these people are the worst kind of scum....

For parishioners of the Westboro Baptist Church, Wednesday's case at the Supreme Court is more than an hour of legal debate over the constitutionality of military funeral protests; it will also mark the end of their "I-70 GodSmack Tour" of protests across the country.

The group's last picket before they arrive at the court is scheduled to happen earlier in the morning at Arlington National Cemetery.

For many, the idea of protesting at any funeral -- let alone one for a member of the military -- is abhorrent, yet members of the Westboro Church proudly boast of having held more than 44,000 pickets at funerals and other events. They also strongly defend their First Amendment right to protest.

"This case is about a little church in Topeka, Kansas, engaging in public speech on a public right-of-way, about issues of vital public interest and importance," lawyer Margie Phelps wrote to the court defending the protests. She is also the daughter of church founder Fred Phelps and will argue the case before the justices.

Westboro's website says the legal dispute is about the "sovereignty of the Living God" and that those who fail to live up to God's standards should be punished. Phelps explains that their decision to picket funerals "is to use an available public platform, when the living contemplate death, to deliver the message that there is a consequence for sin." That sin in their view is homosexuality and all government policies they think support homosexuals.


Albert Snyder certainly didn't want anything do with that message in 2006 when he buried his Marine son who was killed in Iraq and was not gay.

"I want them to stop doing this to our military men and women," Synder said on Fox and Friends, Tuesday morning. "I want the judges to hear that this case is not about free speech, it's about targeted harassment."

In the days leading up to the funeral, Westboro parishioners, including Fred Phelps, notified local authorities of their intention to picket the service. They were kept 1,000 feet away from the church and because of the use of an alternative entrance for church-goers there was no disruption to the memorial. Seven protestors held numerous signs including some that read, "Thank God for Dead Soldiers," "God Hates Fags," and "You're Going to Hell." There were no arrests.

Snyder filed a lawsuit against Phelps based on the protest and a subsequent post on the Westboro website about his son Matthew.

"[Albert Snyder] became violently ill at the sight of the Phelpses' website and whose diabetes and depression worsened as a result of the Phelpses' intentionally harmful conduct," lawyer Sean Summers wrote to the court.

A jury awarded Snyder nearly $11 million in damages for the intentional infliction of emotional distress and invasion of privacy. That award was later cut in half and last year the Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeal set aside the decision in its entirety ruling that the protests were absolutely protected by the First Amendment.

The Supreme Court is reticent to curtail free speech rights. Earlier this year, the court ruled 8-1 that a federal law cracking down on violent animal fighting videos was unconstitutional. Though in 2004, the court by a 5-4 margin ruled that cross burning is not a form of protected speech.

If the justices don't resolve the case on lesser technical matters, they will need to address the First Amendment conflict between the church-goers free speech rights and the free exercise and peaceful assembly protections for the father.

"The Phelpses' freedom of speech should have ended where it conflicted with Mr. Snyder's freedom to participate in his son's funeral, which was intended to be a solemn religious gathering," Summers told the court.

"The Constitution is imperiled if a subjective claim of outrage can be used to penalize into silence speech that does not make false statements of fact, uttered in public arenas on public issues," Rebecca Phelps wrote in her response that is also noteworthy for its personal attacks on Albert Snyder.

A group of 21 news organizations joined a brief defending Westboro's case. While calling their views "inexplicable and hateful," they express concern that a ruling against the church will chill the activities of anyone who wants to speak out on a controversial issue and "threatens to expand dramatically the risk of liability for news media coverage and commentary."

One of the media groups that joined the brief is Dow Jones whose parent company also owns Fox News.

A bipartisan group of senators including Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., joined in their own brief supporting Snyder. They argue that the church members are "free to convey their repugnant message in virtually any public manner they choose. But they were not free to hijack [Matthew Snyder's] private funeral as a vehicle for expression of their own hate."

All nine justices will hear Wednesday's case. Their opinion is not likely to come out before year's end.

this is the tricky thing about constitutional 'rights' , there is always a debate about which citizens should be afforded them and under what circumstances,,,,,

I find it abhorrent, but I cant relate to how it could or should be illegal,,, except MAYBE on the grounds of disrupting the peace?

As the person from Kansas, I'll be the first to say "Sorry about this."


I hope you all realize that to most Kansans, this is a complete embarrassment. When we had the funeral for one of our serviceman here in town, half the town lined the streets from the funeral home to the cemetery so that Phelps' followers had nowhere to stand. His parishioners were in town, but not within a block of the funeral route. This is about the only way you can stop this type of unwarranted behavior.

