Fred Phelps may be dealt a blow? - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Cynthetiq · 02-10-2006, 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shakran

Sorry Bill. Usually you're pretty close to the mark but in this case I think you're wrong.

Don't misunderstand me - I think protesting at funerals like this is NOT appropriate by any stretch, and that's coming from someone who thinks the war should be protested damn near anywhere and anywhen.

But we cannot change people's constitutional rights just because we do not like their behavior. They have the right to express themselves. They have the right to protest. The constitution does not say anything about having those rights only where it is societally appropriate. As sad as it is when some people choose to abuse it, the constitution does not have an anti-asshole clause.

But let's look at what could happen should we outlaw this:

Protests at abortion clinics are out because that upsets the pregnant women who are already at a fragile time in their lives.

Protests on city streets are outlawed because they might offend or upset the citizens and cause an incident.

Protests in front of government buildings are outlawed because they are inappropriately using the imagery of the institutions as a backdrop to their protests.

War protests in general are outlawed because they are "not supporting the troops"

Gay rights protests are outlawed because they might offend heterosexuals.

That all sounds pretty ridiculous doesn't it? And well it should. We cannot snatch away people's first amendment rights just because someone might get offended, which is essentially what this move is attempting to do.

People do have a constitutionally protected right to be assholes. Unfortunately sometimes that will make us uncomfortable, and sometimes they will take that right too far, but we cannot remove that right for any reason, even the asshole argument.

all the above are already restricted to some degree here in NYC.

can't protest in front of City Hall, due to terrorism restrictions.

can't protest via bike rally because need permits, and causes traffic ala Critical Mass.

it's happening already.

IMO, people want to show what an insensitive person they are, let them, it just solidifies them being an asshole.

shakran · 02-10-2006, 12:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xepherys

I still don't agree that my wishes would trample first ammendment rights. They're free to hate. They're free to march, picket, rally, et cetera. I do NOT see how time or distance laws are anti-First Amendment. Perhaps someone just needs to shed some light on it for me. *shrug*

Let's take your wishes and extrapolate them. First we move them back 100 feet. Someone at the funeral doesn't like that so we move them back 500 feet. Well that's still not cool because you can still hear them at the funeral. So we'll say no protesting within 4 miles of a cemetery when a funeral is going on. Then the protestors will protest when there's no funeral, but they'll upset some family member that's visiting the grave, so we'll say no protesting within 4 miles of a cemetery, period. Now the places to protest are severely limited. Once we make a "protest distance" law, we are on the proverbial slippery slope. At what distance does the distance law become unconstitutional? 5 feet, hey that's fine. 100 feet, yeah, that's good too. 500 feet. . well now we're getting kinda far, but hey we did 100 feet and that's not unconstitutional so 500 feet must be ok too. Eventually we could require that all protests be held in a soybean field 20 miles away from Faribault Minnesota. Sure, they can still protest. they have the right to protest. But who's gonna hear them? How can their protest have any meaning? The point of a protest is so that people, usually a specific group of people, hears you. The anti-abortion crowd does not protest in front of the catholic church because they don't need to get their message across to the catholic church. They protest in front of places where they know people have opinions that they want to change.

If we limit where someone can protest, we are placing restrictions on their freedom of expression. If we start down that path, who knows how bad it will get before someone wises up and turns it around?

And Cynthetiq, yes, I know that's happening. And it's unconstitutional and it's wrong, and I'm outraged that people aren't outraged over it.

samcol · 02-10-2006, 12:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shakran

Sorry Bill. Usually you're pretty close to the mark but in this case I think you're wrong.

Don't misunderstand me - I think protesting at funerals like this is NOT appropriate by any stretch, and that's coming from someone who thinks the war should be protested damn near anywhere and anywhen.

But we cannot change people's constitutional rights just because we do not like their behavior. They have the right to express themselves. They have the right to protest. The constitution does not say anything about having those rights only where it is societally appropriate. As sad as it is when some people choose to abuse it, the constitution does not have an anti-asshole clause.

But let's look at what could happen should we outlaw this:

Protests at abortion clinics are out because that upsets the pregnant women who are already at a fragile time in their lives.

Protests on city streets are outlawed because they might offend or upset the citizens and cause an incident.

Protests in front of government buildings are outlawed because they are inappropriately using the imagery of the institutions as a backdrop to their protests.

