Funeral Protest Pro/Con - You May Not Like It but the Alternative Is Worse

In Snyder v. Phelps, dissenting Justice Samuel Alito likened the protests of the Westboro Baptist Church members to fighting words and of a personal character, and thus not protected speech. The majority disagreed and stated that the protester's speech was not personal but public, and that local laws which can shield funeral attendees from protesters are adequate for protecting those in times of emotional

In 1969, the Supreme Court of the United States (U.S. Supreme Court) put forth rules allowing the burning of the flag to be protected under the First Amendment. The U. S. Supreme Court first ruled on flag discretion in 1907 in the Halter v. Nebraska case. Prior to this ruling flag discretion statues strictly prohibited the burning of the American flag , as well as, disrespecting the flag in any way shape or form. In 1968, Congress reacted to the burning of the American flag in New York during a protest against the Vietnam War by passing the Federal Flag Desecration Law. In a few court cases it has been declared that burning the American flag is only illegal if the flag has been stolen. When a flag is worn/torn the proper way of disposing of the flag is to burn it; however, when disposing of a flag by burning it there are steps that should be followed in order to do so honorably. The flag should be folded in its customary manner and then placed on a fire that is fairly large with sufficient intensity to ensure complete burning of the flag. After placing the flag on the fire all individuals should come to attention, salute the flag while reciting the Pledge of Allegiance and observing a brief moment of silence. Once the flag has been completely consumed the fire should be safely extinguished and the ashes should be buried. Congress has made seven attempts to overrule the Supreme Court decision regarding the burning of the American flag by passing a constitutional amendment that had an exception to the First Amendment and allowed the government to ban flag desecration. (Thelawdictionary.org,

“Expression may be symbolic, as well as verbal. Symbolic speech is conduct that expresses an idea. Although speech is commonly thought of as verbal expression, we are all aware of nonverbal communication. Sit-ins, flag waving, demonstrations, and wearing…protest buttons are examples of symbolic speech. While most forms of conduct could be said to express ideas in some way, only some conduct is protected as symbolic speech. In analyzing such cases, the courts ask whether the speaker intended to convey a particular message, and whether it is likely that the message was understood by those who viewed it. In order to convince a court that symbolic conduct should be punished and not protected as speech, the government must show it has an important reason. However, the reason cannot be that the government disapproves of the message conveyed by the symbolic conduct” (Arbertman 442-3).

Regretfully, people act and react because they are offended by things like this, but it is one of our many freedoms as Americans. Although it cannot be prohibited it should be responded to in such a way they do not feel put down or that they are wrong in expressing themselves, but rather suggest to them that it is hurtful and offensive to others. We have the right to be offended as others have the right to display or express their own interests.

Not affiliated with any southern baptist or general baptist churches, the thirty-nine member (The Journal) Westboro Baptist Church is primarily known for its continued protest against the LGBT community, the Catholic Church, and the military (Wikipedia). The westboro Baptist Church’s first public service was held on November 27, 1955(Wikipedia). This was the first time the church publicly condemned the world. Most recently the Westboro Baptist Church have agreed with the shooting at the Pulse Night Club in Orlando, Florida stating that God sent Omar Mateen to kill the gays because “God hates fags.” While other churches preach about loving one another as god has loved them, the westboro

The Westboro Baptist Church is a group that has been in the spotlight for the last two decades because of their unusual tactic of picketing at soldier’s funerals. The act is motivated by the notion that America’s moral are being corrupted by their acceptance of homosexuality. The act of picketing of soldier’s funerals according to the group is motivated by the fact that it is a time when mourners are emotionally vulnerable and they think of their mortality. They believe that by picketing in soldier’s funerals their message is stronger. However, this tactic has caused much consternation from both the public and the government. In the interest of the public, state legislatures have enacted laws against the actions of the Westboro Baptist Church. The landmark case of Snyder v. Phelps would have been the deciding factor against the group, but the Supreme Court held in favor of the group because their actions were protected by the First Amendment. This then would present the notion that the First Amendment trumped public interest in the decision. However, that is not the case because the case was an IIED case among others, it was a personal one. As long as the group coordinates with public authorities and does not break laws, then their acts are nothing more than nuisances that should not get in the way of celebrating the life of the dead.

In my opinion protesting is irrelevant and a waste of time depending on the topic. liberal yuppies are a waste of space everyone protesting Donald Trump is a yuppy and they all need to get a job. Teachers deserve better pay. Cows are great. If you do not like anything I just said here is a straw so you can suck it up. If you do not like my straw then here is some wood so you can build a bridge and get over it... or burn the bridge down which ever you

Americans and free speech go together like burger king. You can always have it your way, but at what cost? Free speech is something that has been around for a long time, but has involved & seen various dilemmas that make you want to question it & your own freedom. Although free speech was guaranteed in the first amendment there have been many situations that in a complex way make you think about your own rights & the whole purpose of being born in the United States with them. If I was to wake up one day & decide that I wanted to freely create a protest expressing that I support gay rights or the LGBT community then by all means I should be able to do that without any interference.

