constitution want matters to be decided "not by the people, but by the justices of the Supreme Court."

Source: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070409080242AAXhP7L

Lucy wrote:

there are many protesters in this country who cry their fair share of hate and malice towards others who don't agree with their views. Anybody remember the 60's???

I remember the 60s. I don't think you do, though. Most of the hate and malice were directed against protestors. It was the police who loosed the fire hoses and dogs on the march in Selma and the National Guard that opened fire at Kent State.

Picketing and protests at funerals are despicable. The protesters at funerals should know that it hurts their cause and makes me hate them more than the thing they are protesting against. Funerals are private family moments and no one should ever interfere with them.

Cali... your feelings regarding Christians are understood. I would agree that the religion has been very exclusive of homosexuals, however as you stated they are our bothers and sisters just like any other and are no better or worse.

The majority of Christians do agree that there are teachings and interpretations that do not tolerate homosexuality. However those same teachings do not tolerate any other sin and most certainly leaves any judgement to God himself as we all fall into the same mold. I would present to you that anyone who truly follows Christ will not do so with arrogance and spite.

These people .. however.. have taken it upon themselves to push people from Christ, judge, damn, condemn, and hate the sinner as much as the sin. This does not represent followers of Christ. It may represent mainstream so called Christian Religion, but is not what Christianity is all about.

Ido Scalia is a corrupt moron. Scalia, Thomas, and Roberts should be thrown off the court at the least and thrown in prison at the most. We can thank many retarded republican presidents for those three stooges.

Perhaps, we need laws that permit people who are in agony and grief the inherent right to expect dignity, peace and privacy at the worst time in their lives. If these so called Christians, have a beef about gays, why not express their right to expression directly to the source, like across the street from the White House or carry placards so that this nation's policy makers actually view their free speech.

Personally, when I have a beef, I just email the lawmaker or the policymaker, carrying my free speech to the source. Why cause more pain and suffering to grieving souls who do not make the rules and write the laws?

How would these outrageous Christians feel if I were to run into their church, carrying placards, that these evil-doers should be burned at the stake or how would they feel if they had just lost their child, and I showed up at their funerals with a placard that said, "You lost your child because you are being punished because you hate gay Americans." My God is punishing you because you are hate mongers and worship hate! And, you are pure evil to My God!

Even Newsvine practices censorship to free speech, too, right. LOL.

Cue -

If you look at the history of Christianity you will see that it originated as a religion that worshiped the life of Jesus. If you read through the actual stories of Jesus, you will see that he never once condemns homosexuals. However, hundreds of years after the death of Jesus, self-proclaimed leaders of the Church wrote the Bible and added the "rules" regarding various lifestyles. (This is all verified by historians at the Vatican)

Basically, Jesus taught by example . . . love one another, accept each other, give to the needy, treat the least of men they way you would treat him, etc. On the other hand, MAN has pushed the judgmental aspect of Christianity. This is the primary reason that I no longer attend organized religion, because the followers no longer follow the life of Christ, they would prefer to pass judgment.

Gandhi was right, "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."

Cali.. you are right. Love one another, accept each other, give, etc. As I stated...what these protesters are doing does not represent followers of Christ. The traits you have listed.. do.

The history of Christianity goes way beyond the birth of Jesus. The words of the bible believed to have been inspired words of God is a fundamental belief of Christianity. This is where it is very hard for so many to give into faith as the primary means leading to salvation. Regardless of anyone's beliefs, Christ followers are not given the green light to hate, condemn..etc on behalf of Jesus and what these people do does not represent Christianity but a human distortion of religion as a basis of superiority.

@Jessica and any other progressive asking why no Christians stand up against the wackos...we do. Cali above me here put it very succinctly and I agree one hundred percent. There are millions of what I call myself-a Christ-follower-who follow the teachings of Jesus. He was asked by one of the religious right of His day what the most important commandmant was (and this is after Deuteronomy with all the thousands of laws). Jesus replied that the first and foremost commandment was to love God with your entire being and the second was like the first...to love your neighbor as yourself. The entire law is based on these two commandments. In another place, the Bible tells us that a multitude of sins are covered by love. This tells me that I am being much more like Jesus when I love those around me (and not just the ones that like me...that's easy). There is a group of progressive Christians who are trying to make a difference. The are called Faithful America.

Jessica,

I dont suspect thats going to happen any sooner than christians stop thinking all muslims are terrorists, or at the very least their "silence" on the subject suggests they "silently" support those terrorists.

Again, you're generalizing. I'm a Christian, and I have read the Koran. I don't believe that all Muslims are terrorists or terrorist sympathisers. There are Islamic Extremists JUST AS there are Christian Extremists. Extremists do not define the beliefs of the religion they claim to follow; in fact they're usually exactly the opposite.

However, WBC does have a lot in common with other christians - namely their disgust for homosexuals.

Please google "Episcopal Church." If you want to get the details quickly, enter "gay bishop" as well. Not all Christians express disgust with homosexuality. I recognise that many do, but they do not represent all of us.

So to me, they may be apples and oranges...but their still the same - FRUIT.

If by being the same fruit you mean we all worship God and believe Jesus died for our sins, then sure, we are. But if you mean all Christians are judgemental and closed minded and hateful, I hope you'll see differently when you open your mind. I do hope you look at the Episcopal information though; because it will show you a very different side of what it sounds like you have been exposed to (you can also look up "Liberal Episcopal Church" as there was a split several years ago; now it's Liberal or Conservative).

John the court is mostly conservatives, hence the ruling striking down 100 years of settled law that allows corporations to donate to campaigns unimpeded.

What makes you think the SC is comprised of a "bunch of liberal sissies"? Mix in a newspaper, genius.

You do realize that the make up of the Supreme Court is currently considered 5 Conservatives and 4 Liberals don't you?

Or is it just that if a decision goes against how you would have ruled then it's the Liberals, right?

Not that I agree with the ruling, I don't. But this is not about Conservative or Liberal. It is about protecting free speech. I just don't agree that hate speech should be protected. I don't believe that another person has the right to protest at the funeral of a dead private American citizen. Lastly, I don't agree that this was a Liberal or Conservative decision.

Liberal sissies? Better check the make up of the court...pretty sure it's conservative.

Eight out of Nine? I'd like to read the decision, and find out what their logic was. The Father sued for intentional infliction of emotional distress, the Phelps clan claimed he was a "public figure" because of an obituary - so what does it mean? If someone slanders me I can't sue for emotional distress? Are we all now "public figures?" I'll have to read the ruling and get back with you on this.

john for your information this court is controlled by the right wing extremest by five to four and I do mean extremest

Wonder if all the political wonks realize the lone dissenting vote was Alito as he wrote the dissent.

Though that was probably politically played out in the court. They would have probably went 9-0, but decided they needed to leave at least a sliver of doubt. That way it's not something people can say is eternally set in stone, and that the chance to go 'over the line' does still exist.

Uh, dude, there is a conservative majority on the Supreme Court. Conservatives did this, not "liberal sissies." This conservative majority came from your buddy, GWB, who appointed said majority, by the way.

I don't think any of the justices were siding with the Phelps idiots. They were siding with free speech, which is bigger than that one family of hatemongers.
The last thing we want to give the Phelps family is the ability to erode everyone else's rights to free speech. In a free country, we have to take the good with the bad...and sometimes with the downright evil. But, we're a creative country. I think 99.9% of Americans loathe what this family is doing. Surely, there is a way, within the law, to squash them. People can attend their church and disrupt it. People can follow the Phelps's individually and protest them wherever they go, relentlessly. The rest of us...those who live near them...can make their lives a living hell anytime they dare to set foot on public property. Don't stores have the right to refuse service to anyone? How about grocery stores and restaurants refusing to sell them food? How about gas stations refusing to sell them gas? Banks refuse their accounts. How about the local government pull an emmanent domain on their asses and bulldoze their church to put in a highway?! Cut them off from everything they need.

