High court rules for military funeral protesters

[palemale]

I know plenty. I didn't get a degree in Political Science/Constitutional Law for the hell of it.

This decision is consistent with others SCOTUS has handed down. I'd suggest you study First Amendment history, why it was written (there's a reason why it's the FIRST Amendment), and the various SCOTUS rulings dealing with such unacceptable speech.

How is is consistent with the case I cited, where unions are prohibited from engaging in secondary picketing?

 

[NCAA Umpire]

Primarily because in the case at hand, the union's actions were harming a neutral party. The picketing plainly violated the statutory ban on the coercion of neutral parties with the object of forcing them to cease dealing in the primary product or to cease doing business with the primary employer.

As the very liberal Justice Blackmun of the majority had commented, by passing the law that was upheld in this case, Congress struck a delicate balance between union freedom of expression and the ability of neutral employers, employees, and consumers to remain free from coerced participation in industrial strife.

 

[palemale]

Primarily because in the case at hand, the union's actions were harming a neutral party. The picketing plainly violated the statutory ban on the coercion of neutral parties with the object of forcing them to cease dealing in the primary product or to cease doing business with the primary employer.

As the very liberal Justice Blackmun of the majority had commented, by passing the law that was upheld in this case, Congress struck a delicate balance between union freedom of expression and the ability of neutral employers, employees, and consumers to remain free from coerced participation in industrial strife.

Aren't grieving military families neutral parties in Westboro Church's dispute with the government? In light of the Westboro case, shouldn't the prohibition on picketing employers who do business with other employers in a labor dispute be struck down as violating the First Amendment?

 

[NCAA Umpire]

Palemale,

Exactly who the grieving party doesn't appear to be relevant if my reading of yesterday's SCOTUS decision is correct, because the issue at hand is whether the actions (protests) of the Westboro nutjobs are constitutionally protected. Because their protests were, in fact, poltically motivated, and because they were within the parameters of the law regulating place & manner ("X" number of feet away, etc.), SCOTUS almost unanimously found the group's actions protected by the First Amendment.

 

[Kulindahr]

I really don't want to get off topic here, but I am still very bothered by so-called "hate" crimes. If someone attacks me and yells, "Faggot!", he can get some enhanced penalty, but if he attacks another guy down the street, but this guy is straight, the attacker doesn't receive said enhanced penalty? How asinine.

I just find it grossly wrong that people are being divided into special classes, and if a member of this special class is hurt, by speech or otherwise, the offender can receive a more severe penalty than if he were to offend someone outside this group.

Except that it's not just being attacked, it's being attacked because the attacker believes that the class has no right to exist. To stretch the meaning of a word, it's effectively a matter of intended genocide, a demonstration that if the attacker could get away with it he would proceed to eliminate that entire class of people.

It's the same reason that we don't have just one penalty for killing someone: motive and circumstances make a difference. Hate crimes laws say that when the motive is the elimination of a class of people, when the person attacked is attacked for the very fact of his existence, it's a different motive and circumstance.

 

[Kulindahr]

Aren't grieving military families neutral parties in Westboro Church's dispute with the government? In light of the Westboro case, shouldn't the prohibition on picketing employers who do business with other employers in a labor dispute be struck down as violating the First Amendment?

Interesting argument. I'd have to go back through the ruling to really address it, and at the moment I don't really have the time.

BTW, CollegeUmpire, thanks for the Madison quote -- it makes the situation clear. Someone can, under the First, stand and curse and insult me, and I have no recourse except to curse back, leave, put in earplugs, or crank up something so loud the guy can't be heard.

The only limitation comes in if lies or implications of fact that defame me come into it.

 

[Jack Springer]

Yes I do, though only for the last nine months. I am charged with finding statutes, opinions, and the like on the occasion in my course of work.


Alito's dissent starts approximately 3/5 of the way down.


Snyder v. Phelps [pdf]



He goes on to say that it is a cut-and-dry tort case albeit with rigorous requirements of the evidence, which I agree.

Thanks JockBoy.

One other question for all -- where do these people earn their money?

Find the source of their income and eliminate it.

Embarrass the heck out of the people who pay for their legal services.

Shirley Phelp's husband Brent Phelps has written textbooks on law office management and how to use software in legal offices. I wonder how many lawyers realize they are promoting WBC hate this way.

I did a quick search on google -- Amazon, Barnes & Noble sell his books.

Ask your lawyer if he has his books and why.

Cut off the money supply.

 

[rareboy]

I also have been saying follow the money, but they tell me that the Phelp's clan lives by suing.

So I guess if you win enough suits, it keeps you in poster board and sharpie markers.

 

[Jack Springer]

I was amazed at the comments on the Amazon page selling the book. One was from a gay man who loves the book and realizes who is the author.

I guess some who buy books from Stalin if it would make them money.

Personal greed is not a good quality.

 

[NCAA Umpire]

Except that it's not just being attacked, it's being attacked because the attacker believes that the class has no right to exist. To stretch the meaning of a word, it's effectively a matter of intended genocide, a demonstration that if the attacker could get away with it he would proceed to eliminate that entire class of people.

Says who, though? What if the attacker was simply being insulting, just goofing around like an immature asswipe? Should he somehow be punished more severely than if he were to attack a straight guy? A white guy? Basically, what hate crimes do is single out straight, white men as the only group of people who can be assaulted or murdered and whose assailants would be punished less severely than had the assaulted or murdered been black, gay, Jewish, *insert protected class of the day here*.

