Dad of a fallen Marine perseveres against protests

Swampkat

Sergeant
Full Member
Minuteman
Feb 15, 2006
264
0
Louisiana
http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20100331/ts_csm/291560

Washington – A father of a Marine killed in Iraq says he won't pay the legal fees of a protest group who picketed at his son's funeral in 2006 – at least not until he hears from the US Supreme Court on the matter.

Albert Snyder, whose son, Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder, was killed in Iraq, learned Friday that a federal appeals court is requiring him to pay more than $16,000 in legal fees to the Westboro Baptist Church, a Christian fundamentalist group that demonstrates during military funerals to gain attention for its antigovernment, antihomosexual message. The group rallied at Matthew Snyder’s funeral in March 2006 in Westminster, Md., chanting antigay slogans and carrying signs such as “Thank God for dead soldiers,” says Albert Snyder’s attorney, Sean Summers.

The group was protesting about 30 feet from the church’s main entrance, and Mr. Snyder had to enter through a separate entrance, Mr. Summers says.
Snyder subsequently sued the Westboro group for emotional distress and won a $5 million judgment. But on appeal, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, finding in favor of protecting the protesters' free-speech rights. About three weeks ago, the Supreme Court agreed to take the case and is expected to hear it in the fall. (Last year, the high court had declined to take up the issue.) Meanwhile, the circuit court has ordered Snyder, a salesman, to pay the church’s court expenses.

Snyder, of York, Pa., told Fox News on Tuesday that he would not pay the Westboro Baptist Church "until I hear from the Supreme Court."
“It’s fair to say that they are not getting any Christmas cards from Mr. Snyder,” adds Summers, in a phone interview. “He obviously thinks they are despicable and doesn’t understand why they would target him.”

The Westboro group has been protesting at military members’ funerals for years. The church leader, Fred Phelps, preaches that American deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan are punishment for the nation’s tolerance of homosexuality. (He was among those banned from Britain last year for fostering hatred or extremism.) The protests have nothing to do with the fallen service members' sexual orientation, and the church says its protests are held within a “lawful distance” of the funerals.

Ultimately, say some, the church protests are a matter of constitutionally protected free speech.
“I really don’t see that [the protest] was a violation of the First Amendment [principles]. It was a violation of decorum and good taste and all sorts of other things, but not a violation of the First Amendment,” says Charles Gittins, a civilian lawyer in Virginia.
But Summers argues that his client’s right to peaceful assembly and freedom of religion were infringed by the protests and that, unlike at a public park where people are free to express themselves, a funeral setting draws a “captive audience” that requires attendees to be in a particular location – they can’t simply walk away.

Westboro Baptist Church, which is based in Kansas, plans to protest in Florida on Wednesday, outside a funeral for a Marine killed in Helmand Province in southern Afghanistan on March 22.

“Military funerals have become pagan orgies of idolatrous blasphemy, where they pray to the dunghill gods of Sodom and play taps to a fallen fool,” states a press release posted on the church’s website, announcing the rally at a memorial service for Lance Cpl. Justin Wilson. At the bottom of the press release are printed the words “Thank God for IEDs,” referring to the roadside bombs that have killed thousands of troops in both wars.
 
Re: Dad of a fallen Marine perseveres against protests

Those protestors who claimed to be sheltered from the 1A fucking forgot that it was the lives, and bloods of the fallen soldiers that gave them that right. Whether or not they have a different agenda, to do so at any funeral, much less a funeral of our fallen soldiers is absolutely despicable. The whole thing makes me sick.
 
Re: Dad of a fallen Marine perseveres against protests

Shame on those protesters, got to be a way to have a private funeral. Freedom of speech still does not allow you to yell fire in crowded movie theater. Other examples of
Unprotected speech includes:

*

Incitement to illegal activity and/or imminent violence;
*

Defamation and libel;
*

Obscenity;
*

Threats and intimidation; and
*

False advertising.

I would also like to add from http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=13718
that their is such a thing as "fighting words" fighting words as only those "personally abusive epithets which, when addressed to the ordinary citizen, are, as a matter of common knowledge, inherently likely to provoke violent reactions.".
I hope this father wins at the Supreme court.
 
Re: Dad of a fallen Marine perseveres against protests

The fighting words doctrine doesn't apply here.

I suspect that this will be a unanimous case against the father. I also think that is the constitutionally required result.

