Hate Speech protected by the 1st Amendment in the United States

[FreakyLocz14]

In this case Snyder v. Phelps, the United States Supreme Court ruled in favor yesterday of the Westboro Baptist Church. The controversial church picketed the funeral of an Iraq war soldier, proclaiming their belief that his death was a part of God's punishment on a nation that is tolerant of homosexuality.

Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, said that speech cannot be restricted just because it is offensive.

In the 8-1 decision, Justice Alito was the lone dissenter. He said "The First Amendment protects freedom of speech, but it most certainly does not protect violent criminal conduct, even if engaged in for expressive purposes."

Here's the Court's ruling:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/09-751.ZS.html

I would link to the church's site, but Anonymous took it down and it's still down right now apparently.

I agree with the Court. Their speech is highly offensive, but Americans enjoy freedom of speech. There are exceptions to that rule, but they are very narrow and broadening them creates a chilling effect that suppresses controversial or non-orthodox viewpoints.

 

[Esper]

They qualified their decision, noting that the church was on a public sidewalk some distance from the funeral, were complying with all the applicable laws regarding protesting, and that they were not overly loud. The justices said their speech was protected because it was part of a national discussion on issues that matter to the people.

Whether the First Amendment prohibits holding Westboro liable for its speech in this case turns largely on whether that speech is of public or private concern, as determined by all the circumstances of the case.

I don't think it's quite the same as a blanket statement that hate speech is protected speech since there were significant qualifiers.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

Disclaimer: This post provided by the Internet Wiseguy Association.

Niiiice, do they get permission to stone prostitutes in the streets, too?

I don't see how stoning people has to do with protesting and free speech? Stoning doesn't really qualify as speech.

 

[.Fenris]

I'm going to just drop this here...

"Disclaimer :
NOTE: The Ku Klux Klan, LLC. has not or EVER will have ANY connection with The "Westboro Baptist Church". We absolutely repudiate their activities."

I don't see how stoning people has to do with protesting and free speech? Stoning doesn't really qualify as speech.

I know and I deleted my first post for that.

 

[JERIICHO]

I'm going to just drop this here...





I know and I deleted my first post for that.

same i just realised that what a load of rubbish

 

[FreakyLocz14]

They qualified their decision, noting that the church was on a public sidewalk some distance from the funeral, were complying with all the applicable laws regarding protesting, and that they were not overly loud. The justices said their speech was protected because it was part of a national discussion on issues that matter to the people.

I don't think it's quite the same as a blanket statement that hate speech is protected speech since there were significant qualifiers.

From what I understand, anti-hate laws have to be connected to another crime in order to be constitutional. In other words, if someone where to assault a homosexuality because of his sexual orientation, that would justify a sentence enhancement. The mere hate itself enjoys constitutional protection unless it follows under the narrow definition of fighting words or some other category of unprotected speech.

 

[Anthraxinsoup]

I can say for sure that the KKK doesn't support the Westboro Baptist Church at all. They hate them just as much as anyone. The KKK supports our troops, not matter what people want to say. Now I for one am not the biggest fan of the KKK, but I am an Odinist/Wotanist, so I do have some ties with them. Although I am not a WN, I am NS.

 

[twocows]

Alito is a horrible Justice and ought to be taken off the bench. He votes for what he thinks ought to happen rather than what the constitution says. Then again, the appointees are all political, anyway...

As for the issue itself, Evelyn Beatrice Hall once surmised Voltaire's beliefs in a line I often like to use in situations like this: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

 

[~Darkness~]

I heard about this on the news. I think what they did was wrong but when it comes to legally, its protected by the first amendment. Its what people believe and they have the right to express it.

 

[TRIFORCE89]

Goodie gumdrops, they can say what they want.

Do they have specifically have the right to ruin a family's funeral though?

Does the family has no right to bury their son in peace? Who the hell are they to take that away?

I say 9th amendment trumps the 1st. It's newer.

 

[Feign]

I think the exceptions usually include grievances such as if the WBC's protest also cause the widow to take drugs thereafter. Something to that effect anyway. If it were to occur.

