So, what are your thoughts on Phelps vs. Snyder

It's undeniably a thorny issue and a slippery slope.

My take is that there are certain places/events where respect must be upheld. Burials are held out in the open. The mourners can't escape the disruption. If the Westboro fools want to protest at a funeral service held in a church, or a wake, or even a funeral home then they should be allowed to.
But at an actual burial I believe their actions cause harm and present a volatile situation.

Think about protesters at courthouses for example. They would never be allowed to protest inside the court (security issues aside) and disrupt the proceedings. They are permitted to voice dissent outside the courthouse as loudly as they want however.

Well, burials aren't inside. And the current legal distance that dissenters are required to conduct their protests clearly isn't enough.

No one is suggesting that the Phelps' don't have a right to their beliefs, or that they don't have a right to express them loudly provided they are within the parameters of the law (and for the record, Westboro always adheres to the law. They notify the police and city of their plans well beforehand and they never react to violence perpetrated upon them except to flee).

So, to me, in the specific case of outdoor burials their actions are less about free speech than civil disobedience.

And to be clear, I'm not even saying all outdoor events should be protected. Gay Pride parades are outside and as far as I'm concerned if someone wants to protest, fine (although it's reprehensible to me personally).

So, I think that burials should be protected from such disruptions.

I would love to hear some thoughts on this. We are a thoughtful and intelligent bunch here at BWW, and I have many times had a change of opinion after reading someone else's perspective.

So, should burials be protected from disruption, or is maintaining free speech a greater good?




link to Yahoo summary

---

Updated On: 10/6/10 at 01:38 PM

I just started a thread about this one myself. You must have posted while I was mulling over how to share my thoughts.

I think there should be some protection of funerals. No matter what your beliefs are someone should be able to mourn for their child without such distractions.

---

I think there will need to be some kind of regulation of all this, with protesters being kept a specified distance from the mourners and burial at all times.

I also think that protesters should be required to pay for the security that must be provided at these volatile demonstrations.

"I also think that protesters should be required to pay for the security that must be provided at these volatile demonstrations."

I think the cemetery will have to pick up the price tag on that. I shouldn't have to pay for the security when I hold up my "GEORGE W. BUSH BURNS IN HELL OK" banner at his eagerly anticipated funeral.

---

From the thread that I started:

I don't envy Justice Breyer's position at all. By siding with Snyder he could be going against Free Speech but if he sides with WBC he sides with "psychological terrorism" (great phrase btw).

I side with Snyder all the way but the Supreme Court has to be "above" emotional responses.

BUT...

This phrase changes it all:

The church also posted a poem on its website that attacked Snyder and his ex-wife for the way they brought up Matthew.

This makes them guilty of libel which they can be found guilty of easily.

And I realize that the libel part has little to do with the topic at hand. I just see it as something more cut and dry. Something the judge can rule against them over.

---

mad - that's actually a very interesting point. I hadn't thought of that at all.

I have to say, though, that I've been turned off by those demonstrations, as well. I might not feel so vehement about it, but I've never understood those 'protests', either.

When it comes down to it, if siding with the Phelpsf*cks means protecting the 1st Amendment, then I'm in.

But my question is: Is there not a difference between a private funeral and an execution (or any of the other parallels people draw)? Or if there isn't, can there not be?

The only way to get him is for defamation of character or harassment. They will never get him on freedom of speech.

---

"And an execution isn't a burial. I don't think the families of the victims should be allowed to disrupt the convict's burial either."

That was my point, except Taz actually made it instead of muddling it up

But extension of that thought, maybe the answer to the Westboro situation is to let them protest where the soldiers are actually being killed - the front lines.

I hate to say this, but just as the Nazi's had the right to protest in Skokie, Phelps has the right to protest in a public space.

I hate everything he stands for, and cannot fathom the pain they cause when at burials. But, just because I disagree with them, does not mean I get to censor their speech in a public place.


I don't even think this is a close call.

"i agree with the damn 1st amendmenters: when you start limiting what people can say in public it's a slippery slope that ends up in an ugly place."

Which is EXACTLY what the Phelps family has been riding on.

So, while I may not protest at his actual funeral, nothing will stop me from peeing all over Fred's grave after he's buried.

And then tap dancing.

And then planting a banner that says something nasty about him, along the lines about how he always wanted to take it up the butt.

And then pouring toxic chemicals over his grave.



Damn. I really need to stop.

---