Westboro Baptist Church protests in Joplin, MO

[DZTurtle11]

I remember when that case was finished. I disagree with the judge, but that's my opinion. I am definitely not a lawyer or a judge. I still believe this falls under the same sort of idea as cyber bullying. You can't be a cyber bully and say awful stuff, but you can stand in public and do the same???

I giggle when I think of how the folks in Mississippi handled it.

http://www.ihatethemedia.com/a-simpl...ral-protesters

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by DZTurtle11

I remember when that case was finished. I disagree with the judge, but that's my opinion. I am definitely not a lawyer or a judge. I still believe this falls under the same sort of idea as cyber bullying. You can't be a cyber bully and say awful stuff, but you can stand in public and do the same???

There's a level of irony here I'm not even going to address.

That said, no it's not cyber bullying or the equivalent. They're not making calls
to the people's houses, they're protesting in a public area. Similarly they're not targeting an individual, just exploiting an individual's death.

What we call "cyberbullying" is really harassment, something that is completely illegal IRL, but just as saying something mean on the internet or having jackassy opinions on the internet does not make one a cyberbully, having jackassy opinions in the real world doesn't equal harassment either.

You can say "god hates fags" online all you like, as evidenced by WBC's website. Similarly you can go in public and yell it and carry signs.

I'm of the opinion that any law prohibiting WBC would be detrimental to free speech.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by DZTurtle11

I remember when that case was finished. I disagree with the judge, but that's my opinion.

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion.

But FWIW, the "judge" was the Supreme Court of the United States, by an 8-1 vote.

And no, it is not the same idea as cyber-bullying. These are public protests related to matters of public interest (deaths of soldiers, natural disasters -- or, in the church's view, God's indictment of modern society and culture) in public places with the necessary permits. Those with opposite views are also free to voice their opinion in public places. Free speech wins. The fact that it could get out of hand one day is beside the point. As long as it doesn't, it can't and shouldn't be punished. That's prior restraint of free speech.

In my opinion freedom of speech is intended for people to be able to say what they want about the government and not go to jail. When you start doing and saying things that harm other people (mental harm here) then something has to stop.

I find the conclusion of the Court's opinion insightful:

Westboro believes that America is morally flawed; many Americans might feel the same about Westboro. Westboro’s funeral picketing is certainly hurtful and its contribution to public discourse may be negligible. But Westboro addressed matters of public import on public property, in a peaceful manner, in full compliance with the guidance of local officials. The speech was indeed planned to coincide with Matthew Snyder’s funeral, but did not itself disrupt that funeral, and Westboro’s choice to conduct its picketing at that time and place did not alter the nature of its speech.

Speech is powerful. It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and—as it did here—inflict great pain. On the facts before us, we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker. As a Nation we have chosen a different course—to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate. That choice requires that we shield Westboro from tort liability for its picketing in this case.