YORK, Pa. (AP) — One thing Al Snyder wants to make clear: His boy fought and died for freedom in Iraq, but not for the right of some “wackos” to spew hate at soldiers’ funerals under the protection of the Constitution.
“It’s an insult to myself, my family and the veterans to say this is what our military men and women died for,” Snyder says, barely concealing his anger.
Yet more than four years after the death of his only son, Matthew, Snyder is in the middle of a Supreme Court case that raises almost precisely that issue.
The court is set to decide whether members of a fundamentalist church in Kansas who picketed Matthew’s funeral with signs bearing anti-gay and anti-Catholic invective have a constitutional right to say what they want.
Or, in intruding on a private citizen’s funeral in a hurtful way, have the protesters crossed a line and given Snyder the right to collect millions of dollars for the emotional pain they caused?
The justices will hear arguments in the case next Wednesday.
The case is shaping up as a potentially important test of the First Amendment. “The difficulty in this case is that the speech occurs at the most personal and sensitive of times,” said Cliff Sloan, a First Amendment expert at the Skadden, Arps law firm and the former publisher of Slate magazine.
Margie Phelps, a daughter of the pastor of the Westboro Baptist Church and the lawyer representing her family members at the Supreme Court, said that if the justices reinstate the $5 million judgment to Snyder, anyone who says anything upsetting to a mourner “is subject to a crushing penalty.”
But Snyder said in an interview with The Associated Press that if he had the chance, he would tell the justices “that this isn’t a case of free speech. It’s case of harassment.”
Snyder’s nightmare began on a late winter night in 2006 when he flipped on the porch light and saw two uniformed Marines standing at the front door of his home in this small south central Pennsylvania city.
He knew right away that Matthew was dead, after just five weeks in Iraq.
He could accept his son’s death because Matthew always wanted to be a soldier.
But Snyder was not prepared for what came next.
Eleven hundred miles away, in Topeka, Kan., the Rev. Fred Phelps and other family members who make up most of the Westboro Baptist Church decided that Snyder’s funeral at a Catholic church in Westminster, Md., would be their next stop.
Phelps and his small band of followers have picketed many military funerals in their quest to draw attention to their incendiary view that U.S. deaths in Afghanistan and Iraq are God‘s punishment for the nation’s tolerance of homosexuality.
They showed up with the usual signs, including “Thank God for dead soldiers,” ”You’re Going to Hell,” ”God Hates the USA/Thank God for 9/11,” and one that combined the U.S. Marine Corps motto, Semper Fi, with a slur against gay men.
The church members drew counter-demonstrators, as well as media coverage and a heavy police presence to maintain order. The result was a spectacle that led to altering the route of the funeral procession.
Several weeks later, as Snyder surfed the Internet for tributes to Matthew from other soldiers and strangers, he came upon a poem on the church’s website that attacked Snyder and his ex-wife for the way they brought up Matthew.
That’s when he decided to take action and soon filed a lawsuit accusing the Phelpses of intentionally inflicting emotional distress. He won $11 million at trial, later reduced by a judge to $5 million.
Then the federal appeals court in Richmond, Va., threw out the verdict and said the Constitution shielded the church members from liability.
The idea that the picketers’ rights might trump his own led Snyder to continue the lawsuit. “They want to use the First Amendment as both a sword and a shield and that’s not right,” he said.
The Supreme Court gave him some hope that, in deciding to hear the case, the justices might say that funerals are different.
Phelps and his followers do not limit themselves to funerals. They have been protesting for decades, about homosexuality, abortion, Catholics and Jews. The court is made up of six Catholics and three Jews.
The Phelpses have even picketed unlikely targets, college students and breast-cancer survivors, to call attention to their belief that God is angry with the United States.
When Chief Justice John Roberts appeared in Lawrence, Kan., in 2008, Westboro protesters were there as well.
Asked about free speech cases that day, Roberts said, “It’s certainly the responsibility of the Supreme Court to uphold freedom of speech, even when it’s unpopular.”
Media organizations, including The Associated Press, are urging the court to side with the Phelpses despite what they call the church’s “deeply offensive” message.
The groups said that “to silence a fringe messenger because of the distastefulness of the message is antithetical to the First Amendment’s most basic precepts.”
