Snyder v. Phelps (2011)

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

For me, the question here essentially boils down to is the deceased service member's individual contribution to this country's policies insignificant enough to justify time and place restrictions on protests of those policies at eir funeral.  I think it is.  If Phelps were to engage in this type of protest outside a military cemetery, without regard to any funerals that might be taking place within, then while I would not think any better of him, I'd agree he had the right to make such a protest.

I could even, as horrible as it would be, support him having the right to protest at a funeral of a service member who had advocated ending DADT (or even advocated DADT over the previous ban on gays serving) because then there would be the linkage between what Phelps is protesting and the individual for whom services are being held.

Really, the only question for me is whether the time and place restrictions sought here are the sort that should be enforced after the fact via a civil suit or ahead of time via guidelines for civil protest.  Only in that sense can I see the defendant having reason to prevail as he did comply with all the governmental hurdle that were in place to have his protest where he did.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

the defendant did comply with all the governmental hurdle that were in place to have his protest where he did.

Basically, that ought to be case open and shut right there.

Only if you believe that only governments should be able to act to enforce rights.  I don't.  Government is a useful tool for a society, but it should never be the only one.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Question for the dissenters- why? What's your constitutional rationale?

The Framers' intent has obviously never been to protect all forms of speech. Categories of speech have always been held as deserving varying degrees of constitutional protection, and governmental restrictions on time, place and manner of expressions have been deemed legitimate in many cases. It's not really a stretch to consider than in these circumstances, the manner of the speech (violent, unwarranted insults) and its time and place (a person's funeral) are circumstances exceptional enough to warrant restrictions.

But the place wasn't AT the funeral.  It was far enough away that he only saw the tops of signs and didn't even hear the speech until he watched coverage about it on TV after the fact.

Which is why I agree with the concurrence.  The actual act of picketing itself was sufficiently removed from the funeral that it itself did not constitute IIED, but as Breyer pointed out the case brought before them dealt with the picketing and did not concern itself with the ancillary activities of Westboro that could have constituted IIED to the Snyder family.