@tbourlon I agree! This is the point I don't understand. Whatever happened to "fighting words"-isn't this the same? My sons serve this country and I assure you that if those imposters-because they are NOT Christians since Christ said we would know them by their love-ever dared...I would be in jail and it wouldn't even matter to me. I truly try to live to be more Christ-like every day but this group brings out an emotion I am not really comfortable with-HATE.

Quite a few of them are also Republican conservatives...don't blame it all on liberals. By the way, the majority decision was authored by none but Justice John Roberts, Chief Justice that is, and was appointed by your beloved George II.

While the reasons for and the act of this church's protests and picketing are beyond all rational thought, the fact remains that the Constitution states they have the "right" to do it, as long as it is a peaceful protest. Where I would have tried to stop them is by seeing if they were breaking the local laws concerning unlawful assembly and noise ordinances.

As bigoted as the extreme right wing conservatives and 'baggers seem to be in their views of morality, I will always say that they have every right to voice their opinions, just the same as I have the right to say I feel they are wrong!

Isn't it funny how you get to voice your opinion, no matter how wrong it is, without fear of retribution of any kind. You can't be that ignorant to believe that the court is liberal yet you toss the word liberal out as a pejorative. I'm offended by that but you are entitled to your opinion just like those morons at the so called church are entitled to their opinions.

This is a legal decision and not a moral one. It was the right decision about a very wrong and disturbed group of people. It's not the first and it won't be the last.

How in the world could you consider the Supreme Court to be liberal? In fact, how in the world would you think a liberal would arrive at the same decision? Aren't conservatives the ones always bitching that liberals are trying to take everyone's rights away and regulate everything to death? Your argument makes no sense, and I think you would probably use just about any topic to bash liberals.

Aside from that, I am with you as far as being disgusted with the church, although I agree with the decision to uphold freedom of speech.

But I'm sure this decision will ensure that this "church" will soon see that payback is hell.

Renee....you are so right. Thank you for communicating that. These people aren't from God ..... and to so unrightly give up our rights as Americans because a group of people act evil.....isn't the answer. We can all hand out the consequences of their actions by also acting out in law abiding ways. Their hate is unforgiveable... and those live close to them can issue consequences as they have heaped their hate on others....of course, all within the law. You have stated many examples of that.

Yeah, like the ones who voted to give corporations the rights to spend unchecked money to buy elections, while individuals have spending controls. Yeah! If this group was picketing a Republican organization, the outcome would have been different, you can bet.

John-2

Welcome to America. You must have just stepped off the boat.

The Supreme Court (jesters) went FAR RIGHT under Bush. But he can't get all the blame... the two wienies who retired during Bush instead of Clinton get some of the blame.

The 8 who voted FOR this stupidity should be kicked out on their liberal hind ends!

Seems 4 conservative and 4 liberal judges all agreed you don't know too much about free speech.

Plenty of folk have already corrected the first writer in this thread. This entire matter of free speech is one of the most challenging in any society.

One of the greatest French writers and philosophers, Voltaire, offered this view in the mid-1700's:

"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

Voltaire himself was imprisoned for his views - which were strongly anti-clerical, critical of the government, and by standards of his day often outrageous.

The principle of free speech in the U.S. was put into the Constitution - FIRST of the Bill of Rights - because the Founders had lived all their lives under a government that most definitely did not allow free speech.

One of the great moments of American Colonial history came in 1735, when newspaper publisher John Peter Zenger, accused of seditious libel for criticizing New York's governor, was found innocent by a jury. The case established a pecedent for free speech and made a lasting impression on the colonists. But the British Crown continued to oppress publishers, writers, and public speakers.

What Westboro says is revolting and offensive. What Westboro is not doing is shoulting "Fire!" in a crowded theater - a form of speech that is not protected.

On due thought, I must agree with Voltaire - and the Supreme Court.

They never picket the funerals of Native American soldiers. Since most of us are flat-*** broke and not afraid to go to jail, we'd exercise our right to freedom of expression by beating the hell out of the Westoboro folks if they dared try. And if they were stupid enough to set foot on a reservation, the chances are pretty good that they would no longer be a problem to anyone.

Yes, the folks with the "God Hates Obama" signs are definitely "liberal" sissies.

Check the facts and truth, John, and turn off the Rush Limbaugh and Fox News for a bit.

There should be an eternal picket at the Westboro Church and at the members households. It's free speech to harrass. These folks are evidence of the lack of God and the prevalence of evil men using His name.

John-2568296

What an ignorant statement. You obviously know nothing about the makeup of the Supreme Court. The sadder part is that so far you have 16 other ill informed Right Wingers that go along like lemmings with statements regardless of fact just because you denigrate liberals. Totally absurd!

The truth of the matter is that they may be protecting the 1st amendment but those people that go to these protests are biggots and homophobes.

I cannot wait until it goes the other way and the grieving families coordinate protests against Right Wing Holier Than Thou "Christian" funerals.

Now, GOP addicts, listen carefully:

IF this was a "liberal system" -- and liberals most certainly care about the rights of homosexuals -- the court would have acted against the Constitution and in accordance with their own desires.

They did NOT.

What we DID see was Bush's hyper-conservative appointee render the verdict.

Now, as a quote-unquote "liberal" (I'm actually an independent), IF I had the brain of a Glenn Beck or a Sarah Palin, I would spin this into an "attack by the conservative SC against the rights of homosexuals..." ad nauseum.

But DO you see that? No.

What you see are a bunch of folks like me: People who f**king DESPISE these super-fundie maggots and the ridiculous beliefs they hold who LOVE, to an even greater degree, their RIGHT to speak freely.

In short, I challenge you to find the same degree of, "We really HATE this, but it's the law" going on inside the GOP as a whole. Instead, you'll find a willingness to lie, distort the truth, and diffuse reality itself in order to get their agenda pushed down the throats of the people.

Listen: Personally, I suggest inviting Hell's Angels to the next military funeral these f**ktards decide to picket. Just... an invitation.

Or, as one poster suggested, daily/weekly protests outside the glorified barn they call a church.

Whatever. The day these pre-evolved cretins leave the earth is a day I'll say, "Honey, what's for dinner?"

But, until that glorious 'rapture' occurs, with blood boiling, I stand by their right to speak... DESPITE WHAT I PERSONALLY WANT.

And THERE is your sign of true patriotism.

Perhaps the teabaggers and Becks of the world can pull their heads out from underneath their frillies long enough to realize what constitutes said definition.

the supreme court is full of republicans..and strangely it ruled WITH a bunch of crazy right wingers..leave the left out of this, no-one on the supreme court is liberal or even progressive.

Why wouldn't they consider this "hate" speech. It sure seems hateful to me. And why can't the cemeteries keep them out and at least far, far away where they can't get any attention.

John, how is someone a liberal sissy when they vote to uphold the rights of a very right wing, fundamentalist church that is protesting against homosexuality. These 'sissies' are voting to uphold the Constitution that our military is sworn to protect.

8 out of 9 sided with that group of idiots????

8 out of 9 sided with the constitution. Idiots are also covered by the 1st amendment, regardless of how you feel about them or how repulsive they may be.

John-2568296

You would have been jumping all over the liberals if the decision went the other way. You would have said that they were tromping on our constitutional rights. That what have been incorrect as well since the makeup of the court would still be a conservative majority.

Whatever happened to "fighting words"-isn't this the same?

Unfortunately, the "fighting words" standard has to be individual and personal, as in they walk up to you and call you, personally, something so offensive that you want to hit/maim/kill them. (This is my understanding, and I'm no lawyer, but I do speak/read legalese pretty well).

The bastards are the church here. The court had very little choice.

I do not agree with the court ruling but there isn't much that can be done.

Freedom of speech is the freedom to speak freely without censorship or limitation, or both. The synonymous term freedom of expression is sometimes used to indicate not only freedom of verbal speech but any act of seeking, receiving and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used. In practice, the right to freedom of speech is not absolute in any country and the right is commonly subject to limitations, such as on "hate speech".