War protests in general are outlawed because they are "not supporting the troops"

Gay rights protests are outlawed because they might offend heterosexuals.

That all sounds pretty ridiculous doesn't it? And well it should. We cannot snatch away people's first amendment rights just because someone might get offended, which is essentially what this move is attempting to do.

People do have a constitutionally protected right to be assholes. Unfortunately sometimes that will make us uncomfortable, and sometimes they will take that right too far, but we cannot remove that right for any reason, even the asshole argument.

You are dead on.

meembo · 02-10-2006, 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shakran

The point of a protest is so that people, usually a specific group of people, hears you. The anti-abortion crowd does not protest in front of the catholic church because they don't need to get their message across to the catholic church. They protest in front of places where they know people have opinions that they want to change.

If we limit where someone can protest, we are placing restrictions on their freedom of expression. If we start down that path, who knows how bad it will get before someone wises up and turns it around?

shakran, I think you are advocating an absolute literal interpretation of the first amendment, and in your arguments you are ignoring accomodations the courts have already determined are appropriate to limit speech. Free speech is already abridged in ways most of society has accepted.

Abortion protesters don't expect to change opinions at clinics. They hope to generate media coverage which broadcasts their agenda as widely as possible. They are moved far enough from the clinic so as not to impede patients from seeing their doctors. That is a ligitimate restriction of political and religious expression. No one has moved them "20 miles from Faribault" in the 30 years since Roe v. Wade.

Obscenity, defamation, sedition, and hate speech are not protected speech. They are illegal expressions of speech. They are punishable offenses. I think that it's wise that the constitution has the flexibility to accomodate social conditions that weren't considered when the Constitution and the original Bill of Rights were drafted. The Bill of Rights was the first exercise of this flexibility.

This is the major flaw in your arguments in this thread IMO. I agree to a great extent with most of what you are saying, but you present the first amendment as as absolute that can never be approached legally. It has been approached from several angles, and at appropriate times the Supreme Court ruled that some forms of speech are improper and unlawful. I hope that you can admit that there is some room for accomodation as society changes.

shakran · 02-13-2006, 05:51 PM

Well I don't know that I've done what you are accusing me of doing. Yes there are limits to freedom of speech. I can't yell fire in a theater, for example. . .Unless of course, there actually is a fire. But that's because doing so would put others in danger and could get someone killed. The obsenity issue is still pretty hotly contested. It's pretty hard to find someone who got jailed for saying "shit," however.

Libel/slander are interesting, but I don't think they weaken my argument. Libel and slander are defined as publications/speeches which are false, are known to be false, and are said anyway in order to harm someone else. Again it goes back to actual measurable harm. In the theater case, people can get trampled. In the libel/slander case, people's lives - at the very least their economic lives- can be ruined.

I think you'd have a tough time showing actual measurable economic or physical harm endured by people at a funeral because some idiot is out protesting outside the cemetery. You could easilly show that they were offended. You could show that they were upset. But the law does not hold that offending or upsetting someone is a crime.

This action is essentially trying to criminilize causing offense. The 1st clearly was not meant as "you can say what you want as long as no one's upset about it."

Tophat665 · 02-13-2006, 06:15 PM

Let me put it this way, I believe that Fred Phucking Phelps has a right to spew his filth in public, near funerals, wherever. One has no right to not be offended. That said, if one knowingly gives someone mortal offense when they are at their least emotionally stable, one has no right to believe that they will leave the premises with all of the teeth they arrived with.

I don't believe for a second that, if someone did less than mortal damage to this jerkwad for protesting outside of a funeral, that any jury in the country would convict him. Heck, if this were in the middle east, someone would already have burnt his church down around his ears, likely after nailing them to the altar.

Will no one rid us of this meddlesome priest?

(Worked last time.)

MSD · 02-13-2006, 06:35 PM

The only thing I find more offensive about this situation than Phelps and his cronies spewing hate at helpless people is the fact that he has taken it so far that lawmakers feel a need to curb his right to spew hate. Without permitting hate speech we hav no way to understand just how far we have to go until we eradicate hate, and once we justify bannning speech or non-violent action of any kind, we set a precedent that it is acceptable to gag our speech if we're uncofortable with what's being said. If we want any chance of tackling serious issues, we need to encourage people to talk about them, not jam socks in their mouths and pretend the problems don't exist.

meembo · 02-13-2006, 06:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shakran

Well I don't know that I've done what you are accusing me of doing.... I think you'd have a tough time showing actual measurable economic or physical harm endured by people at a funeral because some idiot is out protesting outside the cemetery. You could easilly show that they were offended. You could show that they were upset. But the law does not hold that offending or upsetting someone is a crime.

