Read this Washington Post article and watch the video and answer the following questions in two to three paragraphs.
Westboro Baptist Church and Freedom of Speech
1) Why was this case originally brought before the Supreme Court? What was the major issue?
2) Do you think that the Westboro Baptist church’s protests should be covered speech under the First Amendment?
3) Since the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of the Westboro Baptist church’s right to protest, how would you peacefully counteract their actions?
Due Friday Morning 3/10
38 comments:
Hayley Bryden
Period 4
1. This case was originally brought to the Supreme Court to deal with the issue of freedom of speech. A Westboro Baptist Church was protesting at a soldier’s funeral and many other events claiming that any military deaths were God’s punishment because of America’s tolerance of homosexuality. Although extremely offensive and out of line, the Supreme Court ruled that it was legal for the protests to take place under the first amendment of the constitution.
2. In my opinion the protests should not have been allowed to take place at the funeral. A funeral should be a private event that family members and friends can grieve the loss of their loved one, as opposed to an opportunity for a group of people to make outlandish accusations about the world that are not logically relevant to the person who passed away. This should not only have been ruled unconstitutional, but should not have ever been done in the first place.
3. To try and peacefully stop this group I would write a letter to congress and encourage others to do the same saying that this group should not be allowed to protest at funerals. Another option is to form a petition and have other citizens sign it, or conduct a peacefully rally outside the Supreme Court to reconsider their decision.
Samantha Ragusa
Period 4
1. The major issue that is being presented is Freedom of Speech. There is debate to whether or not the Westboro Baptist Church's picketing of funerals is protected by the First Amendment. The case was brought to the Supreme Court to deal with whether or not it is freedom of speech.
2. As much as I do not agree with the actions of the church, they should be covered by the First Amendment. I feel it is rude and absurdly insensitive and wrong to go to a funeral, where friends and family are obviously very distraught, and say the reason why people are dying is because of homosexuals. However, according to the article they were doing it peacefully and they were not disturbing the funeral. The church members have the freedom of speech, however they really should be more sensitive.
3. To counteract the actions of the Westboro Baptist Church I would do a few things. First of all, if I was attending one of the funerals, I would do my best to just ignore the protesters. I would not give them any sort of satisfaction. Another thing I would do is write a letter to my Congress people. I would ask them to pass a law that prohibits picketing at funerals. the mean and women who died for our country deserve to be respected and buried peacefully.
Dolores Diorio
Period 6
1)This case was originally brought before the Supreme Court because the West Bro Baptist church members were picketing outside a dead soldiers funeral with obscene signs and an anti gay rally. The father of the dead soldier, Al Snyder, sued church members because he was offended and thought it didn’t look good on our society. The major issue was that it was offensive and it wasn’t really the right time or place to be doing a protest like that. Also, it was a major issue because the West Bro Baptist church, even though it was offensive and rude, were protected under the first amendment.
2) I think they should be, but with circumstances. I don’t think they should have protested at a funeral because that’s really disrespectful and morally wrong, in my opinion. Family members and friends must have been hurt and shocked seeing the protest while they were trying to mourn and remember their friend who just passed away. But, then again, the first amendment says that everyone has the right to free speech and expression, and if the Westboro Baptist church wants to protest it, they could, but I don’t think they should be allowed to do it at certain places and times.
3) If I saw members of the Westboro Baptist church protesting anywhere, I would just ignore them. I think it would be best to just ignore them and not even acknowledge them. It would be the most peaceful way instead of yelling at them or being rude to them.
1.) The case was originally brought before the Supreme Court because the major issue dealt with free speech provisions (freedom of speech). Westboro Baptist church goers protested and picketed at a Marine’s funeral (Al Snyder’s son). These protesters held up anti-gay signs. Al Snyder was suing these protesters because he believed that it was offensive and wrong to protest at a funeral. These protesters believed that these military deaths were God’s punishment. The Court voted 8-1 in favor of the Westboro Baptist Church because they were protected under the first amendment.
2.) The Westboro Baptist church’s protests should be covered under the First Amendment, however, I personally believe that the protests are wrong in protesting at a funeral. A funeral is where families mourn the loss of loved one. This family should have the right to peacefully grieve their loss in peace. I believe that the Westboro Baptist Church protesters can protest; however, their protests are very unethical.
3.) The Court voted 8-1 in favor of the Westboro Baptist Church because they were protected under the first amendment. In order to peacefully counteract their actions, I would have talked to the protesters and told them that the Marine died for this country. He should be respected and have a peaceful funeral. The protests should not be conducted during a funeral. If this didn’t work, I would have contacted the military and the local police. The least they could have done is form a barrier between the protesters and the funeral so that Al Snyder’s son is buried in peace.