The right to freedom of speech is recognized as a human right under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and recognized in international human rights law in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights(ICCPR). The ICCPR recognizes the right to freedom of speech as "the right to hold opinions without interference. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression."^[1][2] Furthermore freedom of speech is recognized in European, inter-American and African regional human rights law.

(In practice, the right to freedom of speech is not absolute in any country and the right is commonly subject to limitations, such as on "hate speech".)

I guess you have to pick your battles, I am not happy that this part ( above ) wasn't considered in the Ruling. What they are spouting is nothing but hate and it needs to be addressed and they need to be held accountable.

Unfortunately the Court did have very little choice.

The one consolation is that it seems the majority is of the opinion that those who participated in the protests are pure evil at the very least. I am sure that they didn't expect that.

Eoin,

ICCPR is irrelevant. Constitutionally the ruling is correct.

You know Kumar, did it ever occur to you that maybe the belief in a fairy tale sky god invisible friend by grown adults is what led to this sad state of affairs in the first place?

Hate speech is the wool over your eyes when they limit all speech as hateful.

Toasty - you have proof that it's a fairy tale sky god? Could you elaborate?

The Westboro clowns should have their tax exempt status revoked for being political and then face the wrath of the military. I am amazed that no one has taken them out yet.

It would appear that any hate speech in the name of religion is now legal. Guess I'll have some fun with that.

John: Scalia ruined this court. No "liberal sissies" about it!

GetRealLiberalMedia Eoin, ICCPR is irrelevant. Constitutionally the ruling is correct.

Didn't say it wasn't correct just not what I had hoped for. Hate speech is for low brow, under educated, inbred, knuckle dragging POS's, which is what the Westboro family is. Heck they are the Poster child

Toasty,

Why do you feel compelled to attack someone's faith? We are also guaranteed freedom of religion in this country. It is ok for you not to believe, but isn't it also ok for others to believe?

I believe that Kumar statement was simply stating that the vast majority of Christians do not agree with the stance of WBC.

Toasty, can you prove that God doesn't exist? Probably not anymore than I can prove He does, so let deists and atheists agree to disagree and not insult each other's beliefs. It's the grown-up thing to do.

Freedom of speech requires that we respect the right of anyone to express themselves no matter how repugnant we may find the content. Of course, with freedom of speech also comes the responsibility to carefully consider our words and their impact upon others before speaking. People who are intellectually, emotionally, and spiritually mature will always endeavor to exercise such constraint.

Eion,

My point is that the ICCPR is irrelevant. We have not relinquished our sovereignty to international law. (yet)

Constitutionally the ruling is correct.

While the decision may support the letter of the law in the 1st Ammendment, it is hard for me to agree that the SCOTUS correctly interpreted the spirit and purpose of the living US Constitution.

I respectfully submit that the SCOTUS got this one wrong and their view narrow. However intelligent... skillful they may be... the end results are clearly not what the US Constitution was designed to produce.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

While I do understand the court's position, even a child with common sense could understand that the constitution was formed to protect individuals and families from this type of abuse.

This is not the assurance of justice to a family burying their loved one who sacrificed their life for this country. It is twisted and sends the wrong message.

hey look ! yet another moron exercising his 1st amendment rights.

First off, I don't need to prove a negative, guys. You're the adults who think a fairy tale is real, you're the ones who need to justify that.

And GRLM, they have as much a right to believe that silly nonsense as I have to make fun of them for it. You can't have a freedom OF religion without a freedom FROM religion, nor vice versa. They go hand-in-hand, and are inseparable.

"And GRLM, they have as much a right to believe that silly nonsense as I have to make fun of them for it."

That is correct, Toasty. (with the exception of the "silly nonsense" part, IMHO) My question is why do you feel compelled to make fun of it? If you acknowledge that people have the right to believe, then is your motivation to dissuade that belief, or are you just doing it out of a mean spirit?

If your motivation to do so is to dissuade belief, don't you realize that your tactics are very similar to those of the WBC?

If you motivation is just to be mean... well then... ok.

Toasty - You are wrong. The first amendment states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.."

If you stop there, your arguemnt of freedom of religion also includes freedom from religion, but it doesn't end there.

"or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.." That kills your freedom from religion argument.

You do have freedom of religion, but you don't have a freedom from religion. By claiming you have the right to no religion or the exposure to religion, you are blocking the "free exercise thereof" by others.

Freedom of, yes. Freedom from no.

Toasty - it still makes you look better defending your point or views when you don't resort to calling someone's basis of faith and belief a "fairy tale." Just saying. You seem like a very smart person; have you ever read CS Lewis' Mere Christianity? He was an atheist too, for a long time, and I'm interested to know if you've encountered that book.

Why is it that we have a very strict interpretation of the the first amendment but the second amendment is open to restrictions?

The court has said basically that all speech is protected. But when it comes to the 2nd amendment, which contains the specific phrase "shall not be infringed", the courts and congress have no problem restricting and infringing on it.

Why is it that the ACLU will fight to the death defending every right and amendment to the Constitution except the 2nd amendment?

What is good for one amendment is good for them all.

All churches are CULTS! This one is one of the worst kinds of cults!

This isn't about the inherent right to believe anything. This society has folks who are mentally deranged, and we should have the inherent right to expect protection from individuals that cause pain and shout hate. Causing pain and suffering to others is wrong, otherwise!

For instance, if I were to attend a session of U.S.Congress and stood up screaming God is killing these soldiers because of gays, I would be escorted from the room, denied my freedom to express myself. If I were to stand in the middle of a street and screamed expletives and hate mongering, I would be disturbing others' peace! If I walked into a shopping mall with a sign reflecting racism or hate, I would be removed.

Inherently, the freedom of expression has a time and an appropriate place. If we seek Christianity or religion, we go to a church or synagogue without disturbing our fellow man with our views. During the 60's, college kids were shot and killed on campus while expressing their freedom of speech. And, just recently, the state of Wisconsin thought about shooting union protesters there. During many Republican/Bush political campaigns and meet-ups, those with opposing views and placards were escorted from the buildings. Denied their right to free speech.

One woman who wore an anti Bush shirt was kicked off a Southwest airliner. Just because she wore an anti Bush shirt. It would appear to me, that freedom of expression and inherent rights are up for grabs. It's all about who hates the most. If it is anti Christian, free speech it's unlawful; if it is about gay American rights it's feel good & placard time. Freedom of speech time. And, so American. I cannot sit in a movie theater and scream fire when there is no fire, causing humans panic and damage. Freedom of speech is not about inflicting damage, pain and suffering.

Anyone can intepret anything, anyway but regardless, practicing evil is always evil, and truly ethical humans do not require thumping on a little black book or perusing words written hundreds of years ago, the American holy grail on righteousness, because evil and causing pain and suffering are always evil. Those Christian protesters are evil, regardless.

And, I don't require a rotting, moldering piece of paper to tell me about ethics and evil. Decent humans do not require paper laws.

Kumar all organized religions are cults.

Long day, no time to reply earlier.

GLRM, I feel I should make fun of religion because it encourages dangerous beliefs and actions and as such MUST be ridiculed.

Jaeger, the freedom from religion doesn't mean freedom from exposure to it, just that your rights cannot be interfered with by religion.

And finally TinStars, I'll quote Samuel Clemens on this one.

Against the assault of laughter, nothing can stand.

Toasty,

As I believe that it has no basis, I feel that I must challenge the foundation of your argument.

What "dangerous beliefs and actions" does Christianity encourage? (Please be aware that I am not asking about certain Christians, I am instead asking about the religion) Please do not be vague as you were in your last post.

Christians in general don't. They preach love, and Jesus walked around with the "sinners" and when confronted with an adulterous woman he didn't yell at her and say "your going to hell, and by the way I hate your tears, that soldier that died last mouth died because of you"

He did exactly the opposite. WBC in no way practice the teachings of Christ, if Christ were on this earth today he would be with the mother who lost her child and would "mourn with those that mourn" I am sure he would not be with those disgusting people that ridicule those that mourn.

I really want to know what bible they are reading.

