DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum Anti-gay church's right to protest at military funerals is upheld

Washington (CNN) -- A Kansas church that attracted nationwide attention for its angry, anti-gay protests at the funerals of U.S. military members has won its appeal at the Supreme Court, an issue testing the competing constitutional rights of free speech and privacy.

The justices, by an 8-1 vote, said Wednesday that members of Westboro Baptist Church had a right to promote what they call a broad-based message on public matters such as wars. The father of a fallen Marine had sued the small church, saying those protests amounted to targeted harassment and an intentional infliction of emotional distress.

"Speech is powerful. It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and -- as it did here -- inflict great pain. On the facts before us, we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority.

At issue was a delicate test between the privacy rights of grieving families and the free speech rights of demonstrators, however disturbing and provocative their message. Several states have attempted to impose specific limits on when and where the church members can protest.

The church, led by pastor Fred Phelps, believes God is punishing the United States for "the sin of homosexuality" through events including soldiers' deaths. Members have traveled the country shouting at grieving families at funerals and displaying such signs as "Thank God for dead soldiers," "God blew up the troops" and "AIDS cures fags."
2010: Free speech vs. privacy
2010: Church says arguments went well
2010: Vet accused of stalking church
2008: Protesting Fred Phelps
RELATED TOPICS

* Westboro Baptist Church
* Fred Phelps
* U.S. Supreme Court

Westboro members had appeared outside the 2006 funeral for Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder in Westminster, Maryland, outside Baltimore.

Snyder's family sued the church in 2007, alleging invasion of privacy, intentional infliction of emotional distress and civil conspiracy. A jury awarded the family $2.9 million in compensatory damages plus $8 million in punitive damages, which were later reduced to $5 million.

The church appealed the case in 2008 to a federal appeals court, which reversed the judgments a year later, siding with the church's allegations that its First Amendment rights were violated.

Albert Snyder, Matthew's father, said his son was not gay and the protesters should not have been at the funeral.

"I was just shocked that any individual could do this to another human being," Snyder told CNN last fall. "I mean, it was inhuman."

In an afternoon news conference Wednesday, Snyder expressed surprise at the ruling.

"My first thought was that eight justices don't have the common sense that God gave a goat," he said. "We found out today that we can no longer bury our dead in this county with dignity."

He added, "What is this country coming to?"

Margie Phelps, a member of the Westboro clan and an attorney who argued the case before the high court, told CNN the ruling was "10 times better than I had hoped for."

"You can't use the subject that your feelings are hurt to trump public debate," she said. If that were the case, "where would we be?" She promised that with this ruling in hand, Westboro Baptist would conduct more such pickets.

Church members say their broader message is aimed at the unspecified actions of the military and those who serve in it. They believe U.S. soldiers deserve to die because they fight for a country that tolerates homosexuality.

Roberts in his opinion noted the Snyder family was not a "captive audience" to the protests that were conducted several hundred yards away.

"Westboro stayed well away from the memorial service," wrote Roberts. "Snyder could see no more than the tops of the signs when driving to the funeral. And there is no indication that the picketing itself in any way interfered with the funeral itself."

Based on that the court concluded Snyder could not collect damages from Westboro.

But the chief justice showed little sympathy for the message Westboro promotes.

"Westboro believes that America is morally flawed; many Americans might feel the same about Westboro. Westboro's funeral picketing is certainly hurtful and its contribution to public discourse may be negligible," he said. However, "As a nation we have chosen a different course -- to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate."

The ruling was a narrow one, dealing with the specific, unusual facts of this appeal. Such vocal protests at military funerals are almost entirely confined to this one small group. Roberts said on the free speech question, it was enough to rely on "limited principles that sweep no more broadly than the appropriate context of the instant case."

Only Justice Samuel Alito dissented. He said the church's "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," he said. "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."

The Supreme Court has never addressed the specific issue of laws designed to protect the "sanctity and dignity of memorial and funeral services," as well as the privacy of family and friends of the deceased. But the high court has recognized the state's interest in protecting people from unwanted protests or communications while in their homes.

The justices were being asked to address how far states and private entities like cemeteries and churches can go to justify picket-free zones and the use of "floating buffers" to silence or restrict the speech or movements of demonstrators exercising their constitutional rights in a funeral setting.

