US

SCOTUS Rules First Amendment Protects Westboro Protesters

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that the First Amendment protects fundamentalist church members who mount attention-getting, anti-gay protests outside military funerals.

The court voted 8-1 in favor of the Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kan. The decision upheld an appeals court ruling that threw out a $5 million judgment to the father of a dead Marine who sued church members after they picketed his son’s funeral.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the opinion for the court. Justice Samuel Alito dissented.

“What Westboro said, in the whole context of how and where it chose to say it, is entitled to ‘special protection’ under the First Amendment,” Roberts wrote, “and that protection cannot be overcome by a jury finding that the picketing was outrageous.”

Matthew Snyder died in Iraq in 2006 and his body was returned to the United States for burial. Members of the Westboro Baptist Church, who have picketed military funerals for several years, decided to protest outside the Westminster, Md., church where Snyder’s funeral was to be held.

The Rev. Fred Phelps and other family members who make up most of the Westboro Baptist Church 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 their 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, Albert Snyder was surfing the Internet for tributes to his son from other soldiers and strangers when he came upon a poem on the church‘s website that attacked Matthew’s parents for the way they brought up their son.

Soon after, Albert Snyder 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.

The federal appeals court in Richmond, Va., threw out the verdict and said the Constitution shielded the church members from liability.

Forty-eight states, 42 U.S. senators and veterans groups sided with Snyder, asking the court to shield funerals from the Phelps family’s “psychological terrorism.”

While distancing themselves from the church’s message, media organizations, including The Associated Press, urged the court to side with the Phelps family because of concerns that a victory for Snyder could erode speech rights.

Comments (228)

1 2 3 ... 6
  • HippoNips
    Posted on March 2, 2011 at 11:03am

    The Westboro Baptist “church” is not a church. It‘s a family team of LAWYERS who became famous and embraced in the 80’s by Democrats for their wins in affirmative action cases.
    They do not have a single thing about Jesus on their website , They do not have church services,
    The leader’s law license was stripped of him in his state for ethics violations, so they turned to the federal courts where he could still practice.
    They exist to challenge laws on freedom of religion and speech. They make it about gays becasue for them it’s a 2ferOne ,They can turn people away from Christianity and attack our Constition at the sametime.

    Report Post »  
    • sleazyhippo
      Posted on March 2, 2011 at 11:08am

      Are you thinking we should dis-allow religious tax breaks and property rights? These people are WORSE than union workers (who pay taxes)!

      Report Post » MONICNE  
    • HippoNips
      Posted on March 2, 2011 at 12:14pm

      What he heck are you talking about?
      Disallow someone or group from owning property?
      What planet are you from?

      Report Post »  
  • sleazyhippo
    Posted on March 2, 2011 at 11:02am

    Ironically, Bill does not like these guys any more than abortion mills. So there IS a national voice out there pointing directly at the church and calling it bad.

    Report Post » MONICNE  
  • CaptainKook
    Posted on March 2, 2011 at 11:01am

    It was the right decision – it protects crazy people but that’s what the First Amendment was meant to do: protect unpopular speech from the government.

    I met some of the Westboro people once – take my word for it – they’re crazy.

    Report Post »  
  • MrButcher
    Posted on March 2, 2011 at 11:00am

    I’d like to draw a contrast between the westboro baptist church and the law in Tennessee to ban sharia.

    Since so many find no fault with banning aspects of islam and making it a felony to practice, would you mind if we also made it a felony to preach anti-homosexual dogma from the christian pulpits as well?

    Your thoughts?

    Report Post » MrButcher  
    • teachermitch32
      Posted on March 2, 2011 at 11:30am

      Actually, you would have to make a determination as to whether the Westboro’s were, in fact, espousing anything Christian. then you could determine if they were, in fact, Christian at all. They are not. Christianity is about grace and mercy through the cross and the blood shed there for those who accept the sacrifice and free gift. It’s not about ****-bashing, although teaching the truth about any sin is part of the lecture. These misguided and mislead folks at Westb have the right to speak their minds based on our great country’s laws, but they are in no way Christian. “From the pulpit”, as you call it, should be protected, but should only be countered with truth, not squelching of rights (according to our Constitution), because the truth will set you free.

      Report Post »  
    • MrButcher
      Posted on March 2, 2011 at 12:08pm

      Leviticus 20:13

      “If a man has sex with another man, kill them both.”

      There’s the connection. Can we make it a felony for all who believe this beyond the already exsisting laws that prohibit murder?

      You‘re interpretation of Christianity as mere Grace and Mercy isn’t the only interpritation. The Westboro Babptists are a Church. They are not a mainstream church but their beliefs are echoed in other more dominant sects to varying degrees and they do have biblical sources that support their foul doctrine.

      According to the trinity (which every christian must believe except for the Unitarians), Jesus is also the god of the old testament. The god that spoke to moses is also Jesus. Thus, everything said in the old testament can also be atributed to Jesus since Jesus is also God and the holy spirit. Follow?

      In that context I’ll go much further; since Jesus, by the admission of all christians, is god and is equally responsible for all the preaching of child murder and genocide in the Old Testament, can we make it a felony for all who worship the Nazarene?

