I've Got a Bad Feeling About This
Color me concerned regarding the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to grant certiorari in the case of that group of lunatics who travel the country to protest at soldiers' funerals.
Don't get me wrong. The fools are nothing short of the scum of the earth, and they deserve nothing but the heartiest of beat-downs at the hands of the meanest, drunkest rednecks that America can find.
Having said that, they've got a First Amendment just like the rest of us. And the rest of us don't have to like what they do with their freedom of speech -- no reasonable person of whom I know does -- but if we start cutting back on their right to stand up and say what they want, no matter how asinine, then we start giving away our own right to speak our minds.
Suffice it to say that if the Court turns out to be willing to go to more trouble to protect the First Amendment interests of corporations than those of free men and women, then we're going to have a real problem on our hands.
I've never read Rowe v Wade, but someone told me it's based on the right of privacy implied in the Constitution. If there is such a right (and surely women have such rights) then it's hard to see how folks at a funeral wouldn't have that same right to be left alone.
Reply to this
I'll have to read up on the issues. A time/place/manner restriction on funeral protests in general seems reasonable -- why should anyone have to bury their loved one with a crowd yelling "he's going to burn in hell with the fags!" or whatever?
If the restrictions were targeted only to soldiers' funerals, however, that would sound fishy.
Reply to this
I'm very intrigued at this case. I hate Phelps and his clan. That's a given, but, like you said, it really is going to stretch the intellectual and legal honesty of the Court.
@Jim
Interesting take, but do you honestly think this Court is going to use Roe v. Wade as "good law." I know four members of the Court don't buy Roe v. Wade, so using it to create a desired outcome would give ammunition to the people in favor of Roe v. Wade. I just don't see the strict constructionist block of SCOTUS giving the pro-choice folks ammunition like a affirmance of the principles outlined by the original Roe v. Wade court.
Plus, if I remember correctly, which I probably don't cause it's been awhile, I believe Roe v. Wade hinged on bodily autonomy and privacy. Maybe it's nuanced, who knows...
Reply to this
Good points all around.
Jim, I think Justin's right on Roe v. Wade. It's an interesting thought, but ultimately, Roe is about physical autonomy. Terminiello v. Chicago makes clear that the First Amendment is not concerned with hurt feelings.
Anderson, the problem with a time/place/manner restriction is that they have to be content-neutral. In other words, ALL speech would have to be cut off...Phelps' AND the victims' families. That means that Phelps lunatic can't wear a flag around her waist, but it also means that the family wouldn't be able to fly it at the funeral, either. I'm not comfortable with speech infringements in general, but that really rubs me the wrong way.
Reply to this
Will, I think the Court can draw the line to avoid that problem. The funeral by definition includes invited guests and is not a public forum. Wherever the "public forum" is, it's some distance from the ceremony, and the Court could rule that *no* group can hold an audible protest *during* the funeral. There are plenty of ways to express oneself in the year 2010 w/out yelling at some mourners.
Again I may not appreciate the particular facts of the case.
Reply to this
Maybe, but two thoughts about that, and then I'll shut up.
Reply to this