Toasty,

not sure what the Samuel Clemens quote had to do with CS Lewis...did you mean that you're afraid of Christianity (or organized religion in general) and that in mocking it, make it seem less real, and in being "fantasy" it's no longer dangerous? I just wanted to know what your opinion is on a book by on a atheist talking to atheists about Christianity. (Please don't read this as a "challenge" or as telling you in a roundabout way that you're a "scaredy cat" or anything. I am being sincere.)

Bill, think about what you have said. This was a conservative-like decision to uphold the actions of lunatics.

Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and John Roberts are liberals?

Really?

Liberals, you need to check your facts Bill.

The supreme court is split between liberals and conservatives...this isnt an partisan issue..so stop making it one..think before you speak.

You do realize that the make up of the Supreme Court is currently considered 5 Conservatives and 4 Liberals don't you?

Or is it just that if a decision goes against how you would have ruled then it's the Liberals, right?

Not that I agree with the ruling, I don't. But this is not about Conservative or Liberal. It is about protecting free speech. I just don't agree that hate speech should be protected. I don't believe that another person has the right to protest at the funeral of a dead private American citizen. Lastly, I don't agree that this was a Liberal or Conservative decision.

Liberals?????? They are constitutionalists. This is the most conservative court in the history of the country.
They sided with FUNDAMENTALISTS and did so WRONGLY
The Westboro lunatics are the single most hate filled family in the country today. To call them a church is not accurate. They are a family of scared children ruled by a lunatic patriarch and matriarch

Bill,

Actually the court is mostly conservative, and they likely made this decision specifically because Westboro Baptist hates gays, and the court does, too, so they're willing to let innocent families who've lost loved ones be victimized in order to allow a bunch of gay-haters to hate gays unfettered. They've made this decision much the same way voters have in states where there are bans on gays adopting or fostering children. They hate gays so much that they're willing to let innocent people (the kids, in the states in questions) suffer in order to take any stabs they can at "them god-damned, no-good queers."

It's the fact that the majority of them are conservatives that led them to this ruling. And it goes to show to what lengths gay-bashers will go to bash gays, even hitting unrelated bystanders as mere collateral damage with no thought to their well-being.

you can't just take away someones rights because you don't like what they say.

btw i am not a supporter and i am gay (you know, the ones they hate)

bill read my response to john and get off of Faux (fox)news once in a while

Too bad posters like Bill are incapable of doing even the most cursory research before pounding the keyboard. As others have indicated, the current makeup of the Supreme Court is far from liberal.

But...getting facts straight is evidently far beyond the capabilities of most reactionary conservatives. Too bad.

Bill-848966: You obviously flunked basic math as well as a simple civics class. (It's not a Honda) 5 conservatives, 4 liberals. Justice Roberts( Mr. Conservative) authored (wrote) the courts opinion. Please go back and attempt to earn(work hard for) your GED before making a bigger fool of yourself!

L.J.--

The decision was 8-1. All four libs sided with the majority. A conservative, Alito, was the only dissent.

Don't paint with such a broad brush before doing some research.

Liberals, you need to check your facts Bill.

But he won't because ignorance is just the way he likes it.

KB,

Actually, it's five conservatives, two semi-liberals and two moderates. But most of them do not like gay people, and I am fairly confident it's their shared hatred of gays that led them to rule the way they did. It's become a very common practice for those who hate gays to be willing to hurt unrelated people if need be in order to hurt gays.

A ruling against Westboro would've opened the door to quashing other anti-gay discrimination even when based on religion, and they didn't want to put gay bashers at any sort of disadvantage, and being able to hide behind the label of religion to make legal such discrimination is the only loophole they have left.

Bill

Get a clue... This is one of the most conservative courts in a long time. Read much?

crying "liberal" on an 8-1 decision by a conservative court holds zero credibility.

...but congratulations on expanding your news horizons beyond fox. Stick around a while, you'll get the hang of the whole "logic" thing in no time. It takes some practice but its worth it.

The same laws that protect good Christian conservatives' right to worship and expression, must also be extended to other churches such as this one even if we disagree with them. Funny how so many conservatives are on here blaming liberals for this, when it is conservative insistence on religion that protects this controversial church in the first place.

Bill, I was going to leave a comment to point out what a moron you are, but 16 people beat me to it. But still, you are a moron.

4 liberals voted yes, 4 conservatives voted yes. The only "no" vote was from Justice Samuel Alito who is a conservative. In fact, Alito is known as "a favorite son of the political right". This was a non-partisan decision.

LJ:

Actually, it's five conservatives, two semi-liberals and two moderates. But most of them do not like gay people, and I am fairly confident it's their shared hatred of gays that led them to rule the way they did. It's become a very common practice for those who hate gays to be willing to hurt unrelated people if need be in order to hurt gays.

I'm sure the ruling has nothing to do with whether or not someone likes gays because it was a ruling about the Constitution. They were protesting on public land where free speech is protected. What they say is absolutely disgusting in my opinion, but they have the right to say it.

A ruling against Westboro would've opened the door to quashing other anti-gay discrimination even when based on religion, and they didn't want to put gay bashers at any sort of disadvantage, and being able to hide behind the label of religion to make legal such discrimination is the only loophole they have left.

A ruling against WBC would create a slippery slope for free speech. Who gets to decide when something is considered acceptable? If I say something offensive to some, will my speech be restricted next? What about if I speak out against the President? Will that now get me sued by someone who may not agree?

And they're not hiding behind a religion. Whether they used the term "church" or not, they would still have the right to these opinions and still have the right to express them.

While I don't agree with WBC in any way, and I would love to see them shut down, I'm not at all surprised by this verdict.

SORRY- this court is a CONSERVATIVE COURT. PERIOD. If you want to STOP this kind of action at funerals, maybe it is time to consider offering constitutional protections for GAYS and perhaps then the speech would then become a hate crime against a group under the protection of the Constitution, hey.

If somebody decides to place a 2x4 upside the heads of this Westboro false prophet and his deluded fascist minions...well, I can only hope the Supreme Court upholds that as a protected form of non-verbal speech.

Keep it in perspective here. SHAME on westboro...not our courts.

While the actions of that church disgust me I am thankful for the ruling. Free speech is a right to all regardless of ones personal opinion of the subject matter.

The fact that these people have the audacity to picket a soldier's funeral smacks in the face of reason and logic. That soldier died for your right to picket HIS funeral and to express YOUR (dimented) yet free speech.

Mind boggling to say the least that these so called "christian folk" find it necessary to violate a very personal and sad occasion in pursuit of their own agenda.

Westboro should be ASHAMED.

Everyone who is spouting the split of the Supreme court as liberal vs conservative should find fear in their own words. You know the idea of our justice system is supposed to be based on a fair and unbiased court.

If you don't have faith in our system then you should vote to abolish the constitution and start from scratch. Not sit at your computer spouting "I am liberal wah wah" or "I am a conservative boo hoo".

Put down your cupcakes pull up your pants and do something other than rant on a freaking comment site.

Gee Ikaw, just what sort of interpretation of the First Amendment would allow free speech to be suppressed?

@wayloud...

Do you see the irony in your rant, by chance?

when it's hate speech Toasty

This makes me sick at heart. Please read about the Westboro Baptist Church. They are comprised of mostly family members; relations as in cousins, siblings, brothers and sisters. They are less a church and more of a "CULT."

With their many placards; "Thank god For Dead Soldiers," "god Hates Your Feelings," and "Methodist Fag Church," as they picket the sad, solemn, sacred, and what should be private funerals of our fallen.

In this act, by the Supreme Court, We The People have lost more than a "Freedom." Sadly, The Founders did not see a need for The Right To Privacy. They also did not see a need for "term limits for the Supreme Court." People did not live this long back then.

Churchs in America exist "Tax-Free." Could this church exist if they had to pay taxes? Let the Justice Department look into their tax free status, one little hint of their messing with the books, not maintaining the forms necessary for this tax free status and perhaps they could shut them down.

This is an act of "HATE." Their choice of where they picket is cruel.