      Report Post » MrButcher  
    • charliego
      Posted on March 2, 2011 at 12:25pm

      @MRBUTCHER
      Go to Shariah4America. There you will find more examples of free speech. You may also find the future of this country if our citizen rights are not protected. Hate speech okay-so be it, Hate activities spurred by hate speech–America under seige for the purpose of destruction.

      Report Post » charliego  
    • teachermitch32
      Posted on March 2, 2011 at 12:37pm

      MrButcher

      Jesus came to fulfill the law, which had been distorted to many ends, and he called the rulers of the law out on it. The end was quite simple. Love your God with all your heart, soul and… also, love your neighbor as yourself. There are many other quotes of Jesus that would be appropriate, but your view of Christianity is skewed, at best, and is not in any way a justification for the lies Westb espouses, nor the truth that the scriptures reveal to those “who have ears” or “eyes to see”. You have not the Holy Spirit living inside you, so, I’m not surprised that the truth eludes you.

      Report Post »  
    • ablisterin
      Posted on March 2, 2011 at 1:38pm

      Mr. B, you need to go make a follow-up appointment with your therapist and take a nap.

      Report Post »  
    • ablisterin
      Posted on March 2, 2011 at 1:50pm

      The TN law you speak of does not ban the muslim religion. It would ban sharia LAW from being implimented. If they want sharia law, they need to go find a state or country that agrees with it. Tennesseans do not.

      Report Post »  
  • TexasCommonSense
    Posted on March 2, 2011 at 10:59am

    1994bobbysgirl, while free speech is important, and should be protected, there should be reasonable limits. A reasonable distance for the protestors to be from the funeral would be acceptable. The people attending the funeral also have a right to mourn without being harassed.

    One person‘s rights end where another person’s rights begin.

    Report Post » TexasCommonSense  
    • Oldphoto678
      Posted on March 2, 2011 at 11:24am

      “The people attending the funeral also have a right to mourn without being harassed.”

      I can’t seem to find that right in the Constitution. Could you point it out for me. I mean, I just heard Glenn say that he couldn’t find anything in the Constitution about collective bargaining. Wasn‘t he saying that if it’s not in the Constitution it can’t be a right?

      Report Post »  
    • TexasCommonSense
      Posted on March 2, 2011 at 11:56am

      Oldphoto678, you‘re saying they don’t have a right to mourn without being harassed? Of course they do; that’s just common sense. An argument could be made under amendment 1, “right of the people peaceably to assemble”. Their right to peaceable assemble for funeral is being infringed upon by protestors. Another argument could be made from the preamble to the constitution, “establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense”. Their right to a peaceful funeral certainly falls under domestic tranquility and again is being infringed upon by protestors.

      One person‘s rights end where another person’s rights begin.

      Glenn was speaking of collective bargaining for government employees and he was right. Government unions bargain for more tax payer’s money without the tax payers having a say on the issue. The laws are passed by politicians to get re-elected by giving the unions more of tax payer money. Again, it’s just common sense. Tax payers should have a direct voice in where their money is spent. Union bargaining usurps this.

      Report Post » TexasCommonSense  
    • 8jrts
      Posted on March 2, 2011 at 1:01pm

      @Oldphoto678
      It may not be a “right” to mourn, but I’m sure there is something on the books in every town about about harassment being unlawful. Mourning is hard enough without that in your face.
      @texas
      I was discussing that subject with a friend who is union. He claims it would hurt his finances too much to have to pay more % for his health care. BOO HOO! I told him to do what I did, give up the health care for a roof over his head. I still pay for his, when I can’t afford mine, and he wants me to pay more of his now?? Let them take the %’s they pay out for health care now as weekly pay instead, and purchase their health care on their own. Let them see what the rest of us have had to do.

      Report Post » 8jrts  
    • fatpatriot
      Posted on March 3, 2011 at 6:55am

      Well said. Every person who finds the protests of WBBC despicable, as I do, should begin immediately contacting local government to put in place regulations that prevent protests within 1000 ft of churches, schools etc… They would retain their 1st amendment rights but would be unable to desecrate the proceedings.

      Report Post »  
  • thebertmanlives
    Posted on March 2, 2011 at 10:57am

    Finally,A story where blazers can show their last shred of sanity.

    Report Post » thebertmanlives  
  • cnsrvtvj
    Posted on March 2, 2011 at 10:57am

    I agree 1994, we have to protect the first amendment. This is a bad situation though because this Westboro group is one of the most disgusting organizations I’ve ever seen. Bottom line though is we have to protect free speech or we get on the slippery slope.

    http://www.donsmithshow.com – see the liberal mindset video

    Report Post » cnsrvtvj  
  • LLATPOH
    Posted on March 2, 2011 at 10:55am

    This is where I wonder how the 1st Amendment protects them… The 1st Amendment was designed to protect people from *government* retaliation, not civil.

    You have the right to speak, however that doesn’t protect you from the consequences of said speech. And if someone was desecrating your son’s name – whom you had to bury for Christ’s sake – the court should not limit your power to pursue justice.

    They have the right to say the most offensive, terrible things they like. However they don’t have any constitutional protection from the results of what they say, unless it’s the government that is retaliating.

    Report Post »  
    • sleazyhippo
      Posted on March 2, 2011 at 10:59am

      What they say about our country‘s finest is similar to what we read about our country’s president and his wife and children. God grant us wisdom and patience, and help out these troubled brothers and sisters.

