Page 1 of 1 1
Topic Options
#193705 - 10/06/10 11:43 AM High Court Hears Free-Speech Case
starlight.2
Member


Registered: 02/19/09
Posts: 796
as much as this offends me, i still think that "free speech" covers even the most offensive speech.

Quote:
High Court Hears Free-Speech Case By JESS BRAVIN

WASHINGTON—The Supreme Court struggled Wednesday to protect a bereaved parent from a character attack without stifling free-speech rights.

.The court confronted the problem in a case tailor-made to test how far the First Amendment protects offensive speech. At issue is whether the father of a fallen Marine can sue a fringe religious group that celebrated his son's death with funeral pickets and online attacks. Online, the group used vulgar language and crude imagery focusing on Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder to amplify its message that America is doomed.

The tiny Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kan., whose membership largely consists of founder Fred Phelps's relatives, believes that any misfortune America suffers is God's wrath for the nation's failure to follow the sect's doctrine, which condemns gays, Catholics, Jews and others. Among other messages, Westboro said Cpl. Snyder's parents raised their son to serve the devil.

Cpl. Snyder's father, Albert Snyder, sued the church for intentional infliction of emotional distress, winning a $5 million award. A federal appeals court in Richmond, Va., threw out the award, ruling that the First Amendment protected Westboro's speech, and the Supreme Court agreed to hear Mr. Snyder's appeal.


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703735804575536100092251276.html
_________________________
Where ignorance is our master, there is no possibility of real peace.
--Dalai Lama

Top
#193737 - 10/06/10 07:12 PM Re: High Court Hears Free-Speech Case [Re: starlight.2]
MerryA
Member


Registered: 01/10/04
Posts: 10887
Loc: Tennessee
Disrupting the funeral goes beyond free speech IMO, they targeted this family with the intent to inflict emotional distress and did it with malice. To me the words are covered under free speech but the actions are not.
_________________________
"I was curious. Since I'm not a cat, that's not dangerous."
- Greg House

76.22.172.94

Top
#193774 - 10/07/10 09:29 PM Re: High Court Hears Free-Speech Case [Re: MerryA]
Paul I
Member


Registered: 02/24/00
Posts: 7913
Merry is right. They have to find something that resulted from the free speech like slander, illness, etc. We are guaranteed the right to carry guns but not the right to use them to inflict pain
and suffering.
_________________________
"...only the shadow knows"

Top
#193780 - 10/08/10 01:16 AM Re: High Court Hears Free-Speech Case [Re: Paul I]
ghoti
Member


Registered: 04/06/02
Posts: 8469
Loc: Ishpeming, MI 75.128.229.255
IMO this fits under the concept "your right to swing your fist through the air ends at the tip of my nose". Deliberately using speech to inflict emotional pain should not be protected, and in this case it's clear that's going on here.

It's illegal to threaten someone with bodily harm - it's called assault. Clearly freedom of speech has already been shown to have limits.
_________________________
Feisty survivors populate this site. Avoid controversies unless you have a very thick skin.

Top
#193918 - 10/12/10 07:44 AM Re: High Court Hears Free-Speech Case [Re: ghoti]
MerryA
Member


Registered: 01/10/04
Posts: 10887
Loc: Tennessee
I heard more details of what actually happened and it seems that the burial party never actually saw or heard the Phelps at the funeral because they moved to a different location in the cemetery. I am now unclear as to how Snyder won against Phelps in the first place.
_________________________
"I was curious. Since I'm not a cat, that's not dangerous."
- Greg House

76.22.172.94

Top
Page 1 of 1 1


Hop to:

Generated in 0.32 seconds in which 0.297 seconds were spent on a total of 13 queries. Zlib compression disabled.