I would let lose some vicious Christian dogs upon them.

Put down your cupcakes pull up your pants and do something other than rant on a freaking comment site

It's my cupcake, and I'm not pulling up my pants!

Let's see............Pole-dancing is freedom of expression. Vile, hateful picketing of funerals and the anguished families is freedom of speech. Why can't I bust a few of the Westboro ghouls in their faces and call it my freedom to express my outrage?

Hate speech is still protected speech. You can get up on a soap box all day and ramble against the government, jews, and homosexuals all you want, because it's all protected speech, Raychel. In the United States, we don't only give liberties to nice people, we give them to all people, even the mean ones.

One person's hate speech is anothers sermon from god.

Hate speech is very subjective to it's audience. As appauling and disgusting as these Westboro wackos are to picket a soldier's funeral and spout their BS....it's still their BS to speak.

Their hate filled rants are as offensive to me as sitting in a church and listening to a priest give a sermon on how I should live my life. The audiences's interpretation of what is said determines it's intended reaction......just depends on your own personal point of view.

and that is called free speech.

Toasty I stand corrected, I went and googled hate speech and basically what I can see is that like you said it's protected under the 1st Amendment other than

Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, employers may sometimes be prosecuted for tolerating "hate speech" by their employees, if that speech contributes to a broader pattern of harassment resulting in a "hostile or offensive working environment" for other employees (found this on Wikipedia)

So once again I stand corrected and I thank you for clarifying it for me.

Yeah, that darn constitution. Always getting in the way of a good funeral.

I live in the town where Matt Snyder grew up. My son and Matt went to the same school and played soccer on the same team. He and his family are good people. No family should have to bury their son under the conditions imposed by the Westboro loonies. Try to imagine the images that rest in the minds of his parents, family and friends. It is horrific to lose a child , it is even worse when this religous funeral and burial were tainted but such bigotry and hatred. These crazy cultests need to be stopped one way or another... Isn't anything sacred anymore?

aswiftmom: Yes! they need to be stopped...but by means other than the Constitution. The Constitution is not there to protect your sensibilities. It's there to protect your freedoms.

I don't support their actions, but that doesn't mean I disagree with the Supreme Court decision.

Yeah, Will, I hear you there.

Ok... so the supreme court said that what they are doing is protected by free speech. No prob.

So that means that at the same time, the grieving family members surely have a right to arm themselves during the funeral services as well.

I picture a grieving father whose 19yr old son just got killed, while serving in the Marine Corps an afganistan, having a concealed carry permit. It's possible.

Then Bang! A big hole gets blown through a certain person's GAY-assed cowboy hat.

No jury in the world would convict him. Westboro: No longer an issue.

All just hypothetical.

Uh, if a man shot a Westboro protester in the head, it's pretty clear that he'd be convicted of murder... Last time I checked, free speech isn't illegal, but first degree murder is.

@USwillwin (what are we going to win?)

So the supreme court just upheld your right to protest the protesters. I take it you'll be buying a plane ticket to Westboro today?

I think the point is nonverbal expression of speech in the extreme. The extremities test truth.

I can't think of a jury in the world that would convict this hypothetical father, he could claim temporary insanity or extreme emotional distress.

Worse than Nazis? You are a pure moron.

Remember, they also allowed the American Nazi party to march in Skokie.

The problem is what is a hate group and who gets to decide?

Glenn Beck probably thinks ACORN is a hate group...

The problem is you squelch one group... you lay the foundation for squelching others... it only takes some administration to decide a group is a "hate" group.

I don't want that.

Diane,

Calm down.

Try and express your opinion based on logic...not frenzied emotion.

Fact is free speech is afforded to all citizens within certain criteria.

The court 's decision secures YOUR right as well to offer your factless and emotionally filled rants here online even to the protest of more sound minds.

Wow...you lost me at "worse than nazis".

Andrew,

who were the nazis? Let's examine the rank and file. Oh, yeah, not high level enough. Most nazis were just sheep. Feel familiar?

kedbob I have no idea what you're talking about. If that's the "familiar feeling" you were trying to invoke, then sure, I'm feeling it in spades. So after your "examination" of the nazi "rank and file", you conclude that nazis are sheep? So sheep are nazis? This religious group is worse than sheep? Can I ever wear wool again?

I thought I saw Pat Robertson and Huckabee hound standing there, hiding behind anti-gay signs.No public comment from them.

I am disgusted by the actions of the WBC. However, I believe that the court's decision is correct. I am glad that out rights to freedom of speech have not been eroded.

Think about this, had the court sided against WBC, fox news might someday find itself in the same pile of same doo doo :)

Did y'all see the palm trees video clip in MADISON WI?

The decision was 8-1.

Does that tell you anything? Perhaps that you don't understand the issues as well as you thought?

Then you need to take a high school civics class one of these days.

Dongledad, I totally agree with you. Saying you hate America and you are cheering for our soldiers to be dead is "hate" speech. And, to cause such anguish for the family - I would agree with the jury in the original trial, that they are entitled to be compensated for their pain and suffering.

Isn't this akin to burning a flag, to say you hate America and were happy for 9/11? I think so.

The Supreme Court may think that their decision is upholding "free speech", but this is absolute "hate speech" agains our country.

Why should he need to take a civics class, he is right, when our founding fathers wrote the constitution and bill of rights they did so in a era that did not see such horrors as we see now. The blanketed terms of those documents should be evaluated and modified if needed to fit the needs of a modern society.

One man's hate speech is another man's opinion. Hate speech notions are wrong in a system with free speech. It is the ugly speech that must be protected to preserve the freedom to speak the truth.

Dongledad...

This may in fact be exactly what the founding fathers had in mind. He is not "right" ScottHutch. The "horrors" our founding fathers dealt with were domination and death at the hands of the British. They would have all been hanged and branded traitors had they not won independence. They risked their lives, the lives of their family members, neighbors and friends. And, many died...killed in skirmishes, battles, and by the legal system.

A hate group spouting non-truths about "gay" service members is small potatoes.

I think some perspective is in order here.

Dee2118 - "Isn't this akin to burning a flag, to say you hate America and were happy for 9/11? I think so."

It is completely legal and constitutional to do all of those things. Reprehensible, yes, but completely OK as far as the law is concerned. And I've very glad that it is.

The solution is MORE speech, not LESS speech.

Wouldn't it be considered treason to burn the flag? What happened to treason or did it become okay to desecrate the flag? This young man served the United States and lost his life for it. I do not believe in the war(s) but I would never join group to protest at the funeral of a young man who gave his life for his country. Free speech is one thing; treason is another. When they protest the death of a young man who died serving his country, it is a crime regardless of their twisted hate.

Why can't the FBI pull a WACO here?

No wonder the world is laughing at America.

no, it is not treason to burn the flag of the United states. It

This is exactly what the Founding Fathers had in mind. The First Amendment is not there to protect popular speech. That needs no protection. The reason that it exists is to protect unpopular speech. That is what needs protection. I think these protestors are disgusting, dispicable people, but they have a right to say what they believe. As Voltaire said, "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Just because you, or even the vast majority of people are offended by what these people say, does not mean they don't have the right to defend it. Also, those of you who believe that the Founding Fathers could never have envisioned people behaving this way, or society "degenerating" to this degree, your vision of them and the founding of the republic is clouded by sentimental romaticism. Human nature has always been what it is, and what exists now in terms of behavior and attitude existed then. These men were not uber moral saints. They were human beings and rationalists. They were not guided by religion or some puritanical interpretation of the Bible. They were guided by the principles of the Enlightenment, by rationality, and by humanism. They believed in the free exchange of ideas in the market place of public discourse, regardless of how shocking and repugnant these ideas may be. The Supreme Court was right in its decision today. These protestors are the lowest form of humanity, but even the lowest form of humanity has the right to voice its opinions. The Supreme Court upheld that right.

No, it is definitely not treason to burn the American flag. In fact, it is the preferred proper way to dispose of a worn or tattered flag. Think about that for a minute.