Asahi Hoque
Period 4
1.This case was brought in front of the Supreme Court because of the First Amendment, Freedom of Speech. A soldier died in action, and during his funeral this Westboro Baptist Church protested with pickets. Pickets exclaiming things like “Thank God for Dead Soldiers”, “Your Sin”. They were referring to the don’t ask don’t tell, that because America doesn’t uphold restriction on homosexuality there are military deaths. The father was, I believe, right in being upset over this act of disrespect. He sued them. However, even after these slandering remarks , the Supreme Court has acknowledged their right as American citizens to voice their opinions.
2. I understand the Supreme Court’s ruling, because it is technically their right to protest, if we deny them the veracity of the Bill of Rights could become questionable leading to many other problems. However, I am aghast at the Church’s actions. And mortified that family and friends who attending the funeral to mourn and honor the solider, who fought for this country, had to deal with this. The fact that they thought that it was acceptable, illustrates how flawed our society is, unable to still accept homosexuality. It really should not have gone so far.
3. I don’t think the Supreme Court should re rule on this case, but I do think the church should pay some fine or receive some reprimand for their despicable actions. I think as a community the people should create a petition saying that the Church should not protest at funerals. I also think that people in the community should boycott or send angry letters to the church or try explaining that the soldier lost his life fighting for their country too. I also think a letter to the congressmen and congresswomen, would be beneficial, because they could tell the church off, or pass a law that prohibits picketing at funerals, especially an American soldier.
1) The Supreme Court case, Snyder v. Phelps which examines the First Amendment rights of the radical Westboro Baptist Church, was first brought to trial in 2006. When Westboro picketed outside of Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder’s funeral in Maryland over four years ago, Snyder’s father filed a lawsuit in search of damages for the emotional trauma caused in the chaos. Westboro has protested at over 600 military funerals to date, believing the setting provides a good base for publicity. Their chanting includes homosexual slurs and messages of hatred, and their signs are often obscene. Cpl. Snyder was not gay, but the members of the Westboro Baptist Church often cite America’s tolerance of homosexuality as a cause of death for soldiers. The case became a question over freedom of speech and was eventually brought to the Supreme Court. On Wednesday, the nine chief justices ruled that prosecuting the Church would be a violation of the Fist Amendment.
2) Although the Westboro Baptist Church may appear to be ignorant, they have strategically gone about the way in which they spread their messages of hate. According to the Constitution, they are allowed to say whatever they want to say because they are on public lands. They are not obstructing the funerals in any major way. Therefore, I feel the ruling was fair. If this case censors the right to free speech, the door will be opened to censor other forms of speech. Yes, what they are doing is despicable, but if the government takes away their right to express their opinions, the First Amendment is compromised and has the potential to be compromised further in the future.
3) I believe calling in troops and police forces to block them was to proper response in the case of Snyder. These measures prevented most of the signs from being seen. The Church however still diminished the right to an honorable funeral that every serviceman or woman has. Somebody needs to tell them to choose a new place to protest, one that is less disrespectful. Their message will probably never change, and their words will never be less hateful, but they can do it in a less hurtful setting. More protesters, protesting them will only make the situation worse. Maybe a group of peaceful citizens, in support of the military families could come out and try to stand in front of the protesters and the police so as to have a wall of solidarity. If possible, someone needs to reason with the head of the church and have them change locations.
Nikki Crose
1) Why was this case originally brought before the Supreme Court? What was the major issue?
This case was brought up for freedom of speech and for the father of the military personnel member who died in combat.
2) Do you think that the Westboro Baptist church’s protests should be covered speech under the First Amendment?
Well i think that it should be coverd by the ammendment how ever i dont feal that it was right of them to do it was a funirul. what kind of heartless person does that?
3) Since the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of the Westboro Baptist church’s right to protest, how would you peacefully counteract their actions?
Well seens how i never realy do things peacefully i cant be sure. however if i were to act in a peacefull manor to counteract their actions i would simply ask them to protest some where elts. to me it seems realy off topic to protest gay marige at a military funirel.
