FOR THE WEEK OF MAR. 07, 2011

Even distasteful military funeral protesters have free speech rights, Supreme Court affirms

Look at national, state and local news pages for other hot-button issues that provoke heated speech. See if you spot highly emotional or extreme statements.

Comments in newspaper letters, under articles or in online forums can be restricted because they're not public speech. Does the paper let readers flag inappropriate comments for review? Discuss whether that's helpful or harmful.

Discuss how newspapers uphold First Amendment principles and how communities benefit. Does a current issue in the news show why a free press is important?

Obnoxious, ugly, repugnant public speech tests our Constitution, as well as our tolerance. For justices sworn to uphold America's fundamental principles, what's said by those pushing the limits is secondary to what the First Amendment says about the right to speak openly. In an 8-1 decision last week, the U.S. Supreme Court upholds a small church's ability to stage loud anti-gay protests outside soldiers' funerals.

The landmark case balanced free speech against grieving families' privacy rights. Speech "cannot be restricted simply because it is upsetting or arouses contempt," Chief Justice John Roberts' majority opinion says. Tolerance is needed "to ensure that we do not stifle public debate," the ruling adds.
Westboro Baptist Church, based in Kansas, has demonstrated at thousands of funerals and events nationwide because it opposes military acceptance of gays. A dead Marine's father, Albert Snyder, sued the Rev. Fred Phelps and his church for intentionally inflicting emotional distress after members picketed his son's Maryland funeral, a claim that reached the highest court. "This isn't a case of free speech, this is a case of harassment," Snyder said before the verdict. (See video below.)

Roberts and seven colleagues feel Westboro's message isn't about specific soldiers whose services they picket, but rather about a wider national issues -- qualifying for First Amendment protection. Justice Samuel Alito, the only dissenter, sees the demonstrations as a private action against individual families that should be able to sue for damages. "Our profound national commitment to free and open debate is not a license for the vicious verbal assault that occurred in this case," Alito says in an impassioned opinion.

Sarah Palin tweets: "Common sense & decency absent as wacko 'church' allowed hate msgs spewed @ soldiers' funerals but we can't invoke God's name in public square." -- Ex-Alaska governor, in Twitter message shortly after ruling March 2

Blogger says: "I don't know how the court could have ruled otherwise. Tolerating the rantings of hateful fools is part of the price we pay for free speech." -- Jay Bookman, Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Law professor says: "I am grateful to Justice Alito for writing a dissent so that the public understands that there are two sides to this question. That said, I think that the majority of the court is correct." -- Richard Epstein, New York University

Front Page Talking Points Archive

►Federal safety board urges tougher drinking-and-driving cutoff limit to match other nations

►Northeast braces for noisy invasion: Flying cicada bugs return after hiding for 17 years

►U.S. military prison at Guantanamo, Cuba, remains a tricky problem for President Obama

►Doctors warn about serious health risks from 'The Cinnamon Challenge' video craze

►Earth Day on April 22 focuses attention on how we can protect the natural environment

►Thousands of past players take on the National Football League over brain injuries

►North Korean missile threats create concern and U.S. show of military force

►South Africa reflects on the huge legacy of Nelson Mandela, hospitalized at 94

►They come from space: NASA seeks money to spot and deflect risks from large asteroids

►This 'March Madness' basketball tournament season is special – the 75th in history

►Complete archive