Other groups, including the Anti-Defamation League, are not taking sides, but say the case is a poor one for making any broad pronouncements about the First Amendment that could inhibit religious expression. Some conservative groups are concerned that a ruling for Snyder could be used to limit anti-abortion protests.
On the other side, all the states, except Maine and Virginia, and veterans groups say that the court should stand behind state laws that limit funeral protests and recognize that mourners at a funeral have a right to be left alone.
The church’s lawyer said the outcome of the case will not affect the work of her father and his flock. “The Westboro Baptist Church will talk to the nation until the job is done,” Margie Phelps said.
Snyder said he thinks a victory would “put a dent” in the Phelpses’ ability to travel far and wide to other military funerals.
He wants other parents, having just been told a child was killed in action, not to have worry that the funeral might be disrupted. “I had one chance to bury my son and it was taken from me,” Snyder said.
But he also struck a more ominous tone. “It has to be stopped,” Snyder said. “If the courts don’t stop it, believe me, someone is going to.”
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (117)
NHABE64
Posted on September 30, 2010 at 8:49amAdd your comments
Report Post »NHABE64
Posted on September 30, 2010 at 8:48amIf I was the President I would want to help these fundamentlist “folks” from Kansas understand about human rights and freedoms. To achieve this I would like to see them stripped of their citizenship and their blue passports and have them sent to a few 3rd world or socialist countries. A few ideas might be Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, China, and there are more. Let them burn THEIR flags, let them try to protest at military funerals, let them try to exercise the freedom GIVEN to them by blood of military who keeps these boneheads safe in their bed. They have contorted and twisted the meaning of freedom and the right to express themselves to the extreme. If any veteran was to see them protesting the death of one of our military heros and decide to stomp them in the dirt, I would fly my flag at full mast and dance to the occasion. Now how is THAT for exercising one’s freedom of speech and freedom to express oneself. These fools are evil and they deserve anything that happens to them. I will refrain from using stronger words because I am a Christian.
Report Post »jettson
Posted on September 30, 2010 at 8:44amI don’t care what anyone thinks. This is just wrong and should be stoped. Make a law.
Report Post »Dodsfall
Posted on September 30, 2010 at 9:35am“There should be a law”
That is where tyranny always starts and flourishes.
How far of a leap is it to abolish “hate speech” just in this situation, then expand it just a little, then a little more? That’s progressivism in a nutshell.
Report Post »WireWizard
Posted on September 30, 2010 at 8:35amWe need John Galt. Where is he?
Report Post »mara123
Posted on September 30, 2010 at 8:31amDo you see there shirts ? gays need to look really hard at there loving lefty friends like these people.
Report Post »KathyHolton
Posted on September 30, 2010 at 8:29amDon’t they need permits and permission to hold a protest? Everyone that hold a Peaceful, protest, rally, etc. needs to have one. I would think if they did not have a permit, they do not have the authority to protest at that particular location. Meaning ANY Funeral. And if someone did give them a permit, I would be going after them.
Report Post »Star Spankled
Posted on September 30, 2010 at 8:20amThese people need to be stopped without taking away their freedomof speech . Maybe a new law that says they have to stand at least 1000 ft away from anyones funeral .
Report Post »If that were my sons funeral those people would be running for their own lives .
Midwest Belle
Posted on September 30, 2010 at 10:05am1000 ft isn’t far enough. I’m thinking 2500 feet. (1/2 mile sound about right to me.)
Report Post »caitlynsdad
Posted on September 30, 2010 at 8:16amHopefully SCOTUS will do the right thing and not make a ruling on the “first amendment,” except to say that it‘s not a first amendment question and that it’s up to the local authorities to handle the situation. No one’s free speech is restricted by being required to follow basic common-sense rules of decency and charity to those who are suffering.
Report Post »sicofcareerpoliticians
Posted on September 30, 2010 at 8:14amIsn’t it amazing, the definition of what is offensive changes depending on the circumstances. Harassment is exactly what this is. If these “so called Christians” are protesting because of the gays, abortion, Catholics and Jews, where are the gay rights folks, abortion right folks, Catholic & Jews. Respecting the dead and the service of our military boys & girls, like true Americans. These people will all rot in hell, unfortunately, we have to deal with them before they get there. I’m with Grandma, hit them in the pocketbook again and again and again. But if they get away with this, although I don’t agree with the abortion & gay rights and I’m not Catholic or Jewish, I might have to join them at the Phelps family funeral protest. Enough is enough!