A majority of states across the nation have responded to the protests with varying levels of control over the Westboro church protesters. In Wednesday's case, 48 states and dozens of members of Congress filed an amicus brief in support of the Snyders.

John Ellsworth, chairman of Military Families United, said the military protects the First Amendment rights that members of Westboro Baptist use to protest.

"Gold Star families deserve the respect of a grateful nation, not hate from a group who chooses to demonstrate during the funeral of their loved one," he said. "My family has been on the receiving end of their hate and I assure all Gold Star families, this group is an anomaly and your sacrifice does not go without notice."

Church members told the court they have a duty to protest and picket at certain events, including funerals, to promote their religious message: "That God's promise of love and heaven for those who obey him in this life is counterbalanced by God's wrath and hell for those who do not obey him."

The congregation is made up mostly of Fred Phelps and his family. The pastor has 13 children, and at least 54 grandchildren and seven great-grandchildren.

He described himself as an "old-time" gospel preacher in a CNN interview in 2006, saying, "You can't preach the Bible without preaching the hatred of God."

Church members have participated in several hundred protests across the country.

In 2009, the high court blocked Missouri's effort to enforce a specific law aimed at the Westboro church. Phelps, daughter Shirley Phelps-Roper and other church members had protested near the August 2005 funeral of a soldier in St. Joseph, Missouri. State lawmakers later passed the "Spc. Edward Lee Myers Law," criminalizing picketing "in front of or about" a funeral location or procession.

The case decided Wednesday is Snyder v. Phelps (09-751).

http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/03/02/scotus.westboro.church/

It's the right decision.

Part of me hopes someone hauls off and cracks the guy in the face ... take the chance with a jury.

The other part of me knows ignoring it would be the way to go.

Quote:

---

John Ellsworth, chairman of Military Families United, said the military protects the First Amendment rights that members of Westboro Baptist use to protest.

"Gold Star families deserve the respect of a grateful nation, not hate from a group who chooses to demonstrate during the funeral of their loved one," he said. "My family has been on the receiving end of their hate and I assure all Gold Star families, this group is an anomaly and your sacrifice does not go without notice."

---

To the contrary, I believe the actions of Westboro serves as a constant reminder to those of us who DO value our service men and women... every time I hear of their hateful protests I am reminded of the good our service people do and that some continue to pay the ultimate price, I am reminded that I'm glad to live in a country where free speech is defended no matter how bad it can be, I am reminded that I'm glad to live in a country where I can worship as I please.....

and I'm reminded of a bumper sticker I saw once that said "God loves spiritual fruit, not religious nuts"

Right decision even though its probably immoral. Its not the job of the court to decide what is moral, the courts job (at the Supreme Court level) is to interpret the law.

I hate these bastards but I understand why the judge ruled this way.

Yup.
I despise 'em and I wouldn't shed a single tear if they were all gunned down in the middle of their church service, but it is their right to do what they are doing.

It is classless and tasteless, but they're playing by the rules.

phil...I don't like what these idiot members of Westboro Baptist Church do but they are entitled to the right to protest "within" the law.

If local laws prohibit such protests be held a specified distance from the cemetery, I believe the Westboro "family" is required to stay away the distance specified...10 miles away would be a reasonable distance.

Correct decision, though I would gladly sign up to kick each of these jackwads in the junk.

I don't believe there is any legal argument against the protection of THEIR right to do so,....and obviously the SC feels this way too.

My bewilderment is that in "correctly" interpreting the law, the protection of the victim's rights TO a peaceful and dignified funeral service go right out the window.

If it went to a Constitutional Amendment, would you support the sanctity of a military funeral ?

It's like flag burning. Everybody wants their First Amendment rights to burn it protected, but nobody likes flag burning,....

The courts uphold "moral" decisions to allow a smoker to file suit against the Big Tobacco, when the "immorality" of the issue actually rests with the smoker.

If there is supposed to be this great separation of church and state, why can't we keep their church out of a state function ? Obviously we cannot count on the government to legally do it, we can't leave it up to the common sense of dignity that the church obviously does not possess, so who is it left up to ?

