Post # 11 First Amendment Rights, Part 2

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

In case anyone was asleep, the Supreme Court of the United States is adjudicating a case wherein the father of a fallen soldier is suing the Westboro Baptist Church for protesting at his son’s funeral.  Without going into how vile and reprehensible it is to protest any funeral, much less the funeral of a soldier who fell defending our country, there are some things I need to prepare everyone for.

Once, I thought that the only conclusion to be reached in this case was for the church.  They were exercising their right to freedom of speech, and the free exercise of their religion.  But there’s another clause in the amendment that causes the argument to go another direction.

Did they assemble peaceably?  Or was their intent to provoke or incite to riot?  In nearly every jurisdiction, the incitement to riot is not an excuse to actually riot, but that selfsame incitement is against the law.  So, the question then becomes, what did they intend to do?  What did this church hope to gain from this?  Did they act peaceably?   Did they act responsibly?

I could go into a huge discussion about how a church is “supposed” to act and what they’re “supposed” to believe and to preach.  That just comes down to opinion and how I was raised versus how they were raised.  It’s a no win discussion.

I’m going to follow this closely to see how it turns out.