 I do not agree with what you say, but I would fight so you could say. Voltaire
I think Voltaire's quote illustrates the contradictions that presuppose expand a right to demonstrate near-unquestionable supreme right. Uphold the right of expression of approaches, concerns, beliefs, fears and prejudices is not critical to until we see that the right is a two-way street, ie to defend is to defend the people and ideas which have no affinity to issue such postulates which differ perhaps passionately, can be up with reasons and very deep personal reasons. In some ways is the real test of the right to free speech ("free speech") that is accepted precisely in adversity. It is therefore essential that this decision follows a state of facts which I believe are made alarming, serves as a beacon that illuminates say expressions that come before the government established policies, for example, and certainly establishes the rights of minorities to speak out and protest in spite of cases of alleged majority. Maybe it has to be this way we achieve appraise the existing constitutional doctrine, faced with strong winds of a nasty and painful situation even suggest.
Snyder v.
Phelps is the latest in a series of statements about the First Amendment, which produces the Roberts Supreme Court. Last year, the United States Supreme revoke laws limiting political expression and represent about unconstitutional the crime of distributing art that depicts cruelty to animals. Only the interest on the national security argument has been made as to overcome the interests of free speech.
The facts are summarized in the document I have to submit (free translation of documents of the Supreme Court) but because of its complexity I will precede this document with a narrative from them.
Facts:
Matthew Snyder, a Marine killed in Anbar province in Iraq in 2006, appearing uninvited guests at his funeral in St. John Catholic Church in Westminster, Maryland. The Rev. Fred W. Mr. Phelps of Westboro Baptist Church and several family members of the congregation of Kansas (a thousand miles of Maryland) carrying signs such as "Thank God for dead soldiers" "God hates homosexuals" and "You're going to hell" arrive and picketing near the site which is to hold the burial ceremony.
The Westboro Baptist Church in Kansas has done shows around their posts recalcitrant, inflexible and rejection offensive to sectors and activities Social not to their liking daily for the past 19 years. In March 2006, seven members of Westboro picketed the funeral of Matthew Snyder in Maryland, the soldier who died in Iraq. The Westboro protesters flew over 1,000 miles to carry out their demonstration with messages such as "I thank God for dead soldiers", "God hates homosexuals", and "going to hell." The dead soldier's father, Albert Snyder, citing mental and physical trauma that resulted from the confrontation with the group at the funeral of his son, sued the Westboro (damages).
There is no doubt that the manifestations of Westboro approaches are the subject of irrational hatred and rejection. The self-proclaimed church preaches that God is punishing the United States because of its tolerance of homosexuality, especially in the military. Rev. Phelps and his followers frequently conducted protests military funerals.
The case provokes strong emotions, it also involves very important legal principles.
tract of the application:
Snyder sued Phelps and his church in federal court in Maryland (the place of burial), claiming five claims under Maryland law: defamation, undue publicity given to privacy, invasion of privacy, intentional infliction of aggravating situations that cause serious emotional harm, and civil conspiracy. The tort alleged were: (1) picket the funeral and (2) publish a diatribe about the Snyder family in the web site of the church.
The district court dismissed on summary trial, Snyder's initial claims of defamation and regarding the publicity given to the applicant's private life. However, the district court allows lawsuits to vent to the jury. (The civil actions in federal courts by jury.) The court instructed the jury, "You must balance the right of the defendant's expression of religious belief and the right to privacy of the applicant and their right to be free of [IIED ] severe injuries (assaults) emotional. "The district court added: "... You must then determine whether these actions were so offensive ... about not being given the protection of the First Amendment." The jury rules against Phelps and grants over $ 10 million in damages. The district court reduced the total damages to $ 5 million but left otherwise stated the verdict. Phelps then appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
The Court of Appeal reversed. Determined that "the district court erred fatally" allowing a jury (civil proceedings in the federal system are by jury as we have pointed to differences in the judicial system in Puerto Rico at the state level) to decide constitutional issues. This part of the decision is uncontroversial. It is not for a jury to decide the scope of the First Amendment. If that way, spokesmen unpopular and comments (protests) would meager minority at the mercy of potentially hostile juries. The First Amendment is generally a matter of law (which applies or disposes of factual situation.) Also finds that the First Amendment protects the activity of Rev. Phelps and the church sued. The court held that the First Amendment can not determine liability for statements they contain an "effective connotation demonstrably false," compared with "rhetorical hyperbole." This point turns out to be controversial on its face.
