Nimeshika+Yatiyawela

= Should negative radical groups, such as the Westboro Baptist Church and Neo-Nazis, have the right to protest? = = = == I chose this topic because I strongly disagree with radical groups and their purpose for protesting. By saying radical, I mean the people who bring pain and hate into society, even those who believe they are helping society. This is an important topic because even though one of America's purpose is to abolish hate groups, they still give the groups rights to protest, yet they disagree with what they have to say. I hope the readers will learn how hate groups poison society and that the amendments should be revised. == == == ==  ==

Pros: (Obviously, there aren't many pros to this topic)
 * The First Amendment protects the right of free speech, press, and assembly.
 * The groups cannot be punished for their actions, as long as it doesn't incite violence.
 * The church is a non-profit oganization, so they are not forcefully taking money from anyone.

Cons:
 * The group is being immoral and hurting the funerals attendees at the funerals they picket.
 * What they "teach" in no way represents the ideas of God.
 * Many of the things they say are offensive to others, especially the gay community.
 * They teach others to hate, including the little children that have to be raised by these people.
 * They are putting themselves and their loved ones in harm's way.
 * The First Amendment might give the right of free speech, but it does not offer the right to police protection, therefore, the groups cannot complain when they are attacked.
 * The actions of these groups incite violence and can easily cause corruption and riots to society.

Case Briefs

Snyder Vs. Phelps
Background Information: The family of deceased Marine Matthew Snyder sued the Westboro Baptist Church who picketed at his funeral. The WBC (Westboro Baptist Church) was accused of defamation, invasion of privacy, and emotional distress caused from displaying signs, including signs that read "Thank God for Dead Soldiers" and "God Hates Gays", during Snyder's funeral. U.S. District Judge Richard Bennett initially awarded the family $5 million in damages, but was accussed of violating the First Amendment, which protected the right of speech and religous expression. Therefore, the WBC's speech was protected, no matter how inhumane and degrading it was. *Defamation: Using false accussations or facts to harm one's reputation

Website for the Synder vs. Phelps Case)

Skokie vs. the Socialist Party of America ==Background Information: The Socialist Party wanted to hold a rally in front of Skokie Village, which consisted mainly of Jewish residents, especially ones from the Holocaust. The group was unable to obtain a permit to protest because they were accused of promoting racial and religious hate, an action strongly disregrarded when trying to obtain a permit. The group took this issue to the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois and the Supreme Court where it was rules unconstitutional for the group to be denied a permit because it violates their First Amendment rights.==

Website for Skokie vs. Socialist Party of America Case

Brandenburg vs. Ohio Backgro und Information: This is a case involving the __Klu Klux Klan__ and Clarence Bradenburg against the state of Ohio after Bradenburg was convicted of the felony of insulting the government during the a __Klu Klux Klan__ rally. The Supreme Court stated that Bradenburg's actions did not incite violence of unlawful action, therefore, it was regarded as unconstitutional. However, the case left lingering thoughts as to whether verbal threats to the government can be considered as a felony because it possibly incites violence and can be an instigator for Communism, which was a big issue during the time period of the case (1960's).

[|Website for Bradenburg vs. Ohio Case]

I believe that these extremist groups, such as the WestBoro Baptist Church and the Neo-Nazis, do not have the right to protest the things they stand for because their causes are morally degrading and offending to others.The justice system believes that the groups have the right to protest because their actions do not incite violence, however, I believe their actions do incite violence because what they say angers people and some angry people can be very aggressive. The difficult idea to really understand is that protesting does not necessarily have to be for an immorale cause. I understand slightly how the extremist groups should have the same rights such as animal-rights activists because they are just protesting like everyone else. However, the justice system should understand that these people are morally wrong and morals should be included within the basis of some laws.
 * What I Think **