Westboro Baptist Church-Emotional free-speech case to mark Supreme Court opening week

Thu Sep 30, 12:41 pm ET

The Supreme Court's 2010-2011 term gets under way next week, and the justices are wasting no time in tackling a case that has the potential to redraw the boundaries of free speech under the First Amendment.

On Oct. 6, the court will hear arguments in a highly charged case known as Snyder v. Phelps.It sets a grieving father who lost his son in Iraq against religious protesters who picketed near the fallen soldier's funeral. The father claims emotional distress and says such demonstrations should not be allowed; the protesters say they were protected under the freedom of speech and peaceful assembly tenets of the First Amendment.

The drama perhaps couldn’t feature a more vilified band of provocateurs – the infamous Phelps family of the Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kan., known for their protests at military funerals, where they display signs sporting slogans like "Thank God for Dead Soldiers" and "Don’t Pray for the USA.” They say the signs convey their belief that American soldiers' deaths are God’s punishment for the country’s tolerance of homosexuality. They also speak out against the Catholic Church.

While most people are deeply offended by the Phelpses’methods and message, both may be protected under the First Amendment, even though their activities took place near a funeral where the attendees could not simply leave because they found the speech hurtful.

The case has gotten a lot of attention from First Amendment scholars and has also generated an outpouring of support for the grieving father, Albert Snyder. The Veterans of Foreign Wars, 42 U.S. senators and 48 states and the District of Columbia are just some of the groups that have filed briefs in his favor. When an appeals court ordered Snyder to pay about $16,000 of the Phelpses’ legal fees, Fox News host Bill O’Reilly stepped up to make sure he had enough money to cover it.

“A lot of people have an understandable visceral reaction against this speech, but the First Amendment often protects speech that is vile,” says Eugene Volokh, a professor at UCLA School of Law and a First Amendment scholar who submitted a brief to the Supreme Court supporting the Phelpses’ position in court.

Yahoo! News will be presenting extended coverage of Snyder vs. Phelps, including a legal analysis and a report from the oral argument next week. To help you follow along, here's a quick guide to the basics of the case.

The players: Albert Snyder, an industrial equipment salesman from York, Pa., is the father of Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder, who died at age 20 in Iraq in March 2006. Snyder says his health has worsened because of the Phelpses’ actions and still can’t separate the memory of his son from the Phelpses’ presence at his funeral. Fred Phelps is the pastor of the 70-member Westboro Baptist Church. (Most of the flock is somehow related to Phelps.) Members of the Phelps family are not strangers to the courtroom; they’ve been involved in other cases related to their protests, challenging local ordinances banning them from protesting funerals and stomping on American flags. Margie Phelps, one of Fred Phelps’ daughters, will represent him and two of her sisters before the Supreme Court.

The scene: Snyder's family and friends gathered for Matthew's funeral in Westminster, Md., on March 10, 2006. Phelps and some of his family members showed up to protest with their signs. The group did not violate any local ordinances with their protest and stayed a certain distance from St. John’s Catholic Church, where the funeral was held. According to court documents, the trial jury found that Snyder only saw the Phelpses’ signs on television after the funeral. The service was able to carry on without disruption, but Snyder’s lawyers say the procession had to be rerouted to avoid the Westboro Church members.

After the funeral, the Phelpses published a written “epic” on the church's website titled “The Burden of Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew A. Snyder,” which said Matthew – who was not gay – was “raised for the devil.” Snyder saw the poem when he did an online search of his son’s name.

The signs the Phelpses carried said things such as “America is Doomed" and “God Hates You.” There were also placards with unsavory terms for homosexuals, and signs attacking the Catholic Church, saying “Pope in Hell” and “Priests Rape Boys.”

Court history: Snyder sued in June 2006. In October 2007, a jury awarded him $10.9 million in damages, an amount the judge later lowered to $5 million. In September 2009, a federal appeals court threw out the judgment on First Amendment grounds. In March, the Supreme Court agreed to hear Snyder’s plea to overturn that ruling.