These men fought and died for our right to free speech.

How dare we deny American citizens, however despicable, the same rights these brave men fight and die for?

Fortunately, when it comes to free speech, the Supreme Court speaks in a single voice.

And before anyone jumps down my throat, I am a Patriot Guard Rider, I have been on several missions including a KIA where the Westboro Baptist Church showed up, and I'm also a veteran who thinks that the best way to counter hateful speech is with more speech, not censorship.

That's me second from left:
n196603532_31127540_3078.jpg


And remember...
l_c581fa51ba93a736a8cda1f155ebd523.jpg
 
Re: Dad of a fallen Marine perseveres against protests

Your a better man than I my friend, and I agree with you to a point. But if somebody whipped somebodies rear end over it. They sure wouldn't want me on the Jury. It would be a cold day in Hell before I would convict.
 
Re: Dad of a fallen Marine perseveres against protests

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Robot Doc</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Your a better man than I my friend, and I agree with you to a point. But if somebody whipped somebodies rear end over it. They sure wouldn't want me on the Jury. It would be a cold day in Hell before I would convict. </div></div>

They wouldn't want me on the jury, either. But that is another topic. The people are entitled to express themselves freely in a public forum, period.
 
Re: Dad of a fallen Marine perseveres against protests

Semper Fi, Marine.I thank you brother, for your life, as it gives life to others. Even if some are too ignorant to realize that fact, and the sacrifice you made. I am humbled to have walked with you.
 
Re: Dad of a fallen Marine perseveres against protests

Best wishes for the dad. God forbid those douchebags show up at my familys funeral!!!

Protesting a funeral like that is not free speech! Then again, I dont want obama care, or illegal's getting benefits or prisoners paroled!
 
Re: Dad of a fallen Marine perseveres against protests

Well some call it censorship, some call it respect, Washington calls it the law. You want to protest a funeral, do it from a distance.

RCW 9A.84.030
Disorderly conduct.

(1) A person is guilty of disorderly conduct if the person:

(a) Uses abusive language and thereby intentionally creates a risk of assault;

(b) Intentionally disrupts any lawful assembly or meeting of persons without lawful authority;

(c) Intentionally obstructs vehicular or pedestrian traffic without lawful authority; or

(d)(i) Intentionally engages in fighting or in tumultuous conduct or makes unreasonable noise, within five hundred feet of:

(A) The location where a funeral or burial is being performed;

(B) A funeral home during the viewing of a deceased person;

(C) A funeral procession, if the person described in this subsection (1)(d) knows that the funeral procession is taking place; or

(D) A building in which a funeral or memorial service is being conducted; and

(ii) Knows that the activity adversely affects the funeral, burial, viewing, funeral procession, or memorial service.

(2) Disorderly conduct is a misdemeanor.
 
Re: Dad of a fallen Marine perseveres against protests

Maybe Mr.Phelps should have his ass dragged off to Iraq and done in.Lets see if his followers protest at his funeral.Free speach and all, he is still a twisted human being for using those tragic moments in peoples lives to gain supporters.Sickening
 
Re: Dad of a fallen Marine perseveres against protests

I apologise. If I ever run into these people by a Warrior's Funeral, I promise I will lay the most serious ass whoopin I can on them. I apologise because I know that actually seeing htem will incite me into the most ballistic state of mind that hides deep wihtin my inner Eagle Globe and Anchor seared soul. It is that being that has no tolerance for this kind of stuff.
I have no control over this individual and have tried for years to control it, but certain triggers just happen.

I am sorry. When I see these people they shall be in the direction of something wild and untamed that will freely do it's thing until sated.

No Fallen Warrior deserves ANY form of protest in the vicinity of his or her Funeral or Final Rites of Passage to the Next World

Semper Fidelis
 
Re: Dad of a fallen Marine perseveres against protests

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: WASP7067</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Well some call it censorship, some call it respect, Washington calls it the law. You want to protest a funeral, do it from a distance.
</div></div>

The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. An unconstitutional law is not the law. That is the critical question is here. Saying that the law "is what it is" or even what it "says" fails to analyze the relevant issues here.

The "rule" is free speech. There are very narrow exceptions. That some people are offended is not one of them.

