Does freedom of speech only apply to those with whom we agree?

[hkem1]

On Wednesday morning the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Snyder V Phelps. This case revolves around the very controversial Westboro Baptist church and their controversial military funeral protests.

The issues at stake are

whether the freedom of speech guaranteed by the First Amendment trumps its freedom of religion and peaceful assembly; and whether an individual attending a family member?s funeral constitutes a ?captive audience? who is entitled to state protection from unwanted communication.

The many supporters for the Westboro Baptist church include the ACLU and "The Scholars of First Amendment Law." While 48 states and 40 senators have filed briefs in support of Snyder and against the Westboro Baptist church.

The Briefs can be found here.
http://http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/snyder-v-phelps/

From the brief of 41 U.S. Senators opposing the church.

In respect for the deceased and their mourners, American courts have repeatedly described a?right? to a peaceful funeral. ?There is a right to a decent burial, and that right is guarded by the law.?22A Am. Jur. 2d Dead Bodies ? 13. As the Wisconsin Supreme Court explained: ?We can imagine no clearer or dearer right in the gamut of civil liberty and security than to bury our dead in peace and unobstructed; none more sacred to the individual, nor more important of preservation and protection from the point of view of public welfare and decency; certainly none where the law need less hesitate to impose upon a willful violator responsibility for the uttermost consequences of his act.? Koerber v. Patek, 102 N.W. 40, 43 (Wis. 1905); see also Holland v. Metalious, 198 A.2d 654, 656 (N.H. 1964)

From the ACLU's brief in support of the Westboro Baptist Church.

First and foremost, this case is about speech, not conduct. The theory of Petitioner?s case was that his injury flowed directly from the content of Respondents? speech. Had Respondents attended the Snyder memorial service without their signs, or instead displayed signs expressing sympathy (such as those held by the St. John?s school children), there would have been no verdict against Respondents. The jury found against Respondents because of what they said, not because of their presence at Matthew Snyder?s funeral.
Second, this case is not about the constitutionality of statutes regulating the time, place, and manner of funeral protests, and the arguments of various amici predicting that affirmance here will invalidate such
10
laws are incorrect. No ?funeral statute? is involved in this case. Respondents displayed their signs at a location chosen for them by local law enforcement, not one they chose themselves. And that location?1000 feet from the church entrance?was 10 times farther removed from the church than Maryland?s later-enacted funeral statute would permit.
Because this is a pure speech case, the Court of Appeals ruled correctly. The common law torts of ?intentional infliction of emotional distress? and ?intrusion upon seclusion? are intended to protect individuals from unwanted and injurious conduct that is directed towards them. Where, as here, the plaintiff alleges that the substance of speech caused emotional injury, these torts are designed to protect the listener from hearing speech that he prefers not to encounter, and to impose liability on the speaker for having spoken. That is why the district court instructed the jury to return a verdict for Petitioner on the ?intrusion? claim if the jurors found Respondents? speech to be ?highly offensive to a reasonable person.? It is also why it instructed the jurors to return a verdict for Petitioner on the ?emotional distress? claim if they found that Respondents? speech was ?extreme and outrageous.?
However, the First Amendment guarantees of freedom of speech and the free exercise of religion are designed to protect the right of speakers to voice their views on matters of public concern and to express their religious convictions.

There are so many different things and precedents that people on both sides of this case can argue, (that is after all why the court chose to hear it) and so I think it will be interesting to hear how the court comes out on this case.

I don't feel as though any actual "Compelling government interest" actually exists in the chilling of this speech, so I think it will be interesting to find out how this case gets argued.

 

[scooterbug44]

I think the Westboro Baptist people are absolutely despicable.

Yes, they do have 1st Amendment rights to spout their idiocy, but I think because they choose to do so outside churches and cemeteries and interrupt religious services & burials, their 1st amendment rights get trumped by other people's 1st amendment rights.

I think both the state and national laws prohibiting protests a certain amount of time before and after services and within a certain distance of the cemetery do a good job of allowing these arses to voice their opinions while protecting other people's rights at the same time.

And since we are discussing this nasty group, I want to give a shout out to Will for being one of the Patriot Guard Riders. [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Guard_Riders"]Patriot Guard Riders - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

 

[30ashopper]

I think it comes down to how close and how obtrusive they were to the activities of the mourners. It probably borders on harassment. Generally I agree with scooter too. Despicable behavior.

 

[Bob Wells]

I will defend their right to protest, but show up around here I may have to show them how I will protest their offensive behavior.

 

[Will B]

They are the reason I joined and ride with the Patriot Guard!

 

[hkem1]

Video - Breaking News Videos from CNN.com


I couldn't help but notice how proud these people are of their first amendment rights, yet how much they feel as though this country is going to hell.

 

[Matt J]

So this gives me the right to show up in Westboro and stage a drag show in front of their church every Sunday morning? I have speakers that go to 11.

 

[hkem1]

So this gives me the right to show up in Westboro and stage a drag show in front of their church every Sunday morning? I have speakers that go to 11.

I wish someone would.

 

[beachmouse]

That would probably only give them warm fuzzies because they could claim they were being persecuted just like Jesus was. I prefer the Comic Con approach of going off on an utterly goofy tangent in response to them. (And hey, if you wanted to throw in some guys in Conan style loincloths along with, it would fit that theme)

 

[Zebraspots]

So this gives me the right to show up in Westboro and stage a drag show in front of their church every Sunday morning? I have speakers that go to 11.

Their church doesn't have windows.