      Report Post » MONICNE  
    • Oldphoto678
      Posted on March 2, 2011 at 11:12am

      True to a point. However there are laws that protect them from some forms of retaliation, and those law’s are constitutional. So they are constitutionally protected from some types of retaliation by anyone. Not just the government.

      I know your world is all in black and white, but you live in the real world that it is not.

      Report Post »  
  • Gonzo
    Posted on March 2, 2011 at 10:53am

    Sad but true.

    Report Post » Gonzo  
  • biggreenboo
    Posted on March 2, 2011 at 10:53am

    Why doesn’t somebody take them to court for slander? Forget trying to stop there protests… tie them up in legal battles… it’s what they would do. Do unto others then sue.

    Report Post »  
    • SHOMESTATEJOE
      Posted on March 2, 2011 at 3:36pm

      The majority of the phelps clan are attorneys, and they revel in the opportunity to go to court to further their twisted message. What needs to happen at all locations they choose to protest at, is what happened in Weston, Missouri. The townspeople arrived at the phelps permitted protest location beforehand and completely overwhelmed their numbers. Westboro gave up and left without protesting, they tried to leave town but were slightly delayed due to numerous flat tires on their vans, hehe

      Report Post »  
  • Lepanto
    Posted on March 2, 2011 at 10:53am

    I believe that Matthew Snyder himself if he were still alive would defend the Phelps group’s (I find it hard to call it a church) right to say what they want as long as it doesn’t cause another harm. That being said those poor excuses for human beings are the scum of the earth. May God have mercy on their souls.

    Report Post »  
  • sleazyhippo
    Posted on March 2, 2011 at 10:53am

    As true patriots, we need to love and protect fellow Americans constitutionally even though we can kill them in a second with our bare hands and walk away without looking back

    Report Post » MONICNE  
  • Ron Burgundy
    Posted on March 2, 2011 at 10:52am

    Any difference between what they do any hate crimes?

    Report Post » Ron Burgundy  
    • code green
      Posted on March 2, 2011 at 11:55am

      Yes they are not showing hate to a minority group . Just to true heros .
      You know.Special laws for special groups .

      Report Post »  
  • Non-sequitur
    Posted on March 2, 2011 at 10:49am

    Well, popular speech doesn’t need protection. The Supreme Court made the correct decision.

    Report Post »  
  • Gripes
    Posted on March 2, 2011 at 10:46am

    Good thing that they decided this in this way. If we decide who gets the right to free speech based upon the message they preach, we, the conservatives and libertarians, will find our speech squelched in short order. It is most important that the right decision be made especially when that decision is unpopular. We may disagree with what the Westboro Baptist morons say, but it is important that, as long as they don’t break the laws, we protect their rights.

    Report Post »  
  • A Doctors Labor Is Not My Right
    Posted on March 2, 2011 at 10:46am

    @1994bobbysgirl

    Agreed.

    What the Westboro Church is doing is shameful. But the People must be allowed the ability to do this in order to fight corruption in government.

    I may not like what Westboro says, but I defend their right to say it.

    Report Post »  
  • Ditto Head
    Posted on March 2, 2011 at 10:45am

    Yes, in the Supreme Court of the United States, malicious hate will be protected.
    In The Supreme Court of the Universe, not so much.

    Report Post » Ditto Head  
    • BecksMilitia
      Posted on March 2, 2011 at 11:41am

      I couldn’t agree more with you. These people are completely disgusting. They should be more thankful for the Soldiers who protect the right they take advantage of. However, everyone will get what they deserve in the end, even if it doesn’t happen on this earth.

      Report Post »  
    • mrlogan3
      Posted on March 2, 2011 at 11:57am

      This isn’t just a matter of free speech, I would go as far as to call it treason. I would argue that by saying “Thank God for 9/11“ and ”Thank God for Dead Soldiers” they are adhering to our enemies and giving them comfort.

      Report Post » TRUTH  
    • charliego
      Posted on March 2, 2011 at 12:30pm

      @DITTOHEAD
      Indeed. or maybe we can recruit a Jim Jones to serve in their church–oops, just utilized my free speech. Since I am on the wrong side of free speech I will probably be hung at sunrise by the ACLU.

      Report Post » charliego  
  • sleazyhippo
    Posted on March 2, 2011 at 10:44am

    Some persons will complain about the Westboro clan. At the end of the day, some of these comments are only mean-spirited and therefore not helpful in making America Great. Please, Patriotic sisters and brothers, take the Country back by uniting with Americans! This was the greatest country on Earth and will be again if our countrymen will Stand Together about the important stuff!

    Report Post » MONICNE  
  • El Jefe
    Posted on March 2, 2011 at 10:43am

    They do have the right to protest. I have the right to say that they’re as dumb as a box of rocks…

    Report Post » El Jefe  
  • MrButcher
    Posted on March 2, 2011 at 10:42am

    Of course it does.

    What the hell was Alito thinking?

    Report Post » MrButcher  
    • Libertarian
      Posted on March 2, 2011 at 11:40am

      Voltaire – “I do not agree with a word you say, but I would defend to the death your right to say it”

      Report Post » Libertarian  
    • encinom
      Posted on March 2, 2011 at 12:32pm

      Alito was making the argument in the Hustler opinion of public vs. private speech.

