Would another case, with the situation flip-flopped and in the hands of a not so humanitarian jury, result in an indistinguishable line between what is free speech and what is hate speech?

Well hate speech and free speech aren't mutually exclusive categories. A speech act can be both (Nazis marching in Skokie, IL), one, or neither (reproducing a copy written play without permission).

But besides that, I wouldn't say this jury is all that humanitarian or pro-gay or anything. No one outside the queers cared about Fred Phelps when he was just protesting our funerals and trying to hurt members of our families going in and out of funerals for AIDS victims; it's only now that he's gone after the soldiers are laws being passed to ban his protests. So the question isn't really "Will a ruling against the most repugnant speech acts spill over to include generally annoying protest?" as it is "Will a ruling against the worst anti-military protest spill-over to other anti-establishment protests?"

And it really already has. What about all those folks who were preemptively arrested before the GOP national convention in NYC in 2004? I mean, when the police was arresting people just because they might protest, I think that it doesn't take a court ruling to stifle that kind of free speech. What about the general silencing of anti-war folks in the media leading up to the Iraq War, like the kind that led to rules at MSNBC requiring two pro-war voices on every show for anti-war voice?

I mean, those are just two completely random examples. I can't say that I'm a "free speech purist" because that's just so textual to me - restrictions of productive dialogue aren't just limited to what the government does (or, more accurately, what the government says that it's going to do, either through statue or through court rulings). Sometimes instead it's corporate media being afraid of bucking a certain trend, sometimes it's people being silenced by other forms of "free speech", etc. So being a purist about the text of the law when that's just one piece in a larger puzzle of what creates productive dialogue seems rather empty to me.

I also don't really see much "pure free speech" anywhere really. Our speech is always curtailed by something - work rules, school rules, culture, familial relations. We rarely ever have an opportunity to say the first thing that pops into our heads mainly because speech matters. And isn't it really that restriction on speech that gives it it's meaning? Or maybe I'd be just getting too metaphysical for this question....

About this specific ruling, I don't think that it's going to be upheld on appeal. A lot of rulings that garner a whole bunch of attention like these are overturned, but that doesn't mean that we're going to be exempted from hearing about how this court is a sign that we're all going to hell or that God Hates Maryland.

Wait, Jerame, you should totally buy up godhatesmaryland.com. I have a feeling it'll become a hot commodity tomorrow.

Steve, I think you are totally on point. Think about Cindy Sheehan. This ruling could mean that Kaiser Bush has the ability to sue her for setting up Camp Casey.

But Alex makes some fine points, too. There is no free speech in this country, never has been. To add another example to the list, what about the anarchists like Emma Goldman who was deported because she advocated anarchy during WWI? What about Sherman Austin, who was the first person locked up under the Patriot Act because he ran a website called Raisethefist.com that advocated anarchy? So-called "undesirables" will always have limits to their free speech.

But I have to agree with Steve, again. That the Skokie case, while not my favorite Supreme Court ruling, is an important one. Because all speech must be protected if there is going to be any guarantee of free speech. I don't have to agree with it, though.

I'm also haunted by the specter of scary precedent being set, but protesting at somebody's funeral deserves no protection at all. Even if the situtation were flip-flopped. I know people who were ready to party when they heard Roy Cohn or Jerry Falwell died, but they weren't doing the partying at the freakin' funeral. That's just tacky.

This needs to be overturned and fast.
First nobody will get a dime out of Phelps.
second.. it should be obvious to everyone this means severe limitations on speech in this country and if you can 't protest a funeral then you can't protest a war or the president speaking on any subject.

If that was my friend's funeral Phelps was protesting at i would be up for aggravated assault at least then a jury could make a more rational decision and one that would be not so far reaching.

Every once and a while You Have To Take One for The Constitution.

Because it is the right thing to do.

Take care
Sue

Phelps Go To Hell

I think it is important for us to uphold the broadest possible protections for free speech, especially at a time like this when civil liberties are under such serious attack in this country. This definitely means defending unpopular speech like that of Phelps' gang.

GLBT advocacy and activism could clearly be targeted in the same way the Phelps' are in this suit. If the judgment stands we can say goodbye to ever dying in at St Patrick's cathedral ever again, don't you think?

Even more fundamentally though, our very existence as out GLBT people is always potentially censurable speech. You know - holding hands at the movies or showing up as parents together at your kids' school makes right wingers think we're 'shoving it down their throats', offending them, injuring them, etc. Free speech and it's close cousin, free association, are essential to the defense of any minority community.

Also think about how the transparency with which the Phelps crowd asserts their hatred has always been helpful for making visible the depth of the prejudice against us. They do some of our work for us in proving that the end game for anti-gay hatred is venomous, even to the point of celebrating our deaths.

Sure, it gives lots of conservatives an extreme against which to define themselves more moderately. But the hard core dominionists (and there are a fair number of these people) really believe that GLBT people's presence condemns the nation/threatens their children's potential for salvation/etc. They may argue about Phelps' methods, but push them to disavow his bedrock belief and they can't.

As long as there are Fred Phelpses in this world I hope they are clearly stating their goals and doing so in public places where they cannot escape notice.

i understand Don what you are saying.
However this verdict clears the way for similar suites which will have a limiting effect of free speech.

This paves the way for damages to be levied for all manner of demonstrations against whatever event is taking place even political events.

Take Care
Susan Robins

PS...
Wish i was in San Antonio, I love Texas.