The church members testified they are following their religious beliefs by spreading the message that the deaths of soldiers are due to the nation's tolerance of homosexuality.
Their attorneys argued in closing statements Tuesday that the burial was a public event and that even abhorrent points of view are protected by the First Amendment, which guarantees freedom of speech and religion.
If the burial was a religious burial, they would be violating the family's First Amendment rights by infringing on their religious beliefs.
Phelps, his nutcase family, and their followers have the right to say whatever they want, but when they start infringing on others rights by the location and/or timing of their protests, they have to be made to pay. I obviously don't like what he has to say and don't think it has any merit, however, he can say it all he wants in the safety of his own home or church back in Kansas. If they want to say the same things in Maryland in front of an Armed Forces cemetery, more power to them. But when they do it at the time of a burial, they have crossed the line.
I think people have a mistaken idea about what the First Amendment grants them.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
This means that Congress (and by extension, the federal government) may not infringe you right of speech or religion.
However, this amendment makes absolutely no guarantees about anyone ELSE doing so.
(For the same reason, the fourth amendment protections against unjust search and siezure prevents the police from breaking into your home and using what they find there as evidence - but if somebody else breaks into your home, takes something out, and turns it over to the police, you have no defense, since it isn't the government doing it.)
And this cuts both ways. Phelps and his crew weren't violating the family's "first amendment religious rights" - but they also can't claim that what they did was OK because it fell under their own "first amendment religious and free speech rights" either. It's just a case of harassment, plain and simple.
The church and three of its leaders -- the Rev. Fred Phelps and his two daughters, Shirley Phelps-Roper and Rebecca Phelps-Davis, 46 -- were found liable for invasion of privacy and intent to inflict emotional distress.
Snyder claimed the protests intruded upon what should have been a private ceremony and sullied his memory of the event.
The church members testified they are following their religious beliefs by spreading the message that the deaths of soldiers are due to the nation's tolerance of homosexuality.
Their attorneys argued in closing statements Tuesday that the burial was a public event and that even abhorrent points of view are protected by the First Amendment, which guarantees freedom of speech and religion.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2007-11-01 02:04 am (UTC)If the burial was a religious burial, they would be violating the family's First Amendment rights by infringing on their religious beliefs.
Phelps, his nutcase family, and their followers have the right to say whatever they want, but when they start infringing on others rights by the location and/or timing of their protests, they have to be made to pay. I obviously don't like what he has to say and don't think it has any merit, however, he can say it all he wants in the safety of his own home or church back in Kansas. If they want to say the same things in Maryland in front of an Armed Forces cemetery, more power to them. But when they do it at the time of a burial, they have crossed the line.
no subject
Date: 2007-11-01 02:16 am (UTC)More than once. They live for it.
no subject
Date: 2007-11-02 04:56 am (UTC)"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
This means that Congress (and by extension, the federal government) may not infringe you right of speech or religion.
However, this amendment makes absolutely no guarantees about anyone ELSE doing so.
(For the same reason, the fourth amendment protections against unjust search and siezure prevents the police from breaking into your home and using what they find there as evidence - but if somebody else breaks into your home, takes something out, and turns it over to the police, you have no defense, since it isn't the government doing it.)
And this cuts both ways. Phelps and his crew weren't violating the family's "first amendment religious rights" - but they also can't claim that what they did was OK because it fell under their own "first amendment religious and free speech rights" either. It's just a case of harassment, plain and simple.
no subject
Date: 2007-11-01 05:40 am (UTC)