      The court contorted the law to rule for Westboro, while Alito applied established principles. The Snyder’s were not public figures and speech directed against them is held to a different standard.

      Report Post »  
    • Libertarian
      Posted on March 2, 2011 at 3:02pm

      Alito is a self proclaimed originalist, but used a positivist approach to this ruling. He was inconsistent.

      When looking at a situation the judiciary should compare it to the “original intent”, not case law. Case law is the cancer of the constitution. Case law is a means to evolve the constitution which completely bypasses one of the most important articles – Article V. The constitution is not a breathing document, therefore it should be compared to the original intent.

      Report Post » Libertarian  
    • encinom
      Posted on March 2, 2011 at 4:31pm

      @Libertarian
      We are a common law nation, always have been at the heart of common law is precedent based on prior case law. You understand that the Constitution is vague. How can you decide what is original intent? Anyway you cut it a court opinion decides an issue base on something, whether its prior court rulings or writings by the founders. Your argument is illogical. Unless you want the court not to issue opinions but provide yes or no reponses.

      Report Post »  
    • Libertarian
      Posted on March 2, 2011 at 6:47pm

      Well I think we can agree to disagree.

      Original intent is at the heart of representation, a judge determines the will of the legislature through statutory law. What is the point of a legislature to make law on behalf of the will of the people if this intent can be manipulated or changed by the precedent of a prior judgment, or an unelected SCOTUS? Law created by a judiciary through the decision making process of precedent is in no way the intent of our founders. I will give you ample examples when I have the time a bit later, I do not want to misquote the genius of our founders.

      Report Post » Libertarian  
    • Libertarian
      Posted on March 2, 2011 at 6:59pm

      The court can provide an opinion of the situation based on the original intent, how is that illogical?

      Also, a judges interpretation of law is opinion. Whether the interpretation is from past judgments or original intent, they are opinions. Statutory law bases opinion on the intent of the legislature, case law bases opinion on past judgments. You prefer an opinion on past judgment(s) rather than the representative intent of the law?

      Report Post » Libertarian  
    • encinom
      Posted on March 2, 2011 at 7:18pm

      “Original intent is at the heart of representation, a judge determines the will of the legislature through statutory law. What is the point of a legislature to make law on behalf of the will of the people if this intent can be manipulated or changed by the precedent of a prior judgment, or an unelected SCOTUS? Law created by a judiciary through the decision making process of precedent is in no way the intent of our founders. I will give you ample examples when I have the time a bit later, I do not want to misquote the genius of our founders.”

      Given that at the time of the revolution and latter the adoption of the Constitution, we were still a common law nation, this does not hold up to historical fact. In The Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton endorsed the idea of judicial review and provided one of its most compelling ideological foundations. Hamilton wrote that “whoever attentively considers the different departments of power must perceive that, in a government in which they are separated from each other, the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution. … [T]he judiciary … has no influence over either the sword or purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL but merely judgment” (no. 78).

      The problem you are having is that you do not understand the judicial process, judges rarely make law out of whole cloth. More often they are interpeting one or more statutes against each other, the facts and the Constitution. Precedent is used to guide them in those cases. Common Law, or judge made law is used to fill voids were Congress has not yet legislated. There is an order to the law, the Constitution is the Supreme law, followed by Statutes, Treaties and then Judicial Opinions (Judicial opinions can be over turned by Statute, unless the opinion is based on an interpetation of the Constitution), the regulations and finally Executive Orders.

      Leave the Blaze and research this on your own, you will find while people are often upset with the outcomes, there is a hidden logic behind most decisions. And that it is a myth being an originalist or acivest judge, they are only labels that have little substance outside of politics.

      Report Post »  
    • encinom
      Posted on March 2, 2011 at 11:01pm

      @LIBERTARIAN

      Do you believe that the Justices can divine original intent when dealing with issues and situation that the founders never dreamed of. What’s original intent in the age of Radio, TV and the internet? Also who’s original intent, the founders did not speak with one voice, Patrick Henry and Thomas Jefferson opposed the Constitution, Hamilton saw the court, the weakest branch as the ultimate decider of what is and it not Constitutional. John Marshal voted for Va. to ratify the Constitution, while his cousin Jefferson voted against ratification. Marshal is the Justice that cemented the concept Judicial review, those he count towards this mythical “original intent.”

      At the end of the day, Original Intent is a theory that has n support, its a concept that is empty inside.

      Report Post »  
    • Libertarian
      Posted on March 3, 2011 at 2:38am

      @ Encinom
      Of course they can. Radio, TV and internet are merely the 1700’s soap box. Article V of the constitution is the “unforeseeable” means to rectify a “right”. If it is not in the constitution it is a state function. If an individual delves into a “void” then there is no warranted prosecution, an accusation can only arise from the infringement of an existing law.
      When the state or national legislatures enact a law, it is derived from purpose or intent. It is absurd to insinuate that our constitution, the supreme law of the land is without intention. Originalist = intent
      The entire premise of a republic, separation of powers, and specifically the role of the judiciary is to interpret the original intent of an established law.
      Justice Story said “We shall treat the constitution, not as a mere compact, or league, or confederacy, existing at the mere will of any one or more of the states, during their good pleasure; but, as a constitution of government, framed and adopted by the people of the United States, and obligatory upon all the states, until it is altered, amended, or abolished by the people, IN THE MANNER POINTED OUT IN THE INSTRUMENT ITSELF (Article V of the constitution).
      As Edward Meese put it “originalism comports with the nature of the constitution, which binds and limits any one generation from ruling according to the passions of the times.”

