To provide a counter to the WBC protest, law students decided that instead of counterprotesting, they would promote inclusion and positivity. At the event, students were presented with a list of people from the website More Love Letters to write hopeful and encouraging messages for, and their letters were sent to those strangers through the website.
We got a lot of letters for each person who we had on the list. WBC members sought to protest directly at Duke, but the University prohibits outside groups from protesting on campus, so they picketed on the corner of Towerview Road and Erwin Road instead. Leaders of around 10 law student organizations met to discuss whether they wanted to plan any action in response.
She noted that she had protested the WBC when she was in college, which strengthened her convictions against hate. Falwell , U. 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, as determined by all the circumstances of the case. Greenmoss Builders, Inc. Bank of Boston v. Bellotti , U. Sullivan , U. Louisiana , U.
Myers , U. Roe , U. Although that remains true today, we have articulated some guiding principles, principles that accord broad protection to speech to ensure that courts themselves do not become inadvertent censors.
See Cox Broadcasting Corp. Cohn , U. Hill , U. McPherson , U. That was confirmed by the fact that the particular report was sent to only five subscribers to the reporting service, who were bound not to disseminate it further. To cite another example, we concluded in San Diego v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc.
In considering content, form, and context, no factor is dispositive, and it is necessary to evaluate all the circumstances of the speech, including what was said, where it was said, and how it was said. While these messages may fall short of refined social or political commentary, the issues they highlight—the political and moral conduct of the United States and its citizens, the fate of our Nation, homosexuality in the military, and scandals involving the Catholic clergy—are matters of public import.
Garrison , U. But Westboro conducted its picketing peacefully on matters of public concern at a public place adjacent to a public street. Grace , U. Schultz , U. Fund, Inc. Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence , U. Maryland now has a law imposing restrictions on funeral picketing, Md. Law Code Ann. To the extent these laws are content neutral, they raise very different questions from the tort verdict at issue in this case.
We have identified a few limited situations where the location of targeted picketing can be regulated under provisions that the Court has determined to be content neutral. In Madsen v. The facts here are obviously quite different, both with respect to the activity being regulated and the means of restricting those activities.
Simply put, the church members had the right to be where they were. Westboro alerted local authorities to its funeral protest and fully complied with police guidance on where the picketing could be staged. The picketing was conducted under police supervision some 1, feet from the church, out of the sight of those at the church.
The city passed the prohibition once the WBC announced plans to picket the funerals. They keep those costs down by traveling by vans whenever possible. So how do they afford that? Most of it comes from within the organization, which consists of about 70 followers—most of whom are offspring of or related to founder Fred Phelps. Members are required to give 30 percent of their income to the church, which is tax deductible for the donor since WBC is technically a religious organization.
Many of its members have well-paying jobs in the medical and correction fields. Phelps, who was disbarred by the Kansas Supreme Court in for his lack of ethics and several members are lawyers, which means they know their rights and they know how to fight for them—and gain from them.
The church does not disclose how much it makes from litigations, but some of the cases have been well-documented. In the s, WBC sued the city of Topeka several times for not providing the group protection during protests. Since the family represented themselves, all that money went back to the church. In , Shirley Phelps-Roper was charged under a Nebraska flag desecration law for letting her son stand on an American flag that she wore around her waist. In an interview with NPR , WBC spokesperson Shirley Phelps-Roper spoke about the income the church receives from lawsuits against communities that prevent them from protesting—cases that often earn tens of thousands worth of fees.
0コメント