Well, at Least We’ve Got ONE Supreme Court Justice With a Functioning Brain

In re: the Westboro Baptist Gay Terrorist Club, where Sam Alito appears to be the only one who hasn’t got his head firmly placed up his arse.

Our profound national commitment to free and open debate is not a license for the vicious verbal assault that occurred in this case.

Petitioner Albert Snyder is not a public figure. He is simply a parent whose son, Marine Lance Corporal Matthew Snyder, was killed in Iraq. Mr. Snyder wanted what is surely the right of any parent who experiences such an incalculable loss: to bury his son in peace. But respondents, members of the Westboro Baptist Church, deprived him of that elementary right. They first issued a press release and thus turned Matthew’s funeral into a tumultuous media event. They then appeared at the church, approached as closely as they could without trespassing, and launched a malevolent verbal attack on Matthew and his family at a time of acute emotional vulnerability. As a result, Albert Snyder suffered severe and lasting emotional injury.1 The Court now holds that the First Amendment protected respondents’ right to brutalize Mr. Snyder. I cannot agree.

Preach it, Justice Alito.

If there ever was a case of something that is NOT “free speech” but rather a direct, knowing, deliberate emotional assault with both foreknowledge and malice aforethought, it would be the freak show of the incestuous apes of the Phaggot Phelps “A Family Who Fucks Together, STAYS Together” cult.

There is absolutely nobody, NOBODY with any sort of respect for the First Amendment stating that the knuckle-dragging mutants of the Phelps Phamily don’t have the right to put their obnoxious, vile “opinions” on public display, they most certainly DO, but said right is in no conceivable way curtailed by prohibiting them from engaging in open assault on innocent, mourning family members asking for nothing more than the courtesy of being allowed to bury their dead in peace.

They could shout and howl their simian slogans at the top of their lungs anywhere ELSE but, and that’s what establishes their foreknowledge and malice, nobody would pay any fucking attention to their little circus if they did. They DELIBERATELY choose that particular venue because it will get them attention and they KNOW it will get them attention because their emotional terrorism is so obvious and repugnant to members of the human race.

We expect this kind of lunatic decision from the crazed liberal members of the court, but we’re quite frankly at a loss when it comes to understanding why any Justices with a functioning synapse would side with them.

We suppose that this means that Justice Thomas would be absolutely fine, on Constitutional grounds, with racist troglodytes from, say Stormfront, harrowing and harassing his grandchildren every day on their way to and from school with racial slurs and their Constitutionally protected right to believe that blacks are nothing more than apes without fur?

We’d like to see him defend that one, because he’d have to or be exposed for the hypocritical liar that he is.

Thatisall.

29 comments

  1. 1
    LC Xystus growls and barks:

    The problem with this is that Snyder didn’t witness the pHELLps Worstburrow Batpissers’ presence near the funeral site; he saw ‘em on TV afterwards. Wasn’t the best case to bash the bastards on.

    Of course we’re still free to devise our own evil schemes to bring about the Phall of the House of pHELLps…

  2. 2
    LC Xystus growls and barks:

    P.S.–Phirst to phlip off the pHELLps phuqqars!

  3. 3

    OK, folks. I’m going to be the lone dissenter in this case, and you all can take your shots at me.

    I loathe the Phelps assholes. Loathe them with the passion of a nuclear blast. Having said that, I’m going to put strong emotions aside and say that the USSC decision was legally correct. The First Amendment applies to all, regardless of how much we may despise the one speaking or what they say.

    Please let me explain a bit further.

    The phelps phaggots stayed a prescribed distance away. They screeched their loathsome slogans and hate speech on public land, and unfortunately, they’re entitled to do so. They are offensive to the hilt, but we have no right not to be offended – even in times of severe emotional distress and unbearable pain. While I consider this akin to emotional assault, fact of the matter is that it is not. It is no different from any kind of other insult that can be shouted by anyone at anyone under the protection of the First Amendment. The time and place and occasion make the insults more despicable and vile, but that doesn’t make them illegal.

    Emotionally, I would be all for limiting their right to be complete and utter fuckwarts. But logically and rationally, I cannot support such an action. Limiting their rights opens the door to limiting any type of speech that anyone finds offensive and loathsome.

