President Trump and the First Lady pay their respects to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg at the top of the steps of the Supreme Court building, and the crowd at the foot of the steps yells, boos, and chants "Vote him out!"

IN THE COMMENTS: D.D. Driver said:

Hey it's Snyder v. Phelps! Ginsburg sided with Westboro Baptists' first amendment right to protest funerals.

Sad trivia — do you remember who the sole dissenter was?

Here's my blog post from the day the Court decided Snyder v. Phelps. Chief Justice Roberts wrote:

Speech is powerful. It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and—as it did here— inflict great pain. On the facts before us, we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker. As a Nation we have chosen a different course—to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate. That choice requires that we shield Westboro from tort liability for its picketing in this case.

I said, "Clearly, this is the right outcome." And I quoted Justice Alito, the lone dissenter: "Respondents’ outrageous conduct caused petitioner great injury, and the Court now compounds that injury by depriving petitioner of a judgment that acknowledges the wrong he suffered. In order to have a society in which public issues can be openly and vigorously debated, it is not necessary to allow the brutalization of innocent victims like petitioner."

Of course, no one cares about the brutalization of the not-so-innocent Trump, and Trump knows that and is taking it like a champion.

"Good news for our beloved sodomite whorehouse: The Westboro Baptist Church will be paying us a long-overdue visit this Thursday at 11 a.m."

"Apparently, University of Wisconsin’s ranking as one of the most LGBT-friendly campuses in the nation was the last straw on the camel’s back, plunging us into the depths of indecency, blasphemy and hedonism....  It is exceedingly difficult to pass up the opportunity to taunt them, take photographs or attempt to strike up conversation in the hopes that perhaps maybe one of the many will come to their senses. But... to interact with their message is to confirm that it is a valid opinion which warrants discussion. But it’s not. To partake in these conversations is not constructive dialogue. Their message doesn’t deserve to be dignified."

From "Complete apathy is best strategy for dealing with Westboro Baptist Church/Hate group relies on antagonizing pedestrians to fund twisted agenda" in The Badger Herald.

(That phrase "sodomite whorehouse" comes from the church itself: "WBC will protest the sodomite whorehouse masquerading as the University of Wisconsin-Madison in religious protest and warning. Ranked the top LGBT friendly and the top party school in the nation, UW-Madison spends more time indoctrinating the drunken students to worship the fag agenda then to learn anything meaningful.")

"If they come here to Louisiana, they try to disrupt this funeral, we're going to lock them up. We're going to arrest them."

"They shouldn't try that in Louisiana. We won't abide by that here. Let these families grieve. Let them celebrate their daughters, their children, their spouses, their loved ones' lives in peace. They better not try that nonsense here."

Said Bobby Jindal, on "Face the Nation," when the host asked him about the threat by the Westboro Baptist Church that it would use funeral service for those who died in the Lafayette theater shooting as a setting for another one of its incomprehensibly offensive protests.

I was struck by Jindal's complete avoidance of any reference to the free-speech rights of protesters (though his use of the phrase "disrupt this funeral" may represent his careful thinking about the scope of First Amendment rights).

Notably, the Westboro folks opted to stay out of Louisiana.

Widely held religious beliefs that you can't talk about openly in America.

I've been thinking about the "Duck Dynasty" controversy and what it means for religious people in America, most of whom — or at least very many of whom — adhere to a scheme of beliefs that includes forbidding homosexual behavior. They're seeing how badly it can hurt your career and your social standing to express this belief.

How can there be a norm against the expression of something that so many people believe on a profound level?

But it is not unusual at all. There are many things that religious people believe that they also know they can't go around saying. You're not going to do very well in American society, for example, if you come right out and declare that people who don't follow your religion are going to hell. You'll be drifting toward Westboro Church territory if you talk like that. You sound like a crazy hate-monger. The fact that you truly believe it and that it's religious won't help your standing in the community.

So it's not unusual that some widely held religious beliefs aren't fit for expression to the general audience, only a bit surprising when something new crosses the line from fit to unfit. How did that happen? It happens! The culture changes. Think about how that happens.

Speaking of Westboro Church, I see those people are making a show of their support for Phil Robertson. Now, they are religious people who have thrown aside the interest in social acceptance. They've chosen to be in-your-face outrageous, and they seem to believe that God is giving them credit for enduring social scorn.

