Supreme Court rules, upholds WestboroBaptistChurch to continue the funeral protests
- Thread starter SangerRainsford
- Start date
Unbreakable
Bluelighter
Belisarius
Bluelighter
Though I find them utterly despicable, I'm not surprised; banning them would have set a definite slippery-slope precedent.
Pander Bear
Bluelight Crew
it was the right call-- revoking the church's status as a tax exempt institution is probably a more fruitful course of action. Actually, I'm surprised the ruling wasn't unanimous... I'll have to check out scalia's dissent.
It seemed mostly to focus on the grieving of the families.
As much as I agree with Alito personally, I believe the correct call was made and agree with you that focusing on their 501(c)(3) is probably going to be their Achilles heel.
AfterGlow
Bluelighter
I don't understand why such conduct does not fall within the local "disturbing the peace" ordinance. If I go out and create a ruckus at somebody's funeral, I'm pretty sure I'd be arrested. It shouldn't matter what I'm saying to create the ruckus, it only matters that creating a disturbance is my intent.
Belisarius
Bluelighter
^
Ideally, yes--but when you get down to it, this is really about protesting on public property in such a way that it pisses people off, assuming these guys never actually do it on private property.
Say the Court put the kibosh on WBC. One day the NAACP decides to protest at a Klansman's funeral; there's nothing to stop the courts from punishing the participants, however tasteless it was--it pissed a lot of people off. Then some NORML people decide to march in Salt Lake City, and get thrown in jail--it pissed a lot of people off. Then MADD gets thrown in jail for protesting at a drunk driver's funeral--it pissed a lot of people off. Actually, it would be worse than this, because people being people, would cherry-pick what to punish and what not to, muddying the waters further.
I hate these guys to no end, but it really is best not to go there.
Ideally, yes--but when you get down to it, this is really about protesting on public property in such a way that it pisses people off, assuming these guys never actually do it on private property.
Say the Court put the kibosh on WBC. One day the NAACP decides to protest at a Klansman's funeral; there's nothing to stop the courts from punishing the participants, however tasteless it was--it pissed a lot of people off. Then some NORML people decide to march in Salt Lake City, and get thrown in jail--it pissed a lot of people off. Then MADD gets thrown in jail for protesting at a drunk driver's funeral--it pissed a lot of people off. Actually, it would be worse than this, because people being people, would cherry-pick what to punish and what not to, muddying the waters further.
I hate these guys to no end, but it really is best not to go there.
SangerRainsford
Bluelighter
It was alito iirc.
And it was 100% the right call, no doubt about it. Was rushing last night, realized CEP didn't seem to have coverage of this so I dumped the link w/o adding anything
I wholeheartedly agree with the ruling, and just hope opposition-protestors make it so I don't get sick seeing the results of this ruling. Actually it's saturday afternoon, I gg get on the news because if there were no "temporary injunctions" or anything I imagine WBC/phelps's will be out in full-force today, since saturday protests / sunday newspaper are the best spotlight for them. Their tax exemption being revoked will do little. They're not going to be hurt by that, they're far enough along at this point, and the ruling here more than negates any tax benefits, and I mean the publicity from the ruling alone, nevermind the publicity once they start using the rights afforded by this ruling.
(Random funny link - Anonymous hacks WBC during radio interview between Anonymous and Shirley Phelps )
Oh, I can't speak to any facts in the link I'm about to post, but more and more I'm seeing the phelps as extremely cunning, opportunistic nutjobs, and not as lucky-for-them-they're-protected nutjobs.
Fred Phelps is a con man (says this article, and no I did not write it. I'm pretty sure I can't be sued for linking it
)
Last edited:
voxmystic
Bluelighter
Certainly the right decision. Tragically, we can't make laws against disgusting behavior.
SangerRainsford
Bluelighter
I have faith - perhaps misplaced.. - that anti-WBC protestors can help negate this to some degree.
I also have a - perhaps sick - recurring thought of what could happen to someone who's constantly pissing on soldiers, given the rate of PTSD and all that, just doesn't seem super-wise. No, I'm not a soldier/vet and that statement is a thought, not a threat.
I also have a - perhaps sick - recurring thought of what could happen to someone who's constantly pissing on soldiers, given the rate of PTSD and all that, just doesn't seem super-wise. No, I'm not a soldier/vet and that statement is a thought, not a threat.