    That said, if it were MY son or family member, I would have no problem putting a beatdown on these motherfuckers so severe, that there’s nothing left of them but a small, foul puddle of sludge. I would also rightfully stand trial for it, and would be glad to do so in the full knowledge that I would deal with the consequences of my actions.

    OK… flame away.

  4. 4
    LC Draco growls and barks:

    I have to agree with Justice Alito on this one. Like is common knowledge for anyone with a triple digit IQ, one persons’ rights stop where another one’s start.

    Now just consider the Freedom of Speech issue. It has been argued that you can not yell, “FIRE!!!” in a crowded theater? Why? Because it MIGHT cause panic and result in physical injury and possibly death.

    Now, if possible physical injury is protected against, then why not actual ‘emotional injury and distress’?

    Just asking….

  5. 5
    Darth Venomous growls and barks:

    OK… flame away.

    Not at all, Nicki. On the technical merits of the case, it’s absolutely the correct decision.

    On the other hand, Alito’s absolutely correct, too. What the Westboro crowd is doing doesn’t – or shouldn’t, anyway – qualify as “debate”, but emotional assault & battery.

    That said, if it were MY son or family member, I would have no problem putting a beatdown on these motherfuckers so severe, that there’s nothing left of them but a small, foul puddle of sludge. I would also rightfully stand trial for it, and would be glad to do so in the full knowledge that I would deal with the consequences of my actions.

    Precisely. This decision, in fact, may have been the absolute worst thing to happen to Phaggot Phreddy and his maggot-infested horde of syphilitic inbreds.

    I predict that, within a year – 18 months at the outside – at least one of the Phelps mongrels will be found dead. Perhaps Phaggot Phreddy himself, Shirley, one of the others or maybe even a majority of them.

    What’s going to happen is that, having been denied justice in the jury box, and the ballot box all but denied them, and with the Westboro crew seemingly in charge of the soapbox, there will be one box left. And it will not just be used, but it’ll be worn-out and left dog-eared.

    Snyder’s dad said as much yesterday. Someone’s going to decide “e-fucking-nough!”, and take matters into his/her own hands. And any spilled blood resulting therefrom will be squarely on the hands of eight ham-fisted, black-robed tyrants at the Soprano Court.

  6. 6
    LC PrimEviL growls and barks:

    While th Phelps’ speech may be Constitutionally protected as to content, the choice of venue easily
    places it into the arena of the “Fighting Words Doctrine”. That choice in and of itself is a direct indication of
    intent to inflict pain and suffering, harass, insult, and humiliate on a deeply personal level.

    To the best of my knowledge, SCOTUS has not heard any case in which the defendant was charged with
    assault in retaliation, and using the Fighting Words Doctrine as defense. Such a case could prove interesting.

    It would be rather amusing to sit back and watch the response of La Cosa Nostra, should these assnuggets
    pull their act at a Mafia Family funeral. Those people don’t forget, don’t forgive, and do get even.

  7. 7

    Response to LC Draco @:

    1) We CAN yell fire in a theater – IF there’s an actual fire. I don’t think this is a valid comparison

    2) Emotional battery is a subjective criterion. Physical battery is not. What offends one person may do nothing to stir the emotions of another. That’s why, as opprobrious as I find these motherfuckers, I am in favor of protecting their right to spew venom.

    Otherwise – and yes, I know it’s reductio ad absurdum, but still – some fetid retard could claim grievous offense from having been put in his proper place by the folks on this site

  8. 8
    T growls and barks:

    I have to agree with Darth Venomous here – Both Alito and the Majority were correct here.

    (1) The flea-brained refugees from an inbred psyco ward that constitutes the members of the WB clan (how the HELL to they call that a “Church”) have a RIGHT to say whatever they like.

    (2) If we start issuing restraints on what and where these syphlitic cross-breeds can say, or where they can say it, who determines the what and where? I’m NOT willing to give that power to ANYONE. (Can you imagine Holder with that power?)