      Justice Story referring to a justice’s oath of upholding the constitution said “Why otherwise does it direct the judges to take an oath to support it? This oath certainly applies, in an especial manner, to their conduct in their official character. How immoral to impose it on them, if they were to be used as the instruments, and the knowing instruments, for violating what they swear to support!”

      Proof that judicial activism exists – Sonia Sotomayor assertion that “the court of appeals is where policy is made” is an example of admittance. This is coming from a member of SCOTUS.

      Report Post » Libertarian  
    • encinom
      Posted on March 3, 2011 at 11:31am

      @Libertarian

      Can you answer the most basic question, whose intent, the convention that gave us the Constitution did not speak with one voice, and had many different views as to what certain clauses meant. Neither were the founders unified in their support of the Constitution, Jefferson was opposed to it. Hamilton supported judicial review. In an age of cross country commerce, with neither party needing to travel, how can you look towards the 1700′s and the original intent of the commerce clause. It is a fallacy of logic to believe that you can divine what was in the minds of men 200 years ago.

      The Constitution is a living document as well as a vague one, it is left to each generation to interpet that meaning of this document. Prior court decisions, while binding on lower courts at as guide posts for the Supreme Court.

      Report Post »  
    • Libertarian
      Posted on March 3, 2011 at 1:30pm

      @enicinom

      Answer : The Federalist’s ideals prevailed.

      A law, bill or in this case the constitution gets ratified by a majority. The ideals of the majority (federalists) prevailed. Ask yourself how do we get a law to pass in a state legislature; what is a law if it has no intent?

      Jefferson was in France.

      The commerce clause is the most debated subject in the constitution. It would be very time consuming to travel down that road.

      The constitution is absolutely not a living document, but it is definitely open for debate.

      Answered your question, any others?

      Report Post » Libertarian  
  • hulagu
    Posted on March 2, 2011 at 10:41am

    So we can stand across the street from a mosque,insult islam,no problem. Try that and see what happens next.

    Report Post »  
    • El Jefe
      Posted on March 2, 2011 at 10:46am

      Let’s go do it…

      Report Post » El Jefe  
    • Amren
      Posted on March 2, 2011 at 11:06am

      Count me in!
      It would be interesting to see the reaction from the media.

      Report Post » Amren  
    • Failsafe
      Posted on March 2, 2011 at 11:15am

      Just don’t go and pray in front of an abortion mill.

      Report Post » Failsafe  
    • jwmarietta
      Posted on March 2, 2011 at 11:35am

      i am down to do that as well. We are gonna ahve to fight fire with fire. Have a lot of people protest outside their church everytime they try to have any service. be so loud they cant do what ever those creeps do.

      Report Post »  
    • charliego
      Posted on March 2, 2011 at 12:13pm

      @HULAGU
      Great idea. Better idea- American citizens are very ingenious and innovative. We will solve ‘problem’ children situations by turning the tables. For example, protesting at their ‘church’ with like-signs and rhetoric, Oh I don’t know—maybe “God hates Westboro’, ‘Westborough is a hate entity’, ‘Westboro takes GOD’s name in vain’. ‘Soldiers die to protect your dubious free and hate speech rights’. But then, I hate to stoop to their level and vacuousness. I have seen some communities being very inventive in overriding Westboro protest movements by praying in a strong voice or surrounding the group with angel wings. Just thinking outloud….

      Report Post » charliego  
    • hulagu
      Posted on March 2, 2011 at 12:19pm

      @Charliego-agree

      Report Post »  
    • ablisterin
      Posted on March 2, 2011 at 1:22pm

      EXACTLY!!! Obama would have Eric Holder all over you for messing with those peacful little ol muslims.

      Report Post »  
  • Anonymous T. Irrelevant
    Posted on March 2, 2011 at 10:41am

    Stupidity is not unlawful.

    Report Post » Anonymous T. Irrelevant  
    • Tundra4x4
      Posted on March 2, 2011 at 11:25am

      It should be! We could fill the prisions!

      Report Post »  
    • Oldphoto678
      Posted on March 2, 2011 at 11:26am

      If it was the tea party would be in big trouble.

       
    • NUTHRDUMBCONSERVATIVE
      Posted on March 2, 2011 at 11:42am

      We should never interfere with stupid people opening their mouths and removing all doubt. We should instead support the biker groups and others who show in greater numbers in support of our fallen troops.
      OLDPHOTO678 The same goes for you. All doubt is removed. For others who will understand it, there’s no hope for you, the Tea Parties consist of those of us that have been too busy being successful instead of stupid and finally decided to speak out against the madness.

      Report Post »  
  • randy
    Posted on March 2, 2011 at 10:41am

    WESTBORO protesters disgust me, but they do have the right to speak.

    Report Post » randy  
    • Showtime
      Posted on March 2, 2011 at 11:07am

      I support their right to speak, but I also support the respect they SHOULD have for a fallen Marine who died to protect their speech.

      Report Post » Showtime  
    • Klarky
      Posted on March 2, 2011 at 11:22am

      I agree they have the right to speak. The problem is that the media gives them way too much attention, and attention is just what they want.

