States Line Up Against Funeral Hecklers in Supreme Court Brief

Status
Not open for further replies.

rockin'robin

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2007
Messages
24,433
Reaction score
544
Fred Phelps' Westboro Baptist Church Picketed Marine's Funeral; Court to Decide if Protest Was Free Speech

Forty-eight states and the District of Columbia are backing the family of fallen Marine Matthew Snyder in a pending U.S. Supreme Court case that could decide the constitutionality of laws restricting protests at private family funerals.

Lance Cpl. Snyder, who was deployed to Iraq in 2006, was killed just a month later in an accident. His funeral in Maryland was disrupted by demonstrators led by Kansas pastor Fred W. Phelps, yelling, among other things, that America's military is evil because it defends a country that tolerates homosexuality.

Snyder's family sued, but an appeals court said the hecklers were exercising their right to free speech.

Now, all but two state attorneys general have signed a "friend of the court" brief, to be filed tomorrow, that argues the First Amendment should not apply to some "intrusive and harassing" forms of expression.

"Funeral goers are a captive audience and they are engaged in a deeply personal and private mourning process," said Kansas Attorney General Steve Six, who drafted the brief. "The Constitution does not give the respondent the right to hijack solemn proceedings such as funerals in order to spread their hateful ideas."

The respondent, Phelps, has staged loud protests with members of his Westboro Baptist Church at military funerals around the country. He argues his signs, bearing messages such as "You're in hell" and "God hates you," are protected forms of speech.

Court observers called the near-universal state support for Snyder and funeral protest laws "exceptional" and say their brief will likely affect the justices when they weigh the case this fall. Only Maine and Virginia have withheld support for the "amicus curiae" brief.

But Phelps' supporters, including his daughter Megan Phelps, say the states' brief does not change the facts of the case or weaken their constitutional argument.

"The only way you can criminalize standing peacefully on a public sidewalk with Scriptural concepts on hotly-debated public issues is to repeal the 1st Amendment," said Phelps via Twitter. "They're willing to sacrifice the freedoms they claim Matt Snyder fought for on the altar of shutting up our message," she tweeted. "This opposition epitomizes why the 1st Amend. was passed: corrupt gov't trying to shut up religious messages they hate."

In a separate show of support for Snyder Friday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, filed a "friend of the court" brief joined by 42 Senators.

Senators Support Snyder in Brief Opposing Funeral Pickets
Reid has called Phelps' demonstration at the Snyder funeral an "ugly protest" and says state and federal law should "continue to protect, as it long has, the rights of all private persons -- including the families of fallen soldiers -- to mourn their loved ones at a peaceful and solemn funeral."

The Respect for America's Fallen Heroes Act, enacted by Congress and signed by President George W. Bush in May 2006, bars protesters from the property of federal cemeteries without permission and limits the duration and location of any protest approved to be performed. More than 40 states have enacted similar laws.


"In our brief to the Supreme Court, we will be arguing in part that such laws are constitutional and should be upheld," said Six. A summary of the brief provided to ABC News shows the states will argue that their "funeral picketing/protest" laws are constitutional because of an expected right to privacy at a burial and because mourners are a "captive audience" to their dead, leaving them little choice but be subjected to the message of protesters. "Parents, siblings, family, close friends, and neighbors cannot be expected to skip a loved one's funeral in order to avoid the malicious and intentionally hurtful messages the Phelpses love to use to target mourners," the summary reads.

The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case earlier this year on appeal by Albert Snyder, Lance Cpl. Snyder's father.

Snyder first sued Phelps and his congregation claiming that their protest at his son's private funeral was an invasion of the family's privacy and inflicted emotional distress. A U.S. district court ruled in Snyder's favor and awarded a judgment of $5 million. But a federal appeals court overturned that decision, finding that the protest signs weren't aimed at Snyder specifically and said the statements are "protected by the Constitution."

"We are constrained to agree that these signs are entitled to First Amendment protection," the three-judge panel wrote.

The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the case in October.

