Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Military Funeral Protesters

Discussion in 'News / Current Events' started by Crabtownboy, Mar 2, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Crabtownboy

    Crabtownboy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    16,606
    Likes Received:
    152
    Though I strongly believe the Westboro Baptist are doing the cause of Christ great harm I understand the SC's decision on this. If the Westboro folk were muzzled, regardless of how reprehensible they are, who would be next to be muzzled?


     
  2. billwald

    billwald
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    Neo-con Supreme Court sells out <G>

    washingtonpost.com

    Breaking News Alert: Supreme Court rules for military funeral protesters
     
  3. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,065
    Likes Received:
    214
    :tear: :tear: :tear:
     
  4. Crabtownboy

    Crabtownboy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    16,606
    Likes Received:
    152
    The actions of the Westboro group are reprehensible but they are protected by the 1st amendment ... it would have been unconstitutional to rule against them. I believe their actions do great damage to the message of Christ ... but those horrible demonstrations are protected. If they had been muffled who would be next? I do have to hold my nose while saying they are protected by the 1st amendment.
     
  5. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    I hate to agree, but...

    What constitutional grounds would the court have to rule against this hate filled cult?
     
  6. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,065
    Likes Received:
    214
    There are restrictions on protests - ie, you must keep walking, even if in circles, ect.

    Do I have a right to go onto a school playground and preach with a megaphone- even if I walk in circles?

    No right is absolute - U.S. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. in a 1919 case said you cannot yell fire in a crowed theater.

    Likewise, the grieving family should have rights also. One consolation is if the burial is in a private cemetery - that might be another story.
     
  7. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    Apparentley, in this particular case, the cultists were out of sight and sound range.

    Tough one. Most of us want strict constructionists as justices. This appears to be a constructionist decision.
     
  8. Bro. Curtis

    Bro. Curtis
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/curtis.gif>

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Messages:
    20,239
    Likes Received:
    2
    Of course it is. It is the correct decision.

    Perhaps an audit of the church, I mean, how can a small church like this afford to send people all across the country to do this ?
     
  9. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,065
    Likes Received:
    214
    Some of the members are lawyers. And several of the members are related.

    Here is a report by NPR

    From the link: "When they win, they often receive tens of thousands of dollars in court fees."
     
  10. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    I think the most effective response to stuntists like this would be to ignore them.
     
  11. preachinjesus

    preachinjesus
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2004
    Messages:
    7,406
    Likes Received:
    99
    They have the right to assemble lawfully and peacefully. That should never be withheld.

    Now if they happen to have a wall of willing volunteers who will block their view and the view of their protest that is also a lawful assembly.
     
  12. Havensdad

    Havensdad
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2007
    Messages:
    3,382
    Likes Received:
    0
    You have the right to go onto a school playground with a megaphone, unless their are ordinances against noise. Then you must do it without amplification.

    In this case, the City had ordinances that said the people had to be at least 300 yards away from funeral activities. The Westboro crazies abided by that ordinance. Thus, they were well within their rights.

    As much as I hate what the Westboro people are doing, I support their right to do it. If you take away their rights, you take away mine as well. Braavo, Supreme Court!
     
  13. Alive in Christ

    Alive in Christ
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2008
    Messages:
    3,822
    Likes Received:
    0
    Salty posted...

    And I *second* that post.

    This ruling is insanity on display in our Supreme Court.

    We can legally kill small children in this country, but its unconstitional in this country to make sure that grieving family members of a hero son or daughter doesnt have be assaulted by brain dead hate filled demonic lunatics.

    And this clown court voted 8-1 in favor of this insanity.

    God have mercy on the USA. We are becoming a God forsaken cesspool.
     
  14. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    According to several sources the family did not even know the extent of what happened until they saw it on television.

    As abhorrent as this behaviour was these vicious people assembled peacefully and according the the laws and requirements set down.

    The Supreme Court rules on the constitutionality of a decision. How did the Westboro cult constitutionally violate the law at any level?

    Actually he said that you can't 'falsely' yell fire.

    The case being debated involved passing out anti-draft leaflets. Though Holmes and the rest of the court ruled that the First Amendment did not protect such behaviour, that decision was later overturned in favour one that prohibits speech which would incite a crowd to riot.

    I am a big believer in First Amendment rights. While everything these folks did was wrong, it was not illegal.
     
    #14 NaasPreacher (C4K), Mar 2, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 3, 2011
  15. Bro. Curtis

    Bro. Curtis
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/curtis.gif>

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Messages:
    20,239
    Likes Received:
    2
    Yup. And Alito's dissent, while well written & well thought out, is a classic example of a well-versed liberal writing from his heart, and not his brain.
     
  16. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    And we hear the same from @sarahpalinusa tweet - "Common sense & decency absent as wacko ‘church’ allowed hate msgs spewed@ soldiers' funerals but we can't invoke God's name in public square”

    I don't know when 'common sense and decency' became conditions for free speech. Setting those intangibles as constitutional boundaries is dangerous precedent. Many would consider messages preached from American pulpits to violate Palin's 'common sense and decency' clause even if they are solid Bible preaching. Do we really want the Supreme Court (or a president) deciding what is 'common sense and decency?'
     
    #16 NaasPreacher (C4K), Mar 3, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 3, 2011
  17. Crabtownboy

    Crabtownboy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    16,606
    Likes Received:
    152
    Alito a liberal? Thanks for the early morning laugh ... nice way to start the day with a good laugh to brighten an already bright morning. The Cato Institute described Alito as a conservative jurist with a libertarian streak. I do think he was wrong in his vote against the Westboro group, and thus the 1st amendment ... but that hardly makes him a [GASP] liberal. :laugh:
     
  18. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    This is not an unusual choice for Alito. He has a history if drawing the line on free speech differently than the rest of the court. I don't know if that makes him a 'liberal' or a 'conservative' but in this case he appears to have taken a stand with many professed conservatives such as Gov Palin.



    Off topic personal note - BTW, CB, we are having a wonderful run of bright, if chilly, days here, as well ;-)

    Good morning brother! Would love to get over there sometime when you are over and see the work!
     
    #18 NaasPreacher (C4K), Mar 3, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 3, 2011
  19. Bro. Curtis

    Bro. Curtis
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/curtis.gif>

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Messages:
    20,239
    Likes Received:
    2

    Again......"professed" is the operative word.
     
  20. David Lamb

    David Lamb
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2006
    Messages:
    2,982
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm ignorant of how things work in America, so please forgive me if my question sounds ridiculous, but is it really true that any American has the right to go onto any school playground, with or without a megaphone, and say anything, however bizzare or perverse? Wouldn't parents of the pupils complain?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Loading...