      Report Post »  
  • sleazyhippo
    Posted on March 2, 2011 at 10:41am

    Truly amazing Free Speech lets us denigrate our veterans – but I guess it’s what we are doing tour ppresident as well.

    Report Post » MONICNE  
    • 13thGenerationAmerican
      Posted on March 2, 2011 at 11:18am

      Hopefully they will treat net neutrality this way when the case is seen.

      Report Post » 13thGenerationAmerican  
    • techengineer11
      Posted on March 2, 2011 at 11:30am

      Although I support our Veterans and many other members which contribut to our free society, anyone has the right to call them dogs to their face. It’s called America. You should learn about it.

      Report Post » techengineer11  
    • Showtime
      Posted on March 2, 2011 at 11:39am

      The veterans didn’t do anything to deserve disrespect; Obama is due his.

      Report Post » Showtime  
    • poohbear
      Posted on March 2, 2011 at 12:05pm

      It’s odd how one Blaze article says VA schools are taking down the 10 Commandments and this article talks about how a hate group professing to be Christians are allowed to spread the hate..it just seems to me that Christians are being silenced in one way and and given the opportunity in another, but only if it makes us look bad? Oh no, there’s no agenda here folks!

      GOD IS LOVE and whether or not the you believe He will always be LOVE..

      Report Post » poohbear  
    • TheBMT
      Posted on March 2, 2011 at 12:41pm

      its unfortunate, but that is what the first amendment is about. Free speech. It doesn’t mean we have to like it, we can surely condemn it, as well as protesting them ourselves louder. But the fact the constitution was held up was a good sign today.

      Report Post »  
    • HappyStretchedThin
      Posted on March 2, 2011 at 12:44pm

      Yes 13thgenCommunist.
      Absolutely. Because there’s absolutely NO difference WHATSOEVER between govt deciding to stay OUT of telling even the most obnoxious of groups what to say and how as in this case, and the govt deciding to step IN to a free conversation and decide what people can say and how.
      OBVIOUSLY equivalent.
      NOT!
      Your previous 12 generations are rolling in their graves (no offense if your parents/grand-parents are still alive) for you wishing to sell out so quickly for what they sacrificed to give you.

      Report Post » HappyStretchedThin  
    • ablisterin
      Posted on March 2, 2011 at 1:18pm

      I have a feeling this is going to lead to a greiving family member pulling a gun and sending some of these westboro idiots to meet their maker. Maybe then the courts will pull their heads out of each others butts and do something. They have a right to protest under 1st ammendment, but there should be a 100 mile buffer zone around the town where funerals are being held. Why don’t they go get protest something worthwhile like the ACLU or Planned Parenthood?

      Report Post »  
    • hulagu
      Posted on March 2, 2011 at 3:21pm

      Techengineer,I‘m sure you don’t get upset when I call Obama and his ilk- filthy Communists. It’s America .

      Report Post »  
  • heavyduty
    Posted on March 2, 2011 at 10:40am

    I think they ought to be sent to God and let Him sort it out. They have to be completely out of their minds to go to funerals. I can‘t believe that they don’t have anything better to do. What a bunch of losers.

    Report Post »  
    • walkwithme1966
      Posted on March 2, 2011 at 10:45am

      I so agree with you – they are out of their minds – and what type church only has one issue? These people need to stay away. http://wp.me/pYLB7-HF

      Report Post » walkwithme1966  
    • sleazyhippo
      Posted on March 2, 2011 at 10:55am

      These are our sisters and brothers. As true patriots, we need to love and protect fellow Americans constitutionally even though we can kill them in a second with our bare hands and walk away without looking back

      Report Post » MONICNE  
    • REDPILLREADY
      Posted on March 2, 2011 at 11:12am

      They should be made to follow the law of the land like any other person or group. Laws that keep their protests at a far distance from the grieving funeral attendees are reasonable. As far as what they put up on their website, I think the best policy is ignoring them. Unfortunately, all this attention is what feeds these despicable people’s motivation.

      Report Post » REDPILLREADY  
    • bassist237
      Posted on March 2, 2011 at 11:24am

      What they are doing is a sham…. You notice their signs do not point out anyone specific, they just lump large groups of people to entice anger and outrage, so if someone raises a fist to them (or slices their tires) or does something stupid to them, they will sue them and get money for it. It is a money making scheme that needs to be brought to light…. Can someone in the media please check this? I mean am I wrong in my assertion that these people are out to make money only, not necessarily that they actually believe all these things they say? You can sue for just about damn anything these days, but you can’t sue them because they are twisting the laws of our land to fill their pockets, and they are professionals at it…. scum of the earth, no less, but professional.

      Report Post » bassist237  
    • CatB
      Posted on March 2, 2011 at 11:28am

      Either it didn’t post or was removed .. I will say again counter protest .. everywhere they go.

      Report Post »  
    • techengineer11
      Posted on March 2, 2011 at 11:28am

      As much as I dislike these people’s actions I sure appreciate this decision! The only thing as sacred as the righ to assemble is the right to speak your mind.. and to self defense. The Constitution is a winner today!

