g********d
发帖数: 4174 | 1 High Court Rules for Phelps Clan
By Advocate.com Editors
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that members of the Westboro Baptist Church
, infamous for their incendiary antigay demonstrations, are protected under
the First Amendment right in protesting military funerals.
In an 8-1 ruling issued Wednesday, the court found in Snyder v. Phelps that
the church's 2006 protest of the funeral of a soldier who was killed in Iraq
did not disrupt the service, and that Westboro "addressed matters of public
import on public property, in a peaceful manner, in full compliance with
the guidance of local officials."
"Speech is powerful. It can stir people to action, move them to tears of
both joy and sorrow, and– as it did here– inflict great pain," Chief
Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion. "On the facts before us,
we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker."
In his dissenting opinion, Justice Samuel Alito wrote, "Our profound
national commitment to free and open debate is not a license for the vicious
verbal assault that occurred in this case." | g********d
发帖数: 4174 | 2 share this story
778015685 Get Politics Alerts
Sign Up
Submit this storydigg reddit stumble WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled
Wednesday that the First Amendment protects fundamentalist church members
who mount anti-gay protests outside military funerals, despite the pain they
cause grieving families.
The court voted 8-1 in favor of the Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kan.
The decision upheld an appeals court ruling that threw out a $5 million
judgment to the father of a dead Marine who sued church members after they
picketed his son's funeral.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the opinion for the court. Justice Samuel
Alito dissented.
Roberts said the First Amendment shields the funeral protesters, noting that
they obeyed police directions and were 1,000 feet from the church.
"Speech is powerful. It can stir people to action, move them to tears of
both joy and sorrow, and – as it did here – inflict great pain. On the
facts before us, we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker,"
Roberts said. "As a nation we have chosen a different course – to protect
even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public
debate."
Alito strongly disagreed. "Our profound national commitment to free and open
debate is not a license for the vicious verbal assault that occurred in
this case," he said.
Matthew Snyder died in Iraq in 2006 and his body was returned to the United
States for burial. Members of the Westboro Baptist Church, who have picketed
military funerals for several years, decided to protest outside the
Westminster, Md., church where his funeral was to be held.
The Rev. Fred Phelps and his family members who make up most of the Westboro
Baptist Church have picketed many military funerals in their quest to draw
attention to their incendiary view that U.S. deaths in Afghanistan and Iraq
are God's punishment for the nation's tolerance of homosexuality.
They showed up with their usual signs, including "Thank God for dead
soldiers," "You're Going to Hell," "God Hates the USA/Thank God for 9/11,"
and one that combined the U.S. Marine Corps motto, Semper Fi, with a slur
against gay men.
Story continues below
Advertisement
The church members drew counter-demonstrators, as well as media coverage and
a heavy police presence to maintain order. The result was a spectacle that
led to altering the route of the funeral procession.
Several weeks later, Albert Snyder was surfing the Internet for tributes to
his son from other soldiers and strangers when he came upon a poem on the
church's website that attacked Matthew's parents for the way they brought up
their son.
Soon after, Snyder filed a lawsuit accusing the Phelpses of intentionally
inflicting emotional distress. He won $11 million at trial, later reduced by
a judge to $5 million.
The federal appeals court in Richmond, Va., threw out the verdict and said
the Constitution shielded the church members from liability.
Forty-eight states, 42 U.S. senators and veterans groups sided with Snyder,
asking the court to shield funerals from the Phelps family's "psychological
terrorism."
While distancing themselves from the church's message, media organizations,
including The Associated Press, urged the court to side with the Phelps
family because of concerns that a victory for Snyder could erode speech
rights.
Roberts described the court's holding as narrow, and in a separate opinion,
Justice Stephen Breyer suggested in other circumstances, governments would
not be "powerless to provide private individuals with necessary protection."