It makes me so angry, as a veteran who took the oath to protect the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic, to see people who took the same oath to say screw the constitution, we don't want Fred Phelps to have a voice. That is precisely the idea we fight against. That is why we wore the uniform. Fred Phelps might be disgusting, but silencing him is a far worse evil.

I really wish more people understood this in this day and age. I tend to think that people used to be much more aware of their rights than they are today. Free speech and political debate, no matter how offensive the terms, is the basis for a free society.

I really hope some of my fellow veterans here will see this and adopt my view. Freedom is why we fight. The constitution is the supreme rule of law. And in this case, the constitution demands that we respect the free speech rights of Fred Phelps in return for having a voice of counter protest. The Patriot Guard Riders exist for precisely that.

I'll get on my Harley and attend the counter protests for as long as I have to, in order to counterprotest these scumbags. But I will never call for censorship of their ideas, because it'd open the doors for them to do the same to mine.
 
Re: Dad of a fallen Marine perseveres against protests

This was just on the 530pm ABC news.... they left out the part that he beat the protestors for 5 million, just that he owed them 14k for legal fees.... typical mainstream media BS.

Let the man mourn his loss in peace, he and his paid the price for the protestors to have the rights they do.
 
Re: Dad of a fallen Marine perseveres against protests

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Mikee B</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This was just on the 530pm ABC news.... they left out the part that he beat the protestors for 5 million, just that he owed them 14k for legal fees.... typical mainstream media BS.

Let the man mourn his loss in peace, he and his paid the price for the protestors to have the rights they do. </div></div>

You should read again. He prevailed at trial, but he lost on appeal.
 
Re: Dad of a fallen Marine perseveres against protests

I read about that crap on the net, I saw a pic showing some girl holding a sign saying Thank God For IED'S, When a hero who gave the ultimate sacrifice was being honored. I about puked it made me so angry. I look at those " people " and hold them at a lower level than the terrotrist that Marine died fighting.
 
Re: Dad of a fallen Marine perseveres against protests

Downzero,

I understand and respect your opinion absolutely. I have fought and nearly lost my own life fighting for the rights of people to have a freedom of speech.

I have listened to and taken on board many peoples opinions that totally disagree with mine. i would fight to the death for that person to keep that right. I have listened to them articulate their and opinions, giving me the pros and cons. I understand and respect all peoples right to disagree with my opinions. However I believe you are wrong. The fred Phelps of this world dont deserve to have such rights because what they are preaching is not the word of god, not the bible, not goodness and certainly not a difference of opinion. They preach hate and filth.

If they carried a copy of Koran and said death to all americans and death to the usa and all soldiers killed were killed by Jihadis was the will of god we would have a different attitude and certainly in my opinion the courts would treat them differently. Just because phelps is a Yank doesnt mean he should be treated differently. A hate monger is a hate monger whether he is an American , iraqi or Saudi, he is still a hate monger. And hate mongers in my opinion dont deserve to be treated with the same rights and respect as a dissenter that expresses their opinions in a thoughtful and articulate manner...
 
Re: Dad of a fallen Marine perseveres against protests

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: WASP7067</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Well some call it censorship, some call it respect, Washington calls it the law. You want to protest a funeral, do it from a distance.

RCW 9A.84.030
Disorderly conduct.

(1) A person is guilty of disorderly conduct if the person:

(a) Uses abusive language and thereby intentionally creates a risk of assault;

(b) Intentionally disrupts any lawful assembly or meeting of persons without lawful authority;

(c) Intentionally obstructs vehicular or pedestrian traffic without lawful authority; or

(d)(i) Intentionally engages in fighting or in tumultuous conduct or makes unreasonable noise, within five hundred feet of:

(A) The location where a funeral or burial is being performed;

(B) A funeral home during the viewing of a deceased person;

(C) A funeral procession, if the person described in this subsection (1)(d) knows that the funeral procession is taking place; or

(D) A building in which a funeral or memorial service is being conducted; and

(ii) Knows that the activity adversely affects the funeral, burial, viewing, funeral procession, or memorial service.

(2) Disorderly conduct is a misdemeanor.

</div></div>

If the ceremony requires a change in format (redirection to avoid protestors), added police, and counter-protest; I do not understand how the above does not directly apply within several aspects. Some qualifiers have already been met through text in this thread.

I respect the free-speech aspects and DZ. There is a obviously lacking of mutual repect for others. Freedoms are to be upheld but they can also can be abused. Protest all you want in your own venue.
 
