Commentary: In Phelps case, Supreme Court must be cautious | McClatchy Washington Bureau

×
Sign In
Sign In
    • Customer Service
    • Mobile & Apps
    • Contact Us
    • Newsletters
    • Subscriber Services

    • All White House
    • Russia
    • All Congress
    • Budget
    • All Justice
    • Supreme Court
    • DOJ
    • Criminal Justice
    • All Elections
    • Campaigns
    • Midterms
    • The Influencer Series
    • All Policy
    • National Security
    • Guantanamo
    • Environment
    • Climate
    • Energy
    • Water Rights
    • Guns
    • Poverty
    • Health Care
    • Immigration
    • Trade
    • Civil Rights
    • Agriculture
    • Technology
    • Cybersecurity
    • All Nation & World
    • National
    • Regional
    • The East
    • The West
    • The Midwest
    • The South
    • World
    • Diplomacy
    • Latin America
    • Investigations
  • Podcasts
    • All Opinion
    • Political Cartoons

  • Our Newsrooms

You have viewed all your free articles this month

Subscribe

Or subscribe with your Google account and let Google manage your subscription.

Opinion

Commentary: In Phelps case, Supreme Court must be cautious

The Kansas City Star

March 11, 2010 01:00 PM

There's a certain justice in the fact that during the same week the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., agreed to hear a case involving Kansas hate-monger Fred Phelps, the first gay couples were legally married in that city.

Phelps' case will be heard this autumn, and involves one of his boorish, repulsive protests. This one took place in Maryland at the funeral of Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew A. Snyder. The same sad scattering of Phelpsian fools held nonsensical signs proclaiming "Thank God for dead soldiers," "Fag troops" and "Pope in hell."

After the Marine's family won a lawsuit against Phelps, an appeals court threw out a $5 million award, citing First Amendment free speech protections.

A past Supreme Court used similar reasoning, and rightly so: "(E)ven when a speaker or writer is motivated by hatred or ill will his expression (is) protected by the First Amendment …. If it were possible by laying down a principled standard to separate (outrageous speech) from (protected speech), public discourse would probably suffer little or no harm. But we doubt that there is any such standard …"

To read the complete editorial, visit www.kansascity.com.

Read Next

Opinion

This is not what Vladimir Putin wanted for Christmas

By Markos Kounalakis

December 20, 2018 05:12 PM

Orthodox Christian religious leaders worldwide are weakening an important institution that gave the Russian president outsize power and legitimacy.

KEEP READING

MORE OPINION

Opinion

The solution to the juvenile delinquency problem in our nation’s politics

December 18, 2018 06:00 AM

Opinion

High-flying U.S. car execs often crash when when they run into foreign laws

December 13, 2018 06:09 PM

Opinion

Putin wants to divide the West. Can Trump thwart his plan?

December 11, 2018 06:00 AM

Opinion

George H.W. Bush, Pearl Harbor and America’s other fallen

December 07, 2018 03:42 AM

Opinion

George H.W. Bush’s secret legacy: his little-known kind gestures to many

December 04, 2018 06:00 AM

Opinion

Nicaragua’s ‘House of Cards’ stars another corrupt and powerful couple

November 29, 2018 07:50 PM
Take Us With You

Real-time updates and all local stories you want right in the palm of your hand.

McClatchy Washington Bureau App

View Newsletters

Subscriptions
  • Newsletters
Learn More
  • Customer Service
  • Securely Share News Tips
  • Contact Us
Advertising
  • Advertise With Us
Copyright
Privacy Policy
Terms of Service