I'm highly doubtful the Founding Fathers would oppose the Supreme Court's decision. The Founding Fathers lived in an era when homosexuality was recognized to be as abhorrent as these particular dissidents claim it to be. They might've even joined them. We've come a "long way" from such bias against homosexuality.

...amazing that some people are under the impression it's "illegal" to burn the flag.

So you've gone your whole life thinking what...that we send people who burn the flag to prison? What about people who just tear it a little...or those who let it touch the ground. What if I think not bowing to the flag in its presence is desecration...so prison for all who don't bow before it?

Strange days for sure...maybe some of you should rethink what it means to be American, and what this country stands for.

Hint: The Supreme Court just addressed it in an 8-1 ruling.

...and I'm still shocked that some of you assumed that we send people who burn the flag to prison. Have you ever thought about the absurdity...or perhaps the logistics of that?

Interesting how people who wrap themselves in the flag are often the first to present a willingness to deviate from the values it represents.

Nope. still can't.

Rethink that one bayarea. Not really the same thing.

I think bay is making the commentary likening the WBC to people shoulting fire in a theater. The repercussions harm. I think they should be able to say whatever they wish. I also think that "fighting words" should be made a legitimate provocation to physical violence. Emotional pain goes so much farther than physical pain.

I think the distinction here is the difference between an opinion and a false assertion that can reasonably be expected to lead to harm.

Saying that God hates America is an opinion. Shouting 'Fire' in a theater where there is no fire, is a lie designed to cause panic and, arguably, injury.

It was the correct decision. If we squelch Westboro, the we lay the foundation for squelching regular people.

It's not like the majority don't know they're lunatics... and it's not like they have any sway with God.

But I would love to be one of the protesters at a funeral for one of the WBC members.

If I was their local law enforcement I would be riding their butts for every single minor infraction of the law that I could catch them in.

PS - NO ONE, no sane person at all, agrees with what they are doing. This is not a right vs left issue, quit trying to make it one. I don't know of any legitimate church that would condone this behavior. This is one issue we are all united on, please don't try to cheapen that by pulling politics into it.

I think riding butts is what they are protesting

since we're talking about free speech here, i feel comfortable in saying that not all butt riders (lolz) are gay. at the same time, not all gay people ride butt. think about it.

and banning churches and religions is, in no small way, completely ignoring the first amendment, which is what protected those despicable protesters in the first place (and, ironically, is part of what that brave soldier died to protect). it's a vicious circle, but i (for one) prefer to be outraged over some idiot's rhetoric as i spew my own nonsense than to be muffled.

thinking that all churches and religions are evil is, in my opinion anyway, narrow minded.

Right on, Spotts. As much as I loath the Westboro "Church," I agree with the SC's decision. What it means is that counter-protesters have to put so much pressure on these losers that they get shut down at every location where they try to "demonstrate." It's been done before. All it takes is for good people to turn out in droves and keep these losers far away from the mourning family and the television cameras.

Exactly. They showed up at a soldier's funeral here, and the number of community members who showed up and silently counter-protested (while also blocking WBC from the view of the mourners) effectively neutralized them.

They got no press coverage, so they slunk out of town with their tail tucked between their legs.

Ignoring him completely is the best way. It's done for attention -- when he gets it, he keeps going.

I concur. There are definitely more people that do NOT like this Westboro "church" and what they stand for...where are they when "Westboros" show up at these funerals? If there isn't any "counter protesters", then Westboro's theatrics are condoned and approved by the decent majority, because they are silent. People that don't like this Westboro "church" need to put their words into action and "smother" them out when they attack these funerals...not just vent about them on line and other places. Action speaks WAY louder than words. There was an effort to oppose Westboro by surrounding one funeral route with people wearing white and being silent to respect the dead and to "sheild" them from the hate. I thought that was a good idea.

Everything you've said is correct. I honestly don't even see how this is a debate.

Spotts1701 - I agree with your assessment of their desire. They crave the media attention. They call themselves Christians but are not even close. They are despicable incest victims who live to see themselves in the press. They have a right to protest - no matter how unsavory their message may be. I wish the media would ignore these people. It is a local issue for police to control where and when they have access to grieving families of heroes. If they stopped seeing mention of their antics in print, they could go back to hell and inbreed some more.

agreed.

constitution protects ALL speech....not just speech we deem acceptable.

Spotts,

while I agree with your stance - I don't agree with the SCOTUS position on this issue. Do they have the right to voice their opinions, yes they are protected by the 1st Amendment... what I don't agree with is their choice to go to this soldiers church and protest there - having freedom of speech doesn't give you the right to yell "fire" in a crowed building - nor should it allow you to disturb a funeral because you want to to "express your views". There is a time and place for everything - but not at a funeral... just my 2 cents worth...

Nobody's trying to band this group of maniacs from speaking per se....they are trying to keep them from disrupting a private funeral.

What about the rights of the decease's loved ones? Why don't they have the right to bury their loved one in peace; uninterrupted by hate-mongering strangers?

I agree they have a right to say whatever they want and the government can not suppress it. That is "free speech" and should be upheld. I don't agree with the SC interpretation that they can spew their vile whereever they want.

But, as someone else pointed out, the solution to this is for local governments to change their right to protest laws so that these, these,.... I can't even think of a appropriate and accurate word to describe them, can not obtain a permit to protest close to the funerals in the first place. Such as, No person or group will be issued a permit to hold protest within 1 mile of any funeral or similar ceremonies or rituals. Fine, they can still protest and have their voices heard, just not where it inflicts emotional distress on the families of those grieving.

BTW - a number of the Phelps spawn are attorneys. It is believed they hold these protests so that someone will physically do something to them and they can then sue. They would welcome all of the well placed, well intentioned, warm hearted threats against them that are posted here.

The problem is that, absent issues where safety is a concern (such as yelling "fire in a crowded theater" when there is no fire) it becomes very difficult to say we can suppress speech in a public place.

If they are standing on a public sidewalk, or in a public park, we cannot say "you cannot protest" when we allow others whose views we support (or do not find as offensive) to protest on that sidewalk or in that park.

At that point, it's either allow everyone the right to use that space, or allow no one. You can't pick and choose based upon what they're going to say.

Hit it on the head there.

Best we can do is make people aware that the WBC is just a family of lawyers and they're out for attention.

I participated in a counter protest against these guys once. A fellow protestor gave me some of his stink bombs that he couldn't get close enough to use. I like his thinking. The use of stink bombs is more legally ambiguous than violence and less likely to incite a lawsuite from WBC.

Now, about the WBC, if, as Christ said, "by the fruits of their labors you shall know them", then look at the fruits of the WBC's labors. More precicely follow the money and you will find a new kind of insincerity that you might not have noticed before. They go to places and set up outrageous protests to get people pissed off at them. Then when someone attacks them they sue the attacker, the city they were in, the college campus they were on, or whomever they can. Then they use the money from the lawsuits to fund further protests.

This is how they are financially able to spend over $40,000 a year in travel costs to do these protests! Spread the word and encourage people to ignore, or at least not use any kind of legally definable violence against, these people. If they don't have cause to sue people then they will run out of money, and if they run out of money they can't do this.

Spotts,

The WBC may have the right to free speech, but the one "R" word they conveniently forget is RESPONSIBILITY. The inconsiderate may say what they want, but I'd like to hear what they have to say when Fred goes to his reward (Hell) and people protest at his burial. I'll be they'd be back at the SC crying about that.

I think everyone is forgetting that the constitution states that people can hold peaceful protests as long as they dont incite violence. This is no different than the KKK Shouting their hate and they get arrested all the time or they are not granted permits to protest in different areas because they know when these idiots speak they only incite violence and Hate. NO DIFFERENT!!!!!!

I just hope when the first family member takes their ass out the SC will rule that they were temporarily insane since what they are doing is insane!!!!!

Yes, the WBC has the right to their opinion, BUT since when is the funeral of a loved one the place to protest and exercise their right to free speech. This is nothing but a hurtful and completely irresponsible method of exercise this "Right???"