1) The Supreme Court case, Snyder v. Phelps which examines the First Amendment rights of the radical Westboro Baptist Church, was first brought to trial in 2006. When Westboro picketed outside of Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder’s funeral in Maryland over four years ago, Snyder’s father filed a lawsuit in search of damages for the emotional trauma caused in the chaos. Westboro has protested at over 600 military funerals to date, believing the setting provides a good base for publicity. Their chanting includes homosexual slurs and messages of hatred, and their signs are often obscene. Cpl. Snyder was not gay, but the members of the Westboro Baptist Church often cite America’s tolerance of homosexuality as a cause of death for soldiers. The case became a question over freedom of speech and was eventually brought to the Supreme Court. On Wednesday, the nine chief justices ruled that prosecuting the Church would be a violation of the Fist Amendment.
2) Although the Westboro Baptist Church may appear to be ignorant, they have strategically gone about the way in which they spread their messages of hate. According to the Constitution, they are allowed to say whatever they want to say because they are on public lands. They are not obstructing the funerals in any major way. Therefore, I feel the ruling was fair. If this case censors the right to free speech, the door will be opened to censor other forms of speech. Yes, what they are doing is despicable, but if the government takes away their right to express their opinions, the First Amendment is compromised and has the potential to be compromised further in the future.
3) I believe calling in troops and police forces to block them was to proper response in the case of Snyder. These measures prevented most of the signs from being seen. The Church however still diminished the right to an honorable funeral that every serviceman or woman has. Somebody needs to tell them to choose a new place to protest, one that is less disrespectful. Their message will probably never change, and their words will never be less hateful, but they can do it in a less hurtful setting. More protesters, protesting them will only make the situation worse. Maybe a group of peaceful citizens, in support of the military families could come out and try to stand in front of the protesters and the police so as to have a wall of solidarity. If possible, someone needs to reason with the head of the church and have them change locations.
Rachel Seggerman, period 6
1. The case of the Westboro Church having anti-gay protests outside of military funerals went to Supreme Court because, although the first amendment gave the church freedom of speech, the picketing was outrageous, and disrupted the funeral of Al Snyder's son, along with many others. The case went to the protesters, because they were ultimately protected by the first amendment.
2. I believe that, although the first amendment gives freedom of speech, a funeral is not the place to have protestors. When there are people around that have experienced tragedy, the worst thing anyone could do is create a disturbance such as this one. Freedom of speech should only apply to regular circumstances, not funerals, which are very personal. Although it is legal, it is still wrong, and should not be allowed to happen in the future.
3. I believe there is most likely no peaceful way to stop their actions. They would not have started protesting such a controversial topic if they didnt strongly follow it in the first place. The best way to handle this is for the participants at the funeral to ignore them, and find a way to block them out.
1)The case was originally brought to the Supreme Court because it conflicted with the Constitution. In the Constitution people are given the freedom of speech so the court needed to decide if the Westboro Baptist Church was allowed to protest at a soldier’s funeral.
2) In my opinion, it shouldn’t be allowed. It is disrespectful to the soldier and their families. Their protesting doesn’t benefit anyone and just disrupts society. I feel like people should be allowed to say whatever they want under the freedom of speech. However, there are places and times when people aren’t allowed to say certain things. You’ll get in trouble if you yell bomb in an airport or fire in a crowded theater. So I feel like it should be illegal to disrupt such a sacred ceremony. It’s a breach of peace and shouldn’t be allowed.
3) To peacefully counteract their protests I would show up at their church on Sunday with signs and disrupt their services. If a member of the church had a death in the family, I would go to that person’s funeral with a lot of people and signs.
Michael Yavorek
Period 4
1. The case was originally brought before the Supreme Court because it challenged the first amendment which is the freedom of speech. This is because of recent events were a Westboro Baptist Church was protesting at a U.S. soldiers funeral. They were saying that this is God’s punishment for the U.S. acceptance of homosexuality. Although that these protests were offensive and disrespectful the Supreme Court ruled that they were legal under the first amendment.
2. I do not think the Westboro Baptist Church protests should be allowed under the first amendment. The first amendment protects the rights to freely express your opinion in the understanding that it won’t disturb the peace. These protests are maliciously attacking a dead soldier and in my opinion this is very disrespectful.
The members of Westboro Baptist Church should be ashamed and have thought of more reasonable ways to protest. The Supreme Court should have ruled this unconstitutional because they targeted someone that had nothing to do with their protests and only had served his country.
3. To peacefully counteract the Westboro Baptist Church protests I would write a letter to congress insisting that they should ban protesting at funerals. This should solve the problem peacefully. Also if I were present at the funeral I would have ignored the protesters and if they were too close to the funeral I would have asked nicely to protest further away because they need to respect the what the U.S. soldier has done for our country.
Connor Slade
Period 4
1) Why was this case originally brought before the Supreme Court? What was the major issue?