We felt that there is a certain amount of respect that everyone deserves and the WBC is crossing this line and stripping people of this respect. As a result, there should be laws created to limit the amount of emotional stress that this group can put onto the people they encounter. One way this can be done is by not allowing the church to protest at certain events such as the funerals of deceased military members. Although the WBC has the right and is protected by the first amendment, allowing them to express their freedom of speech, they are using this to their advantage and are exploiting others. I personally believe that the creators of this amendment had no intention for it to be used to protect people who act like the members of the WBC. I do agree that the WBC have the right to their freedom of speech and protest, however, they are in some ways, impeding and striping the rights and freedoms of the people they encounter and the young members of the church who shout and hold signs when they have yet to understand the meaning of

In the beginning of this article, Rosenbaum relies on the appeal of emotion, pathos, to persuade his audience to agree with his claim. He tries to achieve this by telling a story of a church group picketing the funeral of a gay marine. He states, “The Supreme Court upheld the right of a church group opposed to gays serving in the military to picket the funeral of a dead marine with signs that read ‘God Hates Fags’ ” (Rosenbaum). This event caused an uproar and disrupted the peace of a marines’ funeral. Many people began to question the limits of free speech because of this. How can people use hateful speech such as

I did some research and what keeps coming up is the U.S. Marine Matthew Snyder. The church protested his funeral and it sparked tremendous outrage amongst a lot of people. What is sad is that the court ruled that the protesters were protected under free speech. The ruling was an 8-1 and was won by a land slide in the churches favor. This blew me out of the water reading that Chief Justice John Roberts stated that "Whether the First Amendment prohibits holding Westboro liable for its speech in this case turns largely on whether that speech is of public or private concern." And in this specific case, the judges determined the words on Westboro’s signs indeed dealt with “matters of public import” (Gregory 2011). Free speech is a beautiful thing, but when you want to basically shit on someone’s funeral especially when that person fought for your freedom is wrong in my eyes and there should be bans for protesters on certain occasions. Private matters should be only the family and others not a huge mob of people ragging on soldiers and other situations. I am not a soldier and it made me mad that these people would basically slander this man who died to fight for

In 2006, Matthew Snyder, a Marine Corporal was killed during combat in Iraq. Snyder’s family had made funeral arrangements at a Catholic church in their hometown of Westminster, Maryland. The time and location of this service was made public by local newspapers, thus being easily accessible by the public. Fred Phelps, the founder of Westboro Baptist Church located in Topeka, Kansas, was made aware of this service and chose to travel to Maryland to picket it with his two daughters and four grandchildren. The members of the WBC believe that God will forever despise and punish the United States for its lenience towards homosexuality, especially within the military. In order to ensure that their beliefs be known, Phelps and his members frequently

“The Most Hated Family in America,” is a 2007 BBC documentary film by Louis Theroux, who followed members of the Westboro Baptist Church, in Topeka, Kansas, in order to document their outrageous and controversial views. Theroux spent three weeks with the Phelps family, descendants of Fred Phelps, who founded the Westboro Baptist Church in 1955. Members of the Westboro Baptist Church strongly believe that soldiers killed in combat, are God’s punishment for homosexuality and the increased support and acceptance of homosexuality in America. They display their views by having anti-gay protests and picketing the funerals of veterans, with signs like “God Hates Fags” and “Thank God for Dead Soldiers.” Theroux tells Shirley, the daughter of Fred Phelps, that the church’s protests are most likely putting people off the word of Jesus Christ, and she responds by saying their job is not

Speech in United States is as free as it could ever be because Congress does not violate what an individual says, regardless of how odious. According to the United States Supreme Court case "Snyder V. Phelps", Westboro Baptist Church has been protesting at the military funerals for the past 20 years and it has protested at nearly 600 funerals to spread its belief that God hates United States for its acceptance of homosexuality, especially in the US Military. Similarly, protesters went to the funeral of Marine Lance Corporal Matthew Snyder where they

up. We still have not had a proper ceremony so that we can put her ashes under the headstone. She died four years ago, but it took a long time for my mother’s family to decide what they wanted the headstone to look like and to pay for it. Funerals can be very costly. My grandmother was funny and caring. She always made us laugh. I could talk to her about anything. We were very close and she always had a smile on her face. I never was sad or cranky when I was with her. She could instantly make me laugh.