KirStang

I find myself unconvinced by the majority's opinion--they seem to equate Phelp's signs with 'high value speech necessary to promote public discourse.' However, rather than provoke thought and discussion regarding homosexuality within the nation and within the military--the speech itself seems to provoke discussion about the first amendment. See the disconnect there?

It would be okay, in my opinion, for someone to picket a court house with something like, "Fuck the Draft" or some other form of shocking discourse. Contrary to that scenario, in this case, the protesters deliberately targeted a private individual in his final hours with his deceased son. That removes it from speech promoting public discourse (remember, supposedly about the immorality of the country and homosexuality), and makes it a targeted attack against an innocent individual.

I suppose the Supreme Court wanted to make a stand and show that the First Amendment supports plurality. I support plurality too, but I fail to see how the benefit /introspection these protesters' actions speech outweighs the harm inflicted on a private individual.

I would argue that what these protesters did was actually low value speech, contributing nothing to public discourse, while targeting a private individual. The speech found in this case added about as much introspection in to a discussion as yelling 'fire' in a funeral. Although I don't think the State could nor should step in to regulate such conduct, it should be permissible for one private party to hold another private party liable for IIED.

I am away from my Constitutional Law notes, but I might add more later.

In addition, I'm sure someone will attack my position on the grounds that I'm a hippocrite. But all constitutional rights are restricted to a matter of degree, the Second does not permit you to own AT-4s and Tanks, the Fourth Amendment limits its applicability where a citizen does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy, and the Fifth limits Miranda rights to Custodial Interrogation. I felt like the line drawn here in Snyder v. Phelps is beyond speech that needs to be protected. Indeed, I sincerely doubt slapping Westborough here would have much of a 'chilling' effect on useful public discourse.

/Soapbox.

__________________