However, hate speech to this extent is essentially senseless and needless. I realise Americans enjoy freedom of speech (except Wikileaks it seems), but you'd think a line would be drawn. The only reason they're still around is because they get the attention they want, plus they sue when they feel their rights have been violated...

At least I can be comforted in the fact that they're are all senile, unhealthy people and stupid, to go on a vendetta like that is ridiculous.

 

[Nick]

Does intentional infliction of emotional distress mean anything at this level? -- Oh wait, it doesn't. I don't really understand why this went to the supreme court. The way I see it, if this was any other court out there, they'd have ruled against Westboro, and I think this is just going to increase their desire to enlighten the world of all the evils in it because now they know they can get away with causing emotional pain and adversities to people. The supreme court's only purpose is determining if something is unconstitutional or not. :/

This seems to be saying "It's okay to bully! You have the right to say anything you want with the first amendment, even if it's at the cost of someone else's happiness."

 

[Kura]

Let them say what they want to say.. :/ Unless they're acting out on it or breaking any laws then I don't see what the real problem is.

 

[Anthraxinsoup]

Does intentional infliction of emotional distress mean anything at this level? -- Oh wait, it doesn't. I don't really understand why this went to the supreme court. The way I see it, if this was any other court out there, they'd have ruled against Westboro, and I think this is just going to increase their desire to enlighten the world of all the evils in it because now they know they can get away with causing emotional pain and adversities to people. The supreme court's only purpose is determining if something is unconstitutional or not. :/

This seems to be saying "It's okay to bully! You have the right to say anything you want with the first amendment, even if it's at the cost of someone else's happiness."

Cause that's how it is, and always will be most likely.

 

[Melody]

WBC is just digging it's own grave. Give them some time, they'll protest at some funeral where some state or federal senator will be in attendance, and it'll piss that person off. Once they do that it's just a hop, step and jump towards a law that says "You cannot protest at a funeral" XD

Though chances are they'd try to fight that.

I think that, short of the Pope condemning them for their actions, nothing will shut them up...and even that may backfire. X3

Yeah, I wish I could shut them up for good and make sure they never reassemble again with such hatred, but I do respect their rights. I'm glad that society at large has placed censure on them though. :p

 

[Anthraxinsoup]

WBC is just digging it's own grave. Give them some time, they'll protest at some funeral where some state or federal senator will be in attendance, and it'll piss that person off. Once they do that it's just a hop, step and jump towards a law that says "You cannot protest at a funeral" XD

Though chances are they'd try to fight that.

I think that, short of the Pope condemning them for their actions, nothing will shut them up...and even that may backfire. X3

Yeah, I wish I could shut them up for good and make sure they never reassemble again with such hatred, but I do respect their rights. I'm glad that society at large has placed censure on them though. :p

They don't follow the pope and they won't ever listen to him. Catholicism=/=baptism.

 

[Livewire]

even if it's at the cost of someone else's happiness."

Which is ironic, because the very Constitution they're citing this from also mentions "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness" are inalienable rights, meaning the government cannot take them away, yet that's what this ruling effectively did. This is why I have literally no faith in the Roberts Court.

 

[Anthraxinsoup]

Which is ironic, because the very Constitution they're citing this from also mentions "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness" are inalienable rights, meaning the government cannot take them away, yet that's what this ruling effectively did. This is why I have literally no faith in the Roberts Court.

They would be taking them away in the favour of someone else. It says you have the right to pursue happiness, doesn't guarantee it. Just call up the bikers and they'll take care of it. I hate WBBC more than anyone(expect paedophiles), but they have their right, even though I don't think they should have that right at all.

 

[Feign]

The group isn't really doin it out of their own happiness either. Just out of hate. :3

It would be at least nice though if they had a media blackout on that group. I suppose we could write to the media outlets within our countries...

Another good thing though is that the majority of members are all within the same family, meaning their group will slowly be on the decline.

 

[Nick]

Let them say what they want to say.. :/ Unless they're acting out on it or breaking any laws then I don't see what the real problem is.

Uhhhh, if you had a family member who was killed in a war who just so happened to be homosexual, I highly doubt your stance on this would be that when they come picketing his or her funeral claiming that he or she died because God punished him or her for being gay. 8((