Westboro Baptist Church

[Stan]

-- Supreme Court upholds Westboro Baptist Church's right to stage anti-gay protests at funerals of U.S. troops.

[Jeannieb43]

Yes. It's a strong support of the First Amendment. Even though the "speech" which is being protected here is offensive to many people, the Supremes still ruled [8-1 I think] in favor of their First Amendment rights.

[Woody]

Yes Jeannie. And as much as we would dislike it ... it was the right thing to do.

[Dottie]

I had always thought if a group was to have a demonstration, that they first had to procure a permit. Guess I am wrong.

[doug yowell]

Yes Jeannie. And as much as we would dislike it ... it was the right thing to do.

I'm not totally convinced. Judge Alito asserts that the court has just extended the right of freedom of speech to include the right to intentionally inflict pain and suffering on another human being. This Westboro group is perhaps the most despicable group of people in the country. They invite the judgments of God on themselves rather than on their intended victims.

[Woody]

Originally Posted By: Woody

Yes Jeannie. And as much as we would dislike it ... it was the right thing to do.

I'm not totally convinced. Judge Alito asserts that the court has just extended the right of freedom of speech to include the right to intentionally inflict pain and suffering on another human being. This Westboro group is perhaps the most despicable group of people in the country. They invite the judgments of God on themselves rather than on their intended victims.

I agree with you. But I would not want you or any of your friends to decide what speech is inflicting pain and what speech is not.

[olger]

Westboro is a dweeb.

g

[Dr. Shane]

I think it was a good decision for freedom of speech.

[Tom Wetmore]

I had always thought if a group was to have a demonstration, that they first had to procure a permit. Guess I am wrong.

It is my understanding that the Westboro bunch do carefully comply with any local regulations placed on demonstrations, including obtaining permits. In the instant case local law enforcement restricting how close they could be to the actual funeral. They remained at that distance on public property, which was at least 1000 feet. Mr. Snyder (the father of the dead soldier) said he could only see the tops of the signs while driving to the funeral and really did not know what it was all about until he saw it on the news later.

[Tom Wetmore]

Yes. It's a strong support of the First Amendment. Even though the "speech" which is being protected here is offensive to many people, the Supremes still ruled [8-1 I think] in favor of their First Amendment rights.

An 8-1 decision on this helps restore my confidence in the Supreme Court. If our right to free speech is erroded, all of our freedoms begin to crumble. It is the foundation of a free press, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion, political freedom, etc.

The irony is that soldier died in defense of our freedoms, including the right of the Westboro Baptist bunch to freely express their views without govermental interference.

[doug yowell]

Originally Posted By: Dottie

I had always thought if a group was to have a demonstration, that they first had to procure a permit. Guess I am wrong.

It is my understanding that the Westboro bunch do carefully comply with any local regulations placed on demonstrations, including obtaining permits. In the instant case local law enforcement restricting how close they could be to the actual funeral. They remained at that distance on public property, which was at least 1000 feet. Mr. Snyder (the father of the dead soldier) said he could only see the tops of the signs while driving to the funeral and really did not know what it was all about until he saw it on the news later.

If these are the accurate facts then I concur with the decision.

[Jeannieb43]

Here's a good article about the ruling in this case. It's obvious from this article that the demonstrators did obtain a permit and did comply with all local laws before they marched.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arch...titution/71949/

[james423]

Very good article.

[doug yowell]

Here's a good article about the ruling in this case. It's obvious from this article that the demonstrators did obtain a permit and did comply with all local laws before they marched.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arch...titution/71949/

Thanks Jeannie, very informative.

[lazarus]

Tom, Do you think they would have made the same decision if it were members of the Westboro Mosque who were having these demonstrations? I tend to doubt it.

[Stan]

interesting thought

[phkrause]

Here's a link to what Shawn Boonstra had to say on this subject

http://www.adventistreview.org/article.php?id=4217

[lazarus]

interesting thought

It seems to me that its the speaker rather than the speech that determines how free the speech is allowed to be.