Westboro Wins 8-1

[eapking]

Westboro Baptist Church: Supreme Court sides with protesters who picketed military funeral - latimes.com

Even total Jackwads are covered. Doesn't mean they don't need a good old can of whoopass put on them.

[hipower]

How sad. Please God, Bless America again.

[tntnixon]

While I hate that I agree with the court, I actually do. I'm glad the court is finally starting, albeit very slowly, to restore our Bill of Rights to a closer resemblance to what our forefathers envisioned.

That being said, I wish the legislatures wouldn't put handcuffs on the people who want the beat the living hell out of the protesters. The Constitution does not limit the anger of the people, state legislatures do.

[Reservoir Dog]

As much as I would like to see these Westboro "people" put in a boxcar and dumped into the ocean, I have to agree with SCOTUS. I wholeheartedly disagree with what and where they protest, but they have the right to do it.

[vontar]

As much as I would like to see these Westboro "people" put in a boxcar and dumped into the ocean, I have to agree with SCOTUS. I wholeheartedly disagree with what and where they protest, but they have the right to do it.

Agreed

The minute we say they can't protest, we give someone else the right to take our right to protest something away. Slippery slope.

This would be a good place for a video of Old Man Waterfall from Futurama (A Taste of Freedom) if I could find the clip but I can't find it.

[gregintenn]

They definately have the right....they also suffer from the need of someone teaching them a bit of manners and respect. That's what's sorely lacking in today's culture.

[mav]

I think the SCOTUS made the right decision. It is unfortunate that it wasn't unanimous. The only thing I find that is Baptist or Christian about the Westboro Baptist Church is their name. I find their behavior abhorrent, and it is an insult to those who have fought for their very right to protest. However, I believe they have every right continue on with their little circle jerk without being threatened or subjected to violence. While it might make us feel good momentarily, beating the hell out of someone who offends you with their political speech is the exact opposite of what our founders intended, and it is an offense to all of those who have fought to uphold those freedoms.

[Guest mosinon]

What the hell Alito? Sure these people are jerks but jerks get the same rights as non jerks.

That said I wonder if I could have a super hot chili cook off, you know with a few thousand ghost peppers and all, with some high powered fans exhausting the fumes towards the Westboro folks. Cause they might get hungry from all the protesting.

[DRM]

WBC did not win, WE ALL WON.

And I think Alito drew the short straw and had to be the odd man out

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I guess the verdict had to go that way, but I also agree with Alito's dissent.

"Our profound national commitment to free and open debate is not a license for the vicious verbal assault that occurred in this case," Alito wrote. "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."

It is still free speech. I imagine this may make the church happy but I also bet they get it

in the end with some other kind of free speech until they realize the fire they built under

their precious lily asses. This ruling doesn't mean they prevailed. It means they will get what's

coming some other way.

Edited March 3, 2011 by 6.8 AR

[Punisher84]

I guess the verdict had to go that way, but I also agree with Alito's dissent.

"Our profound national commitment to free and open debate is not a license for the vicious verbal assault that occurred in this case," Alito wrote. "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."

It is still free speech. I imagine this may make the church happy but I also bet they get it

in the end with some other kind of free speech until they realize the fire they built under

their precious lily asses. This ruling doesn't mean they prevailed. It means they will get what's

coming some other way.

Agreed. All I can say is until they are all gone I'll be standing right where I need to be. Between those freaks and the families of our heroes.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I'm with you.

[Guest WyattEarp]

people have a right to say what they want, but I don't think they should be allowed within 1 mile of a funeral home, the funeral procession, or the cemetery where the burial is taking place.

people have a right to grieve, mourn, and bury their dead in peace without harrassment and attack.

it's time for State Legislature's to enact some laws that will make it tougher for Westboro to get their message across.

I say

1 mile minimum distance from funeral home, and cemetary

allowed 1 permit on any given day

must file at least 72 hours in advance

city will notify the family of planned point of assembly so they can choose an alternate route away from Westboro (or other hateful groups)

put the squeeze on these people, and make it more difficult to get their message across, and they willl eventually go away.

[Guest bkelm18]

people have a right to say what they want, but I don't think they should be allowed within 1 mile of a funeral home, the funeral procession, or the cemetery where the burial is taking place.

people have a right to grieve, mourn, and bury their dead in peace without harrassment and attack.

it's time for State Legislature's to enact some laws that will make it tougher for Westboro to get their message across.

I say

1 mile minimum distance from funeral home, and cemetary

allowed 1 permit on any given day

must file at least 72 hours in advance

city will notify the family of planned point of assembly so they can choose an alternate route away from Westboro (or other hateful groups)

put the squeeze on these people, and make it more difficult to get their message across, and they willl eventually go away.

That would still be infringing on the 1A.

[Guest NashvegasMatt]

eventually the old man will die, and so will the church ( which is 97% family). Maybe the family members will grow a pair and start to live their own lives. I saw an interview with two of the siblings who say when they turned 18.... they RAN, as fast as they could. That documentary is on netflix by the way.

[G27]

While I agree with the decision, I also feel it would be a shame if those people were made into martyrs. A real shame.

[Dolomite_supafly]

Nearly all members of the church are attorneys. Their protests are probably part of their money making plan. They protest and hope for someone to do something they can sue for.

I am honestly surprized some grieving family member has't put a dent in their population yet.

Dolomite

[enfield]

I agree with the ruling, and those 'people' who demonstrate at funerals need their asses kicked.

[enfield]

. . . people have a right to grieve, mourn, and bury their dead in peace without harrassment and attack. . . .

I know of no such right - where did you find it?

Edited March 3, 2011 by enfield

[vontar]

I know of no such right - where did you find it?

in reply

people have a right to grieve, mourn, and bury their dead in peace without harrassment and attack.

It may not be a right, but it is the decent thing to allow people to do.

But I think we are on the same page

[Guest bkelm18]

in reply

It may not be a right, but it is the decent thing to allow people to do.

I agree, however you can't allow decency to dictate our rights.

[vontar]

I agree, however you can't allow decency to dictate our rights.

I guess, it comes down to when Westboro oversteps their their Freedom to Peacefully Assemble.

[Guest WyattEarp]

I know of no such right - where did you find it?

Until it says in the law books that someone doesn't have that right then they do.

"sent from my highly technical ****."

[RobertNashville]

That would still be infringing on the 1A.

Respectfully, I disagree - "freedom of Speech" is not a guarantee of either a platform (place) from which to speak nor an audience to hear what you have to say.

Cities, counties, states, etc. can place reasonable reasonable restrictions on such things as public demonstrations - such restrictions are necessary and for the overall benefit of society. Maybe Wyattearp's are too restrictive (I don't think so) but I see nothing wrong with the overall concept he proposes.

[Guest WyattEarp]

Respectfully, I disagree - "freedom of Speech" is not a guarantee of either a platform (place) from which to speak nor an audience to hear what you have to say.

Cities, counties, states, etc. can place reasonable reasonable restrictions on such things as public demonstrations - such restrictions are necessary and for the overall benefit of society. Maybe Wyattearp's are too restrictive (I don't think so) but I see nothing wrong with the overall concept he proposes.

exactly. if the KKK wants to come demonstrate in Murfreesboro, they can, but they have to apply for a permit, which has to be reviewed, and then the city will tell them where they are "allowed" to setup at.

cities, states, and counties have the right to dictate where, when, how many, who, and what, and they can deny a permit for any reason they see fit (especially if they forsee something turning violent or getting out of control.