The case was originally brought before the Supreme Court because it was argued weither or not the Westboro Baptist church was protected by the First Amendment to anti-gay protest at a dead Marine’s funeral. The father of the dead Marine had then sued the Westboro Baptist church, and ruled in favor of the church.
2) Do you think that the Westboro Baptist church’s protests should be covered speech under the First Amendment?
Yes, I believe that their protests should be covered by the First Amendment but I don’t believe it was necessary or appropriate to be anti-homosexually protesting at a funeral for a kid who shouldn’t have died yet, he served for our country and then the people in our country protest against him being gay at his funeral.
3) Since the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of the Westboro Baptist church’s right to protest, how would you peacefully counteract their actions?
I think they could peacefully counteract their actions by making it against the law to protest at a funeral, funerals are supposed to be peaceful and sepulchral, not full of disrespecting, screaming God lovers.
This case was brought before the Supreme Court because the constitutionality of certain acts was questioned. In this case, the family of a fallen soldier went to the court because certain protesters displayed boards that were filled with heinous words during the funeral. The protesters showed their hatred toward homosexuality through phrases such as “America’s doomed” and other offensive sayings. The family of the dead soldier sued these protesters for picketing at the funeral. The major issue was that whether freedom of speech and assembly is justified even in this situation. States law on funerals, ensuring peace and safety to the dead ones are now in conflict with the decision of the Supreme Court.
I do not think that the Westboro Baptist church’s protests should be covered speech under the First Amendment. Some of the things that they wrote/said were horrific. They were supposed to be God-loving and peaceful people. Their words of hatred were disgusting, grossly filthy. These protesters were only hypocrites who expressed their hatred in the name of God. Their actions only tainted God’s preaching. Under the rule of this Supreme Court case, such actions as these are now validated. In other words, the government is saying that it is okay for people disrupt funerals, even the ones for national heroes who lost their lives to protect the peace of our country. Right now these protesters are only able to go on about their business is because they live in a peaceful and prosperous country. Their lives are protected by people like the plaintiff (the fallen soldier). Such actions should not be allowed; their despicable actions should not have been covered by the Bill of Rights.
I think one way of counteract their actions is by trying to talk some senses into their bigoted, pretentious and ignorant heads. Of course, talking would not be effective. Maybe in this case, the best way is to call in police forces or hire private bodyguards to ensure the peace of the funeral.
1) Why was this case originally brought before the Supreme Court? What was the major issue? This case was brought before the Supreme Court because a father of a fallen marine was upset because people were protesting against gays in the military at the church where they were trying to have a funeral.
2)Do you think that the Westboro Baptist church’s protests should be covered speech under the First Amendment? I don’t think that people should be able to protest during a funeral. I think that is rude and unnecessary to protest at someone’s funeral. The marine died fighting for his country and his family should be shown some respect.
3Since the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of the Westboro Baptist church’s right to protest, how would you peacefully counteract their actions? In order to peacefully counteract their actions, I would give them a taste of their own medicine. Show them how I felt when they protested at the funeral. I would show up with picket signs when they were trying to use the church for a service.
This case was previously brought before the Supreme Court because it dealt with the first ammendment and freedom of speech. Westboro Baptist Church goers were seen protesting at a soilders funeral, picketing with sign scribbled with disrspectful and ignorant messages. The supreme court rulled in favor of the Westboro baptist church because they were expressing their right to the first ammendment.
In my opinion I do think that the protests should go without punishment. Although it is an extremely offensive and rude the protesters were still in the boundaries of the first ammendment and no breach of the constitution was actually committed.
To peacefully stop these protesters I would probably encourage another case be brought to the supreme court with new evidence and information to show what this does to a family of a fallen soilder. Hopefully this new information would cause the supreme court to change their decision and stop these ridiculous protesters.
Mike Coombs
Period 1
1. This case was originally brought before the Supreme Court because it involved a very controversal case about the Westboro Baptist church's use of free speech in crashing and protesting the funerals of dead soldiers. The church spoke out against the homosexual soldiers that lost their lives defending their country, some of which weren't even homosexual, with picket signs insulting the fallen men and women. The families and friends of the soldiers struck back against the church, arguing that what they were doing was extremely and horrifyingly inhumane, taking it up to the Supreme Court. However, the Supreme Court recognized that the Westboro Baptist church's protests were protected by the First Amendment, and ruled in their favor.