Jesus said: "Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you."

"Girl’s Death by Gunshot Is Rejected as Symbol."

Headline at the NYT. 

Under the headline: a photograph of the dead girl's house that seems framed to induce feelings of contempt in NYT readers. Low hills in the background. A rusty, non-upright, rural-style mailbox in the foreground. Unpaved driveway. The house — which seems to be constructed from a long trailer attached to a cinderblock foundation — has a porch with a rusted metal roof held down in one corner by an automobile tire.

The Times's reporter, Trip Gabriel, attended the funeral of the 2-year-old Caroline Sparks (who was shot by her 5-year old brother with a "My First Rifle") in Burkesville, Kentucky.

The death has convulsed this rural community of 1,800 in south-central Kentucky, where everyone seems to know the extended Sparks family, which is now riven by grief. But as mourners gathered for Caroline’s funeral on Saturday, there were equally strong emotions directed at the outside world, which has been quick to pass judgment on the parents and a way of life in which many see nothing unusual about introducing children to firearms while they are still in kindergarten.

Equally strong? Does Trip Gabriel really know how these people feel? He's there, at the funeral, talking to them. But he's the reporter the NYT sent! Imagine yourself in a small town, at the funeral for a 2-year-old girl and there's a NYT reporter, who you know is there because these elite people somewhere, who never otherwise pay any attention to you, see potential to use that girl's dead body for leverage in a national political debate. I don't imagine myself anything nearly this polite:

“This town, there’s nothing like it. They pull together,” Anne Beall, a family friend, said as she left the Norris-New Funeral Home....

Ms. Beall, a 64-year-old retiree, said she had not heard anyone in town call the parents irresponsible for giving a gun to a 5-year-old or for leaving it unlocked. “Pointing fingers doesn’t really accomplish anything,” she said. “Terrible mistakes happen, and I think that’s what happened here.”

I would have said something far less fit to print. And yet Gabriel — no angel — sees fit to write that the mourners' emotions toward the outside world were "equally strong" as the grief over the death. I'm trying to concoct a quote that could have been directed at Gabriel that would actually have be as strong as the grief.

The shooting came after the recent failure in Washington of gun control legislation inspired by the shootings in Newtown, Conn., which exposed a bitter divide on guns. But Burkesville seemed to want no part of being a symbol in a national debate.

“I think it’s nobody else’s business but our town’s,” said a woman leaving a store, who like many people here declined to be interviewed. A woman who answered the phone at the office of John A. Phelps Jr., the chief executive of Cumberland County, whose seat is Burkesville, said, “No, I’m sorry — no more statements,” and hung up.

Apparently, they didn't say "Fuck you" and "Go to hell." The gun-wielding hillbillies did not step up to the task. I’m sorry — no more statements?! How damned disappointing! I wonder how hard Gabriel tried, catching ladies leaving stores, calling people up, creeping around the casket. I wonder how he felt about himself.

After the funeral service, two men advanced across North Main Street toward a single television crew present, from the German network RTL, and punched the cameraman, bloodying his face and knocking him down.

Two other men told a newspaper reporter, “If you had any sense, you’d get out of here. You’re next, buddy.”

Ah, so the media did get some satisfaction. How long did they harass these poor people before they tipped some grief-stricken man to say what they knew somebody ought to say? I'm assuming one man said that quote, even though the article says "Two other men told..." (as if we are to picture a unison declamation). 

The reporters at the funeral call to mind the Westboro Church protesters, who target funerals and love to stand their ground, exercising free speech rights, as if their very purpose was to cause some emotionally overwrought mourner to lash out physically.

Why did Althouse put up 5 posts on the Westboro Baptist Church protests here in Madison?

Sorry to inflict all that on you, but I wanted you to see what really goes on, and I thought that needed some strong sunlight. There were 5 posts today:

1. Introducing the protest planned for today.

2. Still photography from the scene.

3. The first video, showing the Phelps group and 2 different counterprotesters who express themselves in entirely different ways.

4. The second video, showing Meade's close encounter with Margie Phelps.

5. The third video, Phelps explains what she's doing and shows her style, and Meade crosses for video of the folks on the other side.