The legal issues: In overturning the jury verdict, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the First Amendment protected the Phelpses’ speech for two main reasons: 1) They were speaking about issues of public debate, and 2) the language they used was “rhetorical hyperbole” that clearly expressed opinion and did not contain statements about a person that could be proved false. Before the Supreme Court, Snyder is arguing that he was a captive audience, unfairly exposed to the “outrageous” speech, and that his First Amendment right of freedom to practice his religion needs to be balanced against the Phelpses’ right to protest. Briefs filed in Snyder’s favor say the appeals court decision tipped the balance too far in favor of the Phelpses’ speech – they say the court didn’t give enough consideration for how the conduct could negatively affect someone trying to practice their religion, another freedom granted by the First Amendment.

Impact: If the Supreme Court sides with Snyder and overturns the 4th Circuit ruling, it could set new rules for how and where people are allowed to voice their opinions in public. As Volokh points out, it could change how we think about expressing ourselves.

“We generally aren't taught that we have to be careful about outrageous statements,” he says. “In America, you can even say outrageous things and express outrageous ideas and not have to worry about losing your house and all of your assets.”

– Laura E. Davis is an editor for Yahoo! News


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_...Rpb25hbGZyZQ--


You know the drill, gang!!

Give the dirt-bag HELL!!!

These dirt-bags even tried to protest the memorial services of the victims of Flight 3407 here in Western NY.

But WNY fixed them GOOD!!!

Sorry the link is dead, but I included it anyway-

Counterdemonstrators drive off hate group in Flight 3407 protest
By Aaron Besecker
News Staff Reporter
Updated: 02/22/09 05:03 PM

Dozens of counterdemonstrators swarmed three members of a Kansas-based hate group when they tried to protest near a Main Street church where a memorial service for a Continental Flight 3407 crash victim was being held this afternoon.

The protesters, from Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kan., left the area near St. Joseph University Catholic Church, near the University at Buffalo's South Campus, at about 1:50 p.m., only a few minutes after they arrived.

Counterdemonstrators, carrying plain white flags and banners, surrounded the three Westboro picketers as Buffalo police looked on.

Patrick McGrath, a freshman at Buffalo State College, attended the counterdemonstration and said, sarcastically, he hoped the Westboro members got their word out in the few minutes they walked along Main Street.

"As a community, we sure did," McGrath said.

This afternoon's counterdemonstration near UB's South Campus was planned after the Topeka group, a fringe organization whose members hold virulent anti-gay views and who protest at funerals of American soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, announced it was going to picket a memorial service for human rights advocate Alison Des Forges, one of the 50 victims of the crash.

The group's Web site address is "Godhates..." with the final word being a derogatory term for gays. Westboro Baptist also is monitored by the Anti-Defamation League, and is classified as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

More than 150 people lined an area of Main Street near Niagara Falls Boulevard, an effort they said was intended to shield those attending the service for Des Forges from having to view the Westboro group.

Organizers said about 90 of the counterdemonstrators were wearing white plastic angel wings. Others carried large white cloths, some fashioned into large flags, which they held while standing along sidewalks.

Many of those gathered were UB students.

Kitty Lambert, president of OUTspoken For Equality, a local gay rights advocacy group, stressed the counterprotesters' intentions.

Lambert said she hopes the Des Forges family knows the event was intended "not to disrupt, but to support."

"This was done because we love what Alison stood for," she said.

Earlier today, about 100 people gathered in Clarence Center as part of another counterdemonstration against the Westboro group.

The counterdemonstrators, including more than 60 wearing the white plastic angel wings, crowded two street corners across from the three-person protest at Clarence Center and Goodrich roads.

The Westboro demonstration was intended to coincide with what the hate group thought would be a community prayer service for victims of the crash being held at Zion Lutheran Church, just two blocks from where the protesters gathered. However, church officials said they were holding normal Sunday services.

"Hatred in the name of Jesus is a despicable thing," said Zion Lutheran Pastor Randy Milleville.

The counterprotests took many forms, and included individuals from across Western New York, as well as groups including Vietnam Veterans Legacy Club.

Joe and Marilyn Ruszala of Hamburg held homemade signs along the side of Clarence Center Road.

"I'm not standing for this in my neck of the woods," Marilyn Ruszala said. "This doesn't belong anywhere, and if no one stands up they'll get away with it."

Her husband added, "Something just enrages you to the point where you've got to do something. You just couldn't sit home and do nothing."

Autumn Fiscus, 16, a member of Zion Lutheran, painted a sign with acrylic paints and candle wax. On the opposite side of the sign, she painted Bible verses she said contradicted the Westboro protesters' anti-homosexual beliefs.