2. I believe despite how disgusting and unpatriotic the people of the church protesting are, they have every right to be doing what they are doing, even at military funerals. If the Supreme Court ruled against their favor, than it would set a rather large precedent on the use of free speech in this country. I have no respect for what the people of the church are doing, and I think it is absolutely horrifying how the soldiers that died protecting the country that these same people live in are being insulted and desecrated. However, free speech is free speech, and the more we ignore and rise above the picket signs and bigoted remarks, the Westboro Baptist church will not succeed in what they are trying to accomplish.
3. I would ignore the church's ridiculous outbursts, and move on with my life, because I would not allow some ignorant protestors disrupt my respect and spirit for those who have perished in defending the lives of the American people. I feel at ease knowing that if there is a Hell, the people of the Westboro Baptist church are heading there with first class tickets.
Mike Coombs
Period 2
1. This case was originally brought before the Supreme Court because it involved a very controversal case about the Westboro Baptist church's use of free speech in crashing and protesting the funerals of dead soldiers. The church spoke out against the homosexual soldiers that lost their lives defending their country, some of which weren't even homosexual, with picket signs insulting the fallen men and women. The families and friends of the soldiers struck back against the church, arguing that what they were doing was extremely and horrifyingly inhumane, taking it up to the Supreme Court. However, the Supreme Court recognized that the Westboro Baptist church's protests were protected by the First Amendment, and ruled in their favor.
2. I believe despite how disgusting and unpatriotic the people of the church protesting are, they have every right to be doing what they are doing, even at military funerals. If the Supreme Court ruled against their favor, than it would set a rather large precedent on the use of free speech in this country. I have no respect for what the people of the church are doing, and I think it is absolutely horrifying how the soldiers that died protecting the country that these same people live in are being insulted and desecrated. However, free speech is free speech, and the more we ignore and rise above the picket signs and bigoted remarks, the Westboro Baptist church will not succeed in what they are trying to accomplish.
3. I would ignore the church's ridiculous outbursts, and move on with my life, because I would not allow some ignorant protestors disrupt my respect and spirit for those who have perished in defending the lives of the American people. I feel at ease knowing that if there is a Hell, the Westboro Baptist church group will head there with first class tickets.
Elyssa Eisenberg, P. 5
1. This case was originally brought to the Supreme Court because it had already gone through appeals and was brought before the Supreme court to tackle the major issue here of the First Amendment.
2. I do think that the Westboro Baptist Church's protests should be allowed under the First Amendment, but I think that even more precautions and protection should be available to funerals. Protests such as this one should not be legally allowed to be within sight distance of the funeral they are protesting.
3. To peacefully counteract the Westboro Baptist church's actions, I would form a giant protest of their vulgarity and rudeness right outside of their church.
This case was originally brought before the Supreme Court to deal with actions against freedom of speech. The issue is whether or not a picketing of funerals is protected under the first amendment, therefore going to the Supreme Court to decide. This issue was braught up after the people of Westboro Baptist church protested and picketed at the Marine’s funeral. The father was suing the protesters; because of feeling very offended as well as upset about a protest at a funeral. He was going up against the protesters who believed that is was God’s punishment for dying in the military, and that it lied within the freedom of speech.
I do not believe that the Westboro Baptist church’s protesters should be covered speech under the First Amendment because it is not only exceedingly bad for them picket and protest at a funeral, but for their reasoning. The funeral is a peaceful place to grieve the loss of a loved one, not a place for violence, and inappropriate behavior towards the deceased. The idea of those protesters acting that way because they believe it was God’s punishment, should not grant them the right to be under the First Amendment.
Since the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of the Westboro Church’s right to protest, to peacefully counteract their actions I would try to bring it upon Congress’s issues to at least make it illegal to protest at one’s funeral. They should agree that everyone deserves a peaceful ceremony and funeral, without people causing commotion, and disrespecting a lost one. Maybe by sending a letter or some other way, I would attempt to gain their attention to this issue.
Chris Moruzzi
Period 1
1) This issue was brought to the supreme court on account of freedom of speech. Protesters of the Westboro Baptist church picketed a military funeral, saying that the death of soldiers is God’s punishment for homosexuality. The court’s vote ended up eight to one in favor of the church, because they were protected by the first amendment.
2) I do believe that protests in general should be covered by the first amendment. I believe that it wouldn’t be possible for the government to make exceptions as to what can or cannot be protested, therefore they must be protected. However I do believe that protesting at a funeral is despicable and inappropriate. The first amendment often protects the ignorant who publicly practice stupidity.
3) To peacefully counteract the actions of the church, I would say to organize a protest against the church and show them that their actions were irrational and vulgar. The number of people in this protest would undoubtedly outnumber the amount in the previous protest. They are aloud to project their opinion, and we are aloud to project ours.
