Deleted for not reading the post first… D’oh.
I concur with the decision.
However,
(who didn’t see that coming?)
There will be some expansion of this style of protest. I was apprised by a friend that supporters of gay marriage rights will start Westboro style protests at weddings of prominent conservatives (and their family members, when apropriate) that are not in favor of gay marriage rights.
Be thinking subsequent marriages of Newt Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh, Rick Santorum, etc. are going to be media spectacles.
Why the “however”? I don’t really see a problem with that.
I made no moral commentary on the expansion of the technique, just reported that it was being expanded.
Beyond that, I know when they called my pregnant friend after her husband was killed in Iraq, they called her and her unborn baby things like: “Fag lover,” “fag baby,” and said things like, “your baby is evil because of his fag father who is burning hell,” and “you and your fag baby will burn in hell for the sins of his fag father.”
I can’t imagine she’s the only one they said stuff like that to,
What does “in full compliance with the guidance of local officials” mean?
It seems to me the court completely ignored the concept of disturbing the peace. Funerals are by their nature an event designed for the emotional comfort of those attending. The Phelps are disturbing that peace, not as a ancillary function of their protest but as a primary function.
Freedom of speech should focus on communication. It was meant to protect the ability to transfer information. That process involves willing participants. It does not infer one party has a right to enforce the process over another. What the Phelps are doing is deliberate emotional harassment and does not reflect on their ability to get their message out to those who want to hear it. That is the line between disturbing the peace and freedom of speech.
Such a concept of “disturbing the peace” sounds flexible enough that you could stop anything you didn’t like. In any case, it seems to me that any disturbing the peace law would be limited by the concept of protected speech.
Free speech is confined to willing participants? That really stands the whole notion on its head. If the right of free speech doesn’t protect unpopular speech – that is, speech that people would prefer not to hear – then it really has no teeth at all.
I don’t think that was an issue in the lawsuit because the WBC was being sued for emotional distress, not prosecuted for breaking the law. As noted, they followed the local laws. I also think that, repugnant as these people are, you’re going to have trouble saying they disturbed the peace when they were quietly protesting 1,000 feet from the funeral. If that’s not sufficient to protect people like DiosaBellissima’s friend, then make them protest quietly 2,000 feet away, or a mile. I won’t care one whit.
They did not disturb or disrupt the funeral. In fact, the family has said they didn’t even know the WBC had been there until after the funeral as over.
This is the same case where the plaintiff didn’t even know the Phelpses were at the funeral until he saw it on the news when he got home, yes?
Yes.
Didn’t a portion of that case hinge on the fact that Falwell was a public figure and is not as protected against these torts as a private person like Snyder would be?
Don’t get me wrong, I agree with the majority, but like another poster said, Alito isn’t totally off-base here.
ETA: And yes, they did get personal; saying things like that Snyder was burning in hell forever because he died for this corrupt country, etc.
So far as I know, public figure status is relevant to a defamation claim, not to an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim.
They say that about every member of the military who dies. Indeed, I believe they would say that about most Americans and human beings in general. So how personal is that, really?
Just talked to my old Torts Prof. He is upset. Of course, he is a typical Plaintiff’s whore who thinks that almost every ill in the world should be compensated by some defendant.
Anyways, his position is that the first amendment only protects a citizen against the government. So, in this case, the government cannot fine Phelps or throw him in jail, and they haven’t.
But in the civil context, the first amendment doesn’t protect one citizen from another and that since a jury found for IIED, then they should be compensated…
Wasn’t New York Times v. Sullivan a tort case (defamation), involving one citizen suing another? Does he think that case was decided wrongly?
The larger issue of Phelps behavior was not addressed by the SC which is their function. What does their SC opinion actually mean if it doesn’t address some aspect of of law such as freedom of speech versus harassment.
Yes, I understand the individual case but I don’t see what legal question was answered by the SC.
A law making available damages based on facts arising from speech is not a government act? Clearly this torts professor lost track of constitutional law.
The function of the Supreme Court, like any court, is to rule on the case presented to them.
The lawyers can explain it better but generally their function is to rule on a question regarding a law. What did they rule on here?
Seriously, they said that shit about Mr. Rogers. I mean, how insulting can it be, coming from them? And I’m an old school WBC hater, from back in the gay funerals days.