Supreme Court Rules in Favor of WBC

[Ragnus]

1st Amendment protects military funeral protesters

By MARK SHERMAN
Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that the First Amendment protects fundamentalist church members who mount anti-gay protests outside military funerals, despite the pain they cause grieving families.

The court voted 8-1 in favor of the Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kan. The decision upheld an appeals court ruling that threw out a $5 million judgment to the father of a dead Marine who sued church members after they picketed his son's funeral.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the opinion for the court. Justice Samuel Alito dissented.

Roberts said free speech rights in the First Amendment shield the funeral protesters, noting that they obeyed police directions and were 1,000 feet from the church.

"Speech is powerful. It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and - as it did here - inflict great pain. On the facts before us, we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker," Roberts said. "As a nation we have chosen a different course - to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate."

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.

Matthew Snyder died in Iraq in 2006 and his body was returned to the United States for burial. Members of the Westboro Baptist Church, who have picketed military funerals for several years, decided to protest outside the Westminster, Md., church where his funeral was to be held.

The Rev. Fred Phelps and his family members who make up most of the Westboro Baptist Church have picketed many military funerals in their quest to draw attention to their incendiary view that U.S. deaths in Afghanistan and Iraq are God's punishment for the nation's tolerance of homosexuality.

They showed up with their usual signs, including "Thank God for dead soldiers," "You're Going to Hell," "God Hates the USA/Thank God for 9/11," and one that combined the U.S. Marine Corps motto, Semper Fi, with a slur against gay men.

The church members drew counter-demonstrators, as well as media coverage and a heavy police presence to maintain order. The result was a spectacle that led to altering the route of the funeral procession.

Several weeks later, Albert Snyder was surfing the Internet for tributes to his son from other soldiers and strangers when he came upon a poem on the church's website that attacked Matthew's parents for the way they brought up their son.

Soon after, Snyder filed a lawsuit accusing the Phelpses of intentionally inflicting emotional distress. He won $11 million at trial, later reduced by a judge to $5 million.

The federal appeals court in Richmond, Va., threw out the verdict and said the Constitution shielded the church members from liability.

Forty-eight states, 42 U.S. senators and veterans groups sided with Snyder, asking the court to shield funerals from the Phelps family's "psychological terrorism."

While distancing themselves from the church's message, media organizations, including The Associated Press, urged the court to side with the Phelps family because of concerns that a victory for Snyder could erode speech rights.

Roberts described the court's holding as narrow, and in a separate opinion, Justice Stephen Breyer suggested in other circumstances, governments would not be "powerless to provide private individuals with necessary protection."

But in this case, Breyer said, it would be wrong to "punish Westboro for seeking to communicate its views on matters of public concern."

Margie Phelps, a daughter of the minister and a lawyer who argued the case at the Supreme Court, said she expected the outcome. "The only surprise is that Justice Alito did not feel compelled to follow his oath," Phelps said. "We read the law. We follow the law. The only way for a different ruling is to shred the First Amendment."

She also offered her church's view of the decision. "I think it's pretty self-explanatory, but here's the core point: The wrath of God is pouring onto this land. Rather than trying to shut us up, use your platforms to tell this nation to mourn for your sins."

TL|DR version: Supreme Court finds in favor of WBC in the name of not stifling public debate / The WBC trolls feel ultra empowered and righteous because of it.

I need a stiff drink or 30...

[Olo401]

Proof once more that even the most hateful pieces of shit in this country are granted a voice.

[Athas]

Was anyone really expecting this to go the other way?

[Surealistic]

i wonder if that freedom of speech would stand if you were to stand outside their church with signs saying "fuck religion" or things along those lines

[Necronus]

Proof once more that even the most hateful pieces of shit in this country are granted a voice.

It's not like, ya know, we didn't decide as a country to let them have a voice or nothin' >.>

[archibaldcrane]

Yay religion!

[Serra]

i wonder if that freedom of speech would stand if you were to stand outside their church with signs saying "fuck religion" or things along those lines

They'd probably get you for profanity in that case.

