U.S. Supreme Court rules in favor of WBC

Breaking news.

My only concern about all this is that, given the number of people that will be royally pissed both at this ruling (expected as it is) and the WBC's inevitable follow up protests, I think they may actually be in more danger of getting attacked now.

The First Amendment is pretty clear on this, so it's hard to imagine how the court could rule in any other way.

Any violence on the part of the WBC's opponents will make people forget how annoying the WBC is and hate whichever group gets blamed for the violence.

I could definately see the WBC encouraging its members to egg on the counterprotesters in hopes of provoking violence.

I could also see people trying to find out personal info on WBC members to protest at their homes or funerals...

edited 2nd Mar '11 1:26:24 PM by FrodoGoofballCoTV

Well, there's no law against being an asshole, of course what happens next is your own fault.

^ This.

Indeed, and when your going after people who are emotionally distressed...

-__-

This still strikes me as infringing on upon others' rights by protesting at their funerals. Regardless of those rights been written or not, something is being over stepped here by the WBC.

The WBC is a bunch of lawyers. They are always incredibly careful not to break the law in any way, such that they can't be sued; they also stick around much longer in locations where there's a group of angry people. If they manage to provoke someone, they sue not the person but the county they are protesting in (because the county has more money, obviously).

Spread the word-as obnoxious as they are, you can help break WBC by ignoring them.

Two words: Moral Guardians.

edited 2nd Mar '11 1:44:52 PM by deathjavu

If only lawmakers could make "violation of common decency" effectively illegal.

Complete total Freedom of Speech is overrated.

edited 2nd Mar '11 2:26:14 PM by Thorn14

No, no it's not. Otherwise we wouldn't have racial equality today because Dr. Martin Luther King and others wouldn't have been allowed to speak at major conventions and other places.

Freedom Of Speech, however, can be easily abused.

edited 2nd Mar '11 2:46:56 PM by Usht

How is this breaking news?

Why do we have to be tolerant of such abuse, especially used in the spreading of hate?

MLK Jr. had speeches about peace and loving your fellow human, this is just used to spread hate and make people upset.

Yeah, I know, that's the worst part. See, you're allowed to hate people in the United States and you're allowed to talk about that. So long as you don't enact violence on them, you should be fine. Which sucks. The laws should widen as to not allow people like the WBC to do things like this, but as it stands, they are simply using their freedom of speech.

I'm just sort of sighing over here. Don't mind me.

^^ That comes with the territory of having rights. You take the good with the bad.

Take the Second Amendment in the US. The good part of the right is that it is easy to form a militia to defend this country whether from foreign invaders, terrorists or power hungry idiots in Washington. The bad part is you can get killed by a gun just as easily as you can get one. You gotta take the risk to have the right here.

The First Amendment and by extension free speech/freedom of religion is the same way. Hate speakers like WBC have to be put up with in order that you can say you disagree.

When you start curbing back a right to get rid of taking the bad with the good, you no longer have a right.

edited 2nd Mar '11 3:28:44 PM by MajorTom

Why do they have to be such broad strokes?

And I don't wanna bring up a gun discussion but I don't think the possibility to defend against 3 unrealistic scenarios is worth people being shot so easily.

I don't know why everyone thinks theres a slippery slope theory with putting some restrictions, especially if its used to stop hate and RL trolls.

It's because there is a slippery slope and not a fallacy. The first time you pull a censorship is the last time you are guaranteed anything on the subject. It becomes easier and easier to further curb that right.

History is littered with examples of that slope claiming another victim.

I guess common sense has no place for laws or history or politics.

I guess I just don't see how stopping WBC from picketing near funerals will lead to mass censorship of EVERYTHING and suddenly everything becomes 1984

Does this mean it is now legal for me to protest Fred Phelps' funeral?

YESSSSS.

I suspect Fred Phelps' funeral will be the largest public demonstration since Martin Luther King's "I have a dream" speech. Or the Million Man March, one or the other.

And they just set themselves up for it.

It won't be nearly as large because no one gives a damn. Plus, whoever does has just sunk to the level of the WBC, getting petty revenge against petty, disdainful actions.

The optimist in me sees it as what may be greatest example of Laser-Guided Karma to come.

The pessimist in me thinks they'll be able to use their legal-fu to prevent a huge protest/gathering.

edited 2nd Mar '11 3:52:43 PM by Thorn14

Justice Samuel Alito dissented, the emotional wounds of the protests being an affront.

"Freedom Of Speech, however, can be easily abused."

No, it can't, really. Talk is cheap, and unless people are inclined to listen, meaningless.

It's just that when people express views that are radically different from one's one, one immediately assumes that they are wrong and shouldn't be allowed to say those things at all.

If only someone would off these people.