You are right. But I think that the legal landscape can change very quickly, and it can take as little as one gunshot to redetermine that Phelp's speech and religious practice incites unlawful behavior, which is the standard in the KKK case I referenced earlier. I believe that Phelps' behavior will likely incite violence by a sympathizer to grieving families. Abortion protesters eventually shot and killed several doctors providing abortions in the 90s.

The larger point is that I believe we need to stretch out minds to envision that even constitutional protections are able to be amended and abridged for the public good should circumstances arise. Virtually everyone agrees that Phelps' speech is disagreeable and protected, but there are legitimate, possible, and even probable reasons that his behavior may be limited in the future. Like I said, it may be just one gunshot away, and I can't think of another public figure who is less symapathetic than Fred Phelps. I don't believe that disagreeable speech ought to be repressed in and of itself, but I think reasonable people can see the likely violent, even deadly repercussions of a belligerent and opportunistic putz like Phelps.

I was an escort at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Minnesota in the early 90s, and the 15-foot restrictions placed on protesters that were otherwise blocking access to the clinic was welcome and appropriate to the situation.

shakran · 02-13-2006, 06:46 PM

but those 15 foot restrictions were purely for right-of-way. The protestors were blocking the way into the clinic. That wasn't trumping the 1st amendment. That was restricting a group from preventing another group from legally going somewhere.

Now, 100 feet away from the cemetery isn't for right of way, it's to move the protestors where they won't bother the people in the cemetery. That's beyond the scope of what congress can do without a constitutional amendment. Phelps and his gang aren't stopping the funerals, they're just making asses of themselves outside the gates.

And you're right that some day an idiot might shoot Phelps for his bullshit outside the cemetery. And that idiot should go to jail. Saying Phelps shouldn't be allowed to express his opinion because someone MIGHT shoot him is kinda crazy. Should we have said that to Martin Luther King too?

meembo · 02-13-2006, 07:14 PM

All the protests I've seen and heard of were outside of churches, not cemeteries, but I can't say it's exclusive to churches. And I concede that no restrictions are appropriate in anticipation of violence as I've stated it.

However, in 1997, in Schenck v. Pro-Choice Network of Western New York, the Supreme Court uphelp a fixed buffer area around clinics to ensure "safe passage" based on intimidating behavior, and the court upheld a "cease and desist" provision that allowed only two protesters to approach clinic patients, who were then required to withdraw if asked. The protesters were still allowed to protest, but effectively denied the "right" to direct their protest in intimidating manners towards individuals. In this case, the bahavior of the protesters was a determinig factor of the case.

Gilda · 02-13-2006, 07:35 PM

There's no doubt that Phelp's has the right to believe whatever he wants and express tha belief.

The real question here is whether this is a legitimate excercise of free speech, protected by the first amendment, or harassment, which might not be.

Personally, I find what he says unpardonably repulsive, while at the same time smiling just a little bit every time his extremist rhetoric his the mainstream airways because it better illustrates the absurdity of the "homosexuality is immoral" stance than anything I could say.

When it's done at a funeral, it's detestible.

As someone said earlier, I'm torn, because I find Phelps and everything he stands for repulsive, but at the same time, I'm a big fan of freedom of speech, and I'm not sure whether saying "You can say whatever you like, but you can't say it in this place at this time" is an abridgement of free speech or not.

Gilda

shakran · 02-13-2006, 08:42 PM

I think Gilda is echoing all (or at least most) of our deep down sentiments.

Sure, I'm up here staunchly defending the 1st amendment and saying Phelps has the right to be an asshole just about anywhere he wants. But that doesn't mean I don't wish he'd find a more appropriate place to do it. Do I think he should be protesting at funerals? Nope, not at all. But as I've mentioned, the first amendment would be pointless if we were allowed to modify it or to claim it doesn't apply just because certain speech makes us unhappy or squeamish. I'm not happy that Phelps is putting these families through listening to his crap while they're burying their loved one, but because passing a law to stop him would also limit other instances of free speech - ones which might make someone else unhappy but with which I would have no problems, I defend Phelp's right to do what he is doing.