States to File Supreme Court Brief: Fred Phelps' Westboro Baptist Church Wrong to Heckle at Funeral of Iraq Marine Matthew Snyder - ABC News
 
This is why TCS and I joined the Patriot Guard Riders.
 
I figure anyone has the right to say anything they want to -- But not on my time.

Don't come to my house and don't try to stop me as I walk by.
 
oh wow this is a very tricky legal case. I'm interested in hearing Supreme Court's ruling on this matter.

those ungrateful disrespectful brats.... :mad2:
 
What they did was stupid and morally wrong, but I don't see any laws that were broken. I hope this doesn't cause anything to change on our freedom of speech
 
oh wow this is a very tricky legal case. I'm interested in hearing Supreme Court's ruling on this matter.

those ungrateful disrespectful brats.... :mad2:

The only reason why they're pulling this crap is because they make a living off of the lawsuits anyway.
 
If these protesters are so deadset about dishonoring these unlucky heroes from America's war efforts, why don't they denounce their citizenship and move to Iran? No flaming homosexuals there to stress them out. :crazy:

Another crazed group of zealots keeping our court system flush with activity. :thumbd:
 
What they did was stupid and morally wrong, but I don't see any laws that were broken. I hope this doesn't cause anything to change on our freedom of speech

There is a fine line when it comes to the First Amendment.

They cry foul when they believe their right to free speech is being tamped down. However, Phelps and his protesters, go too far aiming the majority of their protests at the funerals of soldiers and in turn taking away the rights of the families to grieve in peace, lay their soldier to rest, and give the respect the soldier deserves for giving his life, just so we can live in this country freely and as we choose. Who is taking whose rights away? Phelps is.

They border on traitorous acts when they tout signs saying 'God hates America', and hypocrasy when they tout signs 'God hates Soldiers'. When in fact they don't realise that those soldiers who died, died so they can be free to spread their hatred.
 
As far as I'm concerned, Free Speech is a two way street. Anyone can say they don't like homosexuals and I'm free to speak out on it. However, it can cross the line into harassment or inciting violence. I think it's quite proable that Phelps is harassing the families of those gays.
 
Last edited:
There's free speech and there's abuse of free speech.

Freedom isn't something to be taken for granted, they are to be respected.

Yiz
 
LOL Westboro Baptist Churchers. I counterprotested them when they came to New Jersey. Lots of fun, too. They'd stand across the street saying God hated everyone and that everyone's going to hell, and we'd stand with a lot of signs and silly clothing and other stuff saying they were being foolish and wrong. (This occurred outside a Hillel as the WBC folks were on an anti-Semitic streak at the time.)
 
LOL Westboro Baptist Churchers. I counterprotested them when they came to New Jersey. Lots of fun, too. They'd stand across the street saying everyone's going to hell, and we'd stand with a lot of signs and silly clothing and other stuff saying they were being foolish and wrong.

LOL kinda like this guy at Times Square from couple weeks ago -

wly52v.jpg
 
If US Supreme Court say that hateful protesters on near funeral homes as constitutional so I would prefer to see congresses to pass the new amendment to change the US Constitution to outlaw all kind of protesters on near to funeral homes.
 
lol.fox.

you serious?

Yup, be protest on near funeral homes are just very awfully disrespect and very dishonor. I don't like to see any protesters on near funeral homes and it make me feel like heartbreaking and very sad of died people.
 
The solution is really quite simple. There's already restrictions on free-speech on what you can say to other people. Police can charge you with public disturbance if you swear in presence of kids-- as long the comment wasn't targeted toward the government to begin with.

The problem is...

Would making political comments at a funeral fall under free speech, or public disturbance? So I agree with Jiro, it will be a tough issue to resolve.
 
The solution is really quite simple. There's already restrictions on free-speech on what you can say to other people. Police can charge you with public disturbance if you swear in presence of kids-- as long the comment wasn't targeted toward the government to begin with.

The problem is...

Would making political comments at a funeral fall under free speech, or public disturbance? So I agree with Jiro, it will be a tough issue to resolve.

Alot of them carry anti-gay signs too........Hate speech?????
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top