It's About Liberty: A Conservative Forum
Topics => Judiciary, Crime, & Courts => Topic started by: IronDioPriest on March 02, 2011, 09:37:38 AM
-
Guests, look around our conservative forum, "It's About Liberty"! (http://itsaboutliberty.com) Register now, and join the discussion!
High court rules for military funeral protesters
Decision upholds ruling throwing out $5-million judgment to father of dead Marine who sued church for picketing son's funeral (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41868004/ns/politics-more_politics/)
From MSNBC.com...
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that the First Amendment protects fundamentalist church members who mount attention-getting, anti-gay protests outside military funerals.
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.
-
::facepalm::
-
While I don't agree with what they say......in fact I despise it........I do feel they have the right to say it. If they stop them, who CAN'T they stop?
-
While I don't agree with what they say......in fact I despise it........I do feel they have the right to say it. If they stop them, who CAN'T they stop?
Well, the decision wasn't whether or not they had the fundamental right to protest, but whether or not they could be sued for damages by another citizen for doing it. Fine line, I know, but still a slight difference. I guess it would be up to a more legally astute mind than mine to say if the difference was material.
-
While I don't agree with what they say......in fact I despise it........I do feel they have the right to say it. If they stop them, who CAN'T they stop?
There is another way to look at this, ala Mark Levin: the USSC has a raft of "tests" it uses to decide cases, 1A being no different, and they've used such to issue rulings on limitations on free speech a) in schools, b) "nasty" tobacco advertising, c) political speech via money, and others. This upsets the purists, of course, but it's happened ... except for this case. For some ::) reason, the Court couldn't find a limit for this egregiousness via one of their friggin "tests".
-
...For some ::) reason, the Court couldn't find a limit for this egregiousness via one of their friggin "tests".
By an 8-1 margin no less.