Amicus briefs have been filed in the Snyder vs. Westboro case.
The most off-mark is the one filed by the Veterans of Foreign Wars. The VFW does a lot of good, but it's way off mark on this one.
It's brief includes this quote:
"(The Phelpses') speech is of little, if any value. Conversely, the harm they inflicted upon a grieving family and the memory and service of a member of our Armed Forces is substantial and irreparable."
They are right, of course. But the First Amendment protects all speech, not just speech that some observers might find of value.
Interestingly, the attorneys general of Maine and Virginia did not join the fray.
A passage from the Sunday News story:
In a statement, Maine Attorney General Janet Mills said, "This is not a political question, a test of patriotism or a popularity contest about how many people take offense at a particular statement. Once we start carving out exceptions to the First Amendment for speech that is unpopular or offensive, then we start down a slippery slope that endangers the right of all of us to hold and express views that may be thought unpopular by others."
Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli said in a statement he did not join because "the case could set a precedent that could severely curtail certain valid exercises of free speech. If protestors -- whether political, civil rights, pro-life, or environmental -- said something that offended the object of the protest to the point where that person felt damaged, the protestors could be sued. It then becomes a very subjective and difficult determination as to when the line is crossed from severely offensive speech to that which inflicts emotional distress."
Sounds like the real story here is that Cuccinelli said something sensible for once.
"You are a cad and a poltroon, sir, and I despise and am disgusted by every word that you have to say. And I will fight to the death to defend your right to say it."
Source unknown, but I agree with the concept.