*sigh* Rights are for everyone...even you

[bluegargantua]

Hey,

So the Supreme Court in an 8-1 ruling said that the Westboro Baptist Church could protest at the funeral of dead gay soldiers (Justice Alito being the only dissenter).

I kinda expected this and I think it's clearly the right decision. I do wish the majority opinion had gone something like this though:

"We, the Supreme Court of the United States find that the plaintiffs were exercising their right to free speech in accordance with the Constitution and cannot be barred from similar demonstrations in the future simply because they say things that are painful, unpleasant, or rude. In that light, the Court would like to exercise it's right to free speech and declare the plaintiffs to be utter assholes."


later
Tom

Comments

[bonisagus.livejournal.com]

For at least 4 of the Justices that would be the pot calling the kettle black.

[zzbottom.livejournal.com]

Yes. All of that.

[satyrgrl.livejournal.com]

First, a minor point of clarification: There is nothing to suggest that Matthew Snyder was gay. I point this out because it seems that his family was more than nominally Catholic, and thus may have been extra offended at the Westboro's insinuation that he was.

I think Justice Bryer's concurrence had the best take on it. I think that the Court probably got this one right, but there are a number of factors that could have easily made it go the other way. If the Snyder family had been forced to see the signs on the way to the funeral, or if the Court had been willing to consider the "epic" addressed directly to the Snyder family, I would disagree with the Court's decision. The fact that this seems to have been an unobtrusive, peaceful protest that Westboro cleared with the police in advance is all that saves it.

Also, I think the fact that this was in the context of IIED makes a big difference because of the nature of a tort claim. Generally, one does not have a duty to not be an asshole, and tort is all about breach of duty. When I first heard about this case I assumed incorrectly that the Westboro people had been arrested for disturbing the peace (or the Maryland analog). My response was immediately that what Westboro was saying was fighting words, and absolutely not protected in that context. I still think this is true, though it doesn't seem like the disruption or disturbance required for a criminal charge was present here. Again, had the mourners actually encountered the protesters rather than simply hearing about what they said later I think this case could have gone differently in a number of ways.

[z-gryphon.livejournal.com]

As far as I can recall, the standard line the Phelpsites take isn't that the soldiers whose funerals they're protesting were gay - it's that God Hates Fags and He Kills Our Soldiers Because We, As a Society, Put Up With Same, which is admittedly a difficult leap of... er, logic... for people with normal brain function to make.

[satyrgrl.livejournal.com]

I'm certain that you're correct that their stance is that they don't believe the soldiers themselves were gay, merely "sodomite enablers." However, I think a casual observer of their signs would almost certainly draw the conclusion that they believed otherwise, and I can't imagine that is completely accidental.

In our dreams.

[dervishspin.livejournal.com]

And America the Beautiful would be being hummed by the court behind them as they said it.

Supreme Snark

[mpgalvin.livejournal.com]

Well, they did just give a big F U to AT&T trying to deny a FOIA request using a Corporate = Personal Privacy defense.

I believe it included "We trust that AT&T won't take it personally." in the summary.