Margie Phelps objects to "the fag agenda" and the installation of "a fag so-called preacher"

This is the third video I edited from footage Meade shot in Madison today, as Margie Phelps and others protested the ordination of a gay minister. This 5-minute clip includes Phelps's explanation of her mission and the response from the counterprotesters on the other side of the street.



Watch for the sweet old woman at 2:08. She takes a close look at Phelps and then continues across the street. At 2:46, Phelps uses a shocking epithet against the new minister. At 3:11, Meade crosses the street and we hear their song about "marching on the side of love."

Margie Phelps encounters the police... and Meade.

Another video by Meade — edited by me — showing today's protest by the Westboro Baptist Church folk. Watch for Phelps to tell Meade to "get up out of my grille." And wait for the fellow protester who attempts to lighten things up with a suggestion of song. Interestingly, it's the same song we've heard a hundred times from the anti-Scott Walker protesters downtown. The lyrics are differently tweaked.

If the phrase "up out of my grille" sounds out of place but also oddly familiar, perhaps you remember the oral argument in the Supreme Court case involving the Westboro folks:

At page 40 [of the transcript], Margie Phelps, arguing in favor of the right to express outrageous opinions in the vicinity of a funeral, is quoted as saying:

I think approaching an individual up close and in their grille to berate them gets you out of the zone of protection, and we would never do that.

(Boldface added.) Then, at pages 47-48, she's quoted saying:

Your body of law about captive audience... where they, by the way, specifically said at footnote this isn't about content. You've got to be up -- again, I will uses [sic] the colloquial term -- up in your grill. The term I think the Court used was confrontational.

And page 49:

I do think that you could have a public event where there was not an element of vulnerability in the people going in. You might even let them up in their grill.

(At the linked post, I discuss the spelling issue: Is it "grille" or "grill"? It's grille.)

Westboro Baptists bring their signs and songs to Madison...

... and encounter some different types of opponents, caught here on video by Meade. (Edited by me, with added text.)

The Westboro Baptist Church protests the ordination of a gay Presbyterian minister.

The protest took place at the corner of Mineral Point and Segoe Roads. Meade got there around 9:15. That is Margie Phelps at the extreme right of this first picture:



In this picture, a man with an "ITAPA KEGGA" T-shirt takes a gander at the protesters:



Arrayed on the other side of the street, in front of the concrete cross of the Covenant Presbyterian Church, you can see the counterprotesters, who appear happy with their new minister:



They look like nice people. They were singing "We are standing on the side of love," and they have in their midst a beautiful child:



Also, there's a man in a Guy Fawkes mask holding a rainbow exclamation point and a woman with a sign that says: "Love knows no boundaries; Courage has NO limit!"



I have a lot of video to edit, and it will give you a sense of what the atmosphere there was. Meade sums it up this way: "The Westboro Baptist Church people were trying to incite people and the others were out there enjoying a beautiful day and on the side of peace and love."

Today's ordination of the first gay Presbyterian pastor is "an important event in Heaven and on earth."

According to Margie Phelps, of the Westboro Baptist Church, "And it’s our duty as the church of the Lord, Jesus Christ, to come to the scene and remind people of their duty to God, so that’s why we’re coming,"

WBC wrote on their website “Scott Anderson has no hope of heaven, and you know it. Yet, you refuse to tell him the truth and enable him in his sin. God Hates Fags and Fag-Enablers alike — you are all worthy of death (hell).”

The ordination ceremony and the protest are going on right now. New Media Meade is on the scene, with multiple cameras. Stay tuned.

By writing on the web, you can toughen up to the point where you can stand your ground in the physical space that is dominated by people who feel physically and intellectually invulnerable.

That's what I say, in this dialogue with Dahlia Litwick, who feels much the same way...



... except that when I say there's a wall you need to bust through because there's freedom on the other side, she says she doesn't know if she's through the wall. "I think my head's sticking out one side of the wall and my feet are at the other end." I pictured this:



Also in that clip is a comparison of the Wisconsin protesters to the Westboro Baptist Church protesters, whose free-speech right to protest near soldiers' funerals was upheld recently in Snyder v. Phelps. Unlike the Wisconsin protesters who sought to drown out Sarah Palin's speech, the protesters in Phelps took care not to disrupt the funeral:

The record confirms that any distress occasioned by Westboro’s picketing turned on the content and viewpoint of the message conveyed, rather than any interference with the funeral itself....