    (3) I would like an expansion on the “Fighting words doctrine” – what is it, what does it cover, how far (legally) does it extend? If someone tells me they are going to harm my children, is that sufficient cover for me to ventilate them? (Although my grandfather always used to say “It isn’t a criminal act until you are caught”)

    (4) Personally I would like to continue to see the Patriot Riders interdict the Phaggot Clan, and I would be happy to assist with my bike near here. (Eastern PA) I think if a hundred motorcycles turned their exhausts to the phelps and revved their engines for as long as it took … well…

    (5) And it would be a shame if some random piece of lead came outta nowhere and took out one or two of these assnuggets. A Real “shame”…

  9. 9
    LC hilljohnny, possom poker growls and barks:

    so where is the LGBT in this. i would have thought they would be all over the felchers phelps for “hate speech against protected minorities” angle.

  10. 10
    Lizard, G.L.O.R. growls and barks:

    Why can’t these religious cult followers do what all cults do and commit suicide. I’d be willing to help them in that regard and would stand up for their right to do make that decision.

  11. 11
    AyUaxe growls and barks:

    Response to LC PrimEviL @:

    The “Fighting Words” doctrine–yeah, you rite! Thaz what I’ve been saying about Phelch from way back. Sure, he has 1st A rights and we have 2nd A rights. Alito’s observations of the intentional psychological brutality exhibited by Phelch and fuks at a particularly sensitive and inappropriate time lay the groundwork for invocation of the fighting words doctrine/defense, when a bunch of current and ex-mils and their supporters go medieval on those asshats—course, you only need a defense, if you’re prosecuted. Calling all LEOs–you know there’s another call to answer anytime a Phelcher is getting f’d up. Bottom line, there are some things the “civil” law isn’t all that good at dealing with–Phelch is one of them. Law of the jungle and laws of physics will be much more effective.

  12. 12

    Response to DJ Allyn, ITW @:
    Hey! Don’t you insult Gypsies!!!

    ;-)

  13. 13

    Response to DJ Allyn, ITW @:
    BTW – there’s a place called HUMPTULIPS??? Seriously????

  14. 14
    NR Pax growls and barks:

    Without a doubt, the decision sucks but this is the price we pay for living under the kind of government we have. However, there are ways to make things as uncomfortable for the Phelps folks such as businesses refusing to help them in any manner. They are welcome to protest but folks are under no obligation to make it easier for them to get their message out.

  15. 15
    Grammar Czar growls and barks:

    DJ Allyn, ITW says:

    I have come to the conclusion that their rantings really have nothing to do with gays at all, and more to do with setting themselves up to be in a position to win lawsuits and possible monetary awards.

    I heard last night that Snyder will have to pay the Phelps clan’s legal fees, adding insult to injury.

  16. 16
    NR Pax growls and barks:

    Response to Grammar Czar @:

    I have a feeling that the American Legion will be soliciting donations for his cause as well as any other military group.

  17. 17

    Response to Grammar Czar @:
    Now THAT is fucking unacceptable!

    This wasn’t a frivolous lawsuit. It was a legitimate claim that was denied by the courts. No fucking WAY he should be forced to pay for this! That’s a fucking travesty!!!

  18. 18
    jimmytheclaw growls and barks:

    isnt disorderly conduct or inciting a riot citable crimes

  19. 19
    LC MuscleDaddy growls and barks:

    Sadly, we are a nation of ever-increasing laws precisely because people & governments have demonstrated over & over that they cannot be trusted to conduct themselves like civilized adults.

    The First Amendment is there to protect people from being injured by the Government for their public utterances (originally intended for government-critical utterances).

    Bring suit against another person for those utterances (so long as they are not provably libelous, slanderous, or directly/physically fire-in-a-theater harmful – which is a special circumstance of speech), and you’re bringing the judicial system into the fray which, obviously, is ‘involving the government’ in a matter of the content-itself of said person’s utterances – and the First Amendment prohibits that.

    What we have here is a group of Deliberately Evil People using the First Amendment to avoid what would otherwise be the perfectly reasonable and predictable consequences of their own actions, which – dispensed from a government body – would technically be violating their rights under the First Amendment. – and a Civil rights beef is no joke.

    But, as I said a day or two ago when I brought this story up in a different thread, ONLY a governmental or corporate body can actually violate someone’s First Amendment rights – an individual can only ‘commit assault’.