Put another way, I don't want the fact that I think Phelps should stop what he is doing to cause a law to be passed that could stop other people from doing what I do not think they should stop doing.

glasscutter43 · 02-14-2006, 07:26 AM

Eventually, these psychotic, religious fanatics will protest at a funeral attended by a psychotic gun fanatic. An automatic weapon will appear and there will be another funeral to protest.

xepherys · 02-14-2006, 08:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shakran

But as I've mentioned, the first amendment would be pointless if we were allowed to modify it or to claim it doesn't apply just because certain speech makes us unhappy or squeamish.

Again, in the end I more or less agree with you, Shakran... but this is also a false statement. It CAN be modified... the Constitution has been modified a few times in the past (including a first time, that led to the AMENDMENT you are worried about protecting). So keep in mind that the first amendment can be modified, or rather, a new amendment can change it's value.

Cynthetiq · 02-14-2006, 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shakran

Let's take your wishes and extrapolate them. First we move them back 100 feet. Someone at the funeral doesn't like that so we move them back 500 feet. Well that's still not cool because you can still hear them at the funeral. So we'll say no protesting within 4 miles of a cemetery when a funeral is going on. Then the protestors will protest when there's no funeral, but they'll upset some family member that's visiting the grave, so we'll say no protesting within 4 miles of a cemetery, period. Now the places to protest are severely limited. Once we make a "protest distance" law, we are on the proverbial slippery slope. At what distance does the distance law become unconstitutional? 5 feet, hey that's fine. 100 feet, yeah, that's good too. 500 feet. . well now we're getting kinda far, but hey we did 100 feet and that's not unconstitutional so 500 feet must be ok too. Eventually we could require that all protests be held in a soybean field 20 miles away from Faribault Minnesota. Sure, they can still protest. they have the right to protest. But who's gonna hear them? How can their protest have any meaning? The point of a protest is so that people, usually a specific group of people, hears you. The anti-abortion crowd does not protest in front of the catholic church because they don't need to get their message across to the catholic church. They protest in front of places where they know people have opinions that they want to change.

If we limit where someone can protest, we are placing restrictions on their freedom of expression. If we start down that path, who knows how bad it will get before someone wises up and turns it around?

And Cynthetiq, yes, I know that's happening. And it's unconstitutional and it's wrong, and I'm outraged that people aren't outraged over it.

I live in a city of 8 million people. When a percentage of them all get the idea that it would be great to do some en masse, well it's a pain in the ass for the other percentage.

I can't have a parade when and where I want. Why should a rally be any different?

I like to avoid as many large crowds as I can since I walk through a space where about 1 million people a month walk through, those are just tourists.

But if I know that someone is rallying in a particular part of town, I avoid it. The news is very good about telling people where rallies will be held. Why can't I know beforehand so that I can plan and no be inconvenienced?

samcol · 02-21-2006, 05:35 AM

I think this shows the power of freedom of speech. If we were to limit Phelps's freedom of speech, we'd have to limit the speech of these bikers too. Government intervention isn't needed for everything.

Quote:

Bikers drown out funeral protesters

By Ryan Lenz
Associated Press

FORT CAMPBELL, Ky. — Wearing leather chaps and vests covered in military patches, a band of motorcyclists rolls from one soldier’s funeral to another in hopes their respectful cheers and revving engines will drown out the insults of protesters.
The motorcycle club members calling themselves Patriot Guard Riders are trying to shield mourners from cruel jeers by adherents of a tiny fundamentalist church who picket military funerals to reflect their belief that U.S. combat deaths are a sign God is punishing the United States for harboring homosexuals. Some protesters’ signs said, “Thank God for IEDs,” the improvised explosive devices, or homemade bombs, that kill many U.S. soldiers.

“The most important thing we can do is let families know that the nation cares,” said Don Woodrick, the biker group’s Kentucky captain. “When a total stranger gets on a motorcycle in the middle of winter and drives 300 miles to hold a flag, that makes a powerful statement.”

Across the nation, Patriot Guard Riders number more than 5,000. They show up at soldiers’ funerals to chant patriotic slogans and wave red, white and blue flags in hopes of overshadowing backers of a Kansas clergyman named the Rev. Fred Phelps.

Phelps and members of his Westboro Baptist Church have caused such a fuss that at least 14 states are considering laws aimed at the funeral protests. During the 1990s, church members were known mostly for picketing funerals of AIDS victims, and they have long been tracked as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center’s Intelligence Project in Montgomery, Alabama.

