USSC Free Speech case

[Ddrak]

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/ ... TE=DEFAULT

Right to free speech vs. right to not be "psychologically terrorized" at your son's funeral.

This will be interesting - I can see both sides.

Dd

[Harlowe]

I've wanted the courts to deal a blow to the Phelps somehow for years, but I'm not confident "psychologically terrorized" is going to have enough teeth up against something as monumental as "Free Speech".

[Embar Angylwrath]

I hope they USSC rules for the Phelpses. First Amendment right shouldn't be curtailed because the speech is hateful, idiotic, or emotionally hurtful. And I'm disgusted with the 42 Senators that signed on to this. Its an obvious political stunt and just as abhorent as the Phelpses actions.

[Partha]

They should have declined to hear the case, it's a clear First Amendment case and Phelps has the right to be an idiot.

That said...

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito and Antonin Scalia appeared, to varying degrees, to be searching for a way to rule for Snyder.

Color me unsurprised, none of those three are too bright on the law.

[Lurker]

Posting this because nobody who's commented so far seems to have read it.

From the Senator's amicus brief to the court.

In recent years, Congress and forty-six state legislatures have enacted laws to minimize picketing and other forms of disruptive activity in or near cemeteries during a funeral. Those laws are not challenged here, but they evidence the significant governmental interest in protecting the dignity of private funerals. These content-neutral, narrowly tailored laws permit families to ensure that their rites remain private and solemn, and do not become a vehicle for the expression of disruptive or contrary views by some other person.

State tort laws supplement these funeral picketing regulations in deterring harmful conduct at private funerals and protecting the rights of mourners to express their own private messages of grief and tribute. In this case, a jury found respondents liable for three Maryland torts, including intentional infliction of emotional distress (“IIED”) and invasion of privacy by intrusion upon seclusion. The court of appeals incorrectly assumed that those torts protect essentially the same broad interests as defamation claims, and thus must be subject to the same specific constitutional limitations that constrain defamation claims against public figures. But the torts are not the same. As applied here, the IIED and intrusion upon seclusion torts narrowly protect against willful efforts to invade a private grieving ceremony and to inflict harms on those involved. The right to speak freely about matters of public concern does not encompass insults and verbal abuse intended to invade a private memorial ceremony and injure its participants. Respondents were and are free to convey their repugnant message in virtually any public manner they choose. But they were not free to hijack petitioners’ private funeral as a vehicle for expression of their own hate.

[Harlowe]

Yes, that looks....as abhorrent as the action of the Phelps. (cough)

[Fallakin Kuvari]

They should have declined to hear the case, it's a clear First Amendment case and Phelps has the right to be an idiot.

Me and Partha officially agree on something.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Yes, that looks....as abhorrent as the action of the Phelps. (cough)

I was taking the info directly from the article, Snarkapotamus. Specifically this:

Forty-eight states, 42 U.S. senators and veterans groups have sided with Snyder, asking the court to shield funerals from the Phelpses' "psychological terrorism."

I saw nothing in there about an amicus brief.

Also, it's my understanding the funeral was a public affiar, not a private one. And if that's the case, the amicus brief doesn't apply, since it addresses private gatherings.

[Ddrak]

I'm guessing it will all come down to whether the "protesting" was done in a public or private place. Free speech laws do have a limit (can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater) but I can't see this crossing it. I really want to see Phelps go down, but not this way.

Dd

[Arathena]

If this was a public event, then yeah, I can't see free speech not applying, no matter how vile and offensive it is.

On the other hand, the continued existance of Fred Phelps is a mighty strong argument for the non-existance of a benevolent, interventionist god.