    The evil, inbred monsters of the Phelps clan have twisted the original intent of the First Amendment, in order to hide from what would otherwise be the legal consequences of their actions.

    ….but there are other possible consequences besides “legal”.

    And when you don’t leave me any choice… well, you don’t leave you any choice either.

    And let’s be honest – if a few individuals popped on some ski-masks to keep their faces off-camera, waded into a Phelps “protest” and brought home the idea that the remaining consequences are a price that’s just too high for them to want to pay…

    … I kind of doubt that the local constabulary would wring themselves out trying to ‘bring the perpetrators to justice’.

    – MD (damn, I’m turning into Subotai up in this piece)

  20. 20
    LC TerribleTroy growls and barks:

    T says:

    I would like an expansion on the “Fighting words doctrine” – what is it, what does it cover, how far (legally) does it extend? If someone tells me they are going to harm my children, is that sufficient cover for me to ventilate them?

    The concept of “fighting words” (from a legal perspective) relied heavily of the principle of the “Reasonable Man.” In the past many states considered “fighting words” to be words that would incite a reasonable man to violence. Example: You’re are in a bar with your wife, some idiot tries to pick her, she declines indicating she is with her husband (you). Mooky decides to look you in the eye and tell you that she is the town WHORE and does outlandish shit with farm animals in a loud voice for all the bar to hear. Any altercation that resulted would be considered the responsibility of the person using the fighting words.

    In regards to the Phelps case, I see what the Supremes are saying but I cant agree. My disagreement derives from what I believe is the primary INTENT of the demonstrators. I believe they are knowingly trying to inflict distress on these families to gain attention. I also believe that a reasonable man could easily be provoked to violence in response to such behavior. If it is reasonable to support the “cant yell fire in a crowded theater” due to the probability that those evacuating in response COULD sustain injury, I don’t find it unreasonable to support the idea that if you protest a FUNERAL you COULD provoke a violent emotional response. I look at it this way. Would the city of New York allow the KKK to have a “demonstration” in the heart of Harlem? Hell no. Cause they know that there would be a bunch of bloody sheets lying in the street after the roof top snipers got done. Would the City of SF allowed the Phelps Crew to “demonstrate” in the Castro District? Of course not. Why? Easy, they would justify it by saying they don’t have the resources to protect the demonstrators. But they REAL question is, why would the demonstrators need “protection” to begin with? After all we’re all reasonable men…..

    Unfortunately I believe the majority of states have done away with the principle of “fighting words”.

    Me I prefer to live by the “Dont Start no Shit, Wont be no Shit doctrine.

  21. 21
    LC_Salgak growls and barks:

    Darth Venomous says:

    I predict that, within a year – 18 months at the outside – at least one of the Phelps mongrels will be found dead. Perhaps Phaggot Phreddy himself, Shirley, one of the others or maybe even a majority of them.
    What’s going to happen is that, having been denied justice in the jury box, and the ballot box all but denied them, and with the Westboro crew seemingly in charge of the soapbox, there will be one box left. And it will not just be used, but it’ll be worn-out and left dog-eared.
    Snyder’s dad said as much yesterday. Someone’s going to decide “e-fucking-nough!”, and take matters into his/her own hands. And any spilled blood resulting therefrom will be squarely on the hands of eight ham-fisted, black-robed tyrants at the Soprano Court.

    At which point, all of the rest of us show up at THEIR Funeral.

    Imagine the sight: Multiple Gay Men’s Choruses singing “Ding-Dong, the Witch is Dead”.

    Concessionaires selling rotten veggies and dead cats.

    Mass air-drops of condoms over the funeral.

    In other words, Do unto them, as they have done unto US. . . . .

    Oh, yeah, and the Hell’s Angels as guards. . .

  22. 22
    LC ITBookworm growls and barks:

    I agree this comment on Cold Fury by Meiji_man.

    Meiji_man
    March 2nd, 2011 at 21:41 | #3
    The problem dear friends, is that the 1st Amendment was written with the presumption of human decency. That and legal duels. Decency and the ability to shoot the fucker who refuses not to be decent.

