Virginia won’t back hate-speech suit (against Westboro Baptist Church)

[Ed Barrow]

Source: Richmond Times-Dispatch

Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli yesterday again asserted the legal independence that has drawn controversy to his office -- this time by not joining a high-profile lawsuit.

Cuccinelli's office announced that it is not joining 48 other states in filing a supporting legal brief on behalf of Albert Snyder, the father of a soldier killed in Iraq whose funeral in Maryland was picketed by Westboro Baptist Church of Kansas, a hate group.

...

"The attorney general's office deplores the absolutely vile and despicable acts of Fred Phelps and his followers," spokesman Brian Gottstein said in a statement. "We also greatly sympathize with the Snyder family and all families who have experienced the hatefulness of these people."

The statement said Cuccinelli's office chose not to file a brief "because the case could set a precedent that could severely curtail certain valid exercises of free speech."


Read more: http://www2.timesdispatch.com/rtd/news/state_regional/state_regional_govtpolitics/article/CUCC02_20100601-222805/348396/

[Raine1967]

1. but he is more than willing to go after Climate change scientists.

I despise this man.


Let it be clear now and forever more. Boobies bad, climate change bad -- but Westboro Church : protected.

[muntrv]

2. Ken, would one of those "valid exercises of free speech" include cross burning?

[msanthrope]

8. Abortion clinic and hospice protests....

as I outlined below, the 1st amendment allows for time/place restrictions.

The Kook doesn't want an exception in that recognizes that certain events in one's life---birth, death, burial, medical procedures, allow for PRIVACY that outweighs the political speech rights of persons who have no vested interest in your proceedings....

Imagine if Terry Schiavo had had a privacy right to die in peace.

[davidinalameda]

3. hate to admit it but he is right

probably the only thing he's been right about since he took office

[nichomachus]

10. Really? So, if I

decide to broadcast my political views at 150 decibels over giant loudspeakers in my neighborhood from 2 to 5 a.m., the police have no right to stop me.

No one is saying the Phelps coven can't hold their twisted views or even that they can't expound on them. They are just setting some limits on where and how. It's done all the time.

The police would stop my loudspeaker adventure because my neighbors have a right to the quiet enjoyment of the property and I would be disturbing their peace. People have a similar right to bury their dead in dignity and peace and not be heckled by people unrelated to them.

[davidinalameda]

11. not even close

[NutmegYankee]

13. What you describe is covered by a Noise Ordinance or the Noise Pollution and Abatement Act of 1972.

Excess Noise is recognized as a human health hazard, and regulated as a hazard.

[Heywood J]

20. Technically, it doesn't matter that it's a hazard.

What matters is that noise laws have imposed a restriction on speech for the common good or the good of other individuals, and that has stood the tests before. This proves that reasonable limits on freedom of speech can be upheld. Otherwise, noise pollution laws (those pertaining to volume of speech or music, at least) would have been universally struck down.

Ergo, there is some way of crafting laws against the Phelps clan that can be proven constitutional.

[Mimosa]

19. "People have a similar right to bury their dead in dignity and peace " ITA, nichomachus

It seems to me that communities should have protection at state law level that burials should not be disrupted by anybody's 'demonstrations'.

The Phelps crowd are dirty crazy wackos. They should have the right to say whatever they want but not to disrupt the peace of funerals.

The 1000th American soldier -a Marine- recently was killed in Afghanistan. I wonder if the Phelps crazies will dare show up at his funeral?

I think one argument against the Phelps wackos is that the their possible presence has an intimidating, threatening effect on the families of military when they make funeral plans.

[mr_liberal]

14. I agree. I hope the Phelps win.

As long as they arent disturbing the funeral by being too close or too loud, I think they have the right to protest and to free speech.

[hack89]

4. He's right. nt

[nichomachus]

9. No, he's dead wrong n/t

[madrchsod]

5. he is right but...

if the cemetery is private that`s a whole different ball game...

[davidinalameda]

12. as long as they're on public property

it's legal

[wmbrew0206]

6. In other news, Blind squarrel finds acorn.

[msanthrope]

7. He's afraid it would curtail abortion clinic and hospice protests.

What he doesn't want is a time/place exception that recognizes that the privacy of an individual during certain life events--birth, death, burial, medical procedures, outweighs the political speech rights of a group who have no vested interest in in the proceedings...

[lanlady]

15. +1

[depakid]

16. One fundy backing another- no surprise there.

[lynne]

17. As a Virginian I have to agree with him. Virginia already has a law -

- prohibiting willful disruption of such events. Anything further could be a slippery slope to restricting free speech which I certainly don't want to see happen.

[Dragonbreathp9d]

18. If they showed up at my son's funeral

they would never show up anywhere but a morgue ever again