What hate crimes do is punish thought, which is absolutely abhorrent to the First Amendment. What you're saying above is that you think the attacker thinks the person he's beating up deserves, along with all other gays, to die; but you have no proof absent a confession on the attacker's part.

 

[opinterph]

What if the attacker was simply being insulting, just goofing around like an immature asswipe?

It seems to me that the attacker targets his victims based upon a “profile.” He injures persons who are otherwise unknown to him, except for their association or affiliation with a group. To me, that seems more sinister than merely “goofing around.”

… it is abundantly clear that respondents, going far beyond commentary on matters of public concern, specifically attacked Matthew Snyder because (1) he was a Catholic and (2) he was a member of the United States military. Both Matthew and petitioner were private figures, and this attack was not speech on a matter of public concern. [Link]

 

[NCAA Umpire]

So let's say I'm walking down the street and get attacked. My attackers don't call me "faggot." They just wail on me. Suddenly, one of them sees, oh, I don't know, a Ricky Martin button on the front of my shirt, or a pro-gay marriage button on my shirt pocket. Suddenly, my attacker starts yelling, "Fag! Queer! Homo!"

You mean to tell me he should now be subjected to a harsher penalty? No frickin' way!!!

And what would happen if, say, I wasn't really gay? Is his punishment "normal" then and not as severe had I actually been gay? Again, no frickin' way!

I'm sorry, but to me hate crimes are terrible, inconsistent, unfair, and divisive. I am opposed to them. Totally.

 

[opinterph]

I actually disagree with the approach most hate-crime legislation promotes. The test should measure only facts. I find it a bit reckless to require comparison to some pre-determined “list” of approved victim-groups.

And yet, my objection does nothing to diminish my observation that the mechanism of the crime itself creates an undeserved and particularly grievous injury.

 

[seven2go]

I wonder how the judges reconcile the prohibition of "crying fire" in a theater but allow these wackos to be even more incendiary (pun intended) in their rants.

In the same vein we (the U.S. among others) offered up thousands and thousands of lives and yet nazis and the KKK practice "protection under the law" for their obscene rantings too?.......

 

[Kulindahr]

Says who, though? What if the attacker was simply being insulting, just goofing around like an immature asswipe? Should he somehow be punished more severely than if he were to attack a straight guy? A white guy? Basically, what hate crimes do is single out straight, white men as the only group of people who can be assaulted or murdered and whose assailants would be punished less severely than had the assaulted or murdered been black, gay, Jewish, *insert protected class of the day here*.

What hate crimes do is punish thought, which is absolutely abhorrent to the First Amendment. What you're saying above is that you think the attacker thinks the person he's beating up deserves, along with all other gays, to die; but you have no proof absent a confession on the attacker's part.

The law is interested in what people think all the time. Ever hear of "absence of malice"? It's about what the perpetrator was thinking. "Premeditated murder"? It's about what people are thinking. How about the phrase "willingly and knowingly"? It's about what the accused was thinking. I could go on, but the point is that the law is concerned with what people think, all over the place. And what the jury decides those people were thinking changes the penalty.

Yes, it sort of singles out "white guys" at this point. I expect that to change as certain states shift to where white are a minority -- of course if you leave out women, white males are already a minority in many places.

 

[Kulindahr]

I actually disagree with the approach most hate-crime legislation promotes. The test should measure only facts. I find it a bit reckless to require comparison to some pre-determined “list” of approved victim-groups.

And yet, my objection does nothing to diminish my observation that the mechanism of the crime itself creates an undeserved and particularly grievous injury.

The way the law should be written is that the basis is that a person was attacked merely on the basis of being a member of some noticeable group. I don't care if it's any of the 'protected classes', or the military, or an environmentalist, or a Republican, or whatever.

The extra punishment is justified in that the attacker is declaring that you have no right to exist, and is seeking to implement that with force. That itself is a grievous injury.


edit: This can be looked on as a reverse class-action suit, where the government is acting on behalf of the entire assaulted class. The excess penalty should be financial, with the sum awarded to a not-for-profit which advocates for the victim's class.

 

[opinterph]

… a person was attacked merely on the basis of being a member of some noticeable group.

The crime is random coincidence, unless/until proven otherwise.

 

[Kulindahr]

The crime is random coincidence, unless/until proven otherwise.

Yes.












And policemen are pigs, until proven otherwise.

 

[NCAA Umpire]

As someone who counts among his friends many policemen, I don't agree with your comment.

 

[construct]

Although hate-crime statutes are off-topic, I feel compelled to correct some misconceptions.

Hate-crime statutes do not protect particular groups. It protects based on categories of motivations. It not only protects gays, blacks, Jews, etc. It protects from crimes in which the victim is selected on the basis of sexual orientation, race, religion etc. Thus they apply in a case involving a white victim selected solely because of his race just as in a case involving the reverse.

Notice Wisconsin v. Mitchell 508 U.S. 476 (1993), the case upholding a general hate-crime statute. In that case, the Wisconsin statute was upheld in a case involving black assailants, inspired by the movie Mississippi Burning, who assaulted a random victim because he was white.

Hate-crime statutes also are not require that the victim actually be a member of the group that the criminal suppose. The law would apply in a case in which the victim was a straight person presumed to be gay just as it would if the victim were actually gay.

Further, speech is not required as proof that the crime was a hate-crime. Likewise speech does not automatically turn a regular crime into a hate-crime. Speech is merely one piece of evidence which might be used to get a hate-crime conviction.

I hope this helps explain why some objections to hate-crime laws are misguided.