Westboro Baptist Church

[Mr. Amazing]

Okay, I know this has been talked about like 30 times, but I recently saw another article about Westboro Baptist Church, aka worst people in the world. I know that everyone has seen the God hates Fags signs, at least in pictures. If you can go to their website without being tempted to drive to Topeka, Kansas and beat up every last one of them, you're either a better person than me or a total fucking psycho asshat.

Seriously, there has got to be something illegal about picketing soldier's funerals and holding signs that harass the family.



I understand that they have a right to say what they want, but protests only go so far before they are simple harassment. It has to be illegal, especially if the person they're targeting isn't a public figure.

Opinions?

[The Esteemed Gentleman]

Originally Posted by Mr. Amazing

Seriously, there has got to be something illegal about picketing soldier's funerals and holding signs that harass the family.

As long as they remain on public ways and comply with local permitting procedures, they have every bit as much right to be on the roads as the families do. There is little the government can do to stop the speech.

Originally Posted by Mr. Amazing

I understand that they have a right to say what they want, but protests only go so far before they are simple harassment. It has to be illegal, especially if the person they're targeting isn't a public figure.

It actually doesn't have to be illegal. The person(s) they are targeting are agents of the government who represent and execute the government's foreign policy. Sounds pretty public to me. Harassment is typified by repeated conduct at a specified target. The Church typically does not hound these individual families before or after the funerals (unless I missed something). It's a one-time event at each individual funeral, targeting not the family, but the government the agent represents.

Again, as long as the group complies with local permitting procedures then they can say basically whatever political speech they want. If Nazis can march through Skokie, then these asshats can march past a funeral.

We are not Canada or Europe. Nor should we be.

[Mr. Amazing]

I suppose that's arguable. Although, I don't believe that the families of deceased soldiers would count as public figures. That could be a possible arguing point. But I guess if they've gotten away with it for so long, it must be allowed. That doesn't change the fact that they're horrible people.

[meatwadisprez]

Originally Posted by Mr. Amazing

I suppose that's arguable. Although, I don't believe that the families of deceased soldiers would count as public figures. That could be a possible arguing point. But I guess if they've gotten away with it for so long, it must be allowed. That doesn't change the fact that they're horrible people.

Most would agree that this guys are terrible people. However, they do have a right to protest. I cannot stand Fred Phelps and the WBC. I think it's beyond awful what these people do. But they have a right to do what they do.

[The Esteemed Gentleman]

Originally Posted by Mr. Amazing

I suppose that's arguable.

Which part in particular?

Originally Posted by Mr. Amazing

Although, I don't believe that the families of deceased soldiers would count as public figures.

They don't. The dead soldier is the target as an agent of the government, not the decedent's family.

Originally Posted by Mr. Amazing

But I guess if they've gotten away with it for so long, it must be allowed.

The First Amendment: Protecting the worst political ideas imaginable since 1791.

Originally Posted by Mr. Amazing

That doesn't change the fact that they're horrible people.

Never claimed otherwise (nor would I).

[The Great Catpiss]

Originally Posted by The Esteemed Gentleman

The First Amendment: Protecting the worst political ideas imaginable since 1791.

Back then I suspect the target's family could get away with murder of the protesters. Not that it matters... Just saying this stuff would be unimaginable back then because nobody would get away with it IMO.

[Mr. Amazing]

Actually, according to their website, they are trying to "reach out" to the soldier's families. There is obviously nobody there who is a public figure and if you can find a single sign that is phrased just right, they may be open to a libel suit. Anything to shut them up. Of course, I'm sure that it would be a one time thing and they would change their stuff up a little. I wonder if it would count as repeated harassment of a single agency, i.e. the military. I kind of doubt that though. I suppose the most effective way to deter them is to have counterprotesets much larger than theirs.

[The Esteemed Gentleman]

Originally Posted by Mr. Amazing

Actually, according to their website, they are trying to "reach out" to the soldier's families. There is obviously nobody there who is a public figure and if you can find a single sign that is phrased just right, they may be open to a libel suit. Anything to shut them up. Of course, I'm sure that it would be a one time thing and they would change their stuff up a little. I wonder if it would count as repeated harassment of a single agency, i.e. the military. I kind of doubt that though. I suppose the most effective way to deter them is to have counterprotesets much larger than theirs.

Perhaps this will be helpful.

[wanna be drummer]

If they have the right to protest funerals then I have the right to shove my shoe up their ass

[The Esteemed Gentleman]

Originally Posted by wanna be drummer

If they have the right to protest funerals then I have the right to shove my shoe up their ass

Not quite. Assault and battery instantly come to mind. (I share your sentiment though.)

