Topic: Supreme Court rules First Amendment protects church's right to picket funerals

[bullshark]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/02/AR2011030207022.html

I do not agree with this.  This is the same Supreme Court that interprets the law to allow unlimited spending by corporations to political campaigns (I just can't see how that could possibly go wrong...) but takes a strict line when protecting the First Amendment at all costs.  I have no problem with these people saying what they want politically but a funeral should not be a platform for this behavior.  Are we really that worried that First Amendment rights will erode if we limit this behavior at a funeral?  There are a few social occasions where even the worst people on the planet should be afforded the right to dignity and a funeral is one of those occasions.  We have censorship all over the place in this country but here, at a funeral is where we must stand to defend our right to say what we want?  Let's just start throwing F-bombs around on Sesame Street cause you know, First Amendment. 

When the law becomes more important than the people it serves, it is unjust.

[Xessive]

I'm no anarchist but I don't see why the law has to be involved in such a trivial issue. If somebody wants to act like a dick at a funeral they have to also be willing to live with the consequences of their actions. If I'm at a funeral and Is ee someone disrespecting the dead I'll just physically eject him from the premises.

I believe that everyone has the right to behave as they please so long as they can abide by the consequences. It's not technically illegal to be an asshole but one will have to deal with some ramifications.

In this particular case, I agree with you bullshark. The law is getting self-contradictory. By this logic it should be perfectly acceptible to leave a flag out in the rain, set it on fire, or urinate on it; It's highly disrespectful but it's freedom of speech. Speech of course now defined as "any expression" verbal or gestural.

[idolminds]

I'm actually surprised the ruling wasn't unanimous.

[Ghandi]

The dissenting judge ruled the father as a private figure, and thus not subject to this type of speech (dunno if it says that in the article, I didn't read it).

The Westboro Baptist Church are just a big family of lawyers, and they are good lawyers. They use hateful speech to win lawsuits and make money.

The ruling was the correct one. Limiting free speech just because they are a bunch of assholes isn't right.

That being said, they are hated by pretty much everyone. I'm sure that we are all willing to turn around as a group of pissed off family members with dead children beat the piss out of them.