Here: Events need not be "effectively false" to fit into one of the exceptions that the Supreme Court has established for the protection of the First Amendment. In fact corroborate the false or true is not decisive by itself.
threats, for example, are unprotected even if (perhaps especially if) they are genuine and authentic.
words directly inciting fights and gratuitous violence ("fight words") are unprotected when they employ epithets accurate, in fact, factual epithets may be more challenging (eg references to the infidelity of a partner.) And in relation to the grievance citing Snyder, statements that are true ("I'm glad your son has AIDS!" Or "Congratulations raped his daughter!") Can inflict more grievances that certain falsehoods.
Snyder then sought Supreme Court review by posing three questions to the court, which can be paraphrased as follows: (1) Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988), a parody caricature of a public figure does not apply to compensation for damages even if it is absolutely false both because the public figure has less protection of reputation (public persona) and because the parody lies precisely in making false representations and characterizations using humor to provoke questions and interest from the audience), "applies to processes not involving public figures?, (2) does the Law Phelps and Westboro expression overrides any rights to worship and freedom of assembly (the funeral of Matthew Snyder)?, and (3) What is someone who attends a funeral a "captive audience" thus deserving the right to special protection against "common undesirable?
Foreword.
While we must address the entire text would point to what from the point of view I think we should set as the dispute, at least in these moments that is most relevant to the situation of the First Amendment in Puerto Rico, namely
fundamental constitutional doctrine is that only the government, not private parties, may violate the First Amendment (with exceptions to its application.) For example, a newspaper editor who refuses to publish a story of a journalist does not offend the constitutional right of free expression. But in this case Phelps' protest is a private action, which by definition can not infringe the constitutional right of freedom of worship or assembly of Snyder. However, it poses a severe threat to free speech when the application is invoked by the presence of the valuation tribunal. Invites courts to acquire the authority to set the "balance" of expressions in relation to a hearing. If this exercise is an exercise acceptable and legitimate for the courts, then a long list of demonstrations, protests and demonstrations that are controversial or quarrel with the interests and approaches of a party is in grave danger because they have to rely on taste, appreciation or evaluation of this court (and is exacerbated if a jury is no longer a group of ordinary citizens) not the rights involved, but the value content of such events (and their apparent popularity). In other words, it asks the courts to choose between the opinions, beliefs, ideas, doubts and fears that are "acceptable." 
Text: (*)
(*) The following is a free translation and without approval of the Supreme Court. The translator has pledged to try to keep within their capabilities the originator of the original document. This document is presented for purposes of promoting discussion and understanding of issues from readers, but does not claim or intends to claim that this text is or is an official document of the Supreme Court.
v. SNYDER PHELPS et al. SYLLABUS
NOTE: Where feasible, a syllabus (headnote) is published, as is being done about this case, when the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the reporter of decisions to help the reader. See: United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U.S. 321.
(Text:) For the past 20 years, the congregation of the Westboro Baptist Church pitting military funerals has to communicate her belief that God hates America for its tolerance of homosexuality, particularly in the military. Church pickets have also condemned by the Catholic Church scandals involving its clergy. Fred Phelps, who founded the church, and six Westboro Baptist church members (all relatives of Phelps) traveled to Maryland to picket the funeral of Corporal Marine lance Matthew Snyder, who was killed in Iraq in the line of duty. The bite occurred on public land about 1,000 feet from the church where the funeral was conducted according to the direction of local agents of the police authority. The demonstrators showed peacefully with signs that declared, eg, "I thank God for dead soldiers," "The nations are condemned for fags," America is doomed, "" Priests rape boys, "and" You go to hell "- for about 30 minutes before the funeral began. The father of Matthew Snyder (Snyder), petitioner here, saw the tops of the signs the protesters by driving to the funeral, but did not know what was written on the signs to watch a news broadcast later in the evening.
Snyder filed a lawsuit against Phelps, his daughters, who participated in the picketing, and the church (Collectively Westboro) alleging, as relevant here, claims for damages ('torts') for the intentional infliction of emotional grievances, intrusion on privacy and civil conspiracy. A jury found Westboro obliged to reward millions of dollars in damages for compensation and punitive damages. Westboro challenged the verdict as excessive and too much appeal as a matter of law because the First Amendment protects all speech. The district court reduced the award of damages, the verdict but left otherwise intact. The Fourth Circuit reversed, concluding that the statements were entitled to Westboro protection of the First Amendment because the statements were about matters of public interest, were not demonstrably false, and were expressed only by hyperbolic rhetoric.