The project’s deputy director, Heidi Beirich, said other groups have tried to counter Phelps’ message, but none have been as organized as the Patriot Guard.

“I’m not sure anybody has gone to this length to stand in solidarity,” she said. “It’s nice that these veterans and their supporters are trying to do something. I can’t imagine anything worse, your loved one is killed in Iraq and you’ve got to deal with Fred Phelps.”

At a recent memorial service at Fort Campbell, church protesters and sang vulgar songs condemning homosexuals and soldiers. The Patriot Guard was also there, cheering to support mourning families across the street as community members came in a freezing rain to chant “U-S-A, U-S-A” alongside the bikers.

“This is just the right thing to do. This is something America didn’t do in the ’70s,” said Kurt Mayer, the Patriot Guard’s national spokesman, referring to the era when protests against the Vietnam war were common. “Whether we agree with why we’re over there, these soldiers are dying to protect our freedoms.”

Shirley Phelps-Roper, a daughter of Fred Phelps and an attorney for the Topeka, Kansas-based church, said neither state laws nor the Patriot Guard can silence their message that God killed the soldiers because they fought for a country that embraces homosexuals.

“The scriptures are crystal clear that when God sets out to punish a nation, it is with the sword. An IED is just a broken-up sword,” Phelps-Roper said. “Since that is his weapon of choice, our forum of choice has got to be a dead soldier’s funeral.”

The church, which is not affiliated with a larger denomination, is made up mostly of Phelps’ extended family. A small group of them appeared last month in West Virginia outside a memorial for the 12 men killed in the Sago Mine disaster. They held signs reading “Thank God for Dead Miners” and “Miners in Hell.”

Kentucky, home to sprawling Fort Campbell, was among the first states to attempt to deal with Phelps legislatively. Its House and Senate have each passed bills that would limit people from protesting within 300 feet of a funeral or memorial service. The Senate version would also keep protesters from being within earshot of grieving friends and family members.

The Indiana Senate has passed a bill intended to prohibit protests within 500 feet (150 meters) of funerals. The House is considering the measure.

The bills were written to protect families of soldiers such as Pvt. Jonathan R. Pfender, 22, of Evansville, Indiana, a soldier from Fort Campbell’s 101st Airborne Division who was killed in January by a roadside bomb in Beiji, Iraq.

Westboro church members protested at Pfender’s funeral, screaming profanities at mourners as they passed. Family members were shielded from the insults by the rumble of Patriot Guard motorcycles.

“We were glad that the Patriot Guard Riders were there,” said Jackie Pfender, the soldier’s stepmother. “This group of protesters wanted to put something negative on Jonathan’s funeral. In actuality, it became a positive thing because of the support we had.”

Patriot Guard members only show up at funerals if invited by family. Richard Wilbur, a retired police detective, said his Indiana Patriot Guard group came to the Pfender funeral at the family’s request after protesters announced they planned to attend.

“No one deserves this,” Wilbur said. “If I were burying my loved one and they were out there yelling anything close to what they yell to the families of these soldiers, I know my temperament. I probably would not handle it very well.”

The_Jazz · 02-21-2006, 06:17 AM

The part that really got me about the article was off topic to our original discussion - the fact that these idiots protested the funerals of the WV miners. I stand by my position that this is protected speach, but I'm glad that the bikers are there to share their own protected speach. The sad fact of the matter is that good people are having to sink to the level of Phelps et al to drown him out.

Tophat665 · 02-21-2006, 05:06 PM

Now, I am not going to go in for the jingoistic hero worship that was the order of the day on Fark, but it is nice to see this working out the way it really ought to. I'm with samcol on this one.

meembo · 05-25-2006, 04:05 AM

From CNN

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Demonstrators would be barred from disrupting military funerals at national cemeteries under legislation approved by Congress and sent to the White House.

The measure, passed by voice vote in the House Wednesday hours after the Senate passed an amended version, specifically targets a Kansas church group that has staged protests at military funerals around the country, claiming that the deaths were a sign of God's anger at U.S. tolerance of homosexuals.

The act "will protect the sanctity of all 122 of our national cemeteries as shrines to their gallant dead," Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tennessee, said prior to the Senate vote.

"It's a sad but necessary measure to protect what should be recognized by all reasonable people as a solemn, private and deeply sacred occasion," he said.

