Snyder v. Phelps Decided

[JollyRoger]

This was 1,000 feet from the funeral. Why should I be able to sue for a protest going on 1,000 feet from me?

 

[Formaldehyde]

You are incorrect in saying nobody. For example, I myself still have yet to be shown how being disrespectful at soldiers' funerals has anything to do with Egyptians. Care to actually explain?

I meant other people who don't deliberately try to misinterpret others' opinions, instead of addressing the real issues. I guess I should have been more specific.

In case you missed it the first time:

It certainly wouldn't be "illegal" in this country to protest. They demanded their "rights" even though they apparently didn't even exist at the time, and still don't.

How can you approve their protests and be so opposed to these? Shouldn't Americans, and even Canadians, have the same "rights" you apparently find so vital for Egyptians to have?

So how about you? Do you think Americans deserve their rights to be protected under their own Constitution, as the Supremes have ruled 8-1? Or do you think that just pertains to those living in foreign countries which you are apparently even willing to invade to protect?

Free speech wins again.

Has it really if so many Americans apparently don't even support it?

Virtually everyone in this country hates the WBC.

Well, that's a heck of a good reason to enact an amendment to the Constitution. It reminds me of the Patriot Act. What possible harm could result from that?

This was 1,000 feet from the funeral. Why should I be able to sue for a protest going on 1,000 feet from me?

You have to think of the sensibilities of the far-right. If they are offended there is likely very good reason. Take the 9/11 Mosque, for instance.

 

[Miles Teg]

It's not a matter of "following the majority". In many cases such as these, it is a matter of being so out-of-step with the Constitution and the tenets which this country was founded that whoever appointed them in the first place was obviously a reactionary idiot.

I strongly agree. John Marshall Harlan proved that he had no understanding of the Constitution when he launched a solitary, 1 against 8 dissent against the Plessy vs Ferguson decision that declared segregation to be constitutional.

That's beside that time Harlan should have been kicked off the bench for his solitary dissent in Hurtado v. California, where he found that the 14th ammendment meant the state couldn't discriminate against protected classes of people.

 

[JollyRoger]

You have to think of the sensibilities of the far-right. If they are offended there is likely very good reason. Take the 9/11 Mosque, for instance.

What was that, 3 or 4 thousand posts to keep a community center from being built? WOnder how they would feel about the Phelps group protesting that.

 

[Formaldehyde]

I strongly agree. John Marshall Harlan proved that he had no understanding of the Constitution when he launched a solitary, 1 against 8 dissent against the Plessy vs Ferguson decision that declared segregation to be constitutional.

That's beside that time Harlan should have been kicked off for his solitary dissent in Hurtado v. California, where he found that the 14th ammendment meant the state couldn't discriminate against protected classes of people.

I guess you completely missed this post from the same page:

Sometimes there is very good reason for being the lone dissenter. I don't see that at all in any of the cases I provided above. I really think there should be a better mechanism to remove the ones who clearly do not belong there based on their own voting records. I think it is clear we cannot trust current presidents to properly vet them, at least that is the case with two recent Republicans.

What was that, 3 or 4 thousand posts to keep a community center from being built? WOnder how they would feel about the Phelps group protesting that.

You mean how many might even show up to show their support?

 

[Miles Teg]

I guess you completely missed this post from the same page

That half of your post amounted to an inane attempt to force the courts to find the decisions you would like. I ignored it for a reason.

 

[Ajidica]

Question: What exactly caused the SC to rule in favor of Phelps? Was it the fact he wasn't technicaly harrasing the people at the funeral, or was it more from the 1st ammendment freedom of speach?

 

[JollyRoger]

Alito has been kind of an outlier though, but hasn't written anything in dissent that makes him a great dissenter. He shouldn't be impeached, but he is perhaps the least persuasive member of the Court right now.

Question: What exactly caused the SC to rule in favor of Phelps? Was it the fact he wasn't technicaly harrasing the people at the funeral, or was it more from the 1st ammendment freedom of speach?

It is more like there shouldn't be a civil remedy for Phelps actions. Let the government set time, manner, and place restrictions on speech, but do not let a private party sue over a mere protest that complied with local laws.

 

[Formaldehyde]

That half of your post amounted to an inane attempt to force the courts to find the decisions you would like. I ignored it for a reason.

Ironically, I even already responded to that complete and utter nonsense. Perhaps you should spend more time reading the other posts before responding to the ones at the very beginning of the thread.

How about you? Think we should be stuck with bad justices merely because the presidents who appointed them were reactionaries and completely incompetent? Or should there be an easier way to review the abysmal record of a few recent appointments to impeach them on different grounds, such as being clearly incompetent or hopelessly biased to a ridiculous extreme?

Or don't you have any problem with the Supremes even appointing the wrong person as president by a 5-4 decision?