Report Post »bakerpasd24
Posted on September 30, 2010 at 8:12amThis is sad. These people call themselves Christians? One can be against homosexuals, war, and whatever else they want, but there comes a time and place to have your voice heard. A funeral is not the place.
This is just another attempt to get their 15mins of fame.
Report Post »shawnneitz
Posted on September 30, 2010 at 8:11amExtreme opinionated free speech at a funeral which is swung like a sword falls into the same arena as burglary, vandalism and assault. It takes away the time of mourning for the family, paints a tag on the deceased and inflicts an emotional wound on everyone attending. The rights of a family to mourn their loss supersedes the right of any free speech in the same setting.
Report Post »chattycathy
Posted on September 30, 2010 at 8:03amI despise these idiots but I don’t want the Supreme Courts to touch the 1st Amendment. Give them an inch, they’ll take a mile.
Report Post »hiramsmaxim
Posted on September 30, 2010 at 7:43amIn my town there was a young man born on the 4th. of July who had been hit buy an IED survived and returned to the war to come home in a casket. He was a hero who gave his all. His honor was recognized by a funeral motorcade of over a mile which drove several miles to his resting place in which each side of the road was filled with people holding flags, veterans saluting him and every form of law enforcement and firemen escorted his family. If this group attended, I assure you arrests and removal would have protected THERE lives from there ultimate sacrifice.
Report Post »Jabril
Posted on September 30, 2010 at 7:39amTheir language is incendiary and disgusting. But in spite of this I think it would be dangerous to us and the foundations of free speech on which this country was built if the kind of speech was banned. It is disgusting and perhaps does violate defamation laws, or state harassment laws. But as despicable as the message the church preaches, the key point is that they are expressing a message (which I disagree with). It is not merely incitement or fighting words but is rather political speech which is a core part of our democracy. If we were to decide that this kind of speech was no longer allowed, I think that would have a terrible impact more broadly on the rights of individuals to protest.
The power of the first amendment is not that it protects the ideas that we agree with but rather the rights of others to give voice to the ideas that we don’t. Justice Holmes said it best
“if there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other it is the principle of free thought—not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate.” United States v. Schwimmer, 279 U.S. 644 (1929)
Report Post »Madison2012
Posted on September 30, 2010 at 8:27amThe question for the court is not to ban this type of speech but to limit where it can be uttered. These people can publish anything they want. They can gather at a myriad of places and spew their vitriolic speech. The first amendment does not speak about location. Furthermore, it protects funerals as it part of the free exercise of religion. This abusive church should be fined for their actions at someones private funeral.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Report Post »Dodsfall
Posted on September 30, 2010 at 9:28amMadison2012,
Report Post »The protests are limited to public areas. These idiots are (hopefully) not being allowed at the actual grave sites or physically in the churches during their tirades. Private property rights also come into play here.
Jabril
Posted on September 30, 2010 at 10:27amHi Madison2012,
I definitely hear your point. However the first amendment does indeed speak to issues of location – the prohibition against congress from making laws that abridge free speech includes prohibiting congress from banning speech based on location. I will certainly grant that speech can be regluated based on time, manner, and place in certain instances. I am not sure if this is one such instance. On the other hand the Supreme Court recently decided not to hear a case where the issue was whether a state law that created a zone of silence around the entrance of an abortion clinic violated the constitution. Maybe this is a similar situation? What do you think?
I also agree that the amendment will ensure the right of individuals to gather for funerals under the free exercise clause but I am not sure exactly what you mean when you say it protects the right. The right of the people to exercise their religion is not being denied (thought it is clearly being interfered with) Are you saying the free exercise clause trumps the free speech clause in this instance? I am not sure I buy that.
Finally I am also not sure what the relevance of the funeral being private or public. If the church should be fined on what theory do you think that fine should be based? The current issue is based on intentional infliction of emotional distress – and I think that is probably a valid claim. Do you think there are also grounds for other claims? Or are you suggesting a new law should be created making it unlawful to protest at funerals with the penalty being a fine.
I agree with you in spirit; but I am particularly concerned about trampling first amendment political speech regardless of how offensive it might be. And it seems to me that the location of speech is often a crucial part of the message. If this was literally just incitement I think it falls outside the ambit of first amendment protection. Because it is political speech however I am wary of the idea of banning it.
