High Court Struggles With Military Funeral Protest Case

**deathgodusmc** · 10-06-10, 01:16 PM

For Snyder, the case is not about free speech but harassment. "I had one chance to bury my son and it was taken from me," Snyder said.

Forty-eight states, 42 U.S. senators and veterans groups have sided with Snyder, asking the court to shield funerals from the Phelpses' "psychological terrorism."

While distancing themselves from the church's message, media organizations, including The Associated Press, have called on the court to side with the Phelpses because of concerns that a victory for Snyder could erode speech rights.

Supreme Court to Hear Case Involving Albert Snyder and Westboro Baptist Church

I had a feeling this one wasn't over. So I am curious to see how this one turns out. Personally i would like to see a verdict come in stating no more protesting funerals. The dollar value i dont care about but i see no purpose in protesting a funeral other then looking for a violent responce.

**...bigdog...** · 10-06-10, 01:19 PM

from what I remember, the protestors were well outside the agreed upon distances for protest. Meaning 100's, if not 1000's of feet way from the entrance of the church, as well as the burial site.

So....that's going to be a tough burden to say that they can't protest, even when they are doing so within the boundaries of the city/local/state ordinances for such protests.

right?

**shoi** · 10-06-10, 01:26 PM

Originally Posted by ...bigdog...

from what I remember, the protestors were well outside the agreed upon distances for protest. Meaning 100's, if not 1000's of feet way from the entrance of the church, as well as the burial site.

So....that's going to be a tough burden to say that they can't protest, even when they are doing so within the boundaries of the city/local/state ordinances for such protests.

right?

that was my impression...

sure it would be really infuriating to have these people protest your loved ones funeral (it already is infuriating enough to see then doing it to others) but i don't think what they do is outside their first amendment rights

**digital** · 10-06-10, 01:32 PM

What Freedom pf Speech would be violated by protest at all things at the funeral of someone. Be it Joe Q Public, John america or whoever.

Plus their message is borderline incendiary to where it could cause violence.

**deathgodusmc** · 10-06-10, 01:37 PM

Originally Posted by ...bigdog...

from what I remember, the protestors were well outside the agreed upon distances for protest. Meaning 100's, if not 1000's of feet way from the entrance of the church, as well as the burial site.

So....that's going to be a tough burden to say that they can't protest, even when they are doing so within the boundaries of the city/local/state ordinances for such protests.

right?

If i remember it correctly they were across the street for some and farther for others. Defintily a tough call to make. One side has freedom of speach as well as freedom to assemble. The other mainly has what is morally the right thing to do and some harassment. I dont envy having to make the call but i know where i would stand.

**digital** · 10-06-10, 01:44 PM

Samehere, tell the weirdo of pastor to go fuck off and leave people alone.

Hiding behind the make believe idea a respectable church or trying to hide behind the 1st amendant are not grounds to harass someone tell them their son died because he was gay or god hates america and so...if you want to spout that shit go down the local park or something.

**Kraker Jak** · 10-06-10, 09:43 PM

man this is tough...but I think common sense should prevail in this one...

Look for this term to come up in this case, Totality of the Circumstances

**triggerhappy2005** · 10-07-10, 02:31 AM

Originally Posted by Kraker Jak

man this is tough...but I think common sense should prevail in this one...

Look for this term to come up in this case, Totality of the Circumstances

It won't come b/c it doesn't apply to this sort of case. Of course you should know this.

totality of the circumstances test - Legal Definition

A test originally formulated to evaluate whether a defendant’s constitutional rights were violated in the eliciting of a confession. It concentrates on looking at all the circumstances surrounding the alleged violation rather than only one or two aspects, as had been the case before. It had been used as a measure of whether a defendant’s privilege against self incrimination had been violated, but since the advent of the Miranda rule (1966), that use has become obsolete. It is now used to determine whether a defendant consented to a warrantless search, and whether probable cause exists for the issuing of a search warrant.

**Kraker Jak** · 10-07-10, 08:00 AM

God i hate google, because you think if you have it, you know everyting.

Totality of the circumstances is a general term meaning to look at all instances involved when makeing a decision.

Like us cops....Im 6'1 220, if someone smaller than me were to square off (or a smaller female), I would not be justified to pull my weapon on them, but if some guy that was a known karate black belt, and was 6'8 350 full of muscle were to square off, I would be justified in ordering him to the ground with my weapon, because of the totality of the circumstance.

In this instance, it would be used as "Yes they have the first amendment right to protest, but being the circumstance for which they are protesting" I could see this being ruled against the west boro fuck jobs......

**vexle** · 10-07-10, 08:17 AM

Originally Posted by Kraker Jak

God i hate google, because you think if you have it, you know everyting.

Totality of the circumstances is a general term meaning to look at all instances involved when makeing a decision.

Like us cops....Im 6'1 220, if someone smaller than me were to square off (or a smaller female), I would not be justified to pull my weapon on them, but if some guy that was a known karate black belt, and was 6'8 350 full of muscle were to square off, I would be justified in ordering him to the ground with my weapon, because of the totality of the circumstance.

In this instance, it would be used as "Yes they have the first amendment right to protest, but being the circumstance for which they are protesting" I could see this being ruled against the west boro fuck jobs......

One: If you have the Google search engine, you do generally tend towards knowing as opposed to not knowing. Communication is cool like that.

Two: There is no circumstance here that matters. If I'm lawfully exercising my first amendment right to protest, then I'm lawfully exercising my first amendment right to protest. You can't stop me just because you don't like it. If you could have your personal liberties taken away just because somebody was annoyed by you, what was the point of giving them to you in the first place? Remember, we think the protesters are loudmouth dicks, but they don't, and they have the same rights as us. I value my right to stand off a few hundred feet from one of their funerals and wave signs. Just because I don't use it doesn't mean I don't want the right to do so whenever I want, and if I want that right, I have to want it for them too.