"Protests at Military Funerals Are Protected Speech, Justices Rule"

[kane_magus]

Article link.

*weary sigh*

On the one hand, I suppose that's the proper ruling. Free speech is free speech, even if said speech consists of nothing but horrible asshattery.

On the other hand, I'm guessing that Fred Phelps and his poisonous cult are like the cat that ate the canary right about now, and the thought of that kind of makes my stomach turn.

Here is a short list of some of the people that these disgusting, hateful jackasses have picketed over the years, or have at least made noise about planning to picket:
-- Victims of the recent Arizona shooting.
-- Elizabeth Edwards.
-- Fred McFeely Rogers.

Well, I guess the only viable response to this now is simply for people to continue setting up counter-protests to drown out these douchebags every time they decide to infect wherever they happen to go with their noxious presence. More power to the Patriot Guard Riders and others like them, I say.

Comments

[rabbitucker.livejournal.com]

It is sad and unfortunate, but still in keeping with the First Amendment and legal precedent. Hate speech is still protected speech, so long as it does not present a "clear and present danger." (For example, "We are going to murder the family of the deceased" would not be protected.)

As much as I would love to sweep away Phelps, Neo-Nazi marches, and Klan rallies, singling out specific groups for censorship leads down a slippery slope.

[kane-magus.livejournal.com]

I agree that the ruling was a sound one. As much as I absolutely hate these shits-for-brains, their speech is as protected as that of anyone else.

Still, as I feared would be the case, this ruling has just served to make them even worse (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Supreme_Court/westboro-baptist-church-quadruple-military-funeral-protests-supreme/story?id=13039045&page=1).

[kane-magus.livejournal.com]

Strangely, Sarah Palin apparently doesn't agree (http://twitter.com/#!/SarahPalinUSA/status/43004543126093824) that the First Amendment should have been upheld in this case, however. (As noted in the article to which I linked in my previous comment.)

I have two responses on that:

1) That's just Sarah Palin being her typical hypocritical self yet again. Aren't the Teabaggers the ones who are always screaming about the Constitution and how Obama and the LIEbruls are trampling all over it and so on and so forth? And yet, according to Palin there, this decision which upholds the Constitution means "common sense & decency absent"?

2) I don't really understand why they even felt the need to include mention of Sarah Palin in that article to begin with. After all, she's completely irrelevant to this issue. Just because she tweeted about it doesn't make her newsworthy at all.