Also in this playlist...
This transcript is automatically generated
The Supreme Court ruled today the First Amendment does indeed protect fundamentalist church members.
Who hold anti gay protests near military funerals.
Protests that many people consider despicable in fact frankly -- I don't think that the thing I think that the -- The church in question here west Borough Baptist of -- -- Kansas only has a few dozen members.
It was an eight to one decision from the High Court upholds an appeals court ruling that threw out -- five million dollar judgment to the father of a dead marine.
That father sued west -- church members after they picketed his son's funeral in the six.
Justice Samuel Alito called the protests -- quote vicious verbal assault.
Chief Justice Roberts wrote the decision he says speech is powerful -- can stir people to action move them to tears of joy of both joy and sorrow.
And as it did here inflict great pain.
He goes on to write on the facts before us we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker.
Let's take it to the judge -- -- injured apology on our senior judicial analyst and host of freedom watch on the Fox Business Network primetime there what do you make of this.
I think this is a a largely a strong performance of free speech basically saying.
In your face brash even irrational and hateful speech that makes no sense even speech that you know the listener doesn't want to hear.
If it involves a matter of public interest the military.
-- use war.
Is protected by protecting that means the police can't stop but the courts can't punish it and the legislature can't regulate.
Now it's -- of the opinion it seems to me that there is still danger within this ruling and yes there is danger when this ruling here's what it is.
The state of Maryland which is where this event two occurred where the marine's funeral was -- where the shouting and screaming was has what's called a free speech zone.
-- a public place where they -- those who want to express their opinion are kept a thousand feet away from the people to -- they want to express their opinion.
And while the court didn't exactly rule.
On the constitutionality.
Of that because the issue wasn't before them because the -- statute didn't exist at the time these events occurred.
It spoke approvingly of the so called free speech zones they're very dangerous.
Because if the if the government can say you can only have free speech within -- -- Then it's basically saying you can't have free speech outside the -- we're not talking about a person's house or church.
Or courtroom or -- television studio we're talking about a public street corner.
We should have a right and to have the right under the First Amendment to speak to your heart's content whatever you wanna say any time day or night.
So when the court speaks approvingly of free speech -- it speaking approvingly of states suppressing speech by confining it to certain areas.
You don't we go to those political conventions every four years track I seem to remember there was one in new York and maybe one in Denver I'm not positive but never where they set up.
Free speech zones yes and at the time we were like.
OK I get you need to control crowds but can you do this in America.
In my opinion you can't this issue has never reach the Supreme Court there are some federal trial judges who have found the free speech zones constitutional.
On the theory that the speakers might obstructing the normal flow of activity like in New York if they wanted to chant outside.
The Republican National Convention when I was at Madison Square Garden -- such numbers but they were blocked traffic on 34 street it's a traffic regulation.
But if it's -- -- if it targets speech.
If it doesn't let individuals speak from where they want and forces -- the growing the government tells them to.
Than that violates even this opinion itself.
All right aside from how individuals -- the group might feel about what these people from this horrible west -- place were saying right.
There is a limit there there there there are limits on what you can and can't say aren't there -- -- I mean.
Hate speech is that legal.
Hate speech is legal that this speech is hate speech live and how -- this speech relies on other cases.
Which protect hate speech as long as there is a political component by that I mean.
As long as the speaker is addressing some political controversy.
If it's just personalized hate speech which is what Justice Alito is dissent.
Was about it it's intended to make the life of the listener miserable and it's not intended to affect the outcome of -- public debate that's not protected.
But of -- intended to jump into the public arena on a public issue even -- it's irrational even if it doesn't make any sense like in this case.
It's protected we surprising Alito wrote the dissent now he needed here and you know me -- -- have been friends for help form of I'd like to acknowledge.
And I think this dissent is pure justice Alito there's a time and place for everything and this is not the time and this is not the place for -- all right.
Just bought Roderick C a question.
Filter by section