      Report Post » techengineer11  
    • Robert-CA
      Posted on March 2, 2011 at 11:35am

      This is beyond their rights , I don’t agree with this ruling , let me see what else the supreme court made it legal ………… oh yeah KILLING BABIES !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      Report Post » Robert-CA  
    • cessna152
      Posted on March 2, 2011 at 11:40am

      I am a Christian… these people are pathetic morons…. they are NOT Christians. They can protest, but if everyone in the immediate area tells them to get off their private property, problem solved.

      Report Post » cessna152  
    • ME
      Posted on March 2, 2011 at 11:43am

      walkwithme1966
      only one issue, like the supporters of democrats ignore anything sane if it is not on there party platform and the same type of people that come to this sit and push liberal crap:) yes very insane.

      I wish someone would protest that church and put signs out that tell them they are on the way to hell, judge not least ye be judge by the same measure they are as much sinners as a gay person and may need the mot out of there eye then they may be able to look to help others.

      Report Post » ME  
    • right-wing-waco
      Posted on March 2, 2011 at 11:54am

      Maybe the 1st Amendment would allow people to follow them and picket them everywhere they go for months on end 24/7. What they need is a really good spanking. Imagine what would happen if a video surfaced that showed immoral behavior within their ranks and maybe even someone that has been abused by them coming out to expose them. These people are truly crazy. I hope someone puts then in their place really soon.

      Report Post »  
    • thepatriotdave
      Posted on March 2, 2011 at 12:03pm

      Although we may not exactly like it, the Supreme Court ruled correctly on this. It is “we the people” that will end up having to make sure Westboro Clown School has a change of heart about protesting at our Heroes Funerals.

      They may have the right to protest, but we also have the right to shout them down and get between them and the greif stricken families.

      http://www.americasteapartynews.com

      Report Post » thepatriotdave  
    • LOOKING_BOTH_WAYS
      Posted on March 2, 2011 at 12:04pm

      I’m all for free Speech … but it can still get your Nose broke !

      Report Post »  
    • 8jrts
      Posted on March 2, 2011 at 12:13pm

      “While distancing themselves from the church’s message, media organizations, including The Associated Press, urged the court to side with the Phelps family because of concerns that a victory for Snyder could erode speech rights.”

      No…The AP just wants to erode all moral values instead!! God bless the our soldiers and their families. This ruling is a disgrace. Free speech is one thing…but there wouldn’t be any free speech without the men and women that have died for it….gay or not.
      @right-wing-waco Great idea!!

      Report Post » 8jrts  
    • cnsrvtvj
      Posted on March 2, 2011 at 12:29pm

      This is a bad situation though because this Westborough group is one of the most disgusting organizations I’ve ever seen. Bottom line though is we have to protect free speech or we get on the slippery slope.

      http://www.donsmithshow.com – see the liberal mindset video

      Report Post » cnsrvtvj  
    • HappyStretchedThin
      Posted on March 2, 2011 at 12:33pm

      @ Cessna > You got that right! they had to skip over great swaths of the Bible to conclude that Christ wants them to behave that way. Or maybe I missed: “blessed are the loud, obnoxious, and most heinously provocative picket sign makers”
      @ PatriotDave > Spot on! What this decision does is FREE up the majority to shout DOWN this squeaky wheel minority. In fact, maybe somebody should propose a new philanthropic fund to hire discharged marines as protection details for as many military funerals as possible to maintain a secure and reverent perimeter around our fallen heroes’s send-off rituals. Anybody with the cash to contribute to such a venture?

      Report Post » HappyStretchedThin  
    • Miguelito
      Posted on March 2, 2011 at 1:04pm

      What would Jesus do? I thinking not this!!!

      Report Post »  
    • Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}
      Posted on March 2, 2011 at 1:11pm

      @Heavy duty

      I agree with you completely in this case; they give Christianity a bad name and reputation for the unchristian way they act. God will sort the wheat and the chaff apart, and He can do it so much more efficiently than we could as humans.

      Report Post » Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}  
    • gobluebuckeye
      Posted on March 2, 2011 at 2:16pm

      These people are scum bags, and the fact that they they pretend to do all this crap in the name of the Lord, really ****** me off. I have a Brother who is life long military man, been in the service of our nation since 1991 and I could not imagine the outrage I would have if the worst thing that could happen happened. I am not good enough of a person or strong enough of a Christian to turn the other cheek. I would go into their circle and lay a few of them punks on the ground, and shame on us as a nation for not protecting peoples right to morn

      Report Post » gobluebuckeye  
    • CaptGregg
      Posted on March 2, 2011 at 2:41pm

      One of these days they’ll demonstrate in a small town, and we’ll see a repeat of what happened in Skidmore, Missouri on July 10, 1981.

       
    • Devil Dog 7175
      Posted on March 2, 2011 at 4:25pm

      Ahhh, The Westboro BASTARD Church… What a fine bunch they are… Bastards that is.

      Report Post » Devil Dog 7175  
    • HappyStretchedThin
      Posted on March 2, 2011 at 5:11pm

      Congrats Captgregg,
      Your post merits my first reporting here on the Blaze.
      Do NOT incite people to violence here.

      Report Post » HappyStretchedThin  
    • Justthefactsmam
      Posted on March 2, 2011 at 5:31pm

      This decision illustrates a quote that I have always held in my heart “I may detest what you are saying, but I will defend to my death your right to say it.” The first amendment is just that, the first and most important amendment there is, because when your free speech is taken away, your freedom is being taken away. I‘m just upset the ruling wasn’t 9-0.

