US Supreme Court Sides with The Westboro Baptist Church

In a blow to the families fed up with the WBC picketing their loved ones military funerals with hateful, hurtful messages, the supreme court today upheld the "churches" absolute right to free speech no matter how insane the speech might be as long as they are peaceful.

In a sick way I think this may actually be a good thing for free speech in this country. If these unbelievable bastards could be sued for what they say then what is to stop anyone else from claiming they were hurt because of what I might say while protesting in front a building?

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...ME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-03-02-10-27-23

 

me think they are their own worst enemy in the end. even people who agree with their view may have hard time with their methods.

you got put up with b.s. to keep the right to b.s.

 

In college I learned about censorship and how damaging it can be to society. I will always been a proponent of free speech even if I do not agree with what is being said.

 

Then why is government information still censored and people who distribute it like Manning charged? "Providing intelligence to the enemy" - this is not covered under free speech? Doesn't sound like an 'absolute right to free speech' to me.

 

Certain documents are confidential, this includes both government and medical, for example forget the public, the government can't even access your medical records without a warrant just like no one else can read your mail, despite the hooplah about all the embassy cables people forget their communication is also legally granted privacy, even going into someone's email account or mailbox without permission is a crime. It's really asinine to compare the two, no one has ever said freedom of speech is absolute, in fact the high courts of almost every nation have already ruled on that several times.

 

I agree that "absolute" probably was not the right word to use there but Manning is under military jurisdiction. That is a whole different thing.

 

Well to be fair it's only asinine to a citizen of the U.S. I'm a foreigner and being told that freedom of speech in the U.S. is 'absolute' means, in universal language, that it can't be fettered. The text of the constitutional amendment seems to indicate this too, and I don't see anything wrong with criticising its subsequent judicial interpretation.

 

The supreme court has never ruled free speech is an absolute. It ruled this was protected under it. As it stands the first amendment in regards to speech is probably among the most strictly followed in the first world, it's one of the last things America excels at. There are no laws against any form of hate speech be it religious or racial, and our libel laws are among the most lax in the world, for better or worse anyone including the news media can say almost anything about anyone else no matter how ridiculous it is.

 

And there aren't any who think it was a mistake to do so?

 

I agree with the Supreme Court's decision but if anyone ever gets pissed off enough to drive by while these fuckers are picketing and shoot them, I sincerely hope the jury acquits the killer.

I'm usually a nonviolent person but those people piss me off so bad. They completely deserve whatever happens to them in the future because I have a feeling one day they're going to piss off the wrong person and get exactly what is coming to them.

 

There are, but it's why they're not judges. The concept of absolute free speech would be disastrous, the whole "FIRE!!" in a crowded place type of thing.

 

Well, i'm no judge either but I think that problem can be solved by severely limiting the legal definition of 'speech' to something like the expression of ideas and opinions.

 

The lesson in the movie A Clockwork Orange is that even if the plantiff ( Alex) seems repulsive to you he posesses rights under law despite his repulsive qualities

 

good point. this is very true. it's still disgusting what they are doing, it would be nice if they showed a little common decency for the dead and for the grieving families though. i agree with whoever it was that said that if someone came by and shot them or whatever (sorry, bad memory) that the shooter should be acquitted. i'm not normally violent either, but it's absolutely grotesque and indecent to picket outside of a funeral.

 

Censorship is a slippery slope. I think the Supreme Court was in the right for upholding the first amendment, with the way it exists currently- I loathe WBC and everything it claims to stand for, but free speech is for everyone, no matter how ugly or hateful they may be.

 

Exactly. Just as they have the right to speak their mind, you and I also have the right to like or dislike.

 

They're not speaking their minds, they don't have minds to speak. Their fucking insane! People should have the right to peace and dignity. Something is wrong when the rights of sane people are used to protect despicable lunatics. Fee speech was not put in place so nut jobs could scream "God hates you" out in public from sun up to sun down....
APPLY SOME COMMON SENSE TO YOUR FUCKING LAWS FOR FUCK SAKES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

@ Relaxxx One cannot simply say "free speech to all but the crazy people" Because that is exclusionary and infringes human rights. You speak what you believe, just like they do. If you want your right to protest and disagree with what they say, then you must admit them the right to say it.

"I disapprove of what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it." - EBH

Just because one does not agree with YOUR mind does not make them mindless. I believe that the people who do this are evil, but who am I to say they should enjoy less human rights then I? Who am I to say as fact they are less human, when it was religion who came before me, not the other way around.

 

Up in North Dakota we have a 300ft distance they have to keep. The supreme court desision will not affect that. Other states should do the same..Persoanally Id like to see that distance increased. There is a time and place for everything including free speech however at a funeral it is disrecpectful.

Thats whats on the back home website this morning.
http://www.valleynewslive.com/Global/story.asp?S=14175377

 

What they are doing does not fall in my DEFINITION of SPEECH. Common sense should be able to distinguish the difference between civil communications and insane hatred and bigotry. It is not a matter of free speech so much as social health, these people are sick. Their sickness has disturbed the lives of their community.