Westboro - Free Speech or Harassment?

S

speedracer

Banned
Please don't vote until you read the opinion. I want to know where people are after they read it. kthx

It went 8-1 for Westboro. I thought they were correct until I read the opinions. I found Justice Alito's dissent extremely compelling and I'm honestly stumped. I think I'm leaning towards Alito. We all auto assume that free speech pwns all, but does it really? Should it really? Really really?

Opinion can be found here: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-751.pdf

To skip to Alito's dissent (since we already pretty much know what the majority opinion says), page down towards the bottom. The page numbers start over after each section but you know you're in the right place when the header goes from Syllabus -> Opinion of the Court -> Breyer Concurring -> Alito Dissenting.

Be a good Murrrkin and read it damn it.

Thoughts?

A choice quote to tempt you to go read it (cites removed for easy reading).
A plaintiff must also establish that the defendant’s conduct was “ ‘so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community.’ ” Although the elements of the IIED tort are difficult to meet, respondents long ago abandoned any effort to show that those tough standards were not satisfied here. On appeal, they chose not to contest the sufficiency of the evidence. They did not dispute that Mr. Snyder suffered “ ‘wounds that are truly severe and incapable of healing themselves.’ ” Nor did they dispute that their speech was “ ‘so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community.’ ” Instead, they maintained that the First Amendment gave them a license to engage in such conduct. They are wrong.
Click to expand...
 
Ah... dammit. I clicked too quickly. Reading dissent now.

EDIT:

Read. I vote the same way.

"Respondents’ outrageous conduct caused petitioner great injury, and the Court now compounds that injury by depriving petitioner of a judgment that acknowledges the wrong he suffered.

In order to have a society in which public issues can be openly and vigorously debated, it is not necessary to allow the brutalization of innocent victims like petitioner. I therefore respectfully dissent."
Click to expand...

I agree with the majority of the dissent, except for the conclusion. I would like to see actually a revocation of tax exempt status for the church, because this activity clearly is political in nature. But we cannot simply muzzle them.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm inclined to agree with Alito but I think it creates a dangerous precendent.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't...

Regardless, if there is a hell, those protesters will be placed in the devil's mouth.
 
Based on what I've learned about this case (including some short clips of the protesters) and Alito's opinion, I have to say that I agree with the majority here.

For me, there's no doubt that the methods of Westboro BC are despicable and brutish; however, the nature of emotional distress and injury is too subjective and widely varied. At what point can you say someone has been emotionally injured enough to qualify something as actionable harrassment?

If we start drawing lines in this manner, who can say where it will stop, and how much of what is currently considered free speech will we have lost?


Supreme Court case aside, I certainly can't say I know how it feels to be one of the bereaved, but from my point of view, I believe a little rational thought would lead to the conclusion that the protesters are clearly in disagreement with their affiliated religion – particularly with regard to Jesus (whose Biblically depicted behavior and directives they make no attempt to emulate, despite claiming him as their Lord and supposedly worshipping him), and that these benighted fools are therefore inferior (for lack of a better term), both due to their hypocrisy and flagrant disregard for the feelings of others. Thus, their opinions mean less and the emotional damage is precluded.

Those are my thoughts for this particular case. Eventually, an even more aversive display will most likely put these laws and concepts to the test, at which point I will reconsider my overall opinion.
 
[quote name='speedracer']We all auto assume that free speech pwns all, but does it really? Should it really? Really really?
[/QUOTE]

It should, pretty much. Any exceptions should be minimal like the things we currently have with not yelling fire in a crowded room or bomb at the airport, libel/slander laws etc.

Our level of freedoms is the one thing that sets the US apart from the rest of the world IMO, so I'm very hesitant to put any kind of limitations on them.

Things like Westboro are despicable, but should be covered by free speech laws. But they should be able to be banned from being within a certain distance of funeral processions etc. They can make their protest just as effectively out of earshot from mourners. That's no different thatn free speech protest/demonstration areas on college campuses being limited to certain free speech zones where they don't disturb classes etc.

