I am a lawyer. One of their functions is to rule on questions of law, not “a question regarding a law.” This is what they held, from the digest portion of the opinion:
As much as I would have liked to have the Supreme Court tell the Phelpses to STFU, this ruling means that there’s nothing legally stopping me from picketing Fred’s funeral once he kicks the bucket. So I guess that’s a good thing.
There was never anything stopping you from doing that. The ruling means that if you picket his funeral and do it in such a way that you’re following the law and commenting on national issues rather than a personal grudge, the family can’t sue you for emotional distress.
It should be noted that they didn’t have the balls to actually show up at the funeral- they were in town, but the Hells Angels had put it out there that they’d pay any legal fees for anyone who got in trouble for defending the funeral against the Phelps. There were literally about 100 bikers parked, quietly, across from the funeral- sitting respectfully with their helmets off.
But, what the Phelps did do is somehow get my friends phone number and harass her at her house. We have no way of knowing who actually called her, I supposem but there ya go.
I have more repect for Phelps than someone who threatens him with physical harm in order to shut him up.
Can’t say I agree. Phelps is either a nasty religious sociopath, or he’s leech who looks to tries to provoke people so he can sue them for money. Someone who threatens to beat his lights in at least has the depth of human feeling, even if that’s the wrong thing to do.
Yep, this was the right decision.
I argued in both previous threads on this issue (1 2) that the Phelps protesters never should have lost the original case, and i’m glad the Supreme Court has done the right thing.
I just saw the ABC World News report on Snyder v. Phelps. Synder, interviewed after the Supreme Court decision was announced, weakened his own argument. He could have mentioned his son - and left it at that. But no. He had to drag other American service members into his already weak argument.
It’s not so much his freedom to swill bullshit, it’s his determination to harass other people. He goes beyond any reasonable attempt to get his message out and focuses his energy on people already in emotional distress. It’s a psychotic adult version of “I’m not touching you, I’m not touching you”. I don’t see where the court attempted to address this and I’m assuming that was the point of the the lawsuit. I’m too tired to fight this but there is a case to be made that people at a funeral have reasonable expectations of situational peace. There are a millions of square miles of space the Phelps can stand on and express their ideas along with an infinite electronic space to do so.
Sadly, we’re wasting time on a family who is probably doing this just for the lawsuit money. They are the absolute scum of the Earth and I’m not going to get worked up over them.
The Phelpses are indeed correct on their stand regarding divorce (agin it), I just wish they would be more vocal on that topic.
And yet, if you’d actually read the accounts of what happened that day, and of the trials, you would know that the funeral-goers did, in fact, have “situational peace” (whatever the hell that means) on the day of the funeral.
The person bringing the lawsuit admitted himself, during the course of the trial, that on the day of the funeral he never even saw or heard the Phelps clan. He only heard about their protest later on, in the media. And while other funeral-goers claim to have seen the protest, none of them were able to hear it because it was about 1000 feet away from the funeral itself.
As the digest of the Supreme Court’s opinion, posted by ascenray, states very clearly:
Even in the original trial, in which the WBC was found liable and ordered to pay millions of dollars, it was accepted without question that the WBC had complied with all local laws and with the instructions of authorities in organizing and conducting the protest.
Are you a fellow anti-divorce for everything but abuse and adultery person like me or is Phelps “progressive” on divorce?
Listening to the oral arguments. Wow. I just love how the Justices talk down to the petitioner’s lawyers. Too obvious. Too funny.
Dopers (including me) would make awesome Justices. I’d be Chief Justice of course. 
Interestingly Phelps claims when he uses the term “faggot” he means metaphorically the bundles of wood homosexuals are setting on fire in Hell by their sin rather than it being a deregotary term for homosexuals.
It’s like talking to a wall.
If by “a wall” you mean “something that understands this case, and the concept of free speech, better than you,” you are correct.
A court can’t rule on harassment if harassment is not in the facts if the case before it.
It definitely is.
I want to see the offended Christians, Jews and Muslims respond to this. The US is at least 85% religious or one of those three Abrahamic religions.
What that church is saying is: Your god is telling you through us, the protesters, that your fallen soldier son or daughter is condemned to Hell because you do not vote for Republicans to outlaw and persecute progressives and liberals, and that you don’t stone homosexuals to death!
Very nice. That’s another one of those perks of religion.
What response do you want to see?
Actually Phelps is virtually against every other church on Earth. In addition Mr. Phelps is a firm Democrat who praised Al Gore Sr. and has run in Democratic primaries.