Here, Westboro stayed well away from the memorial service. Snyder could see no more than the tops of the signs when driving to the funeral. And there is no indication that the picketing in any way interfered with the funeral service itself.

The Westboro Baptist Church wins in the Supreme Court in the case about protesting at a soldier's funeral.

"The First Amendment shields Westboro from tort liability for its picketing in this case."

Chief Justice Roberts writes the opinion, with only Justice Alito dissenting. Justice Breyer has a concurring opinion. From the Roberts opinion:

The picketing was conducted under police supervision some 1,000 feet from the church, out of the sight of those at the church. The protest was not unruly; there was no shouting, profanity, or violence....

Given that Westboro’s speech was at a public place on a matter of public concern, that speech is entitled to “special protection” under the First Amendment. Such speech cannot be restricted simply because it is upsetting or arouses contempt. “If there is a bedrock principle underly- ing the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.” Texas v. Johnson, 491 U. S. 397, 414 (1989). Indeed, “the point of all speech protection . . . is to shield just those choices of content that in someone’s eyes are misguided, or even hurtful.” Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston, Inc., 515 U. S. 557, 574 (1995)....

Speech is powerful. It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and—as it did here— inflict great pain. On the facts before us, we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker. As a Nation we have chosen a different course—to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate. That choice requires that we shield West- boro from tort liability for its picketing in this case.

Clearly, this is the right outcome.

AND: Alito, the lone dissenter, stresses the value of the tort called "intentional infliction of emotional distress":

Respondents’ outrageous conduct caused petitioner great injury, and the Court now compounds that injury by depriving petitioner of a judgment that acknowledges the wrong he suffered.

In order to have a society in which public issues can be openly and vigorously debated, it is not necessary to allow the brutalization of innocent victims like petitioner.

Breyer's short concurrence makes the point that the decision is limited to in-person picketing about matters of "public concern." In adding that the Court "does not examine in depth the effect of television broadcasting" and "internet postings," I get the sense that he's looking ahead to cases about bullying.

"Her smash-mouthed assault on His deity, sovereignty and infallibility brought more GodSmacks upon her..."

If you're trying to fathom the twisted reasoning behind picketing Elizabeth Edwards' funeral (by the Westboro Baptist Church), the hateful text is here.

"It appears that at least a few of the justices really, really, really just hate the Phelps family and its manner of protest..."

"... and they might even be willing to whip up a little new First Amendment law to prove it."

Margie J. Phelps represents Westboro Baptist Church, and yes, before you ask, she hates you, she really hates you. She most likely hates the six Catholics and three Jews up there on the bench, too. But she hides it well....

Scalia wonders whether these signs and Web posts could be unprotected words under the fighting words exception to the First Amendment, but Phelps says this protest was never intended to provoke a fight. Channeling Stephen Colbert, she says their message is just this: "Nation. Hear this little church. If you want them to stop dying, stop sinning."...

The headline writers are going to say that the justices "struggled" with this case. That may be so, but what they struggled with has very little to do with the law, which rather clearly protects even the most offensive speech about public matters such as war and morality. They are struggling here with the facts, which they hate. Which we all hate. But looking at the parties through hate-colored glasses has never been the best way to think about the First Amendment. In fact, as I understand it, that's why we needed a First Amendment in the first place.

I absolutely agree with Dahlia Lithwick about this.

$11 million damages for offensive speech.

It's against the vile Fred Phelps, so do you care? Are you happy?

It was the first-ever verdict against Westboro Baptist Church, a fundamentalist Christian group based in Topeka that has protested military funerals across the country with placards bearing shock-value messages such as "Thank God for dead soldiers."

They contend that the deaths are punishment for America's tolerance of homosexuality and of gays in the military.

These protests are insane — not only hateful but also incoherent. (The dead soldier wasn't gay.) The tort claim was expectation of privacy at the funeral and for intentionally inflicting emotional distress.

Fred W. Phelps Sr., Westboro's founder, vowed to appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, in Richmond, Va.

"It's going to be reversed in five minutes," he said. This case, he added, "will elevate me to something important," as it draws more publicity to his cause....

"This was in a public space," [lawprof Mark] Graber said "While the actions are reprehensible, the First Amendment protects a lot that's reprehensible."

Graber's right.