Sharp: The First Amendment shields Westboro of liability for damages for his squad in this case. Pp. 5-15.
(a) The free speech clause of the First Amendment can serve as a defense in actions for damages from the state, including games for the intentional infliction of emotional distress. Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46. If the First Amendment prohibits Westboro is required and its manifestations in this case turns largely on whether the speech is public or private interest, as determined by all the circumstances. "The discourse of public issues occupies the` "the highest rung of the hierarchy of First Amendment values \u200b\u200bdela" 'and entitles you to special protection. "Connick v. Myers, the 461 U.S. 138. Although the boundaries of what constitutes speech about matters of public interest are not well defined, this Court has said that the speech is of public interest when it can "be fairly considered as relating to any political, social, or other interest the community, " id. in 146, or when "is a topic of general interest and of value and public concern," San Diego v. Roe, 543 U.S. 77. The "inappropriate or controversial character" arguably a statement "... is irrelevant to the question of whether it deals with a matter of public interest." Rankin v. McPherson, the 483 U.S. 378. Pp. 5-7.
To determine if the speech is public or private interest, this Court must independently examine "content, form, and context of the '" speech "as revealed by the record as a whole." Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v. Greenmoss Builders Inc., 472 U.S. 749. In considering the content, form, and context, no factor device, and is necessary to evaluate all aspects of the speech. Pp. 7-8.
The "content" of Westboro signs relate simply to public matters, rather than private. The posters highlighted issues of public importance-the moral and political conduct of the United States and its citizens, the fate of the nation, homosexuality in the armed forces, and scandals involving the Catholic clergy and Westboro communicated its views on these issues in a manner designed to reach the widest possible public audience. Even if some of the posters were seen as containing messages relating to a particular individual, it would not change the fact that the dominant theme of the demonstration of Westboro heading to broader public issues. P. 8.
The "context" of speech-its connection with the funeral of Matthew Snyder, by itself does not transform the nature of the speech of Westboro. The posters reflected the Westboro condemnation of much of modern society, and can not be argued that use of Westboro's speech was public issues in a way designed to isolate a personal attack on Snyder. Westboro has engaged actively speaking to the issues addressed in his squad long before learning of Matthew Snyder, and there can be no serious claim that the picketing did not represent the honest belief held by Westboro public issues. Westboro could have chosen the location of the bite to increase publicity for their views, and his speech may have been particularly harmful to Snyder. That does not mean that his speech should be less than full protection afforded under the First Amendment under the circumstances of this case. Pp. 8-10.
That said, "to protected speech is not the same everywhere and always permitted." Frisby v. Schultz, 487 U.S. 474. The choice of where and when Westboro is not beyond the regulatory reach of government-is "subject to reasonable restrictions of time, place, or manner" Clarkv. Community for Creative Non-Violence, 468 U.S. 288. The facts here are quite different, however, both as regards the activity that is regulated and the means to restrict these activities, in the few limited situations where the Court concluded that the location of picketing may be regulated appropriately considered under the provisions of contents neutral.Frisby, supra, at 477; Madsen v. Women's Health Center, Inc., 512 U.S. 753, distinguidos.Maryland now has a law restricting picketing at funerals to celebrate but that law was not in effect when these events, so this Court has no occasion to consider whether the law is a "reasonable restrictions on time, place, or manner" under the standards announced by this Court. Clark, supra, at 293. Pp. 10-12.
The "special protection" extended to Westboro what he said, the whole context of how and where he chose to speak, can not be overcome by a jury find that the picketing was "outrageous" for purposes of applying state law liability for damages (tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress "). That would pose a danger too great that the jury punished Westboro for their views on public issues. For all these reasons, the liability imposed by the jury's verdict in Westboro should be set aside. Pp. 12-13.
(b) Snyder can not be rewarded for intrusion on privacy. He claims that he was part of a captive audience at the funeral of his son, but the captive audience doctrine, which has been applied sparingly, see Rowan v. Post Office Dept., 397 U.S. 728; Frisby, supra, at 484-485, "should not be applied to the circumstances here. Westboro stayed well away from the ceremony, Snyder could not see the tops of the signs of the protesters, and there is no indication that the picketing interfered with the funeral itself. Pp. 13-14.
(c) Because the First Amendment prevents the recovery of damages for the alleged Snyder-Westboro-illegal activity can not compensate for civil conspiracy based on those grievances. P. 14.
