If the government can regulate freedom of speech through expressing oneself via nude dancing due to the fact that some may see the act as obscene…surly they same can be done for people that are tasteless enough to picket at a funeral. High court to hear military funeral protest case - Yahoo! News
this is one where i am really torn. on one hand, what the westboro cult does is completely despicable, disgusting, and i hope a truck runs over van loads of em. and i hope they burn in hell for what they do. i have made no secret in several threads what i think of phelps and his followers. that said, there is part of me that believes their vomit inducing behavior is covered by free speech. but the fine lines of what causes harm and is considered indecent to be considered, i go back and forth. one way to "regulate" this is to set up barriers of how close to funerals one may protest, require permits (fee based), etc. this is required for protesting in many places already. laws regulating protests would at least keep these idiots a distance from families. i am wondering about the legalities of making the permit fees for picketing a funeral a lot (and i mean a LOT) higher than normal picketing permit fees? can that be done on the basis of using the fees to cover the extra law enforcement needed to keep the peace when these morons protest? the best "regulation" i have seen yet is the patriot guard riders, who exercise their own free speech by placing themselves between westboro and grieving families.
they should be free to speak, no question. there is no argument against it. you are allowed to hurt people's feelings. and again, you here that are religious have not one bit of room to talk. you would do the same, if god told you to, if you are not lying about your faith.
A woman has the right to pop a titty out in an attempt to express herself. Almost every city has regulations that require establishments that allow women to pop their titties out in peace, to be a certain distance from schools, churches, and only operate during certain hours because the act may be offensive to others. Even though such regulations may slightly burdens their right to do so. So can a city constitutionally regulate the picketing…you bet. Now, the question the article brings up is it a suppression of their free speech to award the plaintiff’s damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress. I am going to be very interested in the Higher Courts outcome. In my opinion, they should be awarded the money. You have the right of free speech, but others have a right to recover damages for any harm that your act or words caused.
WOW...here is another article. Apparently they didn't stop at protesting at the funeral. Justices struggle with free speech, funeral protests - USATODAY.com
I believe their right to free speech should be protected. However i also believe that a military family should have the right to mourn the loss of their children, husbands, wives, etc. without having to deal with these douchebags. It's not what they are saying that bothers me, because it's so ludicrous it's comical, but the Military should have a more active roll in the funerals, and march these ****ers far away from the actual funeral and gravesites.
Your personal rights end when they impinge on the personal rights of others. The Westboro Kooks are protesting the US government and are free to do so. But they are disrupting private family funerals in the process which impinges on the rights of others. They are exploiting private citizens for publicity they would not get if they protested at the Pentagon. The families should have the right to sue them for invasion of privacy.
but arent these people in public places where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy? i dont think this is happening inside private churches or gravesites or whatever.
The issue is one of intentional infliction of emotional distress. Intentional infliction of emotional distress is deliberately committing an act that one knew or should have known that the result of his act would cause the distress and that this distress manifested itself in a physical ailment. The act most be extreme enough to shock the conscience of a reasonable person. It matters not that they have the “right of free speech,” since they are targeting private individuals they should be held accountable if the elements for IIED can be meet.