I'll try to give the opinions a read sometime. Too tired currently. Recovering from sinus surgery last week is still kicking my butt!
 
[quote name='ID2006']For me, there's no doubt that the methods of Westboro BC are despicable and brutish; however, the nature of emotional distress and injury is too subjective and widely varied. At what point can you say someone has been emotionally injured enough to qualify something as actionable harrassment?[/QUOTE]
Westboro themselves did not contest that they had emotionally injured the plaintiff "severely" without capacity to heal.
They did not dispute that Mr. Snyder suffered “ ‘wounds that are truly severe and incapable of healing themselves.’ ” Nor did they dispute that their speech was “ ‘so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community.’
Click to expand...
Just food for though.
 
That Church is in a Conceal and Carry state isn't it? We should send that guy that shot the AZ Lady... Hey buddy, go have some fun, you get a gumball for every religious wackjob that you end.
 
The problem is that they wouldn't dispute it because if they did, that would be admitting that their protest wasn't effective. They are bordering on professional trolls and as such need the validation and attention.

I don't see this as protecting freedom of speech. This isn't the KKK putting out a newsletter or heck, even putting on a public rally. These are people purposely trying to cause trouble. I'm frankly not even sure they believe what they spout, since they've tried to goad the internet group Anonymous, so they obviously know what they're doing in regards to trying to get headlines. Let them continue doing what ever they want to but just not be able to do it in a place where their only point is to instigate.
 
Yeah the majority said it's still cool to make laws banning them from being within 1000 ft. etc. of the funeral. They said the protest itself is constitutional. I agree with that. I would support laws banning them from protesting within a certain distance of the funerals.

Oh and the Phelps' are Democrats. Just sayin'.
 
While I do agree that Freedom of Speech needs to cover all speech, including hateful rhetoric that comes from the WBC, it seems to run counter of a previous decision Chaplinski vs New Hampshire which essentially limits Freedom of Speech when it comes to speech that is deemed to be insulting or "fighting words", which by their very utterance could incite a breech of peace. It would seem to me that since WBC is targeting specific families and groups, that what they do could be deemed illegal under the fighting words doctrine.
 
There was no 'fighting words' doctrine in effect in the location they were protesting (in this case), as far as I know. They were also protesting outside of the 1000 ft. ordinance, so they weren't violating that law either.
 
We can't muzzle free speech, but make no mistake.. They will protest the wrong place and then they will be all over the news just like they wished.
 
Alito's dissent seems to suggest that it's not protected speech b/c it falls under obscenity statutes (or at least legal language similar to the definition of obscenity). I don't entirely agree. On one hand, the first amendment is the first amendment, for better or worse. On another, communities do have "decency standards" that a person can legally violate.
 
Words themselves are meaningless. It is the people behind them that gives words their strength through action.

The only action WBC has ever done is hold up a sign and shout in a public space. They are no different than any other lunatic on a street corner shouting about the "End of Days".

Thus, the appropriate action is what the vast majority of us perform when we encounter such idiocy: We ignore them.

~HotShotX
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']It should, pretty much. Any exceptions should be minimal like the things we currently have with not yelling fire in a crowded room or bomb at the airport, libel/slander laws etc.

Our level of freedoms is the one thing that sets the US apart from the rest of the world IMO, so I'm very hesitant to put any kind of limitations on them.

Things like Westboro are despicable, but should be covered by free speech laws. But they should be able to be banned from being within a certain distance of funeral processions etc. They can make their protest just as effectively out of earshot from mourners. That's no different thatn free speech protest/demonstration areas on college campuses being limited to certain free speech zones where they don't disturb classes etc.[/QUOTE]

This is a more reasoned approach - this whole thing is really a failure of the law and judicial activism isn't going to solve a problem that the legislature really should be addressing.

[quote name='HotShotX']Words themselves are meaningless. It is the people behind them that gives words their strength through action.

The only action WBC has ever done is hold up a sign and shout in a public space. They are no different than any other lunatic on a street corner shouting about the "End of Days".