Picket the White House for starting the war, picket Congress for funding it, but to picket the funeral of a fallen soldier is disgraceful. To picket it in the name of "hate speech" is just ludicrous. One thing (the war) isn't even connected to the other (homosexuality). We don't even allow homosexuals to serve, so I don't exactly see the connection. I'm sure if God really hated America, the first place he'd land the fire and brimstone is on the Westboro Baptist Church for defaming his name.

Once again, for all the decent people of Kansas with the good sense to allow a family to grieve in peace, I apologize.

'I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it,'

S. G. Tallentyre,pseudonym of Evelyn Beatrice Hall
referring to Voltaire.
Often attributed to Voltaire.



I agree with the basic premise of protecting speech,,,even when its abhorrent and I disagree with it (speaking litigiously , not contractually)

In theory I agree with Tallentyre, and I believe that speech should be as unrestricted as possible.


However, I think this stuff that Phelps is saying falls under the same guidelines as yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater. Basically: it goes against all logic; it causes more harm than good; it's dangerous and can insight a riot; and it is bad for society as a whole.

in todays society, people react violently to plenty of disagreements, I dont know if this should broaden the limits on speech though

if you yell fire, riot might happen due to panic and limited exits

a riot happening at a funeral, outdoors, would probably not be so justifiable

people are people... just because you are from kansas doesn't make you need to apologize for them... every state has somekind of idiots in them...

amen, anyplace where more than a couple dozen people gather, ,u will find idiots,,,

i don't see it as free speech... i see it as bad taste and disruption of a paid service...can't the property owners of the cemetery not let them on the property?

When the idea of free speech was created, people were different. Their used to be a saying.......Don't speak ill of the dead. So in that time free speech was a understandable right to have. Now however people are ruthless and have no morals. They are not capable of seeing the wrong in they're actions. The sad thing is that when we protect people's ability to undermine our morals we are actually breeding more of it. At one point are we going to say enough is enough. No one is saying they cant have a protest or say they're hateful words. Just say it in a more respectful time. I believe that people's right's are being trampled on already by not being able to protect themselves from the abuse of those protesters.

a church with no morals...makes sense, i guess..

Even though they are disrespectful jerk-offs, I believe, Gov. should stay out of it.

A ruling could affect any and/or all attempts at protesting.

The Westboro Church is going to become a bomb target soon.

WOW – the 2010 version of the ‘Scopes Monkey trial’ THIS could be a great sequel – better than Star Trek II The Wrath of Khan, Star Wars Return of the Jedi, Rocky II, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, Terminator II the Judgment Day, Aliens (well maybe not that good)….

But this could be big – just look at what they have to prove are not false statements but actual FACT:



Of course it’s not really a trial, but those briefs and the Court responses could make a great movie.

If nothing else the BC church forcing their lawyer to submit proof that their statements are facts and not false, should prove to be a very embarrassing prospect.

A great movie showing this embarrassment and making the church laughable instead of being a threat, may make them all go home – I can see it now, people passing by their picketing, as they remember the movie and L A U G H ing… I’d like to see those people really pissed off by the fact that poeple do take them seriously, but more in the vein bad comedians.

On a more serious note, I tend to agree. What the WB church is doing is propagating premeditated harassment which is interfering with the freedom of others to conduct their lives.

Those who have been forced to suffer through the funeral of a loved one in the presence of a group whose message is hatred and human disregard have had their freedom diminished by the harassment of that group. That harassment can dominate a person’s life, even after the funeral.

It’s nearly impossible for the bereaved to ignore all the media reporting of yet another of those 44,000 premeditated harassment ploys. Those reports serve as a constant reminder of how the freedom to bury their dead in peace was taken away.

It is fact that our freedoms have certain limitations; one of the limitations to freedom of religion and to free speech is that the practice of either cannot be to dominate others will, nor can that freedom be allowed to interfere with the right and ability of others to plan and conduct their lives.

That is the intent of the WB church, to dominate and interfere through harassing tactics, and its victims are not allowed to practice their non-violent, and non-invasive religious beliefs, or rituals, in the peace extended to them through the constitution.

The limit to individual freedom is that individuals cannot abuse their freedom by seeking to dominate others will, or to interfere with how others conduct their lives to the limitations of their own freedoms.

honestly, I think it will come down to private vs public property

if they are on a public property, their rights are much more protected,,,even if they irritate others,,