SCOTUS Rules Phelps and WBC Can Protest Funerals

agree. freedom is a natural tool of reason. oppression is the natural tool of religion, which explains religious ideology and history.

I agree completely with Blair and the SCOTUS. While I am one of the gay people they just love to hate I respect their right to make it obvious what a bunch of hateful, malicious fairy tales go into their brand of religious delusions called Christianity. Let the stupid demonstrate their stupidity, let them flaunt what happens if you take a monotheistic hierarchical authoritarian set of ancient superstitions seriously.

As sad as it makes me that these people feel as they do and have decided to share their feelings, I am ecstatic to see that the SCOTUS has upheld one of the basic foundations of our country.

Distasteful as it is, I have to agree with the Supreme Court on this one; we have to preserve those constitutional amendments. It looks like the Huntsville community is handling the situation pretty well. How can this religious group be so backward and hateful? It's hard to imagine such group-wide stupidity, but there it is.

Yep. Someday the Westboro Baptist Church will fade away, and we outspoken folks in the masses will still need to retain our free speech rights. Of course we don't really want to picket at a funeral, but think about it like this: If liberals get a law passed intended to silence one particular group that's far from liberal in nature, what do you think the conservative lawmakers will do? They'll continue that momentum against free speech by finding a place and/or method of public protest that's popular with liberals, and they'll pass a law against it. The liberals' law against picketing funerals will be the precedent that the conservatives need in order to create another law against a particular form of free speech. And then on and on with more laws, and soon we'll be the New Soviet Union.

All we have to do is wait out Phelps. I'm convinced that after he dies of old age or whatever, his church will quickly dissolve and fade away. I doubt the WBC will attempt to have a funeral for him. Maybe at their compound, but indoors and very quickly and quietly, I predict.

Not really sure what you're getting at here... care to elaborate?

"What are the laws against slander and libel for otherwise?"

Ask England about libel and slander laws run rampant. Don't confuse the common use of slander with the legal use of slander.

Every time you criticize religion, a religious person could sue you for slander.

Slander has to be injurious to a person's reputation. Nothing Phelps' church said did anything close to that because everyone knows Phelps is a lunatic and no one believes anything he says.

If however, the New York Times posted that Hannah Montana was a lesbian without evidence, she WOULD win her slander lawsuit because it would actually damage her reputation.

Libel has to fall under the same premise of damaging someone's reputation through writing, publication, signs, etc.

The legal definition of slander and libel were not met in this case.

Granted, but the fictional character of Hannah Montana is better than the real person that plays her. ;)

"Cemeteries are private property and are immune to Freedom of Assembly."

I think you've discovered the solution. If only all these places where these different political, religious, and morality issues bring people into conflict were private property (e.g., schools, parks, roads, etc.), then people could exercise their rights to free speech, assembly, religion, etc., without the state having to insert itself and pick winners and losers.

What a brilliant solution, Mr. Scott.

The whole premise of these laws is that one person somehow has the right to control another person’s opinion about them.

In fact, lots of folks go out of their way to wreck other people's lives. So they're necessary.

The Court's argument is that, because the 'public speech' slogans of the Phelps mob outnumbered the 'personal speech' attacks against the deceased soldier and his family, then the entirety is protected under the First Amendment. That's a piss-poor argument imho. The suit filed by the family concerned only the personal attacks and was rightly (imho) sanctioned by the jury. What are the laws against slander and libel for otherwise? If I attack someone with ten non-slanderous assertions and 'only' five slanderous ones, can I claim that all 15 are protected? I don't think so. Yes, let them rant and rave and show the world what they are - that's their right - but also let them have it where it hurts when they cross that line. Maybe I don't understand the situation as well as I should - please enlighten me if I'm wrong.

Being accused of being a pedophile can destroy one’s life, even if they’re innocent, for another. It’s not a simple binary choice.

Accusing someone of being a pedophile is actual slander and by legal definition and subject to the existing law.

Saying your son died in Iraq because my god hates homosexuals is not anywhere close to fitting the legal definition of slander.

No, just your First Amendment rights. ;)

Then I second the motion!

Dear Friends,

This case is not about slander. According to the description of the event in the court's decision, Phelp's signs said stuff like, “Thank God for Dead Soldiers,” “Fags Doom Nations,” “America is Doomed,” “Priests Rape Boys,” “You’re Going to Hell," and "God hates you." This is political speech about public issues. They are not provably false remarks and they are not remarks against the soldier and his family.

The court decided with Phelps because the court's job is to protect the constitution. The constitution lists rights that must be protected. People's right to speak on public issues is considered the most important of these rights. People's right to have their feelings protected is not even on the list.

Chris Rippel
Skeptic and Constitution Supporter

I 100% agree with this decision and will take your amazing, wonderful advice and be sure to protest the funeral of each of each member of the WBC.