Westboro Baptist Church at Caylee Memorial?
 

I've read from a couple news web sites that members of the Westboro Baptist Church planned to picket at today's memorial service for Caylee Anthony. None of those sites though give any reason why. Here's all I have found on the Westboro web site:

Well, I guess that explains it. At first I couldn't figure out one reason they would want to protest this memorial. But, what should I expect. This group is unbelievable.

Check out their wiki if you've never heard of them:

Westboro Baptist Church - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ignore them?

Really any attention they get just feed's it.

I wouldnt have a particular problem if the next protest they go to someone that no witnesses see for whatever reason simply shoots a couple of them dead (as long as they dont shoot the kids that these mad cunts drag along to their sick attention seeking rants)

Ah, free speech. It doesn't come cheap. As much as I despise everything this group stands for, unfortunately they do have the right to say it. I do, however, think it's Constitutional to enforce any sort of legislation requiring a certain perimeter between protest and the actual funeral service. It's a reasonable time/place/manner restriction.

I joined the Patriot Guard Riders who attend funeral services for fallen American heroes. We have had occasion to shield the mourning family and friends from the interruption that the Westboro Baptist Church tried to create. On Memorial Day, May 29th, 2006, The "Respect for America's Fallen Heroes Act" was signed by President George W. Bush. Sorry that I cannot post the url link to the Patriot Guard, but I'm sure that if you google it, you will be able to find it.

Freedom of speech only extends to a point..

and some of what these people are saying is not necessarily protected under it.

A judge here in Baltimore already ruled against them in a case.

Don't know what happened with it, though; I'll have to do a search.

And a marine's father proved that point when he won a lawsuit against the WBC:
Taken from this article

That's what I was referring to.

Turns out free speech isn't exactly free. Same right that let's me say just about any damn fool thing I want grants them the right to say whatever bat shit crazy thing they want. I'm not sure exactly what "reasonable time/place/manner restriction's" entail but I've little doubt, given her background, that SabrinaFair knows what she's talking about. So they have the right to say just about any damn thing they want. Doesn't mean I don't think they're low life, scum sucking, pig shit eating, inbred, five toed, brainless, dickless, snake kissing, pieces of shit who are taking up perfectly good oxygen actual human beings could be using.

There are some commentaries floating about the web that the WBC will be successful in getting the verdict turned around on constitutional grounds, but...
Snyder and his lawyer were extremely savvy in their lawsuit wording; the suit was filed and won on the basis, not of free speech, but of intentional harm and malice. The jury found WBC intentionally meant to cause harm, emotional suffering and slander during their picketing of Snyder's son's funeral by harrassing incoming mourners, holding up their signs and attempting to disrupt the services. Verdict Sheet
Since it is going through the appeal process, they can and will continue to do what they've always done. Let's hope the appellate court understands intent and doesn't fall back on the Constitution alone.

I have no idea what these WBC people are talking about.

God loves fags.

There are limitations to freedom of speech, whether it's hate speech, speech to incite a riot, perjury, defamation, true threats etc etc..

Just because the law reads freedom from being censored, doesn't mean it applies in every instance.

gucci, you took the words right out of my mouth.

Hate speech isn't free speech.

Oh, I know. That's why I put that "just about" in there. Hate speech and threating speech really don't apply. But yelling "god hates fags" or "god hates America" might, I don't know. Seems like opinion and might be covered, again I don't know. I'm no legal scholar, never claimed to be one. I would be concerned if it's decided they can't legally express their opinion is someone someday going to decide that I don't have the right to express what fucktards they are in my opinion?

Now if the courts decide they have to be "X" number of feet from "X" group or building when they express their douche bag type opinions I have no problem with that what so ever.
-----Added 11/2/2009 at 09 : 12 : 01-----
I always figured God might be gay or lesbian. I mean you never hear about Mrs. God or Mr. God. If so the WBC folks are sooooo screwed when they die.

In all seriousness I figure if there is a God and there is a heaven and hell they probably are screwed. They've cherry picked the bible to give them the right to hate other people and purposefully inflict pain. Doesn't sound very Christian to me. They don't even seem very happy, just angry and bitter. I believe there's a chance they're going to hell in a bucket and not even enjoying the ride.
-----Added 11/2/2009 at 09 : 25 : 55-----
That's hilarious, they issued the verdict on Halloween. Bet ol' Phelps told all his brain dead followers that Satan had his hand in it. I think I read the WBC church hates Halloween almost as much as they hate the USA.

I have no (constitutional) problem with regulating hate speech that advocates violence. In fact, that is the constitutional standard for regulating political (i.e., noncommercial) speech--does it call for imminent lawless action? But anything less than that--anything that is merely advocating a viewpoint, no matter how distasteful--should not be regulated. That is the price of free speech. In order for me to be able to shout my point-of-view at the top of my voice, I have to deal with someone else shouting the exact opposite point-of-view at the top of theirs. As repugnant as I find WBC and their hateful, intolerant views, I do think they have the right to voice them. As I said before, and as Tully said, the courts have every right to regulate perimeters, etc. The court may regulate time/place/manner--such as the cases that have granted injunctions forbidding abortion protesters from picketing a doctors house with a megaphone at 3 in the morning. Reasonable restrictions on speech are one thing--restraint of one particular view point is entirely different.

Or, at least that's the point of view of this Con Law nerd....

These Westboro Baptist Church folks are going to get their asses beat one day.

Free Speech isnt the way to look at it all

Cant say much if theyre dead, can they?

But doesn't the WBC know:
http://www.jubilee-centre.org/upload...ist-advert.jpg