Re: Dad of a fallen Marine perseveres against protests

Eddie, I think and agree with DZ on this, they should have the right to speak. But if their speech incites ol' switchblade up above to kick the crap out of them. Well, he just exercised his right to vehemently disagree. And they better pray to what ever god they pray to that I'm not on the Jury. Because I swear to God I'd never convict them nor award them a dime if somebody whipped their butts for it.
 
Re: Dad of a fallen Marine perseveres against protests

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eddieo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Downzero,

However I believe you are wrong. The fred Phelps of this world dont deserve to have such rights because what they are preaching is not the word of god, not the bible, not goodness and certainly not a difference of opinion. They preach hate and filth.

If they carried a copy of Koran and said death to all americans and death to the usa and all soldiers killed were killed by Jihadis was the will of god we would have a different attitude and certainly in my opinion the courts would treat them differently. Just because phelps is a Yank doesnt mean he should be treated differently. A hate monger is a hate monger whether he is an American , iraqi or Saudi, he is still a hate monger. And hate mongers in my opinion dont deserve to be treated with the same rights and respect as a dissenter that expresses their opinions in a thoughtful and articulate manner... </div></div>

The Nazis preach hate and filth as well.

Freedom commands that allowing them to speak is just a tough price to pay.

See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Party_of_America

Freedom sucks sometimes, but it sure beats the alternative.
 
Re: Dad of a fallen Marine perseveres against protests

You guys, as usual, have encouraged me to blog this issue. You can find my post here, and comment:

http://wp.me/pmF0P-bP

Or, I'll post it below, for those of you who don't want to click, or want to reply with comments here. I do ask that anyone who has a viewpoint, though, hit my blog and comment there. My blog gets quite a few readers every day, and I want everyone to have a voice, or even to disagree if you see fit.

I've engaged in recent (and heated) debate on internet forums relating to the Snyder v. Phelps case that the Supreme Court has agreed to hear next term. This case hits close to hope as I am a Patriot Guard Rider, a U.S. Army veteran, and I have attended a funeral for a Soldier Killed in Action in Iraq that was picketed by Westboro (although not this one, which was for a fallen Marine).

Phelps prevailed on appeal to the Fourth Circuit after a losing at trial. The total judgment, including punitive damages, reached some $5 million. From SCOTUS Blog:

The soldier’s father, Albert Snyder, sued the Rev. Phelps, his daughters and the Westboro Church under Maryland state law, and won a $5 million verdict based on three claims: intrusion into a secluded event, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and civil conspiracy. (The verdict included $2.9 million for compensatory damages and $2.1 million for punitive damages; the punitive award had been reduced from $8 million by the trial judge.) The Fourth Circuit Court overturned the verdict, concluding that the protesters’ speech was protected by the First Amendment because it was only a form of hyperbole, not an assertion of actual facts about the soldier or his family. While finding that the Phelps’ remarks were “utterly distasteful,” the Circuit Court said they involved matters of public concern, including the issue of homosexuality in the military and the political and moral conduct of the United States and its citizens.

There are deep constitutional problems with any statute that prohibits the Westboro Baptist Church from picketing a funeral. The most compelling, to me, is that their message, at its core, is a deeply political one, that God has damned the United States for being tolerant of homosexuality. Religion is obviously covered by two different clauses of the First Amendment, and Westboro's message is definitely an exercise of religious belief. Additionally, homosexuality has become a deeply political issue in the year 2010. States are passing statutes allowing gay marriage and civil unions, the California Constitution was amended in a bizarre process to prohibit gay marriage, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is part of every politically aware American's vocabulary, and discussions of the Defense of Marriage Act are happening in all three branches of government. Reverend Phelps' core message, therefore, is one of both a religious and political nature--precisely the speech that has the greatest amount of protection.

So, this case presents a serious problem for the American public. In a way, Westboro's message has worked. Surely Westboro knows that their speech and demonstrations are offensive to many, incite people to anger, and the media has covered them, inciting a tremendous amount of political debate. Legislatures have answered the public's call by passing statutes in near-direct response to the reprehensible things that these people have to say.

But amid these responses is an awful truth. The Constitution of the United States commands that Fred Phelps' and company's free speech rights must be protected, even if they speak out against the very men and women who protect his right to do so.

What?