Wendy Fang
Period 1
1) It was questioning the consitutionality of the picketing because despite the church's expression of their first amendment rights, what they said and waved around on signs were derogitory and hurtful to the individuals who attend fallen soldier funerals as well as individuals who do not oppose homosexuality.
2) Though I believe that what the Westboro Baptist church said out stepped the bounds of morality, they did not out step the bounds of the first amendment. There is definitely a more moral and polite way to say what they wished to convey. I believe that they were extremely rude, disgraceful, and frankly shameful. There is no reason why they had to use such disgusting and brutal terms, especially considering that they did it during the funeral of a fallen soldier who deserved much better, nor was there any reason why they had to magnify the supposed "threat" homosexuals pose when in truth they are people just like us. Using extreme terms like these individuals did, these individuals are verbal radicals, slamming down and brutally killing the morals of homosexuals and homosexual supports with their harsh words and brutal phrases. I guess this reveals the measures some people will go to just to get attention and get their message out there. It's just upsetting to see that some people will go to such low meassures to do so.
3) I would most likely write letters to appeal the ruling, possibly gathering my own group of indviduals to peacefully and in a dignified manner protest the ruling. There is also the option of writing to the protesters and ask them to be more dignified with their words just so their actions can seem at least slightly more peaceful and realistic to human life and respectful of the human beings they are trying to get rid of.
Veronica Cadavid
Period 6
The case was brought up by the soldiers father who was on the churches side and said they had no right to protest at the soldiers funeral. The supreme court ruled that it was legal for them to protest.
In my opinion it was not right for them to protest due to the setting, but they did have the right to protest. Although it was inappropriate it was completely constitutional.
If I were to try and stop the protestors peacefully I would start a peaceful protest, protesting their actions. Also I would try ignoring them or calmly telling them to stop.
Sara Hassan
Period 4
1. This case was brought to the Supreme Court to deal with freedom of speech. This case began when members of the Westboro baptist church were protesting at a marine's funeral. They were saying that this marine's death was a punishment from God for the tolerance of gay americans. Father of this marine sued the members of the church because it was rude, and inappropriate. The major issue was wether or not their actions were protected under the first ammendment.
2. While I believe that the church members actions were outrageous and extremely rude, I do see how they had the right to assemble outside the church technically and ruling against them would have been unconstitutional. However, it was morally wrong to protest a funeral and not let family and friends mourn in peace.
3. The best way to peacefully deal with this is to ignore the protesters during the funeral. If I was attending a funeral and there were protesters the most mature thing to do would be to try and have a nice burial for someone. As for the members of the church, I do think they should give an apology. I think that a less peaceful way to counteract their actions is to maybe hold a protest of their own against the church.
Mike Heafy
Period 6
1.) The case was brought to the supreme court regarding freedom of speech. The issue presented was a group of protesters picketing against gays, at a funeral for a dead soldier. The supreme court decided that what the protesters were doing was legal based on the right to free speech.
2.)I do not think that this should be covered under the first amendment. There are certain circumstances when protesting should not be allowed, and a funeral is most certainly one of them. A grieving family should not need to listen to other peoples complaints when they are at a funeral. The protesting should be held after the family has left the funeral. Each peron has a right to say what they want, but there is a correct time and place for everything.
3.) I would just simply igore the protesters. If I was at the funeral, i would not care what was going on outside of the church, I would be grieving.
This case was originally brought before the Supreme Court because the issue was dealing with the First Amendment and, more specifically, freedom of speech. The issue was that a group from the Westboro Baptist Church attended the funeral of a soldier to protest homosexuality and to express their outrage at America's acceptance of it. Whether or not this was right, however, the Supreme Court did rule that the protests were legal because of the protesters freedom of speech.
Although I feel that this act is immoral, I do agree that this is freedom of speech. They have a right to speak their mind, though I don't think that it was the proper time or place. I feel a funeral, especially for a soldier, is not an appropriate place for such words and frankly, I'm outraged by whe protesters. However, no matter what I feel about the act, it is still freedom of speech.
The best way to peacefully counteract the actions of the protesters is to bring up the action with Congress. In my opinion, it is too late to punish the protesters for their actions, but the people can get together and prevent any other similar events from taking place. If a simple restriction were to be made, stating that we should respect and honor those who gave their lives for our country and not allow protests of any kind, this attrocious event will never happen again.
Mike Heafy
period 6
1.) This issue was originally brought to the supreme court to discuss the right of free speech. A group of protesters were protesting gays outside of a local church during a soldiers funeral. The supreme court decided that it was legal for the protesters to protest during the funeral based on the right to freedom of speech.
