<p>The U.S. Supreme Court just ruled that the Westboro Baptist Church congregation’s conduct at soldier’s funerals is proected speech.</p>
<p>The constitution protects the most distasteful conduct, and we must live with that. Has there been a recent federal court ruling regarding college speech codes?</p>
<p>I hope they decide to show up at all the justices homes and do a little free speeching. It is not the speech–it’s the location. They should be free to say whatever they want–somewhere else. What about the right to privacy?</p>
<p>Good point Barrons. I’m anxious to read the opinion in full. Time and place restrictions on “free speech” have been blessed by the court for years.</p>
<p>Maybe we should all pray for those Baptists…that maybe they’d consider how they would feel if it was their kids’ funeral.</p>
<p>The public streets outside of churches and cemeteries are public property. I doubt that there is a right to privacy there. Maybe they would need a permit to have a public gathering…but I’'m not a lawyer.</p>
<p>The decision was very narrow. Excerpt from Roberts’ opinion - </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I like what this community did to “stop” those Westboro people</p>
<p>[Thousands</a> keep Phelps clan away from soldier’s funeral](<a href=“Help Center - The Arizona Republic”>Help Center - The Arizona Republic)</p>
<p>I predicted this ruling, even though I was hoping for the opposite. </p>
<p>I was hoping a majority of justices would see Westboro protests as hate crimes or “shouting fire in a theatre” abuse of free speech. No such luck. :(</p>
<p>It wasn’t a narrow margin - it was 8-1 with Alito dissenting.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not a narrow margin, but a narrowly drawn opinion - as it should be.</p>
<p>I’m curious who funds Phelps. I tried googling, but didn’t see much. </p>
<p>I think barrons is onto something. You can open a porn magazine store, but you can’t do it near a school. Can’t they pass some similar legislature for this nutball?</p>
<p>I think it is important to note that they are no longer only targeting funerals of veterans. In Oklahoma, last month they “attended” the funeral of a young mother killed in an accident.</p>
<p>Regulating obscenity is different. While many of us think what the church does is obscene, it does not meet the legal definition.</p>
<p>The Phelps are my neighbors; my children attend(ed) school with Fred’s grandchildren. They will attend any event where there might be a crowd so they can share their message. They love the publicity and attention. My D danced in a local production of the Nutcracker for 10 years and we had to walk past their picket signs every time. </p>
<p>Regarding funding: many of them are attorneys and have jobs. I think they all give their money back to the church, which is basically their family.</p>
<p>There is a new lawsuit:
</p>
<p>However, I doubt this one will prevail, either.</p>
<p>Most of them are very, very smart and are able to use the law to their advantage. </p>
<p>It’s frustrating dealing with them on a daily basis. Since they want attention, it’s probably best to just ignore them. But it’s very hard to do! </p>
<p>What’s really fun is having your small children learning to read and spelling out the words used on their lovely signs and asking what they mean. My answer then was: “They use some bad words. They think God hates people. But I believe God loves everyone.”</p>
<p>I was at a workshop and as a team building exercise we had to create a scene out of Marshmallow Peeps. My team created a “God Hates Peeps” scene with peeps wielding replica signs.</p>
<p>Catera and Query are correct. Under current constitutional standards it would be difficult to classify the congregation’s conduct as obscene. And the newly filed complaint by the soldiers will likely go nowhere. Most local bar committee regulations are quite strict but they also unambiguously definine inappropriate attorney conduct. The issues at hand here may be too subjective and open to differing sensibilities. Again, the church’s conduct is quite offensive, but not illegal, thus their lawyers have breached no cannons just by representing the church to protect its awful conduct.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Do those people even have feelings?</p>
<p>As for “those Baptists,” I was raised in a Baptist church, and their beliefs don’t resemble anything I was ever taught or witnessed at church.</p>
<p>Whoa, these people are NOT baptists. This is a verysmall inbred family fringe group who cling to the edges of the christian cloak to justify their views. Nut cases.
NOT BAPTISTS , NOT CHRISTIANS, just nuts.</p>
<p>ETA, I am not a Baptist of any of the wide denomination, not defending them, don’t agree with them, but want to make the distinction … these nuts are way out there on their own, don’t denigrate any other folks along the way.</p>
<p>
is a family cult, not a church by any real meaning. Unfortunately our freedoms mean we have to let this nutcase family do what the want unless they cross the line. If they come to your community you can help block the grieving family from their obscene placards by shielding the route to the cemetery.</p>
<p>actually I would bring a large sound system … 4000W, blast the dead guy’s favourite rock music next to them.</p>
<p>exercising my right to free speech.</p>
<p>If I were in one of these families’ situations, I’d hold a funeral that was “invitation only” and only tell close friends and family where and when. </p>
<p>I understand the free speech issue and must admit I’m happy the Supreme Court upheld that issue. But I sure wish these mean-spirited motherf*****s would protest some other way.</p>