Supreme Court Supports Hate Speech

[Mischa]

I'm so pissed right now, in an 8-1 decision, the US Supreme Court has said the Westboro "Church" protests of military funerals are protected under the 1st Amendment. HOW in the HELL can something like "God hates Fags" NOT be considered hate speech? it has HATE right IN IT!!!!

What's worse, this has broader implications, this may have overturned the "I know it when I see it" test of the Jacobellis decision from 1964, allowing anyone to have insults protected.

[BBB]

Well, until you feel that you can adequately define all hate speech.... Then I sorta agree with them.... Unfortunately because I dislike WBB's message

[LuvsGurl]

We all know what hate speech is. I am appalled that the Supreme Court would backpedal like this.

[Lanthey]

I'm so pissed right now, in an 8-1 decision, the US Supreme Court has said the Westboro "Church" protests of military funerals are protected under the 1st Amendment. HOW in the HELL can something like "God hates Fags" NOT be considered hate speech? it has HATE right IN IT!!!!

What's worse, this has broader implications, this may have overturned the "I know it when I see it" test of the Jacobellis decision from 1964, allowing anyone to have insults protected.

I'm actually really shocked..... Pretty sure you'd get into a fair amount of trouble over here for saying things like that..... People have been taken to court for far less.

Oh and just to clarify..... God doesn't hate anyone.

[bbgirlmichelle]

It seems to me that Hate Speech isn't illegal in the US. The first amendment protects peoples rights to say anything, that includes you and the WBC, Neo-Nazi's, the KKK. This also gets tougher when it involves a "church" like the WBC and brings freedom of religion into the mix.

I totally disagree and dislike what the WBC says and does, but I don't agree that it's ok to attempt to limit the first amendment rights of the people because of them. Once the erosion of first amendment starts, it will not end. Do you really want elected officials to be able to say what's illegal or not to say? Doesn't the Patriot Act itself already screw up with your rights and freedoms enough?

All that said, I'm a Canadian and you Americans have more freedom protections than we do, our rights to free speech, freedom of movement, right to person... most of the things we hold dear in a free country can be taken away for up to 5 years by an act of government due to the not-withstanding clause in our Charter of Rights. That same clause has also been used to support laws against hate speech. Our freedom of speech is not inalienable.

*huggles*

Michelle

[AutieAB]

I'm actually really shocked.....

I'm not even remotely shocked. Disappointed, perhaps, because this was an opportunity to clamp down on grossly offensive behavior exhibited for shock value alone (let's face it WBC are real-life trolls) but no, I'm not at all surprised. This case was always going to go WBC's way, primarily because.....

We all know what hate speech is. I am appalled that the Supreme Court would backpedal like this.

...laws that outlaw hate speech are themselves unlawful in the United States because that pesky First Amendment thingy really gets in the way of laws designed to stop people saying nasty things. Vile as they are, so long as they don't actually threaten anybody and the First Amendment exists, WBC are 100% bulletproof. See RAV vs St. Paul.

On the other hand, consider how much of a furore would have erupted in this country if the decision had gone the other way. "I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it" and all that... Honestly, I (as a Brit who's spent the majority of the last 5 years in the USA) think freedom of speech does go too far in this country but the law here is only the way it is because the majority like it that way. Other countries get along just fine with laws that outlaw doing grossly offensive things like WBC's pickets and still manage to balance them against the rights of the people to say what they want and I'm sure the US could do just fine as well but I'd wager my left hand it won't ever happen

[DailyDi]

People have learned how to defeat WBC - they are a one-family cult of a church, you can easily outnumber them and block them from the sightline of the funerals.

If you ask me, the Govt should be looking into how these people get the money to travel around the country protesting, with no documented income other than some ebay furniture sales.

[peelover]

Since the decision was 8-1, that means that one justice was against it. I know it doesn't mean much, but at least its not unanimous.

[BBB]

I also think that the title of this post is just a big misleading.

None of them directly or indirectly endorsed hate speech.

[BrownBobby]

Unfortunately, I have to agree with the hacking group Anonymous on this one: I don't agree with what WBC says, but I do support their right to say it. If we stop one socially unpopular message, it leads to a precedent to stopping any and all socially unpopular messages. If that means we have to tolerate extremists shouting bigoted nonsense in order to preserve public discourse, so be it. I'll at least be ready to argue them into the ground.

[FretaBWet]

If you have a problem with the Supreme Court decision then you have failed to understand the issue here. Freedom of speech means just that. I'm free to express my opinion publicly. The problem is that the moment anyone, whether the government or just individuals, can stop me from voicing my opinion then I no longer have freedom of speech. At that point it's just a matter of deciding where the line is and even then it's subject to change or interpretation.

Freedom of speech. The freedom to say I hate Eskimos is no different then the freedom to say I hate asparagus. They are both the opinion of an individual. It doesn't mean the rest of has to agree. It doesn't mean we have to like it. What we do need to do is support it because if the government can take their freedom to voice their opinion now what happens when someone tells us we can't voice our opinion.

I don't remember where I read it but there was a Jewish Lawyer that represented the American nazi party when they were turned down for a permit to have a public assembly to express their beliefs. The Lawyer was asked how he could represent them being Jewish and he said it was important to protect their right to "assemble" because if the government could revoke the civil rights of nazis it could just as easily be that of Jews later. He was a very smart man and a Patriot.

