Reverse the Wesboro Baptist Church Verdict 11 million dollars?

Question

In a free society....do we need to tolerate the beliefs of those we abhor...or only those beliefs that are in agreement with our beliefs? Only well thought-out answers need apply. Thank you

Answer 1

As much as I despise their message and their methods, I don't see how you can award damages to someone who is offended by someone else's protest on public property.

Free speech means allowing people to say things you find abhorrent. I do see an exception for hate speech that incites violence against others, but these guys don't seem to have quite crossed that line, in my opinion.

You have to consider the long term impact this decision would have on free speech for all Americans. I applauded the decision when I first heard it, but on further reflection, I hope it is overturned by the Supreme Court.

Answer 2

We have the 1st amendment, so unfortunately we have to tolerate his beliefs. But maybe not unfortunately - it's a good thing to have uncensored exchange of ideas. Phelps is horrible, but he makes a fool out of himself very nicely. If he was censored he might become some kind of martyr or freedom fighter *shudder.

Besides, if we only tolerated beliefs that were in agreement with the majority, what kind of place would this be? Whose beliefs would be favored?

But I will say, his picketing of funerals crosses the line. That cannot be tolerated. It's not free speech, it's harrassment. He's infringing on the rights of the families of the soldiers. Think of those poor mothers - the Phelps must have no souls. I don't think we should tolerate them hiding behind the 1st amendment on that one - they have plenty of other platforms they can use.

Answer 3

I can understand how the verdict happened. We're a letigious society, out of control civil damages are virtually the norm. Plus, these guys managed to freak both extremes of the political spectrum. They were gay-bashing /and/ dissing slain soldiers /at the same time/. Nobody from the right or left was going to stand up for thier right to be raging *******.

But, as long as they weren't trespassing or blocking traffic or assaulting anyone (or any of the other things protestors do that are actually illegal), then they have as much right as Code Pink or America First to wave signs and chant. No matter how offensive or evil thier message may have been, it was, at bottom a protest of an official government policy. Citizens have every right to do that.

Of course, everyone else has the right to call them exactly what they are for doing it...

Answer 4

The government is not restricting the speech or religious expression of Westboro but even where there is free speech there can still be consequences. The family of the dead marine has the right to hold the "church" accountable for their actions and emotion duress they inflicted. If the church placed an ad in the newspaper denouncing the fallen marine it would still be disgusting but an argument can be made for that being free speech. Showing up at the funeral with offensive signs, increasing the anguish of the family, crosses the line.

Answer 5

It has long been established in law that freedom of speech is not absolute. The Westbory Baptist Church can freely express their opinions in public regarding gays in the military, but they are limited from expressing them in a way that disturbs the peace or privacy of someone.

That is, they are not being punished for their beliefs or for their voicing of those beliefs. They are being punished for disturbing these people and causing them anguish.

If they went on the Larry King show and expressed their opinion there would be no law suit.

Answer 6

No.
while The First Amendment protects free speech, actions and speech meant to incite violence are not covered.

At certain times in US History, hateful speech has also been condemned by The Supreme Court.(1)
Free speech was also stifled successfully during The McCarthy era.

Answer 7

Those people disgust me...but you have a valid point. Specific laws need to be in place to to clearly define where free speech limits apply. They need to be reasonable, and fair to all sides. When this happens there will be a lot of grumbles from both sides but maybe a little peace will follow.

Answer 8

He is protesting in the wrong arena. If he disagrees with the war then he needs to protest the government not a family in mourning. A free society does not give permission to use thug tactics.

Answer 9

And the beliefs of the family's just trying to bury their loved one with honor, do they not matter.
When someone's belief's step all over someone elses it is no longer a "free society".

Answer 10

The thing of it is that it's a battle of rights.

The Westboro Baptist church has every right to protest these soldiers funerals. It may not be in the realm of common decency or respect, but they have that right.

But.

Their right to protest the funeral ends where the family's right to a peaceful funeral begins. That's the clash, and that's the sticking point. First, DO families have an inherent right to a peaceful funeral? And secondly, where do you draw that line?

Reverse it? No. But I think it may need to go down some. Perhaps this will teach Westboro Baptist church a thing or two, but I doubt it.