About a half dozen Erie County sheriff's deputies and other police kept the counterdemonstrators and the Westboro protesters separated near Zion Lutheran, and there were no fiery confrontations. The three Westboro protesters remained silent while a few counterdemonstrators occasionally jeered them.

abesecker@buffnews.com


http://www.buffalonews.com/258/story/586891.html

We HATE these %#$&@*#@%!!!

Free speech cases at top of Supreme Court's agenda
By MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer Mark Sherman, Associated Press Writer – 16 mins ago

WASHINGTON – First Amendment cases top the Supreme Court's docket as it begins a new term with a new justice and three women on the bench for the first time.

The court will look at provocative anti-gay protests at military funerals and a California law banning the sale of violent video games to children. These cases worry free speech advocates, who fear the court could limit First Amendment freedoms.

The funeral protest lawsuit, over signs praising American war deaths, "is one of those cases that tests our commitment to the First Amendment," said Steven Shapiro, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union.

Another case involves a different aspect of the First Amendment, the government's relationship to religion. The justices will decide whether Arizona's income tax credit scholarship program, in essence, directs state money to religious schools in violation of the constitutional separation of church and state.

Under Chief Justice John Roberts, marking his fifth anniversary on the court, and with the replacement of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor by Justice Samuel Alito, the court has been more sympathetic to arguments that blur the line between government and religion, as long as one religion is not favored over another.

Justice Elena Kagan, confirmed in August, is the one new face on the court, but nearly everyone will be sitting in different seats when the term opens on Monday.

Like so much else at the Supreme Court, the justices sit according to seniority, other than the chief justice at the center of the bench. The retirement of John Paul Stevens, who had served longer than the others, means Roberts now will be flanked by Justices Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy.

Kagan and Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who joined the court last year, will sit at opposite ends of the bench. The woman with the longest tenure, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, also is now the senior liberal-leaning justice with Stevens gone.

Though it's never certain how changes will affect the court's direction, President Barack Obama said he was looking for someone in the mold of the liberal-leaning Stevens when he chose Kagan. If Kagan votes as Stevens did, her presence would not affect the ideological divide that has four justices on the conservative side, four on the liberal side and Kennedy in the middle, though more often with the conservatives.

Then, too, a justice's first term is not necessarily a good predictor of future performance. If anything, getting a read on Kagan in her first year may be even harder because her former job as Obama's solicitor general already has forced her to take herself out of 24 of the 51 cases the court has so far agreed to hear. The solicitor general is the top lawyer who argues the government's cases before the high court.

The first case from which she is withdrawing will be argued Monday, and Kagan will slip out of the courtroom before Roberts invites the lawyers to begin their argument.

Kagan's absences create the potential for the eight remaining justices to split 4-4 in some cases. That outcome leaves in place the decision reached by the most recent court to have the case, but leaves unsettled the issue the high court was set to resolve.

A second Arizona law, imposing penalties on businesses that hire illegal immigrants, also is before the court this term. At issue is whether the state law intrudes into an area, immigration, that really is the federal government's responsibility.

The result at the Supreme Court could signal how the court might resolve another suit working its way through the federal courts over the Arizona immigration law that puts local police officers on the front lines of enforcing federal immigration law, said Brian Wolfman, a Georgetown University law professor.

Several cases that pit consumers against business also revolve around when federal law trumps state action. In one case, parents of a child who suffered severe, lasting damage from a vaccine want to use state law to sue a drugmaker, even though Congress has established a special court to hear disputes over vaccines.

The business community is asking the court to rein in the use of class actions in suits and arbitrations in state courts. Plaintiffs often can force large settlements without a trial if they succeed in pooling the claims of everyone who might be affected.

Wal-Mart Stores Inc., backed by many business groups, wants the court to toss out an enormous class-action sex discrimination suit over allegations that it pays women less than men and promotes women less frequently. The case could involve millions of women who once worked at the world's largest private employer.

In recent years, the start of a new term has been accompanied by speculation over who might soon retire. The same nine justices served together from 1994 to 2005, an unusually long period of stability. Since 2005, four new justices have joined the court.

The oldest justice is Ginsburg, at 77. Scalia and Kennedy are 74, while Justice Stephen Breyer is 72.

Ginsburg has said she intends to stay on the court for five more years or so, and the other three septuagenarians have given no indication they are leaving anytime soon.