But Fred Phelps is inciting imminent lawless action! Surely his speech doesn't have constitutional protection if he does that. Nope, this argument fails. Here's why:

Imminent lawless action does not apply here. That doctrine generally applies to a case where the speaker is encouraging people who agree with his or her viewpoint to violence. See here where I cover this issue as it applies to another case. The relevant case is Hess v. Indiana, 414 U.S. 105 (1973), where a man stood in front of an angry mob and said, "We'll take the fucking street later. The Court held that even this sort of statement does not qualify as inciting imminent lawless action because of the word later. Specifically:

Under our decisions, "the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 447 (1969). Since the uncontroverted evidence showed that Hess' statement was not directed to any person or group of persons, it cannot be said that he was advocating, in the normal sense, any action. And since there was no evidence, or rational inference from the import of the language, that his words were intended to produce, and likely to produce, imminent disorder, those words could not be punished by the State on the ground that they had "a 'tendency to lead to violence.'"

Imminent lawless action suggests that immediate (or near immediate) violence is the result of the speaker's speech. The Phelps family certainly isn't calling for any lawless action at all. They may have something reprehensible to say, but what they are not saying is we ought to do something illegal in consequence. Thus, imminent lawless action has no basis at all in the analysis of the issues in this case.

The prior standard from Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919), in which a speaker was punished with six months in prison for speaking against the draft, which the Court unanimously found was a "clear and present danger" to the U.S. war effort at the time (World War I), was overruled by the the Brandenburg v. Ohio case,395 U.S. 444. In that case, a Ku Klux Klan member's video, which was full of hateful remarks, was held to be constitutionally protected because it failed to incite imminent lawless action (with a cite to Brandenburg).

Well, if imminent lawless action won't work, surely what Mr. Phelps has to say is "fighting words." Under this doctrine, speech can lose its constitutional protection if it includes, "the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or 'fighting' words-those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace." (Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942)). In this case, the speaker called stood near the steps of city hall, and uttered such phrases as, "'You are a God damned racketeer' and 'a damned Fascist and the whole government of Rochester are Fascists or agents of Fascists'." Chaplinsky addressed the town Marshall with these words, and at some point, which is disputed in the case, he was arrested.

But even fighting words is distinguishable in this case. In later cases, the Court has found other speech that is similarly offensive, to have constitutional protection, even if it angers its recipients. In Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971), the Court held 5-4 that the words, "Fuck the Draft" were not fighting words, defining fighting words as:

...those personally abusive epithets which, when addressed to the ordinary citizen, are, as a matter of common knowledge, inherently likely to provoke violent reaction.

Under this narrower definition, it is highly unlikely that messages such as, "Thank God for dead Soldiers," and "God Hates Fags," and the similar used by Westboro could be defined as having any "personally abusive epithets," even if it did find that they are, "likely to provoke violent reaction." Phelps' speech isn't directed at anyone personally. It is directed at the American people and government, not to any individual. Thus, fighting words, however appropriate it may sound to the layman, just does not apply here.

So, it seems that we are stuck with a dangerous case here. Extreme cases can make for bad law, and no constitutional doctrine of which I am aware excepts the Westboro Baptist Church's protests from constitutional protection. Thus, it is likely that the constitutionally commanded result is that the protests must continue, that hecklers must not be allowed to interfere with their protests, and that Mr. Snyder's claim against them must fail. The only alternative would narrow First Amendment protection in a negative way--one in which, perhaps, something you or I have to say may no longer have constitutional protection.

The best way to face offensive speech is with more speech. That is what the Patriot Guard is all about--a good ol' American counterprotest. And I'll keep riding my motorcycle to the events for as long as I am able, to honor our fallen heroes. What I won't do is call for censorship. That is just what Phelps likely wants. They want us to throw away our principles and show the world that we are not the free society that we claim to be. But we are. And as free Americans, we will persevere even when people like Phelps cause us to question just how far we want free speech to extend.

These brave men and women signed a blank check for their life, and are fighting daily for the freedom in which we discuss in this blog post. If not for these brave men and women, I may not even be able to author this post. But we cannot allow disrespectful speakers to destroy the rule--that, in part, "Congress shall make no law....abridging the freedom of speech." Let us, as Americans, as veterans, and as citizens of a free country, respect their right to free speech and vocally disagree.
 