It is sad that there are organizations like this church that use the very freedom provided by that soul at that funeral to go ahead and spit on it. Legal or not, it is wrong.

i hate it.

i understand 1st amendment, free speech, and all that, but back when james madison presented the bill of rights, i don't think he had this in mind as free speech.

what about right to peace and quiet during the funeral for a loved one?

i really think they should make another amendment that says anyone burying a loved one has the right to a quiet and peaceful funeral, and that supersedes the 1st amendment during that short period of time.

like i said, i understand the big picture with it, but i hate it. that's not free speech to me. that's complete disrespect and a cry for attention.

I'm thinking a great counter-measure would be if you could find out where and when these people would be out protesting. Then, you gather up as many people as you can, hundreds of people, and show up first.

You simply create a human barrier so this trash can't get through or can't get as close as they want.

i actually read a few years ago about some bikers that were doing that. they were showing up and holding up giant sheets to block the mourners view of the insanity going on outside the cemetary.

They have been doing that all over the country too. It hasn't been a one or two time thing.

These ...... people at this supposed church have the right to express themselves under our Constitution. That right must never be infringed upon.

The problem that I see today is not that we don't allow the wackos and bastiches of the world to express their opinions ..... it's that we often try to stop positive religious expression and speech. This is done in the name of "equality", and "tolerance for other viewpoints". For some reason, positive Christian religious expression is seen as a threat, while vile expression like this is seen as a right.

That I do not, and will never, understand.

Quote:

---

For some reason, positive Christian religious expression is seen as a threat, while vile expression like this is seen as a right.

That I do not, and will never, understand.

---

That is so true it ain't even funny . . . but the sad thing is the few rotten apples are spoiling the bunch. Most people think that church going folk are Dana Carvey Church Ladies--hypocritical judgmental types because a handful, no matter how prominent are.

Just a general reply:

Have you guys seen the BBC's Louis Theroux spend time with the family and interview them? Pretty crazy stuff. Here's the first part of eight in the hour long episode.

I feel bad for these people to be filled with such hate

j/c

Two points... and they're interrelated in this story:

1. The decision was absolutely correct. If we shoot down the crazies' right to express themselves in public, then we grease a slippery slope to censoring any other citizen whose opinion doesn't jibe with 'ours.'

2. The Court of Law is something very different than the 'Court of Public Opinion' or the 'Court of Common Sense.' A person needs only to read the comments from this thread to see how these people are viewed by the average, clear-thinking American citizen to see how these nutbaggz are regarded.

To my way of thinking, it's a win/win- academically speaking, at least. The Constitution that protects us all is upheld, while simultaneously allowing ALL Americans to see and judge these people in the dim light their actions have warranted.

___________________________________________


My only reservation lies in the impact this has on the grieving families who are trying to endure one of the most wrenching, painful experiences they will ever live through.

My Friend OoooRah Joice wrote:

Quote:

---

If it went to a Constitutional Amendment, would you support the sanctity of a military funeral ?

---

Clemdawg's answer: Yes .

I didn't flinch, mince words, hesitate, stutter, stammer or slur my words. In fact, I'll say it again, a little louder- so that there will be no misunderstanding of my stance on this subject:
ANYONE WHOSE FAMILY CHOOSES TO HONOR THEIR LOVED ONE(S) WITH A MILITARY FUNERAL SHOULD BE ABLE TO DO SO WITHOUT INTERFERENCE OF ANY SORT FROM THE REST OF AMERICAN SOCIETY.

I'd have NO PROBLEM with statues being adopted that prohibit shabby demonstrations like these at a service held in Arlington Nat'l Cemetery or anywhere else. That might be all we can do for them, but it's something we should at least consider. But that's just me- I don't sit on the bench of the Supreme Court- and for good reason. I know that I lack the requisite skills to separate my personal convictions from the intent of constitutional law. It's probably best that better minds than mine be saddled with that responsibility.

In a certain context, I find it sad that a (insanely) narrowly-focused "lunatic fringe element" can impose their rights upon other fellow citizens at one of their most vulnerable moments. It's repugnant to me- and it exemplifies some of the lowest behavior that Human Beings are capable of. At the same time, I also understand why the ruling fell as it did... because in protecting the rights of this human detritus, the court also protected the rights of those who may seek to speak out for higher ideals.

