The Right To Protest: Under Any Circumstance?
 

So a Facebook friend from the small Florida town I lived in for 2 years posted this the other day:

I decide to see what has their panties in a wad and find the story behind it. (Old news, maybe, but new to me.)

I find it ironic that these conservatives are upset with this for a couple of reasons. One, I always thought the conservative would fight tooth and nail for every constitutional principle. And secondly, these "friends" are anti-gay, anti-abortion, good Christians. Although my politics may be different, I've always attempted to respect their beliefs. The FB statement really pushed my buttons, not because I disagree with them, but because it seems to tell a story that is not necessarily the Christian way. It feels hypocritical to me.

Personally, I still haven't come to a conclusion as to where I stand. While I do believe strongly that protest should be an option, I have walked into an abortion clinic with peaceful protesters out front holding up those horrific signs that the pro-lifers tend to enjoy. Not a pleasant sight prior to enduring an extremely unpleasant and traumatic procedure. I can only try to imagine burying someone I love and enduring peaceful protesters mongering hatred about the one I just lost.

Protest in not quite an "inalienable" right, but it is important. Where do we draw the line? Who decides what's offensive? Who mediates or regulates? Is it more important to uphold the right?

I sure don't know, but I'd be interested in hearing what more diverse minds think about this.

I think the Supreme Court made the right decision. As long as the protests are non-violent and don't invade private property, then Westboro, the KKK, the Black Panthers or whoever have a constitutional right to protest.

As for the Facebook post, I think it's typically misguided propaganda. The USSC didn't say anyone could "protest on your lawn". It's also epidemic of the "if I don't like it, I'll shoot it" mentality that gives gun owners a bad name

...

I would agree with your statement as is. But I don't see it that black-and-white if it were my gay son being buried and protesters were yielding hateful signs before his grave. Don't I have the inalienable right to pursue happiness, which might include grieving in peace? Would you stand behind the same statement if it were your son?


Don't wimp out on me here. :p I need your input.

Well most cemeteries are private property, so no one can literally protest at the grave site. They are usually limited to protesting just outside (or across the street) from the graveyard.

and yes, I'd be pissed at them for disrupting a private ceremony, but my personal anger about it doesn't trump their constitutional right to be assholes

I support the right of free speech, but I also support measures to curb hate crimes. What this means is that if an actual crime takes place, whether it be minor (e.g. disturbing the peace, breach of peace, etc.) or something more serious (property damage, assault, battery, etc.), then the contributing circumstances should be taken into account. Essentially, if a crime takes place and it is proven in a court of law that it was setup, sparked, incited, aggravated, and/or prolonged by a hatred based on race, nationality, language, religion, sex, sexual orientation, etc., then that should be a cause for increased punishment.

It's one thing to be guilty of assault because you got angry at someone for something trivial; it's another thing completely to be guilty of assault because you hate gays and so beat one down.

So basically: free speech so long as no laws are broken (notwithstanding any civil suits arising from charges of defamation or slander).

Since I knew the position of the majority, I didn't read their opinion. I only read the dissent on this case, written by Justice Alito. I encourage each of you to read it also.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-751.pdf

When one reads the dissent, one realizes the extent to which these vermin intentionally targeted these parents. So, it was way more than a protest. It was an intentional infliction of abuse and distress. This case should have never been made out to be a "freedom of protest" case - because the actions of the defendants in this case went far beyond a protest. It seems Alito got that and the others did not. If the only thing they were doing was "protesting," I would have agreed with the verdict. This simply wasn't a SCOTUS case, in my opinion.

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.

I don't think that the first amendment says anything about the value added by expression being relevant. If we were concerned with value added then we wouldn't allow most protests, since most of them don't amount to much more than a choir singing to itself. There is little value added by speech consisting of posters of (insert name) with a Hitler mustache sharpied on.

It's odd to see you on the "statist tyranny" side of things, cimarron. ;)

If Americans weren't so apathetic,this wouldn't be a problem. Imagine if 10,000-20,000 showed up to counter protest the Westborough people...

I'm fairly certain that Westborough has been counter-protested many times, including one mishap where someone tried to pepper spray Westborough but hit the counter-protestors instead.

??? I could be wrong.