___

Online:

Supreme Court: http://www.supremecourt.gov/


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101002/...JlZXNwZWVjaGNh

High court struggles with funeral protest case
By MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer Mark Sherman, Associated Press Writer – 2 hrs 17 mins ago

WASHINGTON – Supreme Court justices on Wednesday pondered the vexing question of whether the father of a dead Marine should win his lawsuit against a fundamentalist church group that picketed his son's funeral.

The complexity and weightiness of the First Amendment issue were palpable in the courtroom as justices heard arguments in the case of Albert Snyder. His son died in Iraq in 2006, and members of the Westboro Baptist Church protested the funeral to make their point that U.S. deaths in Afghanistan and Iraq are punishment for Americans' immorality, including tolerance of homosexuality and abortion.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the question is whether the First Amendment must tolerate "exploiting this bereaved family."

There was no clear answer from the court.

Snyder is asking the court to reinstate a $5 million verdict against the Westboro members who held signs outside the funeral of Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder, including ones that read "Thank God for Dead Soldiers, "You're Going to Hell" and "God Hates the USA." The Marine was killed in a Humvee accident in 2006.

[Related: First Person: Former soldier stands up for free speech]

The church also posted a poem on its website that attacked Snyder and his ex-wife for the way they brought up Matthew.

Justice Stephen Breyer said the Internet aspect of the case troubled him because the church was saying something "very obnoxious" about private individuals.

"To what extent can they put that on the Internet?" Breyer asked. "I don't know what the rules ought to be."

The case pits Snyder's right to grieve privately against the church members' right to say what they want, no matter how offensive.

Westboro members, led by the Rev. Fred Phelps, have picketed many military funerals..

They welcome the attention the protests have brought, mocking their critics and vowing not to change their ways whatever the outcome at the Supreme Court.

"No American should ever be required to apologize for following his or her conscience," said Margie Phelps, a daughter of Fred Phelps and the lawyer who argued the case for the church.

Fundamentalist church members turned out in advance of the argument Wednesday morning, to march in front of the court with placards of the type they've been carrying to military funerals. One young boy held up a sign that reads, "God Hates You."

A line of people trying to get into the court stretched around the corner of the majestic building perched atop Capitol Hill.

Snyder won an $11 million verdict against the church for intentional infliction of emotional distress, among other claims. A judge reduced the award to $5 million before the federal appeals court in Richmond, Va., threw out the verdict altogether, citing the church's First Amendment rights.

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.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_suprem...hjb3VydHN0cg--

High court: Does father's pain trump free speech?
By MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer Mark Sherman, Associated Press Writer – 12 mins ago

WASHINGTON – Supreme Court justices, in a rare public display of sympathy, strongly suggested Wednesday they would like to rule for a dead Marine's father against fundamentalist church members who picketed his son's funeral — but aren't sure they can.

Left unresolved after an hourlong argument that explored the limits of the First Amendment: Does the father's emotional pain trump the protesters' free speech rights?

The difficulty of the constitutional issue was palpable in the courtroom as the justices weighed the case of Albert Snyder. His son died in Iraq in 2006, and members of a family-dominated church in Topeka, Kan., protested at the funeral to express their view that U.S. deaths in Afghanistan and Iraq are God's punishment for American immorality and tolerance of homosexuality and abortion.

Margie Phelps, arguing the case for her family's Westboro Baptist Church, said the message of the protests at military funerals and elsewhere is, "Nation, hear this little church. If you want them to stop dying, stop sinning."

Phelps' argument did not endear her to the justices, who asked repeatedly whether Snyder had any recourse.

"This is a case about exploiting a private family's grief," said Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who questioned whether the First Amendment should protect the church members.

Could a wounded soldier sue someone who demonstrates "outside the person's home, the person's workplace, outside the person's church ... saying these kinds of things: `You are a war criminal,' whatever these signs say or worse?" Justice Elena Kagan asked.

Justice Samuel Alito wanted to know if the Constitution also would shield someone who delivers a mean-spirited account of a soldier's death to the serviceman's grandmother while she's leaving her grandson's grave. "She's waiting to take a bus back home," Alito imagined and someone approaches to talk about the roadside bomb that killed the soldier. "`Let me describe it for you, and I am so happy that this happened. I only wish I were there. I only wish that I could have taken pictures of it.' And on and on. Now, is that protected by the First Amendment?"