Changed how? Who is to decide what is ok to say and what is not ok to say? I understand that in this particular instance, it's obvious that it's wrong. But who's to say that in the future, some activist judge might decide that anything espousing a certain political view is "wrong."

Just be careful what you wish for.

I can imagine Waterdog's new constitution, it would be written in crayon and say "only nice people can have civil rights, not poopieheads."

"wack-jobs" is slanderous speech. so you shouldnt be posting such junk.

oh wait. you can thanks to our constitution!

Actually, you all are only partially correct. While yes, the Supreme Court was correct in saying the church group was protected, publicly insulting, or slandering, or libeling a person, or group, is NOT preotected by the Constitution, that is why it's called slander, libel, defamation of character. I don't know the entire chain of events that led to the lawsuit, and such, but the demonstrations cannot be stopped. IF, the suit was solely for "Public Defamation", by posting ona website, slurs, and insults, and libelous remarks, then the Supreme Court did NOT uphold the Constitution, or the Federal, and various States Laws. No person is protected by the Constitution, if their actions intentionally inflict harm, physically, or mentally, against another. So, YES, the church has the right to demonstrate, YES, the church has the right to publically voice it's opinion, but NO, the church does NOT have the right to publically single out an individual, and spread, insulting, slanderous, defaming comments, or toherwise, against that person, whether that person is dead or alive. So NO, singling out someone, and publically declaring them a "wack job," is considered libel, slander, and defamation of character, and it is NOT protected speech, UNLESS, the statements are TRUE, and PROVABLE beyond a reasonable doubt. If I publically called a person a homosexual, without proof, and that comment hurt that persons reputation, and public standing, then I violated that persons rights, and my comments would not be protected. All of this is written in the federal laws, and jsut about every state law is written similarly to the federal statutes, therefore, any person can look them up, and make a judgement based on your personal opinion of the matter, but do yourself a credit, and do a credit to the world, PLEASE, be informed before just jumping on the "Civil Rights" band wagon. I have spent many years studying the Constitution, and Federal, and State laws.

Joe, I agree with you, but the problem is: who decides what does or does not constitute libel, slander and defamation of character? Someone may call you a name, and you may not care; call someone else that name and they may find it offensive, hurtful, etc. Who should decide what is hate speech and what isn't?

I think your looking for hate speech. Unfortunately, they haven't yet crossed that line. Once that happens, then the courts can take action. Until then, they are in a protected zone.

They're very careful to use general terms to avoid slander and libel. Their entire family is made up of lawyers. They tread that line very carefully.

Since most cities, towns, counties also can make their own laws, like no skateboarding on the sidewalks, or you can't park for free on public streets with parking meters, etc. why can't they make a law that states no protesting at a cemetery? That would solve the problem. Make their own ordinances banning protests at publicly owned cemeteries. You can't go into a cemetery and mess it up. I'd say they're messing up the cemetery services which we have a right to expecct would be free of this crap. If you go to a public swimming pool, there are rules. If you go to a public cemetery why can't there be rules, too?

Many states, cities and towns have come up with ordinances that keep people from protesting right outside of cemetaries. Most cemetaries are private property, so the protests are not considered free speech if performed on the cemetaries themselves. A lot of towns state they have to be 200-300 (sometimes more) feet from the cemetary to be able to protest. I don't think 200-300 feet is far enough, in my opinion.

How can their protests NOT be considered hate speech? They freely admit that they hate gay people. The god that they worship hates anyone that suffers gays to live. They cheer and give thanks for any calamity suffered by anyone that doesnt share their intolerance for gay people. Just substitute "gay" with "Black", "Jew", "Hispanic" or whatever you want and it becomes clearly racist. Why is this any different?

It seems pretty obvious to me.

Yes we can choose....that is the right of having a free society..why can't I go on a plane and yell bomb? Why can't I threaten someones life? Shouldn't those be considered free speech?

They're not threatening anyone, they're just protesting with vulgar and disdainful language to say the least. Like it or not, and if you're sane you better not like it, this is now protected speech.

Luckily the WBC is on the decline.

"why can't I go on a plane and yell bomb? Why can't I threaten someones life? Shouldn't those be considered free speech?"

absolutely not, because now you're interfering with MY rights and MY safety. inciting anger is NOT the same as inciting panic. in addition, having a free society does NOT mean having one individual idiot do what (s)he pleases. i mean, that's what society is not... an individual. a society is a group of people. a society may have an idiot leader, but it doesn't mean you can threaten that leader. just go find a new one.

What about the rights of the citizens of United States who are not only burying a loved one, but have paid for the funeral? Do you not have the right to grieve and bury your loved ones in peace.

You have the 'right' to have whatever kind of funeral you wish, without this mentally ill group of haters interfering with your right to say who can and cannot be within the vicinity of the funeral home and cemetary.

God help these sicko's when their time comes to meet with God. God help every last one of them should they ever show up at a funeral of someone I love or care about. It would be worth the fine to put my fist in the faces of these evil beings disrupting one of the sadest times a family must endure.

8-1 tells you reubicans stand with freedom of speech for a hate group, No freedom for the victims of these hate groups.

You may be right about freedom of speech but what about my right to bury a family member for which I am paying in peace. Where is the right to a peaceful funeral?

Give these people the freedom of speech while at the same time not allowing them within a half mile of the funeral home or cemetary.

If my spouse dies and I do not want someone stopping at the funeral home, I can request that person to not be allowed entry.

These whack jobs also could have been charged with defamation of character, hate crimes, etc and had it not been for the republicans spewing hate and calling our president liar, me a commie they would have put a stop to when and where hate is now allowed.

again, being disrespectful isn't against the law (and thank God for that). they didn't hurt anyone physically. what they did, as disgusting and hateful as it was, was (apparently) legal because (i'm assuming) they did it in a public place... i'll freely admit that i don't know any details about this case. had they done this in the family's home, then i think we'd be reading different headlines altogether.

life isn't fair. neither is the justice system. but it's as fair as we can make it, given the current situation. taking away anyone's right to protest in a public place is dangerous, regardless of whether i, you or anyone else thinks it's right or wrong.

and what sucks even more is that this brave soldier paid the ultimate price protecting these idiots' right to protest... at HIS funeral. it's sad that there are still people on this planet, and in this country and at that church, who are too stupid and selfish to realize this.

Jerkin Cool Clothes just look up "Westboro Baptist Church hate" in your image search, and you should understand the outrage, it is not just disrespectful it is derogatory and just plain cruel.

Here is what they have on some of their signs,

Thank God for dead soldiers

God Blew up the Shuttle

God hates your tears

Thank God for IEDs

Pray for more dead soldiers

Thank God for September 11

Death penalty for [Gays]

Thank God for breast cancer

God sent the killer

Heath(the man who died) in hell

And that is just on their signs what they say is even worse.

They believe the real Nazi's are the Jews.

don't get me wrong... i'm completely against what they've done. but if they did it in a public place, then they have the right to do it. having a right though doesn't mean they ARE right.

but taking that right away from them means you have to take it away from everyone, equally. and then what? before long, you won't be able to do things that you can do now and take for granted. for example...

today, you can go on vacation and take pictures. let's say you happen to take one where i'm in the background and people can tell it's me (incidentally, you can do this today, as long as you took the picture in a public place... i can even be in my home... as long as you're in the street, you can snap away... legally). you post it to your blog with a caption that i happen to not agree with, like 'vegetarians rule'. suddenly, you're faced with a lawsuit because i don't like that i'm in a picture in a public place you took that promotes vegetarianism. the grounds for my lawsuit could be something stupid like you have no first amendment right to say what you want and by so doing in a picture that includes me, you've harmed me. granted, this is an extreme example, but i'm using it to point out that taking away someone's right to say what they want, right or wrong, has dangerous, and unforeseen, consequences.

another (less extreme) example: you would no longer be able to say that all muslims are terrorists (they are most definitely NOT all terrorists), nor would you be able to say that immigrants are job-sucking criminals (immigrants are certainly NOT job-sucking criminals... in fact, i'd be willing to bet they contribute a great deal to american society... but that's not the point). and finally, forums like this one, where you're freely expressing your opinions and feelings right now, would not be allowed to exist.

i don't want anyone telling me what i can and can't say. i DO want to be able to post vacation pictures with that obscure topless woman in the background.

and i like that i can freely say that, and that there's nothing anyone can do to stop me, whether you agree with me or think i'm a pervert.

