David_Vila Posted May 25, 2013 Snyder v. Phelps 2010 (Point of View) Hello everybody, I was thinking about the First Amendment and all other amendments in the Constitution of The United States. I was thinking of the actual purposes of these amentments. Sadly it's not stated though. I believe the purpose of the First Amendment was so this guaranteed the right to the say of "We The People" if our government presented itself not for us. Now I knowthat the Supreme Court case Snyder v. Phelps was in 2010. Supreme Court dismissed Snyder's case against phelps because he had the right to voice his opinion at Snyder's family funeral. Meaning that Supreme Court honored the First Amendment. Now I believe that the ruling are wrong. First off like I said before: "I believe the purpose of the First Amendment was so this guaranteed the right to the say of "We The People" if our government presented itself not for us." I don't believe that the First Amendment was ever to say it's okay to verbally harass your neighbor. Not at all. If that was the case. That would mean your neighbor would be allowed to say whatever they wanted to say; just as long it wasn't physical right? Anyway this is what I found on WBC. Take a look if you want! The Westboro Baptist Church Home Page:http://www.godhatesfags.com/ This article is from this link of the Westboro Baptist Churchhttp://blogs.sparenot.com/scotus/ Note: This below is a paste up from WBC. "On March 2, 2011, the United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Westboro Baptist Church in Snyder v. Phelps, ruling 8-1 that the picketing of funerals by WBC is protected speech, addressing issues of public interest and importance, lawfully conducted. The Court ruled that people going to a funeral are not a captive audience, and that the conduct of the WBC members is not subject to liability. The Court specifically noted that WBC members picket on public issues, on public right-of-ways, lawfully and peacefully, so you can avert your eyes. The Court also ruled that the subjective claim that you were “outraged” is not sufficient to override the right to speak on public issues. The Court affirmed the Fourth Circuit, which reversed a runaway angry jury’s award of $10.9 million in favor of the faithless father. Now he must face the fact that he has angered the Lord His God, and he won’t get relief by trying to silence the WBC. We thank God, Praise His Name, and give Him all the glory, for this amazing deliverance and victory! He orders our steps, and opens the way for us to testify to this nation, and to the world!"