Today the Supreme Court will hear a case that calls into question the most fundamental right in American policy history. Albert Snyder will get a chance to convince the Supreme Court to reinstate a 5 million dollar verdict against a church for picketing his son's funeral. His son was an American soldier killed in Iraq in 2006. The church maintains it's first amendment right to free speech. The Supreme Court must decide if the first amendment must tolerate intentionally inflicting emotional pain on a family during a funeral. The first amendment right to free speech is part of the Bill of Rights which is contained in the Constitution, which is the document that gives Congress the right to create policy. I think it's obvious what the Supreme Court should do in their interpretation of the first amendment. The first amendment doesn't protect a fanatical church from protesting a soldier's funeral.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39531700/ns/politics/
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I believe Mr. Snyder should be confiscated for emotional distress, pain and suffering. His family was technically harrassed at his son's funeral, and his deceased son was disrespected. There is no amount of money that can replace the emotional embarassment felt that day, nor can it add up to the disrespect taken. A young homosexual man in the army is the same as every man in the U.S. Army and he deserved a proper and respectable burial. The Law does support freedom of speech, but where does morals and manners come into play for this situation?
ReplyDeleteIt baffles me that a solider died fighting to protect the rights we all take for granted and then a church, of all organizations, attacks his family and disrespects him claiming protection of what he was fighting for. Although the freedom of speech is very hard to define, I believe that something of this caliber violates it. Under the Miller Test (often used by the supreme court) this scenario is very obscene and should be found as a violation of freedom of speech.
ReplyDelete