 

[Ajidica]

It is more like there shouldn't be a civil remedy for Phelps actions. Let the government set time, manner, and place restrictions on speech, but do not let a private party sue over a mere protest that complied with local laws.

How much precedent does this case set for those wanting to remove hate speach laws?
(Has there been a SC case that declared hate speach laws constitutional?)

 

[Miles Teg]

Ironically, I even already responded to that complete and utter nonsense. Perhaps you should spend more time reading the other posts before responding to the ones at the very beginning of the thread.

How about you? Think we should be stuck with bad justices merely because the presidents who appointed them were reactionaries and completely incompetent? Or should there be an easier way to review the abysmal record of a few recent appointments to impeach them on different grounds, such as being clearly incompetent or hopelessly biased to a ridiculous extreme?

There's a wide gulf between addressing the issue and saying that the issue has been addressed. I've only seen one of those things in this thread. You've said that you don't like Alito (can't say as I do either), and stated that people who launch solitary dissents should be impeached if they "don't belong" on the Supreme Court. You haven't provided an objective measure for this impeachment, other than the fact that you don't like Alito's theory of law.

And personally, I think that the heavily idiosyncratic nature of each justice is one of the Supreme Court's primary strengths. The tolerance of a wide variety of viewpoints, even the "wrong" ones, allows for some actual conversation in the court.

 

[Kraznaya]

If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all.

 

[Bei1052]

How is it harassment to lawfully stand on public land at one location and peacefully protest, instead of continually following someone around or acting in a similar manner?

It doesn't matter if they're on public land or not, as that doesn't prevent something from being harassment. Labeling something as a 'protest' doesn't make it as such, either. What, exactly, are they protesting by showing at a funeral, gleefully delighting in someone else's pain? Someone, mind you, who might not even be gay himself or agree with homosexuality himself? These guys are just trolling people in real life and it shouldn't be allowed. The First Amendment doesn't give you the right to say anything you want anywhere you want at any even you want.

 

[Mark1031]

The First Amendment doesn't give you the right to say anything you want anywhere you want at any even you want.

On Wed Mar 2 2011 it most certainly does. That is the law of the land and it is not even a close call. Does nobody understand that the "rule of law" does not mean that the law means what I (ie any individual) say it is? That would be the definition of anarchy.

 

[Bei1052]

On Wed Mar 2 2011 it most certainly does. That is the law of the land and it is not even a close call. Does nobody understand that the "rule of law" does not mean that the law means what I (ie any individual) say it is? That would be the definition of anarchy.

There are many things I cannot say where ever I want, such as making a death threat against the President or yelling fire in a crowded theater (those are just examples to illustrate the point). The First Amendment is not the be all, end all, allow you to say all anywhere you want that some people want to make it out to be, nor should it be. You should have the right to not be disturbed in certain arenas, a funeral being one of them. I know it's been used a lot, but I can assure you that no one here would defend the WBC if they happened to show up to one of your loved one's funerals, much less try to defend them using the First Amendment.

 

[madviking]

This all the precedent needed, really.

 

[Formaldehyde]

On Wed Mar 2 2011 it most certainly does. That is the law of the land and it is not even a close call. Does nobody understand that the "rule of law" does not mean that the law means what I (ie any individual) say it is? That would be the definition of anarchy.

I find it amazing that we still have a Constutition and any rights at all given how many people want to strip us of those very rights just because they happen to be offended by idiots or threatened by terrorists. It's a good thing that gays, blacks, and any other minority groups which have been oppressed for so many years by the bigots and the racists haven't reacted that way to their own idiots.

I can assure you that no one here would defend the WBC if they happened to show up to one of your loved one's funerals, much less try to defend them using the First Amendment.

First, they were 1000 feet away and weren't even visible from the funeral. The person who made the legal complaint didn't even know they were protesting at that funeral until it was pointed out to him after the fact.

Second, I would most assuredly feel exactly the same way if I was personally involved. I'm not willing to give up my basic rights due to the acts of people like these, and I really don't understand why anybody else would.

As illram has already pointed out, this decision was a "big snoozer". The only Americans who question it don't really appear to understand the Constitution and the basic tenets which this country was founded very well.

 

[Japanrocks12]

I agree with the majority decision and with the spirit of Alito's dissent. Next time, maybe people who want to hold funerals should intentionally lie about the address of the occasion in public and send the real address of the funeral to the invitees.

 

[madviking]

Note that the decision allowed for Phelps to protest a funeral, in general. It said nothing about the distance which they have to protest. Most states will probably now pass bills to increase the minimum distance to picket a funeral.

 

[Mr. Dictator]

I agree with the majority decision and with the spirit of Alito's dissent. Next time, maybe people who want to hold funerals should intentionally lie about the address of the occasion in public and send the real address of the funeral to the invitees.

Well I don't think running from them is the proper course of action.

People should plan human shields to keep them invisible from the funeral. Silent, but a nice show of support, I believe.