Supreme Court to rule on anti-gay protests at military funerals

The Supreme Court will review whether anti-gay protests at funerals of American soldiers are protected by the First Amendment, taking up the appeal of a Maryland man who won and then had reversed a $10 million verdict against the small Kansas church that conducts the demonstrations.

The case will seek to balance a group's free speech rights with the rights of private individuals to be protected from unwanted demonstrations and defamatory remarks. A federal appeals court said the church's protests were "utterly distasteful" but protected because they were related to "matters of public concern."

The case was one of three the court announced it would be considering in its new term that begins in October. It will review restrictions on those who want to sue drugmakers with claims that their vaccines are faulty, and it will examine whether the questions that the federal government asks about potential employees violate their constitutional rights.

The funeral protest case is brought by a Maryland father whose son's 2006 funeral in Westminster was picketed by members of the Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kan. Westboro pastor Fred W. Phelps Sr. contends that the deaths of American soldiers are punishment for the nation's tolerance of homosexuality and has organized nearly 43,000 protests since 1991, according to the church's Web site.

Phelps and members of his church -- which consists primarily of him and members of his extended family -- say they were not targeting Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder, who was killed in action in Iraq. But they say they have learned that demonstrating at funerals gets the most public and media attention for their message that the nation's tolerance for gays has resulted in punishment, especially the deaths of American soldiers.

The signs they carried at Snyder's funeral at St. John's Catholic Church, made in the Kansas church's on-site sign shop, included, "God Hates the USA/Thank God for 9/11," "Semper Fi Fags," "Thank God for Dead Soldiers" and "Priests Rape Boys."

Read the rest here.

I am deeply conflicted on this one. The libertarian in me says that even deeply offensive speech must be protected. And let's be honest. These flakes masquerading as Christians are about as offensive as one can get. Which brings up the other side of the argument or rather two.

First is the libertarian principle that your rights end when they intrude on someone else's. Do you have a "right" do bury your son in peace and free from harassment? I don't think that would be a huge legal reach. If in fact you do have that right then the government is well within its rights to severely restrict this sort of activity.

The second is the age old and universally accepted exception to free speech known as "fighting words." The courts have long held that words or gestures which are calculated to, or almost certain to, incite violence are not protected speech.

Now I don't have a clue what these families have had to go through buring a loved one, usually way too young, killed in war. And I pray God I never get the chance to find out. However I can imagine that if I were in that position and someone showed up at my son's funeral waving signs of this nature, that it might provoke a response from me. As a Christian I would hope that I might limit that response to the "Bronx salute." But I also know that I am human and would likely be under extreme emotional strain at such a moment. In short, it is not beyond the realm of possibility that I might in the heat of the moment conclude that it was worth spending thirty days in the clink for the pleasure of busting one of these clowns in the chops.

Food for thought in case any Supreme Court Justices wander onto this page.