  23. 23
    LC Ogrrre growls and barks:

    A friend told me that on some of the biker sites there is a call going out for as many bikers as possible to show up (I believe it’s the first Sunday in June) outside the Westboro Baptist Center for Incest, with the intent to disrupt their services. Phelps and clan should not prostest, as that would be protected speech under the rules of the Supreme Court.

  24. 24
  25. 25
    Emperor Misha I growls and barks:

    LC Xystus says:

    The problem with this is that Snyder didn’t witness the pHELLps Worstburrow Batpissers’ presence near the funeral site; he saw ‘em on TV afterwards.

    THAT is the only thing in this thread that makes a difference, a huge one, and I wasn’t aware of that. I must have mixed this case up with the numerous other ones where the Phelps Phaggots were pretty much tap dancing on the casket while urinating.

    The difference here being that the emotional assault stemmed from Snyder “coming to the mountain” rather than the other way around.

    It doesn’t make a lick of difference vis-a-vis the despicable, loathsome nature of the Phaggots’ behavior, but it does make a difference when it comes to whether he did or didn’t have a choice in being assaulted.

    It’s the same reason why nothing I write on this site can be compared with me seeking out some individual in public for targeted harassment. They have to come here to read what I write as in: “they have a choice.” Or, to put it another way, if somebody is grievously offended by something I wrote, they basically walked into my fist on their own.

  26. 26
    Cortillaen growls and barks:

    Emperor Misha I says:

    LC Xystus says:
    The problem with this is that Snyder didn’t witness the pHELLps Worstburrow Batpissers’ presence near the funeral site; he saw ‘em on TV afterwards.
    THAT is the only thing in this thread that makes a difference, a huge one, and I wasn’t aware of that. I must have mixed this case up with the numerous other ones where the Phelps Phaggots were pretty much tap dancing on the casket while urinating.
    The difference here being that the emotional assault stemmed from Snyder “coming to the mountain” rather than the other way around.

    I agree with the majority in this specific case for purely that reason. I get the impression that Alito was arguing for general law, that there should be legal recourse in certain instances rather than this specific case, which causes some issues.

    Now, should the assholes push their protest on the funeral-goers, I want them plowed under by the courts. That, to me, constitutes verbal attack on a captive audience, and “captive” is the crossed line. I’m sure plenty of people will go “Well they can just have the funeral elsewhere, or they can just leave”, so I’ll just go ahead and declare bullshit: Anyone who has ever been involved in a funeral knows how hard it is to get everything arranged, much less moving or rescheduling it, and no one should be able to force the choice between attending a loved one’s funeral and not being subjected to directed obscenities on another person without consequence.

  27. 27
    LC Draco growls and barks:

    LC Nicki mentioned

    1) We CAN yell fire in a theater – IF there’s an actual fire. I don’t think this is a valid comparison.

    Yeah, but the main argument is if there is NO fire and still yell, “FIRE!!”

    And as for emotional battery, I would agree it is subjective. But then PTSD was subjective up to about 2-3 years ago. I have been diagnosed with mTBI and PTSD. Both are now able to be proven/verified through medical testing. I went through over numerous MRI’s and a few CT scans at BAMC to get both validated. The problem is mTBI and PTSD have several of the same symptoms.

    Positron emission tomography (PET) studies show that veterans with PTSD demonstrate increased right amygdala activity when exposed to combat movies.

    But back to the original argument, I am not implying that a relative at a funeral should have to go through a CT scan to determine emotional damage. I just think that it should have/could have been a case in support of the family members.

    Either way, I agree that it is only a matter of time before this becomes a ‘physical altercation’ scenario.

    Patriots will only be pushed so far…then we push back hard.

  28. 28
    LC Darth Scoundrel growls and barks:

    LC Nicki the Resident Misanthropic Bitch says:

    OK, folks. I’m going to be the lone dissenter in this case, and you all can take your shots at me.

    No you’re not. The ruling was correct, no matter how unpopular it may be.
    The same First Amendment that lets the Phelps phucknuggets act like assholes in pub-lick also allows the Patriot Guard Riders to stand in the gap between the grieving families and the asshats on the streetcorners.
    I wore the uniform to protect ALL forms of speech, not just the ones I agreed with.

  29. 29
    LC Gunsniper growls and barks:

    Hmmmmmm…