What do you think?
Report Post »Dodsfall
Posted on September 30, 2010 at 7:32amI see it as a dangerous precedent when any speech, distasteful or not, is infringed. It’s not a huge leap from protesting outside of funerals and churches to protesting outside of Congress. These fools will eventually go away. Our rights to free speech may never come back.
Report Post »Silo13
Posted on September 30, 2010 at 2:56pmAs much as I hate to agree with you (and only because of the hate spewing family in question) I do agree with you – and beyond measure.
Did you all forget? We‘re already living in a ’free‘ Nation that has ’constitutional FREE zones‘ and ’FREE speech zones’.
The lines between FREE and SPEECH have already been blurred beyond recognition.
These ‘people’ and their intolerable hate will go away some day – but we can’t allow them to take any more of your FREEdom with them.
peace
Report Post »Marylou7
Posted on September 30, 2010 at 7:24amIf these “so-called” church people want to take out an ad in the newspaper to spew their hate, fine. They should not be allowed to picket a funeral. This has nothing to do with free speech but it has a lot to do with common sense. There should have been thousands of towns people surround these nuts and push them back……way back. There is one thing for sure, these nuts will answer to God one day and He is not pleased.
Report Post »grandmaof5
Posted on September 30, 2010 at 7:10amAmen. Unfortunately being hit in the pocketbook seems to be the only thing that these types of people understand. I hope the Supreme Court finds in favor of the family and they can find peace. God bless.
Report Post »Chet Hempstead
Posted on September 30, 2010 at 7:10amThese vermin make it really, really hard to be a libertarian. I’m glad I’m not on the Court and don’t have to decide this one. Unfortunately, because their stupid protests occur in different states and are directed at different people each time, they may technically fall outside of most legal definitions of harassment. I hope there is some way to stop these bums without limiting the rights of sane people to express ideas that some might find offensive.
The good news is that even if their speech is legally protected, it is unquestionably provocative, and anyone who resorted to beating the snot out of them would almost certainly never be convicted.
Report Post »wingedwolf
Posted on September 30, 2010 at 9:15amChet, on Snyder’s side (hopefully), intentional infliction of emotional distress is the same in every state. If held to the “reasonable person” standard, no one could conclude that such actions taken at the funeral and aimed toward the mourners and intimate family members of a fallen soldier weren’t “intentionally inflicted.” I once worked on a case where where a man publicly exposed another man as a communist (it was proven true) at a party where many members of the community were in attendance. After a shocked silence, things seemed to die down, but the man’s business fell away steadily until he had to close. He sued both the home-owner and the person who made the accusation, and won. A jury concluded that in that town and at that time, a “reasonable person” would know that the remarks about the man being a communist were inflammatory and since the man was a well-known business person, it also concluded that the same reasonable person would know that the remarks would cause the townspeople to shun his (appliance sales and repair) business, thereby proving intent to cause emotional distress. That was in the 1980′s, but I believe the standard is the same. You can yell “fire” in a crowded theater as long as you’re willing to pay damages to the people who get trampled in the exodus. LOL
Report Post »JJ Coolay
Posted on September 30, 2010 at 7:07amPOTUS, then FLOTUS, now SCOTUS!! lol
I pledge alleigiane to the FOTUS, one nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.
Report Post »BehindBlueEyes
Posted on September 30, 2010 at 8:38amYou know, I wonder if we could get the POTUS and the FLOTUS (for that matter) to say the Pledge of Allegiance? They could do it as duet and when they get to when the word God comes in, they can both flutter their eyes (like they are passing gas) and continue with the recital omitting the word God any other word that doesn’t fit their ideology.
Report Post »JJ Coolay
Posted on September 30, 2010 at 9:57amI think their flag has a hammer and sickle in it.
Report Post »BehindBlueEyes
Posted on September 30, 2010 at 12:06pmHere‘s Obama’s version of The Pledge of Allegiance -
Report Post »I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United Nations and to the collective like minded radicals and America haters for which it stands, one world, indivisible, with Marxism and social justice for all.”
BehindBlueEyes
Posted on September 30, 2010 at 1:01pmI had to modify my first draft of Obama’s pledge (small correction but a fundamental one) -
I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United Nations and to the collective like minded radicals and America haters for which it stands, one world, indivisible, with Marxism and social justice for all those who qualify.