But in this case, Breyer said, it would be wrong | g********d
发帖数: 4174 | | X*******H
发帖数: 720 | 4 以前看到过
这个世界上，心理不强壮的人真的没法混
有时候想，干脆LGBT也成立个什么宗教好了，动不动就可以站在神的立场骚扰抗议惩罚
homophobic的人，还能被法律保护
话说如果是宗教信仰的话，歧视和公然诬蔑煽动仇恨后果很严重吧？比性别歧视严重多
了？！
来，大家赶快成立一个吧～ | m******1
发帖数: 19713 | 5 好主意！
【在 X*******H 的大作中提到】
: 以前看到过
: 这个世界上，心理不强壮的人真的没法混
: 有时候想，干脆LGBT也成立个什么宗教好了，动不动就可以站在神的立场骚扰抗议惩罚
: homophobic的人，还能被法律保护
: 话说如果是宗教信仰的话，歧视和公然诬蔑煽动仇恨后果很严重吧？比性别歧视严重多
: 了？！
: 来，大家赶快成立一个吧～
| o****g
发帖数: 657 | 6 Actually I support the supreme court decision. The upholding of 1st
amendment is of the utmost importance, which, in my opinion, comes before
the equal rights for the LGBT community. The consequences of infringing on
the freedom of speech can be disasterous, and the breadth of the protected
rights shall be as wide as possible, because stupid thoughts to one man, may
not seem so stupid to others. On the other hand, supreme court
traditionally does not extend its power of judicial review to take sides in
cultural wars, which this case is apparently is. So it is understandable
that the justices argued from a point of defending freedom of speech, rather
than whether these people are hurting gay guys. (the latter would be a
point of cultural war, which the supreme court is not supposed to decide on
in the first place)
That being said, I applaud the decision of the supreme court for their
active role in upholding the 1st amendment, and giving the society a chance
to cleanse itself of such heinous and utterly moronic ideas. It is only
under such premises that, we, the community that is being hurt by these
hateful speeches, can enjoy the same freedom that allows us to defeat those
homophobic religious twats. I'm not saying the church in this case is
innocent, but no one should deprive the other of their rights to express
their ideas, no matter how crazy and ignorant they are.
Church
under
that
Iraq
public
【在 g********d 的大作中提到】
: High Court Rules for Phelps Clan
: By Advocate.com Editors
: The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that members of the Westboro Baptist Church
: , infamous for their incendiary antigay demonstrations, are protected under
: the First Amendment right in protesting military funerals.
: In an 8-1 ruling issued Wednesday, the court found in Snyder v. Phelps that
: the church's 2006 protest of the funeral of a soldier who was killed in Iraq
: did not disrupt the service, and that Westboro "addressed matters of public
: import on public property, in a peaceful manner, in full compliance with
: the guidance of local officials."
| g********d
发帖数: 4174 | 7 agreed.
may
in
rather
【在 o****g 的大作中提到】
: Actually I support the supreme court decision. The upholding of 1st
: amendment is of the utmost importance, which, in my opinion, comes before
: the equal rights for the LGBT community. The consequences of infringing on
: the freedom of speech can be disasterous, and the breadth of the protected
: rights shall be as wide as possible, because stupid thoughts to one man, may
: not seem so stupid to others. On the other hand, supreme court
: traditionally does not extend its power of judicial review to take sides in
: cultural wars, which this case is apparently is. So it is understandable
: that the justices argued from a point of defending freedom of speech, rather
: than whether these people are hurting gay guys. (the latter would be a
| m******1
发帖数: 19713 | 8 我们当然也支持，只是觉得这件事情很搞笑，这帮NC反对同性恋也就罢了，还把伊战士
兵也搭上，两边不讨好，全国人民都唾弃他们，非常讽刺。
may
in
rather
【在 o****g 的大作中提到】
: Actually I support the supreme court decision. The upholding of 1st
: amendment is of the utmost importance, which, in my opinion, comes before
: the equal rights for the LGBT community. The consequences of infringing on
: the freedom of speech can be disasterous, and the breadth of the protected
: rights shall be as wide as possible, because stupid thoughts to one man, may
: not seem so stupid to others. On the other hand, supreme court
: traditionally does not extend its power of judicial review to take sides in
: cultural wars, which this case is apparently is. So it is understandable
: that the justices argued from a point of defending freedom of speech, rather
: than whether these people are hurting gay guys. (the latter would be a
|
|