Under the Senate bill, approved without objection by the House with no recorded vote, the "Respect for America's Fallen Heroes Act" would bar protests within 300 feet of the entrance of a cemetery and within 150 feet of a road into the cemetery from 60 minutes before to 60 minutes after a funeral. Those violating the act would face up to a $100,000 fine and up to a year in prison.

The sponsor of the House bill, Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Michigan, said he took up the issue after attending a military funeral in his home state, where mourners were greeted by "chants and taunting and some of the most vile things I have ever heard."

"Families deserve the time to bury their American heroes with dignity and in peace," Rogers said Wednesday before the House vote.

The demonstrators are led by the Rev. Fred Phelps of Topeka, Kansas, who has previously organized protests against those who died of AIDS and gay murder victim Matthew Shepard.

In an interview when the House bill passed, Phelps said Congress was "blatantly violating the First Amendment" rights to free speech in passing the bill. He said that if the bill becomes law he will continue to demonstrate but would abide by the restrictions.

Sen. Pat Roberts, a Republican from Kansas, said the loved ones of those who die have already sacrificed for the nation and "we must allow them the right to mourn without being thrust into a political circus."

In response to the demonstrations, the Patriot Guard Riders, a motorcycle group including many veterans, has begun appearing at military funerals to pay respects to the fallen service member and protect the family from disruptions.

More than a dozen states are considering similar laws to restrict protests at nonfederal cemeteries. The American Civil Liberties Union has filed a lawsuit against a new Kentucky law, saying it goes too far in limiting freedom of speech and expression.

mr_alleycat · 05-25-2006, 04:32 AM

I see Fred all the time preaching his hate filled BS.
I find it interesting that the outrage only has come when he started protesting peoples funerals that aren't gay.

Where is the uproar about "Free Speech Zones"
Those were instituted to protect Dubya's sensitive ears

I know I'll be on a corner with a sign at Fred's funeral.
I'm thinking I will not be alone

The_Jazz · 05-25-2006, 04:41 AM

This is nice and all, but I think that its a pretty egregious affront to the protesters' 1st Amendment rights. I don't expect that these laws will stand up to challenge, which is unfortunate because the lawmakers' hearts are in the right place. Its too bad that Phelps et al are making this statement, but its their right to do so, no matter how offensive most of us find it.

rockogre · 05-25-2006, 04:51 AM

All constitutional issues aside. Just like we do with our children, if we do not expect and fight for a minimum of decency and respect for others, we will not get it.

And, at what point does a church quit being a place to worship and praise a creator and, instead, become a dangerous organization intent on harming others? Just something else to think about. Is this, by most definitions, still a church?

02-13-2006, 06:15 PM	#46 (permalink)
Tophat665 Minion of the scaléd ones Location: Northeast Jesusland	Let me put it this way, I believe that Fred Phucking Phelps has a right to spew his filth in public, near funerals, wherever. One has no right to not be offended. That said, if one knowingly gives someone mortal offense when they are at their least emotionally stable, one has no right to believe that they will leave the premises with all of the teeth they arrived with. I don't believe for a second that, if someone did less than mortal damage to this jerkwad for protesting outside of a funeral, that any jury in the country would convict him. Heck, if this were in the middle east, someone would already have burnt his church down around his ears, likely after nailing them to the altar. Will no one rid us of this meddlesome priest? (Worked last time.) __________________ Light a man a fire, and he will be warm while it burns. Set a man on fire, and he will be warm for the rest of his life.

02-13-2006, 07:14 PM	#50 (permalink)
meembo Junkie Location: Connecticut	All the protests I've seen and heard of were outside of churches, not cemeteries, but I can't say it's exclusive to churches. And I concede that no restrictions are appropriate in anticipation of violence as I've stated it. However, in 1997, in Schenck v. Pro-Choice Network of Western New York, the Supreme Court uphelp a fixed buffer area around clinics to ensure "safe passage" based on intimidating behavior, and the court upheld a "cease and desist" provision that allowed only two protesters to approach clinic patients, who were then required to withdraw if asked. The protesters were still allowed to protest, but effectively denied the "right" to direct their protest in intimidating manners towards individuals. In this case, the bahavior of the protesters was a determinig factor of the case. __________________ less I say, smarter I am