2.)I believe that the protesters should be allowed to protest, but not at a funeral. A grieving family does not want to hear other peoples problems while they are mourning the loss of a loved one. Protesting after the funeral was over, or before it began would be okay, but a family should not have to deal with this when grieving.
3.)I would try and peacefully stop the protesters by just ignoring them. I would only focus on what was happening inside of the church, not what was happening around it.
Alyssa Cavanaugh
period 6
1# On Wednesday the Supreme Court ruled unanimously when the subject of freedom of speech was brought to their attention. They discussed the nation’s tolerance for hateful speech, which in this case was about an anti-gay church. The issue was brought to the court because the people felt their rights for freedom of speech was being abused and was being aimed at innocent people.
2# I believe everyone has the right to say what they feel. However I do not feel that people have the right to go around protesting things such as homosexuality or its god punishing soldier's for going to war. It and it makes for an uncomfortable life style.
3# I would write a letter or set up a group to try and prevent these things from happening again. We wouldn't be a protesting group but we would definitely have an impact.
The case was originally brought to the supreme court because the people of the Westboro Baptist Church were protesting at a soldiers funeral with offensive picket signs to the family of the soldier. The family tried to sue the protestors becuase of disrespect but they were covered by the first amendment. The main issue was if it should be legal or not for them to protest the way they were.
I think that the protests should not have been covered under the first amendment because they were offensive to the family of the soldier and the soldier died trying to protect the rights of everyone. The protestors should have respect and not go to the funeral because it is a sacred and mourning time for the family. Under the first amendment it says you are covered under freedom of speech, but to what extent? I don't think that the protest should have been protected.
To peacefully counteract the protestors i would just ignore them because they area only looking for a reaction. Also i would write a letter to congress stating why people should not be allowed to be disrespectful at funerals.
Period 1
The case was originally brought to the Supreme Court because the father of a deceased marine was suing Westboro Baptist Church’s protestors. The members of the church were protesting the marine’s funeral with anti-gay signs, and the father thought it preposterous that they even had the right to do so. The problem was, the church members actually did have a right, according to the First Amendment, and they could not technically be punished.
Looking at it technically, the Westboro Baptist Church’s protesters have every right to be covered by the First Amendment. The same amendment protects my right of free speech, so I wouldn’t want anyone taking that away from me if I had a strong issue to openly protest. Even so, personally, I don’t think people have any right to protest a funeral because of their own beliefs. It’s ridiculously rude, first of all, and it’s also just mean. It’s a sad day when we can’t bury our dead without protestors.
To counteract their actions, I would personally apologize for the protestors’ rudeness and misconduct, and I would thoroughly explain to the marine’s father why exactly the Supreme Court made its decision, so that maybe he could have a little closure and relief.
1. This case was originally brought to the Supreme Court to deal with the issue of freedom of speech. The major issue was that the Westboro Baptist church was picketing at a dead soldier’s funeral solely because of his sexual orientation. The members of that congregation feel that homosexuals don’t deserve the same treatment, such as a proper burial, that a heterosexual would get. Many obscene signs were put up, such as “God Hates Fags,” and thus, the soldier’s father, Al Snyder, decided to sue this church due to damages and because the “group had turned the event into a "circus."”
2. In my opinion, I do feel that the Church’s actions are covered because the First Amendment protects the free speech of American citizens. However, I do not feel that the Church’s decision to make these protests was morally correct, considering that they are a church. People, especially those who are religiously binded to nondiscrimination of others, should not be into the practice of discriminating other humans because of their ways of life, as that bring a bad connotation to the way that we, as Americans, view other people in our country.
3. Since the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of the Westboro Baptist church’s right to protest, I would peacefully counteract their actions by having these churchpersons pay fines for the disruption of a formal service of a US serviceman, one by one. i feel this way because though the First Amendment does state and give Americans the right of free speech, it does not impede the American right to fine another for an action that one could deem unacceptable and disruptive to the people and to the community. Hopefully, this means of reprimand would allow these wrongdoings to stop.
Ashley Splain
Period 6
1)This case was originally brought to the Supreme Court after a funeral of marine who was killed in combat was met with heavy resistance from members of the Westboro Baptist Church. While protesting members of the group held signs claiming that the deaths of any person from war or any natural disaster was punishment for the country’s support of homosexuality. These anti-gay campaigns were not only incredibly vulgar and spiteful, but were extremely disrespectful to the mourning members of the family.