Report Post »JJ Coolay
Posted on September 30, 2010 at 1:19pmNice, that would about sum it up.
Report Post »Sounds like something Bill Ayers would have written!!
geminisailor
Posted on September 30, 2010 at 7:01amLet’s pray for Phelps and those who he misguides at this “Church”.
Report Post »BehindBlueEyes
Posted on September 30, 2010 at 6:57amMr. Snyder spoke the truth – “that this isn’t a case of free speech. It’s case of harassment.”
Report Post »The Westboro Baptist Church is a group of brainwashed low life’s that think they speak for God. The next time they show up at a funeral the people of the surrounding towns should confront and spit on them until they drown in it.
CoFX
Posted on September 30, 2010 at 10:11amAgreed. This is about harassment. It isn’t practical or neccessary to have to hold a funeral on private property – you shouldn‘t be forced to hold the service in someone’s backyard or bury a loved one on your own land to avoid harassment such as this. There should be laws prohibiting harassment of any kind at a funeral service.
Report Post »SGTTAZ67
Posted on September 30, 2010 at 6:52amAmen Brother.
Report Post »They can practice their free speach Out of sight and mind of the people who are mourning the death of
someone who gave their life so that people have the right to protest at the funeral.
GIDDIONKANE
Posted on September 30, 2010 at 6:48ami hope the father wins and shuts down that wanna be church. picketting a funeral??? wtf is wrong with these people?
Report Post »DRAIN_THE_CESSPOOL
Posted on September 30, 2010 at 9:47amThey are a cult.
Report Post »FreedomOfSpeech
Posted on September 30, 2010 at 6:46amI think these “protests” fall under non-protected speech that is intended merely to incite. If someone had a sign that said “God loves dead soldiers” at my family member’s funeral, I’d at least tear up the sign and Lord knows where things would go from there. I don‘t think I’m alone in that sentiment. I’m all for free speech but this seems like yelling “fire” in a crowded theatre.
Report Post »PostProgressiveAmerican
Posted on September 30, 2010 at 6:33amLet families mourn in peace.
Report Post »PostProgressiveAmerican
Posted on September 30, 2010 at 7:01amDoes having the right of free speech mean you can say whatever you want, whenever you want and wherever you want? I don’t think so. Along with the right to speak freely comes a duty to speak responsibly. Does this group have the right to say these vile things? Absolutely. Do they have the right to say them at the funeral? Absolutely not.
I have always told my children that this is America; they have the right to do and say whatever they want…but we also exist in a society, so these freedoms are not absolute and they should think about the repercussions before they speak or act. If they are willing to suffer the consequences, so be it; otherwise, show restraint.
I am against the ‘hate speech’ laws and I am also opposed to ‘political correctness’ (after all, if everyone has a right NOT to be offended, how can anyone have a right to speak freely?). What I am opposed to is where and when they decide to speak. Protesting funerals, picketing abortion doctors at their children’s schools, media attacks on politician’s family members…is that what free speech has degenerated into? At some point, as is the case with the funerals, one’s freedom of speech impinges on another’s rights and, by necessity, must be limited (again, not what is said, but where and when). The protest at the funeral is nothing more than harassment. The protesters said what they wanted, where they wanted and when they wanted, with no regards for the rights of the family, so now they must suffer the consequences. So be it.
Report Post »Psychosis
Posted on September 30, 2010 at 8:07amyes………you have the right to free speech………but you also must accept the responsibility that comes with it This is not a free speech issue but a harassment issue SUE THOSE FREAKIN LIBS FOR EVERYTHING THEY GOT
Report Post »Compete or Lose
Posted on September 30, 2010 at 8:35amIf you want to protest an individual politician (even with hurtful hateful speech)–fair game.
If you want to protest an institutuion (even with hateful speech)–fair game
If you want to protest a published author because you disagree with their published work–fair game.
If you want to protest an individuals funeral and that individual never said anything about you–you have crossed the line and need to be punished. Reinstate the $5million judgement and make it clear that if they want to protest the actions of the US government–they shouyld protest at government buildings not soldiers funerals.
