tk421 wrote:
Quint wrote:
These people are inciting violence. . . I cannot comprehend how this would be a form of protected speech. I think the SC should rule that protesting funerals is not protected, because it does incite violence. These people can still get their message out via the internet, reading materials, commercials, etc. So, it is not like the ruling would eliminate their free speech.
I don't know how some lawyers represent people like the Westboro Church. . . this is why I plan on staying away from criminal defense!
They point to the undisputed facts of the case. Westboro contacted police before its protest, which was conducted in a designated area on public land — 1,000 feet from the church where the Mass was held in Westminster, Md.
The protesters — Phelps and six family members — broke no laws. Snyder knew they were present, but he did not see their signs or hear their statements until he turned on the news at his son's wake.
They broke no laws. As much as what they are doing is distasteful, they have the same legal right to assemble and protest as any other group in America. The SC can not single out one specific group and tell them they don't have the right to protest. This case will be decided in favor of First Amendment rights.
First, I would like to preface this with the fact that this is all just the personal opinion of a second year law student who is actually still in the midst of learning about the application of the First Amendment; thus, if someone knows First Amendment law, please point out the flaws in my argument because I am very interested in this case.
I don't think the church group should be singled out. The Court just needs to do a blanket rule, and hold that any protest of any funeral by any person is a type of expression that incites violence; thus, it is not protected by the First Amendment. I think the Court can make this a very narrow holding without abridging the rights of citizens. All they have to do is extend the definition of "fighting words."
In
Chaplinski, the court held that "insulting or 'fighting words,' those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace" are not protected by the First Amendment. Later, in
Cohen, the Court elaborated that the words must be personally abusive or directed at a person, and that offensiveness was not enough.
I think it is quite obvious that what they are doing is causing a lot of people to get very angry and violent (as evidenced by the police escorts). This is understandable because of the emotions that flow when going to a funeral for a fallen soldier, family member, friend, girlfriend, etc. It doesn't matter who is being buried. If someone is protesting the funeral because of any reason, there is a high possibility that people will become violently angry. If my brother died, and a group decided to protest the funeral because they didn't agree with how courts handled probate, I would be pissed. I would probably become violent. I'm sure many people would feel the same regardless of the group protesting the funeral.
The difficult part is proving that what the church is doing is directed at the people at the funeral. The church claims to be protesting in general and they are not aiming at the individual families. However, I don't think you can separate the two. If you are protesting at a funeral, I think it is implied that you are directing your expressions to the grieving family.
In my opinion, this is not protected speech according to the precedent of the Court regarding fighting words.
