Supreme Court rules in favor of WBC funeral protests being protected speech

[brettmcd]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110302/ap_on_re_us/us_supreme_court_funeral_protests

This is one of those decisions that I hate that had to be made.   Part of me wishes that we could ban such disgusting things, but the larger part of me realizes that things like these being protected are one of the drawnbacks of a free society.

[Scuzz]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110302/ap_on_re_us/us_supreme_court_funeral_protests

This is one of those decisions that I hate that had to be made.   Part of me wishes that we could ban such disgusting things, but the larger part of me realizes that things like these being protected are one of the drawnbacks of a free society.

I agree........you have to except the assholes with the good I guess.

[rickfc]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110302/ap_on_re_us/us_supreme_court_funeral_protests

This is one of those decisions that I hate that had to be made.   Part of me wishes that we could ban such disgusting things, but the larger part of me realizes that things like these being protected are one of the drawnbacks of a free society.

Yeah. I guess now they have to rule that it's ok to beat them, and I'll be happy. 

[kratz]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110302/ap_on_re_us/us_supreme_court_funeral_protests

This is one of those decisions that I hate that had to be made.   Part of me wishes that we could ban such disgusting things, but the larger part of me realizes that things like these being protected are one of the drawnbacks of a free society.

I agree........you have to except the assholes with the good I guess.

I think the ruling is that you actually can't 'except' the assholes...

[Scuzz]

except     accept

[Flatlander]

When these trash are inevitably gunned down for tormenting a dead soldier's family at his funeral, I hope none of their children are hit.   The adult funeral protesters deserve whatever happens to them.

[Teggy]

There's enough people against WBC that you could probably arrange to have their "church" and possibly their houses picketed (depends on legality) nonstop. As long as it's legal, nothing they can do about it. Make their lives miserable. You have to fight fire with fire.

[Isgrimnur]

While I loathe what they stand for, be it money-grubbing inciters looking for a payout or actual hate-filled, intolerant people, I believe in a strong First Amendment.  I applaud the result of the case, if not the reasons that it had to be decided.

[Larraque]

The first amendment does not give you the right to be a troll in real life.

I can't wait for the next time these assholes come to Saint Louis.

[hepcat]

The first amendment does not give you the right to be a troll in real life.

Sadly, yes...yes it does.

thankfully, yes....yes it does.

[Alefroth]

The first amendment does not give you the right to be a troll in real life.

I can't wait for the next time these assholes come to Saint Louis.

You got a 2nd amendment solution?

Ale

[gellar]

While I loathe what they stand for, be it money-grubbing inciters looking for a payout or actual hate-filled, intolerant people, I believe in a strong First Amendment.  I applaud the result of the case, if not the reasons that it had to be decided.

Agreed.  I'd be outraged if it wasn't ruled this way.

[Flatlander]

This is absurd.   We live in a country where protesters at political conventions or in the path of the Presidential motorcade wind up under armed guard in razor wire "free speech zones"  and the Supreme Court has no problem with it, or with rationalizing a buffer zone exception to the First Amendment right to protest at Abortion clinics.   There's no shortage of First Amendment abridgements and outright abuses, but you guys choose to draw the Constitutional line at the idea that a few misanthropes can't be prevented from desecrating a Soldier's funeral.

And spare me the sanctimony about the soldier dying for their right to piss on his grave and give his grieving mother nightmares for the rest of her life.   

[brettmcd]

They were kept 1000 feet away and followed other limitations placed on them by the police.    This ruling didnt say there could be no limits at all, it was a narrow ruling on this specific case.

[hepcat]

This is absurd.   We live in a country where protesters at political conventions or in the path of the Presidential motorcade wind up under armed guard in razor wire "free speech zones"  and the Supreme Court has no problem with it, or with rationalizing a buffer zone exception to the First Amendment right to protest at Abortion clinics.   There's no shortage of First Amendment abridgements and outright abuses, but you guys choose to draw the Constitutional line at the idea that a few misanthropes can't be prevented from desecrating a Soldier's funeral.

And spare me the sanctimony about the soldier dying for their right to piss on his grave and give his grieving mother nightmares for the rest of her life.    

There's a difference between establishing a safety zone for a politician (especially the president) and preventing free speech altogether.

In any case, we can't just pick and choose who should be allowed the right of free speech.  It's absurd to think that would end well.