A friend of mine attended the counter-protest when WBC protested at Elizabeth Edwards' funeral in Raleigh.

He said that there were like three or four WBC people and maybe 800 or 1000 counter-protesters. They basically flew in the bare minimum of people they could to satisfy their promise to protest the event. They already had what they wanted: headlines.

These guys are CLASSIC trolls. They're tiny and impotent, and if we ignore them, they WILL go away.

None of which answers the Pub Question. Do they have a right to protest? Sure. Is their speech guaranteed to be consequence-free? No. But they're free to say it.

Let me start off by saying I think the WBC are a bunch of non-christian, hate-mongering, small-minded, in-bred bigots. I do not like their message, I don't like their methods, I don't like them.

Is there any doubt where I stand on the issue of their malicious, hurtful, inhumane, non-christian protests?

Yes, because....

All of the above adjectives about their protests may, just may really be how they perceive gays, the US military activities, or anything else they protest. In that case, they are protesting something they see as exactly how we see them. I don't know, because I refuse to dig into the sewage of their reasoning for their protests.

But everyone who takes the moral high ground against these cretins seems to assume that they (the ones against the WBC) are right, and the WBC morons have no right to a contrary opinion. Yea for them (those against the WBC)... real good logic there (that includes me, btw).

Let's face it... while there's nothing inherently nice about democracy, the openness of western society demands that we allow people to be idiots, and to express idiotic opinions and viewpoints, even cruel and hurtful ones.

If we don't, then maybe we're shutting ourselves up, eventually.

It seems over protective. For example, such a holding would permit people who don't believe in Marriage to picket and basically ruin many weddings because they sincerely believe "Marriage is of the Past" or that America is "Too immoral to support Marriages."

For the sake of free speech, we will allow individuals to interject themselves in to private individuals' most intimate affairs?

Although I can see the other side's argument, and can see the need to protect free speech, I am personally uncomfortable with such a holding. I suppose I need to do some more distilling.

I think the actions of WBC were *PRIVATE* interspersed with *PUBLIC* issues. They deliberately targeted the father of a deceased marine with messages of "Thank god for IEDs" and "Thank God for Dead Soldiers" (the private portion of their attack) with public issues such as "Gods Hates Fags" and "God Hates America." They should not achieve blanket protection simply because a portion of their message involves public concerns.

Free speech is protected, even hurtful or hateful speech, unless it is incendiary to the point that it poses an imminent threat to life, thus the WBC speech is protected.

What can be limited or restricted is the "time, place and manner" of the protest, not the content.

Which is why they could not protest on the cemetery grounds...or why there must be a buffer zone at health clinics where anti-abortion protesters are prohibited....or why you cant hold a protest in the middle of 5th avenue in NYC during during rush hour.

The Supreme Court decision was a good one despite how despicable the WBC might be.

Assume for a second that I truly find marriage to be a disgusting, immoral, unethical degradation of women; held over from a time when women were chattel and that marriage was and is nothing more than legalised prostitution or worse, tantamount to sexual slavery for the woman (I don't). But assume I do, deeply, at the core of my being, and that it would be unacceptable for me NOT to express this publicly, and to try to shame the wedding couple into realising that.

Now assume you feel that way about the WBC assholes' actions. Which of us has the right to protest publicly the activities we dislike?

Now, assume the WBC idiots feel this way, but cannot for logistical reasons, protest the military activities they find so distasteful. Should they be barred for that reason from protesting where they CAN be seen to be getting their message across?

I just watched part of a documentary about the Westboro Baptist Church last night. I think it's called Fall From Grace.

But after watching interviews with some these people, particularly Fred Phelps, I am convinced that they revel in the attention that we shouldn't be giving them. I mean, the church is tiny, 70 or so members, I think and most of them are family. Fuck those people, I say. I'm not giving them a second more of my attention. It is unfortunate that they don't have the fucking decency to respect the peace of grieving families, but in the grand scheme of things it's not earth-rocking. And hardly worth the consequences of a significant precedent challenging the protections offered by the first amendment.

But, take heart, Fred Phelps is older than dirt. And his forthcoming funeral should be a real three ring circus, I imagine.