Re: Dad of a fallen Marine perseveres against protests

I am currently Serving as an active duty Marine at Camp Lejeune, NC. this group come to our town about 2 years ago walking up and down the street "protesting" carrying there signs and what not. we were informed on there arrival before we left base do not have any contact with this group, but yet you train me to fight for what i believe is right? I have served overseas in Operation Iraqi Freedom, and have seen the aftermaths of war, and to see someone do this to my fallen Brother is like spitting in my face. i hope everyone of these people rot in hell. that is all................................
 
Re: Dad of a fallen Marine perseveres against protests

DZ, not sure if you are calling that law in WA an unconstitutional law, but if you are, you are wrong. Is it ok to violate one part of the 1st amendment to excersize another? These people at the funeral have the right to a peacably assemble. Jerkoffs like the members of that so called church, are interfering with that.

At the same time, the jerkoffs have that right to free speach. I say as a solution, such as WA did, make a law that describes how it may/may not be done. at least 500ft away. It's a solution, and not an unconstitutional one, wheather you think it is or not.

There's restrictions on the 2nd amendment as well. It says I have the right to bear arms, but I can't go buy a machine gun at the gun shop without the right paperwork (not at all here in WA). And I'm not saying I agree with all the restrictions on parts of the constitution but some are necessary.
 
Re: Dad of a fallen Marine perseveres against protests

Time, place, and manner restrictions are a separate issue. They must be narrowly tailored to some compelling government interest. That standard is not as high as a content-based speech distinction. If there's a particular law you'd like me to analyze under "time, place, and manner" restrictions doctrine, send me the text of it and I'll blog it.

This information is interesting to me, but those aren't the kind of restrictions in this case. The case is, essentially, a tort case against Phelps for his protest, which is not about time, place, and manner, but the viewpoint expressed.
 
Re: Dad of a fallen Marine perseveres against protests

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Downzero</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eddieo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Downzero,

However I believe you are wrong. The fred Phelps of this world dont deserve to have such rights because what they are preaching is not the word of god, not the bible, not goodness and certainly not a difference of opinion. They preach hate and filth.

If they carried a copy of Koran and said death to all americans and death to the usa and all soldiers killed were killed by Jihadis was the will of god we would have a different attitude and certainly in my opinion the courts would treat them differently. Just because phelps is a Yank doesnt mean he should be treated differently. A hate monger is a hate monger whether he is an American , iraqi or Saudi, he is still a hate monger. And hate mongers in my opinion dont deserve to be treated with the same rights and respect as a dissenter that expresses their opinions in a thoughtful and articulate manner... </div></div>

The Nazis preach hate and filth as well.

Freedom commands that allowing them to speak is just a tough price to pay.

See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Party_of_America

Freedom sucks sometimes, but it sure beats the alternative.
</div></div>


yeah and look at what happened when the nazi party finally got to a position of power.

Give a hate monger the pulpit and repa the results. freedom of speech opnly goes so far in my opinion.
 
Re: Dad of a fallen Marine perseveres against protests

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eddieo</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Downzero</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eddieo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Downzero,

However I believe you are wrong. The fred Phelps of this world dont deserve to have such rights because what they are preaching is not the word of god, not the bible, not goodness and certainly not a difference of opinion. They preach hate and filth.

If they carried a copy of Koran and said death to all americans and death to the usa and all soldiers killed were killed by Jihadis was the will of god we would have a different attitude and certainly in my opinion the courts would treat them differently. Just because phelps is a Yank doesnt mean he should be treated differently. A hate monger is a hate monger whether he is an American , iraqi or Saudi, he is still a hate monger. And hate mongers in my opinion dont deserve to be treated with the same rights and respect as a dissenter that expresses their opinions in a thoughtful and articulate manner... </div></div>

The Nazis preach hate and filth as well.

Freedom commands that allowing them to speak is just a tough price to pay.

See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Party_of_America

Freedom sucks sometimes, but it sure beats the alternative.
</div></div>


yeah and look at what happened when the nazi party finally got to a position of power.

Give a hate monger the pulpit and repa the results. freedom of speech opnly goes so far in my opinion. </div></div>

I've expressed thousands of words about just "how far" freedom of speech extends. And as far as I see it, it clearly protects this.

I suspect that this case will be unanimous. Betting on Supreme Court decisions is a fool's game, but I really can't think of any reason why the Court would find for anyone except Phelps, unless they invent new law or narrow existing precedent.