SCOTUS rules for Westboro: 8-1

I need to read the opinion. I probably agree with the court on free speech grounds, but I’m afraid this will turn violent. From now on, there is no political solution for any distressed father, or buddy of a fallen comrade. Politics is war by peaceful means. And the peaceful means just ran out. (To be perfectly clear, I am not endorsing violence. I would just be surprised if it didn’t happen.)

In a way this is a win for those who see hate speech as the next battle for religious freedom in America.

From the opinion:

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. 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. That choice requires that we shield Westboro from tort liability for its picketing in this case.

As much as I hate what Westboro is doing, I have to agree with SCOTUS. We are afforded free speech rights under the Constitution, and that includes hateful speech like Westboro practices.

This one seems obvious. I’m actually curious why Alito dissented. I think I need to go do some reading …

Yeah, Alito surprised me, too. Even the lefter ones got this right.

[Andrew K.]
While WBC certainly has the right to expound their views publicly, I think their little display most definitely does fall under the category of causing personal injury. The funeral, which should have been dignified and focused on the passing of a loved one - something that should be a “right” for every family - was barbarously hijacked for service to their odious “cause,” drawing unwanted media attention and granting the ceremony the atmosphere of a freak show.

I think it would be significant to note that the news reported said that “the protest wasn’t visible and couldn’t be heard from the church.” I’m sure it would be distressing to any parent to have a child’s funeral used for political speech, but it’s not like the protest was inside the church during the funeral, and apparently wasn’t even visible from the church. From what I’ve read, though the WBC is hateful in the extreme, they take great care to observe the legal distance limits, etc. that are in place when they make their protests.

This was a misuse of free speech that caused injury to the innocent and should not be tolerated.

I’m not sure how you define injury, but I don’t believe the legal definition for the limits on speech would include hurt feelings, no matter how deep. Free speech means nothing if the guy next to you can’t vehemently oppose that which you espouse with the same amount of freedom. As far as I know, the speech of the WBC, unlike that of say, Bradley Manning, did not endanger more troops overseas, did not physically harm the family of the dead soldier or those that attended the funeral, etc., etc. Yeah, their speech was “hurtful,” but not, as our constitution defines it, illegal.

Even if you are right in your speculation as to why the left leaning justices are OK with the WBC as tools, that doesn’t change the fact I believe they decided the case correctly.

[Andrew K.] I do feel there is such a thing as psychological injury, or at the very least, being robbed of a right to mourn in privacy and dignity.

The problem is that the above is difficult to define legally, and we can’t let it trump legitimate opinion speech. If we do, political correctness becomes de facto law, not to mention myriad other problems.

In regards to the WBC being allowed such behavior by those leftward in order to have an opportunity to stifle opinion about homosexuality, that doesn’t make sense. They can’t allow WBC to operate as they do and then silence speech that is “less hateful”. From that perspective, I find the 8-1 vote on this actually encouraging.

While I basically support the court’s decisions, I think the precedent of allowing private functions to be ‘crashed’ as a free speech issue is a problem. Weddings, funerals, bar mitzvahs, reunions… nothing is sacred? What about a right to privacy? Where is that line?

I heard a non-conservative radio talk show host say his son came home from school and commented on this case, saying “I guess we’re free to bully anybody we want to now.” Which, of course, raises the question of how we will address bullying in schools within this framework. I suppose at least we don’t have to worry about being jailed for preaching against homosexual behavior.

I don’t see how Westboro gets away with their intimidation. People from that church have been indicted for assault and trespassing and encouraging children to vandalize the flag in states where that is illegal. Their signs are just one death wish after another. All that is necessary for a charge of criminal threatening is that people have a legitimate fear of bodily harm. If someone is carrying a sign that says “Thank God for 9/11” and they think they are doing God service by spitting in the faces of passerby, then I am definitely going to be fearful.

Little of their behavior has anything to do with the exercise of free speech.