This one hurts, Dawgs. It really hurts... but I understand and accept.

When I said goodbye to My Father in his ceremony on 19 July 1979, he left us with a chestful of ribbons, medals and awards from TWO stellar careers of Public Service- the U.S. Army (WWII) and 30 years as a police officer. It would have killed me to see a group of strangers using one of the most important days of my life as a vehicle to further their own agenda. In my head, I know the legal decision was right. In my heart of hearts, I believe that it's one of the most heinous perversions of the intent of civic law I could ever imagine.

My Father (along with 2 previous generations of ordained Baptist ministers) taught me to recognize Evil when I see it. The members of Westboro Baptist Church are evil people living among us no matter how they manipulate God's Word to suit their own ends. They can hide behind constitutional law- but they can't hide from the rest of us. The Constitution can't protect them from how they are regarded by the rest of us. We are still free to see them as they are.


The Bible admonishes us: "By thier deeds, ye shall know them."
I see what they do. This is not 'Christian behavior,' by any lessons I was ever taught.



I need a shower now... to wash off the stench of this thread's subject.

I do believe that the same statutes that protect the rights of these "people" also work to make us all better. I trust in the constitution... and I trust in the balance it will bring us over the long haul. If nothing else, Our Constitution gives the rest of us the right to vocally dismiss and denounce these idiots for the destructive lunatics they are... and that's a right we ALL need. Quash that right for some- and we quash it for all.

The very same rights that protect Fred Phelps protect me, as well... and I'll excercize my right to fight him tooth and nail to the bitter end.

After all, Fred and Clem are both Americans... arent we?

Quote:

---

After all, Fred and Clem are both Americans... arent we?

---

You are. I would like to be able to say the other is not. Maybe we should ask him for his birth certificate?

Horrible decision by the Supreme Court.

If these guys go to a funeral and protest it, then you sue them. You will not get anything. Suing WBC is not an option because they will hold it up in courts and if it goes to a higher court, even the Supreme Court they will decide that WBC can do whatever they want at any funeral.

It is disgusting that this country allows this at any funeral. The Supreme Court has decided that it is fine for soldiers to go to war and die, but it is not ok for them to have a peaceful funeral.

As the father of this soldier said:
LINK

Couric: Are you surprised the decision was so overwhelming, with eight out of nine Justices backing the protesters?

Snyder: Yes I was Katie. It just, you know, they may be book smart, but they don't have the common sense God gave a goat. You know the Justices and the government will send our children to war and they'll send them back in body bags and then they can't even give us enough respect to bury them in peace.

Couric: The church has protested outside many other funerals. What would you say to other grieving families today?

Snyder: Well there's not much we can do about it anymore. When the government won't do anything about it, and the courts give us no remedy, then people are going to start taking matters into their own hands. And believe me someone is going to get hurt. And when the blood starts flowing, let it be on the Supreme Court Justices' hands.

I agree with him 100%.

I'm disgusted by that congregations actions..

Quote:

---

Just the fact that somebody is PROTESTING a funeral causes emotional distress.

---

Exactly. So why wouldn't what these people are doing be considered harrassment by the law? Nothing can be done about that??

The right ruling for the wrong cause IMO . I can't fathom what kind of mind even comes up with the idea of picketing a funeral of any kind .

And under that definition, not only abuse the privilege of having First Amendment rights, but also exploit Federal Income Tax Law, no ?

These protesters remind me of that cult that did the mass suicide with nikes on, I think it called heavens gate?

These people are full blown wack jobs! To protest a funeral is as someone said tasteless and classless to say the least. If I saw anyone protesting a funeral my first reaction would be to kick their teeth down their throat, however that won't do any good except getting my butt in trouble.
Because of people like this, I have a real hard time with organized religions. I did ask a door to door religious person if god loves everyone and all the animals, and they said yes, so I asked them if animals go to heven and the answer was no, because the animals had no soul. I said that I was expecting to see the lion laying with the lamb, to which I got a blank look on their face. I then said that it does not sound like much of heven to me, when I pass and get to the pealy gates and if the pets I owned in my lifetime are not there to greet me I'm not going. Sorry the second half of my rant got a bit off topic.