2)While I do not think that what these people did was in anyway correct or even tolerable I do think that they should be allowed protection to free speech under the first amendment. And though it is sad that we live in a time and place were there are people who think in this way, by not allowing them to speak their mind it is adding more fuel to the fire. Also it causes the nation to stoop to their level of ignorance by blocking their freedom we would be loosing the amount of human decency that they are so obviously lacking.
3)To peacefully counteract their actions it would be nice to have a large group of supporters for the soldiers at the funerals or where ever this group may also choose to protest. In doing so people would be able to show how much people do support those men and women fighting for our country and will counter act the small amount of bigoted people that unfortunately still exist.
1. This case was originally brought to the supreme court, because of a problem with freedom of speech. The Westboro Baptist church was protesting at a soldiers funeral with posters saying various phrases. Westboro church does this because they feel that the deaths of soldiers and various others in combat are brought upon by our tolerance of homosexuality. Many people in the U.S. feel this is wrong but the supreme court says that it is legal under the first amendment.
2. I feel that the protests should have been stopped right away, because even though they have freedom of speech, people should not be able to go to a private event where family members and friends grief over there loss. When you have protesters saying that their son or daughter is going to hell it makes a bad situation even worse.
3.
Honestly i dont feel their is any peaceful way of counteracting their actions, just because u anything u do to them physically can hurt yourself. Even though these protesters have a right to freedom of speech, i dont feel that they should be able to do this at a private event such as a funeral.
Samuel golmohammadi
period 1
1.I think It was brought to supreme court to deal with the freedom of speach's issue and because the protesters were not respecting the funeral of an American soldier and they were protesting about homosexuality at his funeral so the soldiers family got upset.But the supreme court ruled that it was totally legal and as the first amendment says they are free to protest as long as they're not threatening anyone.
2.I think it was not nice that the church were protesting at the soldiers funeral and as a human being it was a wrong thing to do but since it's legal there is no way that anyone could stop them or not allow them to protest because they have the freedom to protest.
3.As a christian i think that the church did a wrong thing.In the Bible God says that homosexuality is a sin and i agree but as all of the Christians know,God doesn't hate sinners,he hates sin.I think they shouldn't have done that because he was a human being and they should have respected his funeral.
Justin Zovas
1.The case was originally brought in front of the Supreme Court to look at the issue of how far the First Amendment can be stretched. More specifically, does the freedom of speech right protect protesters at the Westboro Baptist Church to protest at a homo-sexual soldier's funeral. The protesters were blaming the soldier's sexuality for why he died. The Supreme Court ruled that it was ok for the protesters to say what they are saying under the first amendment.
2. Personally, if this was a loved-one of mine, I wouldn't want protesters at the funeral. I see why the Supreme Court upheld the ruling based on what it saying in the constitution but i dont think it made what the protesters were doing acceptable.
3.I think simply ignoring the protesters and not giving them the attention they want is the best way to counteract the situation. This seems to be the most peaceful course of action.
The big issue is freedom of speech and whether the Westboro Baptist Church is protected by the first ammendment when the picketed at a soldier's funeral. The supreme court has to decide if this is within their rights of freedom of speech.
Even though their act's were horrid and shameful, the church is still protected by freedom of speech. They were not interupting the funeral. They lack tact but this is America and peaceful protests should be allowed to occur, no matter how tasteless they are.
If I was at the funeral, I would have been really upset and instead of ignoring them, probably verbally protest their protest after the ceremony. I cannot just stand by and let that happen. I would also write letters to different legislators about making it illegal to protest at funerals.
Daniel Grant
Period 6
1) The major issue was that fundamentalist church members were picketing and showing attention getting signs out side of military soldier's funeral. The signs were not of a positive nature and dealt with thanking god for this dead soldier.
2) Despite the moral implications of such an act are of a twisted nature that are generally looked down upon in society, we must allow their protests to be covered under free speech. If it is not allowed, who is it to decide what is okay to protest and what is not okay, delving into one's opinions and not so much one's freedoms.
3) To peacefully counteract their actions, a group of those offended by the actions of Westboro Baptist Church members could go outside of the church during service and protest what they did at the funeral using the same methods of loud, attention-getting signs that display disapproval.
1. This case was originally brought before the Supreme Court for the issue with the Westboro Baptist Church and the rights concerning the First Amendment (freedom of speech).
2. I believe that the protests should still be covered under the First Amendment except for the issue about protesting at funerals of deceased military soldiers. The funerals are times to mourn for the lost family member or friend not to be bombarded with protesters.
3. I would write a letter to Congress suggesting that they create a law that states that there may be protests, just not at the funerals of recently deceased soldiers.
Post a Comment