No, I somewhat agree with you, but they should be very very far away from the mother who just lost her child.

We do know better, that is why this is illegal. Unless they cross a line(and they are too well coached to do that), they are entirely within the bounds of the First Admendment.

It does say after all, Freedom of Speech, not Only the speech you find in good taste..

The reasons for this are abundantly clear. Today's Westboro Baptist Church(biggotted ***** should be charged with some sort of crime...) could be tomorrows protestors over something else, maybe repeal of the child labor laws or minimum wage laws(some on the far right would love that one..).

Unless they cross a line(and they are too well coached to do that it seems) they are legal.

Shame on you for advocating limiting free speech.

Yes, you do. And I agree!

Just as much as I do to wish the members of that "church" a horrible, painful death.

As long as you're not standing right in front of their "church" holding a can of gasoline or a Molotov cocktail in your hands, knock yourself out.

I'm with you, Pat! Last summer, I essentially said the same thing. I will repeat it here...

I look forward to reading in the newspaper or seeing on the news where someone with some balls decided to resolve the issue by copying the scene from that movie "The Patriot". You know, the scene where the Brits rounded up all the towns people and locked them in the church and then set it on fire. Just replace the towns people with all the inbred members of this so-called church. If ever there was such a thing as poetic justice, this would be it!

No, I'm not so sure you have the right to incite arson.

Are you kidding, VDO? Bob? I couldn't count the number of "god hates fags" moments I've caught you guys in on my fingers even if I had sixteen hands... Suddenly NOW you're against them?

Pat, if you do burn the building and all the garbage inside the EPA is liable to come down on you for air polution...burning all that sh.. without a permit.

brert

do they have the right to incite hate

So let's yell fire in a theatre! Is that Freedom of Speech also?

A few years back a friend of mine's son was killed in Iraq... and the protesters were out. We ignored them and there were no problems. We have a free speech culture for a reason - Phelps and his followers have some issues... many say they're nut cases, but this is America and they have the right to picket.

As many posters have said, ignore them... if they accost someone it's a different story and there are laws preventing them from doing such. But let them piss-and-moan.

Grace, Please your ignorance is showing. The only way to fight fire is sometimes you have to start another fire. Like I said: People need to protest this church.

Wow, hate speach is legal! At what time does it become illegal? What fine line? I mean, if someone under extreme stress at losing their son or daughter were to react violently and say...oh, I don't know...let's say shoot about a dozen of these sh!tbirds to death, would that person get away with the claim of temporary insanity?

Some words do hurt and some people will put that hurt back on those that caused the hurt. I, of course, am not advocating violence, I am just wondering what would happen.

I'd say it's fortunate. This is America. We don't just give rights to nice people.

Sure they did. What were the Founding Fathers using their Freedom of Speeach to do? Start a rebellion, overthrow the King (who sat on the throne by Divine Right, no less), and incite a war that caused thousands of deaths. So yes, the Constitution was designed to protect ALL speech, even that which some (most) find offensive. I would guess that the people who are upset about the WBC's funeral protests also would have been upset about the anti-war protestors of the Viet Nam era. Some of those were pretty offensive. And perhaps these same people will say that THOSE should have been banned. And there are those who found the civil rights protests offensive (many, in fact, at the time). So THOSE should have been banned. The Tea Party protests equating Obama with Hitler were pretty offense (to some, at least); let's ban THOSE, too. People, if you want YOUR speech protected, you have to protect the speech of others'. That has been Constitutional dogma for two centuries, and I am appalled that one SC Justice was still able to get it wrong.

Don't forget Marty, the dems also displayed pictures of Bush as Hitler.

Exactly my point. This is not a Democrat/Republican issue (though 98% of the posters to this and similar forums always frame such things in that light), but rather, should speech be protected. Just as the Democrats have a right to portray Bush as Hitler, so do the Tea Party protesters have the right to portray Obama as Hitler. Neither is in good taste, and both are sophomoric when it comes to making convincing arguments (meaning, arguments to convince your opponents, rather than just to get "high fives" from your supporters). But both are protected by the Constitution.

In reply to those who say "I can't say 'bomb' in an airport or 'fire' in a theater" (actually, the real prohibition is on "falsely" saying "fire" in a theater; if there is a real fire, you are allowed to yell "fire"), those are very limited restrictions imposed for safety. Guess what? We already have those very same limitations on the WBC. They cannot protest graveside. They need to be back a certain distance. Similar rules apply to anti-abortion protesters (they can't clog the entrance to clinics). But you CAN say "bomb" outside of the airport, or false yell "fire" outside the theater, and protest against abortions a short distance away from entrances to clinics. Just so, the WBC CAN protest a short distance away from funerals.

Marty, free speech is wonderful, but the location is the problem. I suppose that if I start to shout my opinions in your face, you might have two choices, back away or push me off.

That pushing would be assault, but what about my actions? As an instigator, should I not be punished? Really, where is the line?

If you scream in my face, I am not at liberty to use violence against you. That's just how it is. But if I walk away, and you follow me, and you continue to scream at me, I can bring an action against you for harassment. Even if what you are screaming is "you are a great guy I really really like you". It is not the content of the speech that is actionable, but the manner. Bringing the example back to the WBC, if all of their signs and all of their chants said "We love soldiers!", but everything else was the same, would there be a problem? No. The physical location was not the problem; the CONTENT of the speech was the problem. And THAT is what is protected under the Constitution.

Marty Fan-2602617 - I disagree with your interpretation about what our founding fathers meant.

The founding fathers clearly wanted to ensure that citizens always had a voice to make so that public authorities were not abusing the authority given to them. In the case of the Vietnam protests or the more recent protests here in Wisconsin those people were picketing our government to demand a change.

These Westboro a-holes are not protesting to the people in authority. They are piling hate & slander upon the private citizens mourning the loss of a loved one. Even if you go out on a very long limb and say that the solders are somehow public figures, these public figures are in fact deceased, so whom are they picketing if not the families and friends of the deceased who are definitely not public figures.

Do you honestly believe that free speech means I can gather a crowd in front of your house or anyplace in public that you may go, and start shouting slanderous things about you as a way of protesting my government? I may have the legal right to do that, but that doesn't mean that is what the founding fathers had in mind.

Really Denton, just what do you think the Freedom of Speech meant?

Marty, I have to say that I would take three steps back and if that person came up to me screaming again, I would use what ever force I feel is necessary to defend myself because I will not back down. A shouting person might well be out of control and a danger to me physically. That right to self defense seems to be taken away from the people by the lawyers.

And yes, the content is of concern BECAUSE of the location. They can say what ever they want EXCEPT at funerals of fallen soldiers. That is a place where the families can not take "three steps back" because there will only be one funeral for their loved one.

I would be hard pressed to convict a grieving family member that was pushed into "temporary insanity" by "free speech" to the point that he wiped out the whole church, kids and all. Some people can only take so much and then they snap.

Perhaps my opinions are why I do not get jury summons anymore. I guess I am just not PC enough.

RU no, I doubt if you could shout slanderous things and get away with it. The problem is that the WBC knows exactly how far they can go before their speech crosses over into the realm of slander. We are talking about a bunch of lawyers playing the system to make money. They are carefully coached to not break any laws (except that of good taste).

Unfortunate, but there it is.

MOS, they're not standing at the gravesite or inside the church. Those are usually considered PRIVATE property, and thus not within the First Amendment's "zone of protection".

They're usually standing outside the cemetary, or outside the church, on PUBLIC property. Sometimes they're as much as 200-300 yards away, because as long as they STAY on public property they are protected by the Constitution.

The lack of sense and sensibility does not make it blindjustice right