Just a bit more...

I AM going to summarize Alito's thoughts here... I just can't let it go.

Alito made four solid points that contradict the findings of the Court. They are:

1) The Court found that the WBC protests were centered around broad public issues. Alito contends that the nature of the protests and manner in which the protests were presented constituted direct personal attacks on the deceased Marine and his family. his evidence (to me) seems overwhelming. By conducting the protest at a funeral, which is by its very definition is as personal and private a ceremony that can be held, and by sending letters to the family decrying the manner in which Matthew Snyder was raised, the WBC left the realm of "public" protest and entered the realm of "private libel"... thus removing the protest from the umbrella of protected speech.

2) The Court upheld the contention that the WBC was using Matthew Snyder's death to increase publicity for the views of the church (the WBC). If the speech uttered in the heat of an argument or dispute are NOT protected, then why should the cold and calculating words uttered in a protest planned and executed to be as offensive as possible be protected? The goal of greater public attention should not be the yardstick for protected speech, ever.

3) The Court found the fact that the protests were conducted on a public street, regardless of the close proximity to the funeral of Matthew Snyder, a deciding factor in favor of the respondents. Alito contends that the fact that the protest was on a public street should not make the tort dispositive. Since an assault can occur without trespassing, it is not a defense for assault that the perpetrator had a right to be where he was. It has long been established that "assault" can be determined through nothing more than words and no violent action need occur... but Alito feels the Court found the assault mitigated by the location, which he states is wrong.

4) His last point is that the Court felt that harm or injury inflicted by such protests could be mitigated or prevented by future laws that restrict picketing or protesting within a set distance from a funeral. This may be true, but it doesn't negate the already established torts against verbal assault already on the books. Ignoring verbal assaults now in hopes of better local or State ordinances later is a poor way to define the protection afforded "free speech" in this nation, and does a real disservice to the question of fair and equitable justice under the law. If these "new laws and ordinances" can justifiably protect the unique nature of a funeral, then why is the funeral not a unique event NOW, and afforded the same protection that previous tort decisions have been afforded? In other words, if it is a preventable offense in the future... why is it not protected now?

I would sincerely hope that EVERY conservative pundit or commentator that ever again make a point about the WBC and its publicity hunting use these arguments against the practice. They are solid, well defined and easy to follow.

It's a shame the rest of the Court didn't see it the way he did.