      Report Post » Justthefactsmam  
    • Navyveteran
      Posted on March 2, 2011 at 5:38pm

      heavyduty
      Posted on March 2, 2011 at 10:40am
      I think they ought to be sent to God and let Him sort it out. They have to be completely out of their minds to go to funerals. I can‘t believe that they don’t have anything better to do. What a bunch of losers.

      ———————————————————————————————————————————————-
      HEAVYDUTY I hate what these ppl say and do but to advocate the deaths of these ppl is wrong. The SCOTUS is correct in allowing these ppl to excercise their 1st Amendment rights! As long as they are being peaceful they have every right to be anywhere to protest about anything. Don‘t be like the proggy’s and allow only certain ppl or groups to be able to excercise their rights allocated in the Constitution.

      Report Post »  
    • CaptGregg
      Posted on March 2, 2011 at 6:04pm

      @HappyStretchedThin
      I’m not advocating violence. I was making an observation that they could well push so far as to incite someone to it, and that WBC’s behavior is so hated that it could be difficult to obtain a conviction.

      Report Post »  
    • Taquoshi
      Posted on March 2, 2011 at 6:14pm

      Did anyone see the film clip of the lawyer talking to the radio host and ANONYMOUS? The woman was grinning like a Cheshire Cat. She just absolutely LOVES this, it’s her piece of pie. The fun part was that she kept trying to get ANONYMOUS to take responsibilty for some letter that he/she/they/them didn’t write and instead ANONYMOUS crashed their website while he was talking to them on the radio show!

      I don’t know who ANONYMOUS is, but WAY TO GO, whoever you are!

      Report Post » Taquoshi  
    • hud
      Posted on March 2, 2011 at 6:35pm

      I agree that they should meet Jesus, but you can solve this problem by denying parade permits on the day of a funeral

      Report Post »  
    • jzs
      Posted on March 2, 2011 at 6:38pm

      Somewhere out there on the internet the same story about this Christian church is posted on a Muslim terrorist website. And all the posters are talking about how all Christians in world, every single one of them, are just like this group. They are talking about how Christianity should be wiped off the planet, because every single Christian thinks and behaves exactly the same as these devout, God loving, Bible toting Christians.

      And you know who those posters sound like? They sound just like you guys here.

      Report Post » jzs  
    • hud
      Posted on March 2, 2011 at 6:41pm

      TO Justhefacts The second amendment is the most important one for it insures a mans right to free speech. Straight shooting insures free speech

      Report Post »  
    • hud
      Posted on March 2, 2011 at 6:48pm

      JCS Who said these haters are Christians?

      Report Post »  
    • jzs
      Posted on March 2, 2011 at 8:55pm

      @HUD, who says they’re Christians? They say they are Christians. Your friend NoStinkinBadges (post above) says they’re Christians. They pray to the God of the Bible. They quote the Bible and justify their actions by Biblical teachings same as ************************* does (the Bible specifies the death penalty for adultery too, as well as insulting your parents). They go to church, read the Bible, and live their lives according to Biblical teachings as they understand them.

      I guess my point is obvious. If you and others here so easily dismiss this group as “not really Christians” then afford the one billions Muslims in the world the benefit of that same logic. This website daily posts the most weird, radical elements of the Muslim religion and everyone assumes (for reasons known only to themselves) those people represent all Muslims. But that is simply false.

      The word in psychology is “over-generalization” which is promoted on this website. There are less polite words describing that same phenomenon.

      Report Post » jzs  
    • keaton
      Posted on March 2, 2011 at 9:01pm

      Question
      What kind of person attends a church that preaches such hate?
      Wouldn’t you leave after the first sermon, if you didn’t agree with the hate?
      Question
      How is Westboro Baptist different form Trinity United? I mean other than the **** and Jew focus.
      What would you think of someone who sat in Westboro Baptist for 20 years and never heard anything antihomosexual? Would you believe anyone who made that claim? Discuss

      Report Post »  
    • CaptGregg
      Posted on March 2, 2011 at 10:44pm

      @ JZS
      There’s a world of difference.
      Relatively few muslims denounce their extremists, while a large percentage endorse them.
      The WBC has been denounced by most churches — I’m not aware of any other church that endorses them.

      Report Post »  
    • jackrorabbit
      Posted on March 3, 2011 at 12:39am

      Jesus said it best, and it should be on every counter-rally sign against them. “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.” John 8:7

      Report Post »  
    • Lloyd Drako
      Posted on March 3, 2011 at 11:08am

      @CATB:
      Counterprotests everywhere the haters from WBC go?

      A great idea, but how can you tell where they’ll show up next?

      Someone should take up the task of monotoring them 24/7, so people can track their movements, assemble quickly and surround mourners en masse with a protective, respectful, non-violent cocoon wherever they turn up.

      Absent angry confrontations, grieving parents giving them publicity by suing, and the resultant free publicity, they’ll soon fade into insignificance.

      Report Post » Lloyd Drako  
1 2 3 ... 6

Sign In To Post Comments! Sign In

Sign Up For Our Newsletter!

Glenn Beck Radio

Listen to Glenn Beck 24/7 Listen Now
Restoring Love