Supreme Ct Hears Rev Fred Phelps Sr Anti-Gay 1st Amendment Case

Yeah, they get real ugly, but who gets to decide that their form of speech is offensive, and who gets to decide what isn't?

I do think,  though,  that when one is having a funeral for one's dead son, who was killed in Iraq,  you should not have to go into the funeral parlor with people hoisting signs saying "God Hates You"  and "God Hates US Troops"  and yelling "God killed your son".  A funeral should have its sanctity protected. Let them do this stuff elsewhere,  and leave the grieving families in peace.  Some things are sacred, after all, death being one of them.  

This is a tough one. The court has already placed restrictions on speech relative to time, place and manner. Does the family have a reasonable expectation of privacy regarding the burial and funeral of their son? Is it a public event? Would it be OK for the protesters to drive down the street at midnight with a loudspeaker proclaiming the message?

I'm usually on the side of free speech regardless of the nature. Nazi's parading down Main St.; no problem. Yelling fire in a crowed theater with no real fire, nope.

In one particular case, Feiner (1951), the court upheld restrictions on speech in the case when Feiner refused three police requests to stop speaking after bystanders threatened him with physical harm. (Not sure I agree with that one.) In Madsen v. Women's Health, the court upheld some restrictions on protests outside abortion clinics, (a buffer to allow access to the clinic, and a restriction on noisy demonstrations during clinic hours), while overturning a ban on approaching clinic patients and a ban on restricting protests visible from the clinic. 

The Supreme Court ruled in 2004 — in language that became part of Kansas' funeral privacy law — that "family members have a personal stake in honoring and mourning their dead and objecting to unwarranted public exploitation that, by intruding upon their own grief, tends to degrade the rites and respect they seek in accord to the deceased person who was once their own." The more narrow question in the appeal is whether the court will allow the damage award to stand. Generally the court has been reluctant to conclude that words cause legally compensable harm

certainly no way to show respect for the fallen

I have no problem at all with the freedom of speech, even, if it is in my opinion, of the vilest form. I always will, and always have said that if you do not let people say what they have to say then you are, by default, restricting debate - even if that debate is baseless and evil, again, in my opinion.

Some of the best debates I have ever had is with people who are diametrically opposed to my views - I still, and they too, bought pints for each other while we were debating - I believe that to be civilised.

Yet, we then come to the death of a loved one. Is it right to invade a very private thing such as the honouring of ones passed loved one? I do think it is classless to do so - even I would keep my mouth firmly shut the day that Thatcher died. I would, however, freely piss on her grave the day after all who cared for her vile form left and their grieving could continue in private.

To me it is irrelevant when it comes down to freedom of speech against the right to grieve privately. You should have some decorum - some class, something betwixt the ears that says, with due conscience that what you are doing is wrong.

Again, to me, that should go without saying.

PS, if someone should feel me important enough, which I don't, and wanted to piss on my grave - have at it.

  Although it's probably within the boundaries of the 1st Amendment, I have to frown on the hostility of this Kansas Church. They are knowingly or unknowingly feeding fuel to the politically correct fringe groups and politicians who now threaten our 1st Amendment rights. I belong to a Baptist church. Neither my church, nor any other Baptist church I know of here in the NYC area, would protest in this harsh manner. IMO, we need to show our anger and hostility not towards homosexuals per se, but to the leftwing miscreants in D.C. who threaten our 1st Amendment right to free speech and worship.