Snyder, of York, Pa., is asking the court to reinstate a $5 million verdict against the Westboro members who held signs outside the Westminster, Md., funeral of Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder, including ones that read "Thank God for Dead Soldiers," "You're Going to Hell" and "God Hates the USA." The 20-year-old Marine was killed in a Humvee accident in 2006.

The church also posted a poem on its website that assailed Snyder and his ex-wife for the way they brought up Matthew.

Phelps said the court has never allowed a speaker to be held liable for remarks on a topic of public interest, in this case U.S. war deaths. She also suggested that the court would find it difficult to draw a line that would protect grieving families without imposing significant limits on unpopular speech.

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito and Antonin Scalia appeared, to varying degrees, to be searching for a way to rule for Snyder.

Snyder won an $11 million verdict against the church for intentional infliction of emotional distress, among other claims. A judge reduced the award to $5 million, then the federal appeals court in Richmond, Va., threw out the verdict altogether as barred by the church's First Amendment rights.

One possibility suggested by Scalia is that the court could order a new trial in the case.

Alito led Phelps through a series of questions intended to get her to concede that there are instances in which people could file lawsuits like Snyder's, including an African-American who is subjected to a stream of racial hatred from someone who believes blacks are inherently inferior.

"That's a matter of public concern?" Alito asked.

Phelps wavered, saying that race is an issue of public concern, but that church members do not approach people "to berate them." She said the protest at the funeral had the permission of the police and involved only holding up signs.

Westboro members, led by the Rev. Fred Phelps, have picketed many military funerals. They welcome the attention the protests have brought, mocking their critics and vowing not to change their ways whatever the outcome at the Supreme Court.

Church members turned out in advance of the argument Wednesday morning, to march in front of the court with placards of the type they've been carrying to military funerals. A line of people trying to get into the court stretched around the corner of the majestic building atop Capitol Hill.

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.

His lawyer, Sean Summers, told the justices that the protest is unprotected by the Constitution because of the "personal, targeted nature of the attack on the Snyder family."

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.

A decision is expected by late spring.

The case is Snyder v. Phelps, 09-751.

___

Associated Press Writer Jim Abrams contributed to this report.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_suprem...hjb3VydGRvZQ--

Experiencing a Westboro protest firsthand
ThomasNMn Thomasnmn – Thu Oct 7, 12:18 pm ET


Before ever hearing of Fred Phelps or his "God Hates F*gs" website, I experienced an event protested by his followers. This was before any legal battles regarding his demonstrations at funerals of fallen U.S. military personnel. The year was 2003. I was a participant in the Los Angeles AIDS Walk. This event took on a personal meaning, as a year earlier, I received an HIV-positive diagnosis. There was fear, but also excitement to be involved with this fundraiser.

My first impression was the size of the crowd; never before had I witnessed so many people supporting an event. A sense of pride swelled up inside as we began the journey through the streets of West Hollywood. Being part of this community to raise awareness and support of HIV helped me to accept my diagnosis. Any insecurity I felt quickly fell by the wayside. All walks of life joined together to present an uplifting voice for this message.

During the AIDS walk, there was a spark of excitement in the air. People were enjoying themselves, talking and embracing the strangers next to them. It became apparent that this was more than just a walk to raise awareness of a disease. It was a celebration of life. A crowd gathered on the sidelines. It felt like being honored with a heroes' welcome. These people were honoring those that they had lost.

Halfway through our adventure, there was one little girl who will forever be etched in my mind. Tiring after four miles of walking, we rounded a corner and she was standing there all alone. Yelling and clapping with her entire being, she congratulated each walker as we passed by. Our spirits were lifted by her exuberance for life. There were tears hot behind my eyes.

This feeling didn't last long. A number of protesters were waiting a few blocks later. One noticeable person was holding a large sign proclaiming "God Hates F*gs" in big, bright, fiery letters. The reality of the fear and perception of the disease hit home. The crowd attempted to ignore the protesters. There was a sense of deflation. Some walkers jeered back. The perfection of the day would forever be tarnished. Later, I discovered that the protesters were the members of the Westboro Baptist Church. The lesson learned that day was people can only affect you only if you allow them.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ac/20101007/...BlcmllbmNpbmc-