Wednesday, March 02, 2011

Supremes: Westboro hate speech is protected

The Supreme Court decided to protect freedom of speech, even when that speech is deliberately disgusting, even hurtful.
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.

Click here to read the entire AP article.

By the way, this decision also makes Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli look good. Last summer I wrote about this case and predicted this outcome. So, no matter how much I am put off by what the Westboro haters do -- picketing funerals, etc. -- I'm pleased with this decision. And, to have played a small role in the process, makes it all the more fun.

Click here to understand what I mean about Cuccinelli and my "role."


Atlanta Roofing said...

It's hard to not feel like Westboro is being validated, but when so many of our most crucial rights seem under assault lately, I find this decision enormously reassuring. The sanctions against Westboro were designed to come from We the People, not the hand of government. Make no mistake that Westboro are national pariahs, as they obviously should be. But their hateful, moronic, pathetic and distorting speech is what we must protect the most avidly. The 1st Amendment is not subject to popularity tests.

I used to blog but one day I realized I don't like people and writing down thoughts was just a form of talking with myself portrayed in someone else, basically what I do when I divagate in my nonsense said...

Atlanta roofing, can I insult you based on the 1st amendment?

I really wouldn't like because I thoroughly respect you, but then I guess 1st amendment fails to guarantee such thing.

BTW, Rules are, somehow, designed based on, a sort of, 'popularity' at the congress, which is the representation of we, the people.