RGS
I
Report Post »uhadenoughyet.com
Posted on September 30, 2010 at 9:40amI fought in Iraq for a total of two and a half years, My unit lost a total of 144 soldiers in the course of those deployments. I have faced the enemies of my country eyeball to eyeball on the battlefield and prevailed. I have been present at the time of death for both my friends who died on the battlefield and the enemy. I believe in my core that these people in this church have the same protections and liberty as any other American or American institution, religious or otherwise. That said, if I were to EVER find myself at the funeral of one of our nations fallen heroes, and this group was there unleashing their venom upon the family members gathered to pay respects, make no mistake, neither law, consequences or the might of any man in sight would prevent me from beating the living crap out of anyone holding a sign as mentioned. I assure you, I am afraid of neither the grave nor the prison of men. If I was willing to give the lives of my fellow soldiers and that of my own or to take the lives and all they would ever have from my enemy to uphold my principles, I ask you what would I be willing to sacrifice to ensure the final moments of grief and respect for those with whom I have served remain sacred? The answer is without limits!!!!!
Report Post »America_First
Posted on September 30, 2010 at 10:23amIs this freedom of speech, like burning the American Flag is freedom of expression. It amazes me that “We the People” put up with what is occurring and has occurred in America under this administration and the previous two in particular.
For the past 40 or so years Americans have gotten to the point where a known radical socialist campaigning for the for the Presidency, uses the ideology of “Fundamental Change” to entice the electorate . And no one questioned it, not the media, not the millions of mature Americans and college students that voted for this impostor.
Back in 2008 when I asked people what does “Fundamental Change” mean? They recited the democrats talking points and/or what was written in the papers. My response was “Fundamental Change” is changing the foundation upon which separates America from the rest of the world. Meaning the Constitution, stating that the constitution is what separates America from the rest of the would and made us the force we were yesterday.
God forbid if one mentioned that obama is on record stating that that the Constitution is basically flawed and that America needed a second constitution. The supporter would again spew the democrats talking points or regurgitate the crap printed in the newspapers or stated on the evening news, adding that anyone that possesses a view different from yobama is a racist, is stupid and is a nazi. Meaning that someone that believes in America and the Constitution is a nazi, while the ones that want “Fundamental Change” are the patriots.
Side bar how can someone that believes in the Constitution and believes in America be a Nazi. It’s impossible, considering that a Nazi was a member of the National Socialist German Workers’ party. So calling a freedom loving American a “Nazi” is an oxymoron. The fact of the matter is obama and his network of socialist advisors/friends are the Nazi’s along with the idiots that voted for “Fundamental Change”.
Note, when typing the first letter of a name or a title, using lower case indicates that I have no respect for the individual and refuse to show any respect. I respect the office of the President along with the Legislative and Judicial branches of America’s government. But I have none for the self-serving anti-Americans currently holding elected and appointed positions in America.
Over the past few days news about national security officials and federal law enforcement are seeking sweeping new regulations for the Internet. Using the argument that their ability to wiretap criminal and terrorist activities are being stymied by the increase in communications online. In addition, some are talking about the “presidents hit list”. In response some of America’s media personalities are stating that this is a justifiable. Yet a few years ago they were going nuts over the fact that the bush administration was seeking to make it easier to tap conversations that originated overseas by a known terrorist to someone in America. They screamed that the bush administration had no regard for the Constitution. Yet they justify yobama’s call for new regulations on wiretapping stating that they need to stay up with the technology regarding communications over the internet and they state that there are some Americans that in a time of natural security need to be eliminate.
Very interesting, considering that janet napolitano the Secretary of Homeland Security under president bo, released a document defining “White Males” that are veterans and/or believe in life and/or that believe in the Second Amendment and own firearms are more of a threat to national security then radical muslim fundamentalists aka terrorists.
Considering what was just stated, we are discussing if these wackos have the right to conduct these protests. What do you think the Supreme Court will decide? Ask me if I give a “rats ass”. Never mind the fact that three of the justices (ruth bader ginsburg, sonia m sotomayor and elena kagan) are outright socialists/communists that intend on destroying the Constitution ie America.
It is time that “We the People” use our freedom of speech and freedom of expression to put a stop to these actions. By tar and feathering these protesters, for they have the Constitutional right to do what they do and “We the People” have the right to express our outrage.
In November “We the People” must vote the socialists and rinos up for reelection out of office.