02-13-2006, 07:35 PM	#51 (permalink)
Gilda 32 flavors and then some Location: Out on a wire.	There's no doubt that Phelp's has the right to believe whatever he wants and express tha belief. The real question here is whether this is a legitimate excercise of free speech, protected by the first amendment, or harassment, which might not be. Personally, I find what he says unpardonably repulsive, while at the same time smiling just a little bit every time his extremist rhetoric his the mainstream airways because it better illustrates the absurdity of the "homosexuality is immoral" stance than anything I could say. When it's done at a funeral, it's detestible. As someone said earlier, I'm torn, because I find Phelps and everything he stands for repulsive, but at the same time, I'm a big fan of freedom of speech, and I'm not sure whether saying "You can say whatever you like, but you can't say it in this place at this time" is an abridgement of free speech or not. Gilda __________________ I'm against ending blackness. I believe that everyone has a right to be black, it's a choice, and I support that. ~Steven Colbert

02-14-2006, 07:26 AM	#53 (permalink)
glasscutter43 Insane Location: Vancouver Island BC	Eventually, these psychotic, religious fanatics will protest at a funeral attended by a psychotic gun fanatic. An automatic weapon will appear and there will be another funeral to protest. __________________ Book 'em Danno

02-21-2006, 06:17 AM	#57 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	The part that really got me about the article was off topic to our original discussion - the fact that these idiots protested the funerals of the WV miners. I stand by my position that this is protected speach, but I'm glad that the bikers are there to share their own protected speach. The sad fact of the matter is that good people are having to sink to the level of Phelps et al to drown him out. __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

02-13-2006, 05:51 PM	#45 (permalink)
shakran Tone.	Well I don't know that I've done what you are accusing me of doing. Yes there are limits to freedom of speech. I can't yell fire in a theater, for example. . .Unless of course, there actually is a fire. But that's because doing so would put others in danger and could get someone killed. The obsenity issue is still pretty hotly contested. It's pretty hard to find someone who got jailed for saying "shit," however. Libel/slander are interesting, but I don't think they weaken my argument. Libel and slander are defined as publications/speeches which are false, are known to be false, and are said anyway in order to harm someone else. Again it goes back to actual measurable harm. In the theater case, people can get trampled. In the libel/slander case, people's lives - at the very least their economic lives- can be ruined. I think you'd have a tough time showing actual measurable economic or physical harm endured by people at a funeral because some idiot is out protesting outside the cemetery. You could easilly show that they were offended. You could show that they were upset. But the law does not hold that offending or upsetting someone is a crime. This action is essentially trying to criminilize causing offense. The 1st clearly was not meant as "you can say what you want as long as no one's upset about it."

02-13-2006, 06:35 PM	#47 (permalink)
MSD The sky calls to us ... Super Moderator Location: CT	The only thing I find more offensive about this situation than Phelps and his cronies spewing hate at helpless people is the fact that he has taken it so far that lawmakers feel a need to curb his right to spew hate. Without permitting hate speech we hav no way to understand just how far we have to go until we eradicate hate, and once we justify bannning speech or non-violent action of any kind, we set a precedent that it is acceptable to gag our speech if we're uncofortable with what's being said. If we want any chance of tackling serious issues, we need to encourage people to talk about them, not jam socks in their mouths and pretend the problems don't exist.

02-13-2006, 06:46 PM	#49 (permalink)
shakran Tone.	but those 15 foot restrictions were purely for right-of-way. The protestors were blocking the way into the clinic. That wasn't trumping the 1st amendment. That was restricting a group from preventing another group from legally going somewhere. Now, 100 feet away from the cemetery isn't for right of way, it's to move the protestors where they won't bother the people in the cemetery. That's beyond the scope of what congress can do without a constitutional amendment. Phelps and his gang aren't stopping the funerals, they're just making asses of themselves outside the gates. And you're right that some day an idiot might shoot Phelps for his bullshit outside the cemetery. And that idiot should go to jail. Saying Phelps shouldn't be allowed to express his opinion because someone MIGHT shoot him is kinda crazy. Should we have said that to Martin Luther King too?

02-13-2006, 08:42 PM	#52 (permalink)
shakran Tone.	I think Gilda is echoing all (or at least most) of our deep down sentiments. Sure, I'm up here staunchly defending the 1st amendment and saying Phelps has the right to be an asshole just about anywhere he wants. But that doesn't mean I don't wish he'd find a more appropriate place to do it. Do I think he should be protesting at funerals? Nope, not at all. But as I've mentioned, the first amendment would be pointless if we were allowed to modify it or to claim it doesn't apply just because certain speech makes us unhappy or squeamish. I'm not happy that Phelps is putting these families through listening to his crap while they're burying their loved one, but because passing a law to stop him would also limit other instances of free speech - ones which might make someone else unhappy but with which I would have no problems, I defend Phelp's right to do what he is doing. Put another way, I don't want the fact that I think Phelps should stop what he is doing to cause a law to be passed that could stop other people from doing what I do not think they should stop doing.