Not that I'm suggesting this.. but would be interesting to see if someone held an evolution rally denouncing creationism coincidentally on Sunday and coincidentally in front of this church, and then cited this case in their defense, how people would react.

[Acturus]

Either the article quoted is not representing the facts correctly, or something is seriously wrong here.

Several weeks later, Albert Snyder was surfing the Internet for tributes to his son from other soldiers and strangers when he came upon a poem on the church's website that attacked Matthew's parents for the way they brought up their son.

Soon after, Snyder filed a lawsuit accusing the Phelpses of intentionally inflicting emotional distress. He won $11 million at trial, later reduced by a judge to $5 million.

Why does free speech protect libelous actions? The Phelpses are not public figures, and they filed a lawsuit based on a poem that was published on the WBC website that made negative comments about the way the Phelpses raised their son.

It's not about picketing funerals, or even their attitude towards gays or the military or whatever. But if you publish things that are untrue and cause another person damage because of it, that is a libelous action, and libel is punishable by criminal and civil processes here.

[Ragnus]

But they're a church man! A CHURCH! >_>

[Surealistic]

religion has special rules

[archibaldcrane]

Libel is very difficult to prove, and the assertion that they "brought him up wrong" is a subjective generality. If they'd claimed specifically that he beat his son or abused him or something (I'd have to see the actual claim) then it would be easier to sue for.

[Acturus]

Libel is very difficult to prove, and the assertion that they "brought him up wrong" is a subjective generality. If they'd claimed specifically that he beat his son or abused him or something (I'd have to see the actual claim) then it would be easier to sue for.

Yeah, I can see that. I also think they made a bigger case out of it, calling it "emotional distress", which probably rolled up the protest too.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Either the article quoted is not representing the facts correctly, or something is seriously wrong here.


Why does free speech protect libelous actions? The Phelpses are not public figures, and they filed a lawsuit based on a poem that was published on the WBC website that made negative comments about the way the Phelpses raised their son.

It's not about picketing funerals, or even their attitude towards gays or the military or whatever. But if you publish things that are untrue and cause another person damage because of it, that is a libelous action, and libel is punishable by criminal and civil processes here.

At the risk of aurik coming in here and trolling again, in order to get punitive damages as a private figure, you have to prove actual malice. And that goes for IIED or libel.

[archibaldcrane]

I think it's pretty obvious they are intentionally offending/distressing people in order to provoke a reaction that they can sue for - but I know that stuff is harder to prove in a courtroom than in a common-sense way.

[Acturus]

I think it's pretty obvious they are intentionally offending/distressing people in order to provoke a reaction that they can sue for - but I know that stuff is harder to prove in a courtroom than in a common-sense way.

I also have to wonder if the Phelpses got out-lawyered based on how the WBC argued the appeal.

[aurik]

At the risk of aurik coming in here and trolling again, in order to get punitive damages as a private figure, you have to prove actual malice. And that goes for IIED or libel.

You still seem a bit upset, friend.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-751.pdf Here's a link to the opinion and the facts as the court put them don't list the facts listed above.

From a cursory glance it seems the court based their decision on the fact that the speech relates to public matters, not private, they were in a public place in a public forum, and should they have been subjected to liability it would have been viewpoint discrimination, which is one of the few absolutes in the constitution. Viewpoint discrimination is never allowed no matter how vial the speech.

[archibaldcrane]

vial

...

[Demosthenes11]

I think it's pretty obvious they are intentionally offending/distressing people in order to provoke a reaction that they can sue for - but I know that stuff is harder to prove in a courtroom than in a common-sense way.

...isn't that the point of protesting? I'm pretty sure you are trying to offend the other side and make them feel pressured.

Not being flippant at you, personally, but the law itself.

[Gwynplaine]

This is completely proper even if you don't like their message.

The problem isn't with speech, it's an issue of what you get with public property. When property is "public" then any group of jackoffs can claim public use of it to speak their mind. If it were private property then I'm sure they would be told to get the fuck out.