Escher's Waterfall
Bluelight Crew
I think some GLBT community members needs to follow the WBC around, Deadhead-style, and turn all their protests into massive GLBT meetups, while respectively leaving roads and routes open for the funeral protesters.
AfterGlow
Bluelighter
People aren't allowed to hold their rallies at any public place at any time they want. Requiring a permit and restricting the time and place is the norm. Why is this any different? I don't understand.
artic
Bluelighter
A completely valid ruling, but sometimes I wish people like this weren't granted police protection at their protests. Seems like people might be more willing to talk rationally about sensitive political topics, and less likely to resort to inflammatory hate-speech if they had to consider the chances of having the shit kicked out of them. But of course, street violence should never be the answer. Instead, we should refuse to let them affect us. Stop doing news coverage on their callous disrespect of our fallen soldiers. Stop cursing them out. Send the message that they are a fringe group of inbred sociopaths, and that their opinion is worth less than nothing. They are insignificant. Pay them no mind. Watch them squirm.
SangerRainsford
Bluelighter
There's no way humankind can ignore them, that's the entire reasoning behind everything they do. They're here, and playing by the rules, so ignoring them isn't really an option for people-in-general.
indelibleface
Bluelight Crew
What about making funerals essentially "private property" for the duration of the funeral? Surely we could pass a law making funerals a special case; I honestly do not see any good reason anyone should be picketing the posthumous ceremony of a human being's passing.
I agree with the Supreme Court's decision on this, but I think there are other legislative ways to prevent Westboro Baptist Church from picketing funerals. I don't see why funerals can't be made private ceremonies under law for as long as the ceremony actively occurs. Disrupting a funeral like that should be against the law. Does anyone see an issue with this?
I agree with the Supreme Court's decision on this, but I think there are other legislative ways to prevent Westboro Baptist Church from picketing funerals. I don't see why funerals can't be made private ceremonies under law for as long as the ceremony actively occurs. Disrupting a funeral like that should be against the law. Does anyone see an issue with this?
Pander Bear
Bluelight Crew
funerals already are "private property" insofar as they occur in private cemeteries-- WBC posts up on the nearest available public space
SangerRainsford
Bluelighter
If we make funerals "safe haven" for people to have some "right to be UNoffended", then why not, say, graduation ceremonies? I hate the WBC, but regardless of their message, you cannot start making "sanctuaries" to "stop" people's voices/thoughts, it's a blatant violation of speech/thought freedoms.
indelibleface
Bluelight Crew
Ah right right, kind of delirious from work today, that makes perfect sense. 
That said, I think my point is still somewhat valid; what they do can still be considered significant disruption. Why can't funerals be special cases under law where people must be respectful? Clearly they can protest - they should have every right to under the First Amendment - just not anywhere near the funeral.
I know that the Bush administration passed a law barring them from protesting soldier's funerals. I think the legal radius of distance from the funeral was five-hundred feet away? I don't see why this number couldn't be larger, and why it couldn't apply to all funerals, not just military.
That said, I think my point is still somewhat valid; what they do can still be considered significant disruption. Why can't funerals be special cases under law where people must be respectful? Clearly they can protest - they should have every right to under the First Amendment - just not anywhere near the funeral.
I know that the Bush administration passed a law barring them from protesting soldier's funerals. I think the legal radius of distance from the funeral was five-hundred feet away? I don't see why this number couldn't be larger, and why it couldn't apply to all funerals, not just military.
SangerRainsford
Bluelighter
surely there's many public cemeteries as well, no? I'm an organ donor / want my body picked apart for research upon my death, so I've never looked into funeral-issues much, but I imagine there's a ton of publicANDprivate grounds for such events. That said, and you don't seem to disagree, private grounds cannot stop the WBC message/any message or thought, regardless of how retarded it may be
![:\](https://bluelight.org/xf/BL_Images/Orig_Emoji/wrygrin.gif "wry grin :\")
hobhead
Bluelighter
kansas is chock full of the most bizarre fundies . it's only a few years ago that these backward, superstitious people nearly got legislation that was intended to toss the existing science texts and replace them with ones worded to say that evolution was a theory with no demonstrable proof.
these fucking people give the human race a bad name amongst the other animals .
these fucking people give the human race a bad name amongst the other animals .