(d) Westboro addressed issues of public interest in public property in a peaceful manner, entirely in accordance with the direction of local officials. Do not interrupted the funeral of Matthew Snyder, and your choice of holding the picket line at the time and place did not alter the nature of his speech. Because this nation has chosen protect even speech that harms public issue to ensure that public debate is not stifled, Westboro be protected from liability for damages rescarcir their picket in this case. Pp. 14-15
580 F. 3d 206.
Roberts, CJ, filed the opinion of the court, in which Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan, JJ., Agree. Breyer, J., submitted a concurrent opinion. Alito, J., filed a dissenting opinion. (End of text / **)
(**) The text above is a free translation and without approval Supreme Court. The translator has pledged to try to keep within their capabilities the originator of the original document. This document is presented for purposes of promoting discussion and understanding of the issues on the part of readers, but does not claim or intends to claim that this text is or is an official document of the Supreme Court.
output.
The "speech ('speech') is powerful," Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for the majority. "You can stir people to action, moved to tears of joy and sadness, and - as it did here - to inflict great pain" ... The "debate on public issues should be robust, uninhibited and open wide wide, "he wrote, because the" discourse of public issues occupies the highest rung of the hierarchy of First Amendment values. "
" speech on matters of public interest ... is' in the heart protection of the First Amendment. '"Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v. Greenmoss Builders, Inc., 472 U.S. 749, 758-759 (1985) (Opinion of Powell, J.) (citing First Nat Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765, 776 (1978). The First Amendment reflects "a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide open. "New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 270 (1964). That is because" speech concerning official business is more than self-expression, is the essence self-government. "Guarnezca V. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 64, 74-75 (1964). Therefore, the" discourse of public issues occupies the highest rung of the hierarchy of First Amendment values, and deserves right special protection. "Connick v. Myers, 461 461 U.S. 138, 145 (1983) (internal quotation marks omitted). "(Hon. Roberts)
As we see in the text, possible discussions on the possibility of lessening the importance of freedom of expression as respect to "matters of public interest" are highly unlikely (say if we are to structure arguments based on a strictly rational) within the prevailing constitutional doctrine, force and reaffirmed in these days by an overwhelming majority (8-1) of Supreme Court of the United States. In regard to Freedom of expression issues related to matters of public interest and this is the rule of law, point.
The Hon Breyer in his concurring opinion: "The court holds that the First Amendment protects the picket, mostly because the subjects addressed picket" public interest. ""
Comment:
This case is an awesome issue, the facts challenge the emotions of those who address, messages that are mentioned in the statements refer to values \u200b\u200bwith which we have very serious and deep differences. As we propose to begin with, this kind of case that lives, to painfully Guardarraya in considerations of the field of rights and freedoms are the very type of case in its consideration illustrate the fundamentals and scope of constitutional doctrine. The decision correctly understand and respectfully acknowledges the pain of the Snyder family. But he argues correctly that the answer to that sentence can not include the abandonment of the principles of the First Amendment designed to protect even unpopular speech about public issues that are controversial but valid as an expression (of topics of public interest).
This exercise gives us more than anything is a clear appreciation of the importance of freedom of expression ("free speech"), and top-priority recovery, according the existing constitutional doctrine. We apply this lesson to point out that the frequent efforts to decimate, molding, belittle, restrict, override or inadequately accommodate the law of expression is incompatible with the constitutional doctrine. ROF
Additional sources of references:
Several organizations journalists and civil rights as amicus briefs submitted to the American Civil Liberties Union, the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, and some journalists twenty-one organizations and additional media outlets including National Public Radio, Bloomberg LP, the Associated Press and the Newspaper Association of America. Also submitted written a number of legislators and other groups in society Civil (highlight veterans' groups) in addition to 48 states (and the District of Columbia) are expressed through their state Department of Justice. 
Note end / climax. All translations are free, the text presented is only for educational use. Quotations and references to the documents mentioned required to consult the various documents in their original forms and officers, pictures and additional language editions are in addition to creative effect of expediting the presentation. ROF /
Constitution of the United States of America.
First Amendment:
Congress Shall make no law Respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free Exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of Grievances.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the people's right to peaceful assembly, and petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Constitution of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
Article II. Bill of Rights.
Section 4. Freedom of speech and press, peaceful assembly, petition to redress grievances.
never pass any law restricting freedom of speech or of the press or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Section 6. Freedom of organization.
People can associate and organize freely for any lawful purpose ...
0 comments:
Post a Comment