In 2012 “We the People” will need to do it again. So we can purge Washington of crap like obama and lindsey graham.
“We the People” must take back our country and treat the socialists, communists, progressives and rinos the way the Founding Fathers and the Patriots of Continental Army treated the tories before, during and after the American Revolution.
If we don’t we will loose the greatest gift any Father gave to his Sons and Daughters, our beloved Constitution…
Lest do this for America’s sons and daughters that have not been born. So they can experience the “American Dream”. God Bless America, the born and the unborn.
Enjoy the day…
Report Post »ishka4me
Posted on September 30, 2010 at 10:36ami don’t get it, the president gets involved when some redneck wants to burn a book in the swamps of florida, but has no comment on this?
Report Post »CandleLighter
Posted on September 30, 2010 at 11:16amI agree. Let the family mourn in peace. They have had enough harm done to them.
These people should understand that they are supposed to be living by the rules, “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone” (which I think they can not do because they are causing more harm by their actions) and “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” 9again, they would most likely up in arms if anyone protested their intolerance and hatred at a funeral of one of their loved ones).
I believe in freedom of speech. I live by the motto, “I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend your right to say it with my last breath”. And I DO defend these hateful, harmful, insensitive “church goers” and their rights, but……..BUT…… they DO NOT have the right to attack these poor suffering family members. They DO NOT have the right to impose their views, opinions, and values on others. And they are doing that very thing.
I would ask these people to try something. Try reading that holy book you say that you are championing. ya might be surprised at what you find. You might find that YOU are in the wrong. In fact, I might bet on that as being a fact.
Be safe and well
Report Post »ProgressivesLoveAmerica
Posted on September 30, 2010 at 12:46pmI agree that families of fallen soldiers ought to mourn in peace.
There’s a fine line between freedom of speech and harassment. It’s obvious that this qualifies as just plain harassment, regardless of thier cause. However, I wouldn’t even say their cause is all that worthy. You would think they’d be talking about morality, and not spewing hate against, homosexuals, Jews, and Catholics. But, what do you expect from people who are crazy enough to start protesting AT MILITARY funerals.
I have one more issue I’d like to compare this to, but it could get REALLY controversial.
What about people who stand outside of abortion clinics, harassing women seeking reproductive services & health care? Aren’t THOSE people harassing also? Why can’t they be banned from abortion clinics?
Morals are not an axiom system: it’s not always going to be an “either or.” The reality of life dictates that these issues are complicated, particularly abortion. However, why can’t these women just be left alone? I think it’s pretty much the same principle behind these military funeral protests!
Report Post »Nate Report
Posted on September 30, 2010 at 1:39pmIf I were the judge I would say, this is not a matter of free speech. It is a matter of a private funeral being disrupted. And I would find the Phelps family guilty of intentionally disrupting the Snyder funeral. I would also find them guilty of exploiting the Snyder family for their publicity and personal gain without permission. No one is taking away their freedom of speech. Obviously i’m no lawyer and my common sense principles are based on the biblical teaching. Clearly these wacko’s are in the wrong, I just hope the legal team finds what they need to prove it constitutionally. I stand with the Snyders.
Report Post »Badwhisky
Posted on September 30, 2010 at 7:20pmYour rights end at the end of my nose. The document says that all men have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, recognising that, it also says all men are created equal; therefore, your rights cannot and should not ever enterfear with mine and vice versa.
Whith that in mind, I have the right to Keep and bear arms; however, I will be stopped with extreme predjudist if I walk down any street shooting people.
The constitution does garrantee your right to freedom of speech; but, it does not protect you from me holding you responsible in civil court for your erresponsible and hurtful/damaging acts including but not limited to your speech and the damage it might cause, and a jury of your pears get to decide who is correct, sounds like the cult is bad losers.
Report Post »stitch
Posted on October 1, 2010 at 1:39amplease, correct me if i’m wrong, but doesn’t the christians bible state “judge not, lest ye be judged”? just sayin… as an Army vet, i hope that the jagoffs in the supreme court side with the snyders, this kind of behavior is inexcusable.
Report Post »cj51
Posted on October 1, 2010 at 9:41amThese brave soldiers are fighting and dying for our rights and freedoms only to be disrespected by this so called church…it makes me sick. God bless this man and what he is doing to fight these people.
Report Post »