First Amentment Folly, Part Two, The Right and Wrong

I want to give you all a bit more information about the previous post. You see, I happen to believe our legal system has become wrapped up in itself and no longer understands the idea of WHAT IS RIGHT! Legal decisions in my humble opinion must look at the right and wrong of an issue as well as the Legal grounds. If judges only rule on the written word and totally dismiss the Right and Wrong of an issue, God help us all.


I say that 99.9% of people in this country know it is wrong to go to a funeral burial service and protest in the ugly way described below and in my previous Blog. None-the-less, Courts spend millions on debating the words, the previous trials and each other and arrive at decisions that have absolutely nothing to do with the Right and Wrong of the issue. It is Legal for the sake of Legal, not Legal for the sake of Right.


Here is a bit more information on this sad subject:

March 8, 2010
9:22 am

The Supreme Court agreed Monday to decide on the outer limits of free-speech protection for public protests and to rule on whether a dead soldier’s family can sue fringe religious protesters who picketed near their son’s funeral with signs that said, "Thank God for dead soldiers."

A Maryland jury awarded $10 million in damages to Albert Snyder, whose son Matthew was killed in Iraq in March 2006. He had sued Fred Phelps, the founder of the Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kan., who has traveled the country for 20 years leading controversial protests at funerals for American soldiers.

He claims that God hates America because of its tolerance of homosexuality. He and his small group of followers carried protest signs at the funeral in Westminster, Md., that said, “Fag troops,” “God hates the USA” and “God hates fags.”

But a lawyer for Phelps said his protests were not targeted at Lance Corp. Matthew Snyder, the soldier, but more generally at America and the U.S. military. The protesters were kept at a distance from the church and the burial service. Nonetheless, the jury awarded damages to the Snyder family on the grounds that the funeral protests invaded their privacy and intentionally inflicted emotional distress.

In September, however, the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals threw out the entire award on free-speech grounds. “Notwithstanding the distasteful and repugnant nature of the words being challenged in these proceedings, we are constrained to concluded that the defendants’ signs are constitutionally protected,” the appeals court said.

Snyder’s family appealed to the Supreme Court, saying the protests had “tarnished” their son’s funeral. “Matthew deserved better. A civilized society deserved better,” they said.

The court announced it had voted to hear the appeal in Snyder vs. Phelps and to rule on whether the right to free speech extended to the right to intrude on a solemn ceremony. The justices will hear arguments in the case in the fall.

 David G. Savage, reporting from Washington

I know many people who would react rather violently at an intrusion such as this in the burial service of a loved one. Yes, that would be wrong. That is why I say we need our Courts to add Right and Wrong to their basis for decision making. My heart goes out to Hero Snyder's family for having to endure this Legal Abomination.