I'm in shock that Justice Samuel Alito voted against it. He's a conservative that you would expect to take a narrow Constitutional view. The liberals voted with the conservatives so that should indicate just how correct their ruling was. I'm transgendered and as such they think I should be killed. I'm completely against everything they stand for. I will still defend their right to picket and carry signs regardless of how disgusting they are. The real answer to this problem is exactly what has happened. There are groups of people who have served their country and they provide motorcycle escorts for the funeral. One function is that they form a screen between the protesters and the bereaved family members. These are people with honor and compassion, something the members of the Westboro Baptist Church wouldn't know anything about. We can't give up our freedom just so we don't have to listen to fools and a**holes.

Hugs,

Freta

[Bettypooh]

I must admit to being torn on this one I fully support free speech but some civility is called for, as is for the speaker being held responsible for their speech You can't legislate or require niceness because it will certainly restrict somebody from giving their opinion, so the answer is to ensure that there is a process to hold speakers accountable for what they say Libel and slander are extremely limited in their legal definition, and in this case WBC doesn't appear to have crossed that line. Yet something still needs to be done to protect innocent people from having to deal with inconsiderate protests such as this one I for one "wouldn't see anything" if a group of decent people were to place the WBC protesters sign handles up their butts where their heads and hearts are located

Bettypooh

[Daddy R]

What I don't understand why if so many people can't stand the WBC that the country(USA) can't get enough people to get together every Sunday & picket the church to the point that they couldn't even get into it to have service on Sun.

[hidden]

Eliminate religion and most of the world's hate would be gone. That is what needs to be done.

No religion --> less hate --> less reasons to feel bad --> fewer reasons to use "God" or other divinities as a crutch --> No need for religion.

[BabyTara]

I live near KC, MO and they just had a story about that church on the local news. They interviewed the father of a soldier who's son's funeral was protested and he was so upset.

That church needs to learn common courtesy and let people grieve.

[sarah_ab]

look at them like hte trolls here... if you ignore them they will eventually go away... first they will get a lot louder and a lot more obnoxious.... then they will realize no one is watching and give up...

by it going to the supreme court, by it getting all that publicity, they get exactly what they want....

[Rockies Fan in Diapers]

look at them like hte trolls here... if you ignore them they will eventually go away... first they will get a lot louder and a lot more obnoxious.... then they will realize no one is watching and give up...

by it going to the supreme court, by it getting all that publicity, they get exactly what they want....

That is an excellent point, & is sooo True Sarah, & I totally Agree.

Rockies Fan. Go Rockies in 2011!

[Leilin]

Sarah and Autie have it right, here. This isn't really a backpedal because WBC's expression is not lewd or without redeeming social importance, inasmuch as they claim it is their religion (which is what the "I know it when I see it" is in reference to. To be obscene speech and therefore unprotected it must be totally without redeeming social importance), nor is it inciting violence.

Is it abhorrent? Most definitely.

Look at the upside. It makes it easier to pick the bigots out of the crowd, since they'll be the only ones cheering those pathetic trolls on.

As to how they make their money, that's actually open and quite simple. The entire Phelps Phamily is lawyers. Every single adult. When people attack them or try to prevent them from picketing, they sue for damages and win. That, too, is abhorrent, but it's still protected.

No matter how hard they are to ignore, that's the correct tact. Counterprotesting works a bit too. Just don't attack them or try to prevent them from exercising their First Amendment rights. As long as they're not making money on their lawsuits, they will EVENTUALLY run out of money. It's a disgustingly effective scheme.

[ErinM]

What they say might be despicable, but it isn't hate speech, thus it is protected under the First Amendment.

[curiositykilledthecat]

called first amendment, could evreyone under 25 learn to read the U.S. constitution if you're going to live here.

I hate the jonesboro people however I hate the politically correct left wingers even more, so I actually support the supreme court ehre. Freedom goes both directions.

[Yvhuce]

Personally, I think if you take a protest into a cemetery, or otherwise protest a funeral, you should be shot in the head. Introduce the assholes to the 2nd amendment.

[Leilin]

What they say might be despicable, but it isn't hate speech, thus it is protected under the First Amendment.

Hate speech is protected under the First Amendment. Speech that is unequivocally obscene, defamation of character, incites violence, creates a clear and present danger, or advocates sedition is not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech#United_States

"Laws prohibiting hate speech outside of obscenity, defamation and incitement to riot are illegal in the United States."

[Mischa]

Hate speech is protected under the First Amendment. Speech that is unequivocally obscene, defamation of character, incites violence, creates a clear and present danger, or advocates sedition is not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech#United_States

"Laws prohibiting hate speech outside of obscenity, defamation and incitement to riot are illegal in the United States."

hehe, y'know what that means? everyone go to their next church service and......well I'm not advocating a riot here

[rusty pins]

Funny how so many of these radical church groups insist that they are right, everyone else is wrong, etc. Funny how a church group like this claims to know exactly what God likes and dislikes, etc. True, you can read the bible but there are so many different interpretation of the scriptures. You don't believe me? Look at all the different religions and how they interpret things. All I can say is many of these people will find out the truth on judjement day. Then it will be too late for them to correct their actions towards others "in the name of God". Maybe they will have a lot of time for reflection as they are burning in the afterlife!

[rusty pins]

Funny how so many of these radical church groups insist that they are right, everyone else is wrong, etc. Funny how a church group like this claims to know exactly what God likes and dislikes, etc. True, you can read the bible but there are so many different interpretation of the scriptures. You don't believe me? Look at all the different religions and how they interpret things. All I can say is many of these people will find out the truth on judjement day. Then it will be too late for them to correct their actions towards others "in the name of God". Maybe they will have a lot of time for reflection as they are burning in the afterlife!