[The Great Catpiss]

Originally Posted by The Esteemed Gentleman

Not quite. Assault and battery instantly come to mind. (I share your sentiment though.)

Maybe temporary insanity as a defense

[wanna be drummer]

Originally Posted by The Esteemed Gentleman

Not quite. Assault and battery instantly come to mind. (I share your sentiment though.)

Yeah I know. But still its ridiculous that people do this kind of shit

Originally Posted by The Great Catpiss

Maybe temporary insanity as a defense

I plead the fifth?

[The Great Catpiss]

There is one tort that they may be committing, though would have to be proven: Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

[wanna be drummer]

That sounds like one vague law. I feel like a good lawyer could show that easily

[The Esteemed Gentleman]

Originally Posted by The Great Catpiss

There is one tort that they may be committing, though would have to be proven: Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

Maybe. The fact that it is constitutionally protected speech would make it an even tougher sell than it would be anyway. Good thinking though. My old torts professor would be proud. In fact, I think I might even mention it to him and see what his thoughts on it are.

UPDATE: So I asked, and he said he personally felt IIED would be a great cause of action against the Church members, but that it would be highly unlikely a court would agree. He then added that if it were him and/or his family, he'd take matters into his own hands. (He's a take-no-bullshit kind of guy, as you can tell.)

[The Esteemed Gentleman]

Originally Posted by wanna be drummer

That sounds like one vague law. I feel like a good lawyer could show that easily

From my old study aid:

Defined: The intentional or reckless infliction, by extreme and outrageous conduct, of severe or mental distress, even in the absence of phyical harm.

Intent: May be shown by desire to cause P emotional distress; by showing D knows with substantial certainty that P will suffer emotional distress; or D recklessly disregards the high probability that emotional distress will occur.

Extreme and Outrageous: P must show D's conduct was extreme and outrageous, being "beyond all possible bounds of decency."

Actual Distress: P must suffer severe emotional distress, and show at least that the distress was severe enough that P sought medical aid.

So, it's broad enough to drive a truck through, but the threshold is high enough to block many would-be claims.

[Simius]

The very fact that these are despicable people and everyone hates their stupid message is why it is so important to protect their right to free speech including protesting these funerals like a bunch of douches... lest your right of free speech is infringed on because it becomes unpopular and is labeled as being bad.

[Mr. Amazing]

I know, I know. If you shut them down you are just weakening everybody else's rights. I just was trying to find a way that you could go after them legally, because they are much more vicious than most protesters. I'm no lawyer, but I've had to take a few courses on free speech law for my major. I'm extremely glad that sedition is no longer part of the law, but I wish there was some way to legally attack them. But I'm also quick to give up on that approach and start shouting at them threateningly. I'm not sure it will do any good, but it will make me feel better.

[The Esteemed Gentleman]

The Supreme Court ruled for the Westboro Baptist Church in an 8-1 decision (Alito dissenting). The opinion is here. The majority opinion is your standard free-speech protection mumbo jumbo.

However, my views have changed on this matter since posting in this thread back in October and November, supra. I found persuasive and concur with Alito's dissent, which in a nutshell basically states that reasonable people could have interpreted Westboro's conduct as a personal and vicious attack directly against the family; that interspersing possibly protected speech with unprotected speech should not shield Westboro from tort liability; and that the First Amendment should not be a complete bar against IIED when the target is a private individual (which in this case, it is arguable that it was considering Westboro specifically called out the dead soldier's family by name).

Here is an excerpt:

Justice Alito, dissenting...
Our profound national commitment to free and open debate is not a license for the vicious verbal assault that occurred in this case.

Petitioner Albert Snyder is not a public figure. He is simply a parent whose son, Marine Lance Corporal Mat-thew Snyder, was killed in Iraq. Mr. Snyder wanted what is surely the right of any parent who experiences such anincalculable loss: to bury his son in peace. But respon-dents, members of the Westboro Baptist Church, deprivedhim of that elementary right. They first issued a press release and thus turned Matthew’s funeral into a tumultuous media event. They then appeared at the church, approached as closely as they could without trespassing, and launched a malevolent verbal attack on Matthew and his family at a time of acute emotional vulnerability. As a result, Albert Snyder suffered severe and lasting emotional injury. [fn] The Court now holds that the First Amendment protected respondents’ right to brutalize Mr. Snyder. I cannot agree.

The decision (majority, concurrence, and dissent) is only 36 quick pages and is worth the read for those interested.

[Salty Dog]

Illinois Nazis..


I hate Illinois Nazis!