No, really, I don’t think it is. At least not in a legal sense – although ethically (or morally, or whatever you want to call common decency), I’m totally with you.
IMHO, an analogy might be made with eminent domain (ED) – both free speech and eminent domain are part of the Constitution (and thus Constitutional), whose bounds are determined by some combination of legislation and SCotUS rulings. Unless a particular jurisdiction enacts particular law that defines the particular type of protesting in question as “harrassment”, the WBC is exercising their free speech, pure and simple, no matter how despicable they are.
First, you are not seriously restricting the definition of speech to oral expression are you? The Supremes recently weighed in on that, so that is no more than a personal opinion.
So, how does my right to burn a flag violate your right to live without seeing flags being burnt? Am I forcing you to watch? Or is it simply the knowledge that, someone, somewhere might be burning a flag that violates this right? Do you really have a right not to be offended? I don’t think so, though nothing would surprise me in the post-Tea Party world where rights and liberty are redefined at will to suit one ideology at the expense of another.
Isn’t it simply a time, place, or manner restriction? For example, it might be permissible for me to stand on my street corner and giving a speech against Obama or Bush, for examples, in the middle of the work week. But that same speech might get me arrested if done at 3am for the simple reason that I am disturbing people as they try to sleep.
As long as Phelps and his group have an outlet to air their beliefs, then I think it is fine. He has no right to freedom of speech AT the funeral.
That’s the thing – depending on how you define it, the WBC doesn’t protest “AT the funeral”. Rather, they protest “NEAR the funeral”.
I think the thread I referenced above is: Fred Phelps takes it up the ass., about Phelps getting hit with a $2.9M fine. The level of vitriol there doesn’t jibe with my memory of the thread, so perhaps it’s not the right one.
Anyway, glancing quickly at it, I see that in that case, Phelps & crew weren’t even in view (attendees could only see the tops of their signs), much less earshot, of the funeral. To me, calling that harrassment is beyond a stretch. Hurtful? Sure. Despicable? You got it. Harrassment? No.
Also of note is that that was a civil case, which changes the legal landscape.
The AG’s of the 48 states wrote amicus briefs mostly to protect the laws in their state that limit protests at funerals and that allow private citizens to recover damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Yes, freedom of speech works for even vile speech, that’s rarely contested in intelligent debates. But freedom of speech isn’t without limits. When the speech involves a private matter between private parties, it certainly can be the basis for intentional infliction of emotional distress. When a person’s free speech rights conflict with another persons’ right to peaceful assembly and right to be free from harassment, it’s a judgment call not an automatic win for free speech.
My problem with this case from the begining isn’t with the law, it’s with the facts of the case. Westboro complied with the time, place, and manner provisions as required by law and the police. They had no contact with the family at all, and the family didn’t see the protest until it was on the news later. And while Westboro is a vile group of hate filled morons, a majority of the protest and signs were of a broad, political (albeit incredibly stupid) bent.
I did, however, have a problem with the 4th circuit’s opinion deciding, as a legal issue, that the placards “Thank God for Dead Soldiers”, "“You’re Going to Hell” and “God Hates You” were specifically protected speech. I think it should have been up to the jury to decide whether or not those were specifically addressed to intentionally inflicit emotional distress upon the Snyder family. I’m not a fan of the “fact”/“opinion” distinction that the 4th circuit relied so heavily on so as to take the whole issue out of the hands of the jury. But, to be honest, this area of law is kinda murky and tough to apply, so it will be interesting to see what the Supremes do with it.
Question:
Does Phelps disrupt the actual funeral or does he merely stand outside the cemetary and wave signs and shout a lot? IMHO: #1 not free speech while #2 (as assholic as it is) is free speech.
That case was overturned in appeal with the court finding in Phelp’s favor. The father of the dead soldier who brought the civil case against Phelps was ordered to cover the legal fees. So instead of being awarded 2.9 million dollars he had to pay Phelps 16,000. That cost was paid by charitable donations a majority coming from Bill O’Reilly.
I think the truth is a lighter version of 2. I don’t beleive the Mr. Cuccinelli is supporting Westboro specifically. As suggested in other posts, since they started protesting veterans no-one not even the conservatives do this. I think the Mr. Cuccinelli is concerned that if obnoxious, in your face, unwanted protesting became illegal that it might also apply to abortion protesting, which is supported by his conservative ideals.
I may have missed it and, if so, my apologies, but can’t it be said that Phelps is violating the civil rights of the funeral attendees by denying their right to free speech, i.e. with the latter’s free speech of holding quiet, reflective, and solemn prayers made impossible by the Phelpses?
Not being one to keep tabs on the latest Phelps-dickery (well…any of it, actually), it just occurred to me – the case for which Cooch is not submitting a brief is actually a continuation (appeal, that is) of the Snyder case, which was the subject of the thread I linked.
There’s no way to make this argument with a straight face. The truth is that Phelps isn’t interfering with anything. The only reason people want to shut him down is because they object yo the CONTENT of his speech. And that’s exactly why his speech should be protected. He doesn’t prevent anyone else from expressing their speech. And he does not intrude ingo any private space. Anyone sho disagrees sigh him can easily ignore him. This whole thing really is a true test of our commitment to free speech. No one agrees sigh what he’s saying–and there’s no better reason why he should not be suppressed.
Of course they are interfering with the funeral. You think the people there cannot see them?
While I despise them the courts have ruled “free speech zones” to be legal. Apparently they feel there is a time and place for free speech and it is not along the route the President is taking because that would be disruptive…even if the speech he is giving is inside and the protesters are outside (unlike a funeral where both parties are outside).
That’s part of the problem. In this case, nobody from the funeral saw them. They didn’t disturb the funeral, they conformed with the laws, and, from what I’ve read, the guy suing didn’t see them until he saw them on the news.
Well, not literally. But if he is being loud to the point of interfering with someone else’s right to enjoy quiet meditative prayer and speech, then the loudness itself, and not any specific words he’s saying, is an infringement on the rights of other.
From what I’ve seen on videos and the news, Phelps and his clan can be very loud. If, instead, they were standing quietly, I don’t think anyone would care. More to the point, they would no longer be interfering with anyone else’s right to be able to speak, pray, and reflect in a quiet environment.