KirStang and Alito said it far better than me. Originally, it seems the case was, "Did the actions of the WBC rise from simple protest to the level of IIED?" Unfortunately, along the path of this case, someone (the defense attorneys) decided this was some symbolic case for free speech and assembly and the gullible media ran with it, for fear that a plantiff's verdict would hurt their ability to report.

If all WBC had done was show up at the funeral, on public land, and protested - I would say it was protected. However, you are not protesting when you create Facebook pages implying their son was gay and that God killed him because of it. They launched a multi-pronged campaign calling out this exact soldier. It is the totality of their actions which rises to IIED, in my opinion.

mm- as much as I would like to think that his grieving family would come to understand the pain of their actions when faced with a protest outside of Phelps funeral...I think they are too brainwashed to get it. They honestly believe they are doing God's work and that Phelps will sit at the right hand of God in the afterlife. So, his death and place in heaven will be a celebration for them. As much as I would like to fashion a neon sign and throw a little ill will their way, I hope everyone ignores his death...and the rest of his life for that matter. It would be really easy to make them go away. Alas, the media won't let the fact that they aren't really Christians stand in the way of a good "Christian bashing" story.

I didn't mean to purport that they would understand, just that those who hate them would be allowed a field day. I really don't care what any of those people think or feel or believe. #1 because I believe they are at least somewhat deliberately disingenuous. #2 because they are obviously suffering from some sort of shared delusional disorder.

Making a spectacle out of his death is not something that I condone or would want to participate in. But it could be considered a reasonable and tolerable comeuppance of sorts. I certainly wouldn't bother with expressing any outrage if it were to happen.

Yeah, I re-read my post and it was poorly written as if to imply you'd like to participate in said spectacle. I certainly know you have better sense than that, so I apologize for that. As you said, the most harmful thing we can do to them is ignore them.

His funeral should be no more than a briefly entertained fantasy. I'm a little ashamed at the fact that I would take pleasure in his survivors feeling extra grief at the sight of a neon sign saying "God Hates Phelps" or "Thank God For <insert his affliction here>". That really is the very worst thing about the WBC: sometimes, they bring out the very worst in us, if only in thought.

This soldier is hardly the first person to be mentioned by WBC by name. I think you could argue that their facebook page, while pretty fucked up, is the expression of a political opinion. It is political and not personal because they have pretty consistently spread the same message regardless of the people involved- just because it is directed at a single person doesn't make it personal. They think that god kills soldiers because of teh gays, that is a political statement.

the problems that attend not wanting to legitimate the westboro asshats by not wanting to pay them any mind recurred for me in the question of whether to participate in this thread or not.

as i understand it, freedom of speech is a block on the criminalization of speech, yes?
so the logic of this ruling would define prohibiting certain types of speech in specific locations is a problem because it's a de facto criminalization of that speech in that specific location.

does this mean that the little chain link cages that police departments quaintly refer to as "free speech zones" are also out the window now?

We will just have to disagree on this. A facebook page essentially implying their son died because he was gay and God killed him for it is intensely personal...to his parents, which is why they sued for IIED.

I think that there is a difference between taking something personally and that something actually being personal. If someone acts like an asshole towards everyone, you shouldn't necessarily take it personally if they act like an asshole towards you, even though it still hurts your feelings.

I just can't apply the "sticks and stones" defense to their behavior. They defamed this soldier publicly, in front of his family and loved ones. That crossed the line and they should have to pay for that. The fact that they defamed other soldiers is not a defense of their behavior, it simply begs the question why this wasn't a class-action suit against WBC.

rb- An interesting point regarding free speech zones. I suppose we should start holding protests inside the Supreme Court during session and dare them to dictate when and where we protest.

I am the most liberal person I know and am being cared for by two gay people.

That said, our free speech does give us the ability to be total and complete degenerates if they so please. KKK, WBC, Neo Nazis... no matter how pathetic, crass and simply disgusting they are they still have the right to protest and hold open forums.

Now, one great thing is, especially college kids in particular, that is happening are counter protests. When you see these asshole comes you get out and confront them. The beauty of hate groups is they are almost always cowards.

If the funerals are in a private cemetery I don't see why they don't kick them out. Then again I have no idea if private cemeteries even exist. o.O

Freedom of speech is doubled edge like every other thing worth having is.