Thus, the appropriate action is what the vast majority of us perform when we encounter such idiocy: We ignore them.

~HotShotX[/QUOTE]

Complete bullshit. In the city there is a lunatic who routinely yells judgemental nonsense through a megaphone until the cops bust him for noise ordinace. Honestly noone really cares about this fool.

If he had been at the funeral of someone I loved, I would have been upset. It's very different.
 
I don't know, as much as I do despise Phelps and his family (his family, which makes up most if not all of the WBC), I think it's too difficult to say what does harm and what doesn't. I mean some people may be able to ignore these fools and not have it bother them at all, others may break down in tears. On the other hand, I'd have no problem with them expanding the area around funerals that they have to stay beyond. Far enough that nobody at the funeral has to hear them unless they want to.
 
I'd love to find a protest like that going on somewhere, head to the nearest stationary store and make a poster that says something along the lines of "You're Not Very Nice"
 
Yeeeeeeeah, but as many people have brought up, WBC are trolls. One of the few lessons my parents taught me at a young age, which I disagreed with then but see the brilliance of now, is to ignore people that seek to irritate you. Not in a "let that dude bully you" way, but if dude's just being a prick, let it roll off your shoulder.

The worst thing that can happen to the WBC is that the world pretends they don't exist.
 
Yep. Their, like any trolls, goal is to annoy people and get attention. It's best to just not give them the satisfaction and ignore them.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Yep. Their, like any trolls, goal is to annoy people and get attention. It's best to just not give them the satisfaction and ignore them.[/QUOTE]

Easier said then done.
 
Of course. If people ignore them, they'll step up their level of offensiveness.

Which is kind of the point. Ignore them entirely or draw them into violating the law (because their traditional tactics are not working).

Unless you have a problem with them expressing their views in the United States. That's always an option, though all but Alito disagree with you.
 
[quote name='IRHari']There was no 'fighting words' doctrine in effect in the location they were protesting (in this case), as far as I know. They were also protesting outside of the 1000 ft. ordinance, so they weren't violating that law either.[/QUOTE]

Did the funeral not take place in the United States? The fighting words doctrine is constitutional - it is "in effect" everywhere all of the time although it is very very very tough to suppress speech over. Same thing with imminent lawless action or whatever that one is called.

What those assholes did probably does constitute "free speech" although I really like Alito's dissent.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Of course. If people ignore them, they'll step up their level of offensiveness.

Which is kind of the point. Ignore them entirely or draw them into violating the law (because their traditional tactics are not working).

Unless you have a problem with them expressing their views in the United States. That's always an option, though all but Alito disagree with you.[/QUOTE]

I'm not saying there's an easy answer. It's just that pretending these idiots can be ignored is a pat answer along the lines of "sticks and stones".

What really needs to be done is a serious reexamination of the carte blanche given to religion in America. Phelps is a devious lawyer, he wouldn't be able to get away with half of this crap if his "religion" wasn't benefiting from the generosity of the US government.
 
I think you'd be hard pressed to make a claim that WBC is a political group, if that's where your mind is headed.

I think we should tax the living fuck out of churches, since they no longer put up any pretense of political agnosticism. But that's another issues, largely.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I think you'd be hard pressed to make a claim that WBC is a political group, if that's where your mind is headed.

I think we should tax the living fuck out of churches, since they no longer put up any pretense of political agnosticism. But that's another issues, largely.[/QUOTE]

Yeah my point was a little more broad, I think if we took off the "white gloves" approach when it comes to religion, organizations such as WBC and Scientology would fall like the house of cards they are.

Ultimately this is a fixable problem - it's just a symptom of a bigger issue.
 
[quote name='nasum']That Church is in a Conceal and Carry state isn't it? We should send that guy that shot the AZ Lady... Hey buddy, go have some fun, you get a gumball for every religious wackjob that you end.[/QUOTE]

C'mon, dude. How is that any different than the religious wackjobs saying the same crap about sending a guy to San Francisco and giving him a gumball for every $$$ queer libtard he offs?

Don't pretend you wouldn't be outraged.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top