02-21-2006, 05:06 PM	#58 (permalink)
Tophat665 Minion of the scaléd ones Location: Northeast Jesusland	Now, I am not going to go in for the jingoistic hero worship that was the order of the day on Fark, but it is nice to see this working out the way it really ought to. I'm with samcol on this one. __________________ Light a man a fire, and he will be warm while it burns. Set a man on fire, and he will be warm for the rest of his life.

05-25-2006, 04:05 AM	#59 (permalink)
meembo Junkie Location: Connecticut	From CNN WASHINGTON (AP) -- Demonstrators would be barred from disrupting military funerals at national cemeteries under legislation approved by Congress and sent to the White House. The measure, passed by voice vote in the House Wednesday hours after the Senate passed an amended version, specifically targets a Kansas church group that has staged protests at military funerals around the country, claiming that the deaths were a sign of God's anger at U.S. tolerance of homosexuals. The act "will protect the sanctity of all 122 of our national cemeteries as shrines to their gallant dead," Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tennessee, said prior to the Senate vote. "It's a sad but necessary measure to protect what should be recognized by all reasonable people as a solemn, private and deeply sacred occasion," he said. Under the Senate bill, approved without objection by the House with no recorded vote, the "Respect for America's Fallen Heroes Act" would bar protests within 300 feet of the entrance of a cemetery and within 150 feet of a road into the cemetery from 60 minutes before to 60 minutes after a funeral. Those violating the act would face up to a $100,000 fine and up to a year in prison. The sponsor of the House bill, Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Michigan, said he took up the issue after attending a military funeral in his home state, where mourners were greeted by "chants and taunting and some of the most vile things I have ever heard." "Families deserve the time to bury their American heroes with dignity and in peace," Rogers said Wednesday before the House vote. The demonstrators are led by the Rev. Fred Phelps of Topeka, Kansas, who has previously organized protests against those who died of AIDS and gay murder victim Matthew Shepard. In an interview when the House bill passed, Phelps said Congress was "blatantly violating the First Amendment" rights to free speech in passing the bill. He said that if the bill becomes law he will continue to demonstrate but would abide by the restrictions. Sen. Pat Roberts, a Republican from Kansas, said the loved ones of those who die have already sacrificed for the nation and "we must allow them the right to mourn without being thrust into a political circus." In response to the demonstrations, the Patriot Guard Riders, a motorcycle group including many veterans, has begun appearing at military funerals to pay respects to the fallen service member and protect the family from disruptions. More than a dozen states are considering similar laws to restrict protests at nonfederal cemeteries. The American Civil Liberties Union has filed a lawsuit against a new Kentucky law, saying it goes too far in limiting freedom of speech and expression. __________________ less I say, smarter I am

05-25-2006, 04:32 AM	#60 (permalink)
mr_alleycat Upright	I see Fred all the time preaching his hate filled BS. I find it interesting that the outrage only has come when he started protesting peoples funerals that aren't gay. Where is the uproar about "Free Speech Zones" Those were instituted to protect Dubya's sensitive ears I know I'll be on a corner with a sign at Fred's funeral. I'm thinking I will not be alone

05-25-2006, 04:41 AM	#61 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	This is nice and all, but I think that its a pretty egregious affront to the protesters' 1st Amendment rights. I don't expect that these laws will stand up to challenge, which is unfortunate because the lawmakers' hearts are in the right place. Its too bad that Phelps et al are making this statement, but its their right to do so, no matter how offensive most of us find it. __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

05-25-2006, 04:51 AM	#62 (permalink)
rockogre I aim to misbehave! Location: SW Oklahoma	All constitutional issues aside. Just like we do with our children, if we do not expect and fight for a minimum of decency and respect for others, we will not get it. And, at what point does a church quit being a place to worship and praise a creator and, instead, become a dangerous organization intent on harming others? Just something else to think about. Is this, by most definitions, still a church? __________________ Only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you, Jesus Christ and the American G. I. One died for your soul, the other for your freedom