RIP: The Right To Protest (1776 - 2007) - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Kryptoni · 11-02-2007, 07:02 PM

free speech is intended to protect the individual from government censure. This case is not a free speech case, it is a harassment case and the 4th circuit as a very conservative court it not likely to overturn the case.

djtestudo · 11-02-2007, 07:30 PM

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/loc...7481552.column

A local opinion.

My favorite part, though:

Quote:

In any event, no article, bound as newspapers are by standards of decency, can truly capture the sewage-level depth of the group's language. It's almost laughable after a while to listen to these people - for a church that shudders over the supposed evil of homosexual sex, the members sure know a lot about it and love to describe it, endlessly and lasciviously.

Anyone ever think about going to one of their "protests" and just standing there and asking random members about this? Especially to do it over and over again, since they cannot do anything to you over it without going against their own defenses.

And I like the ejaculating-on-the-coffin idea, but that probably wouldn't work.

However, you find out where the funeral/burial is and get every homosexual person you can find to go, stand in a 100-foot circle around the place and, well, do just enough to not get arrested.

I don't think anyone outside of that cult would have an issue with that.

ngdawg · 11-02-2007, 07:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by djtestudo

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/loc...7481552.column

A local opinion.

My favorite part, though:

Anyone ever think about going to one of their "protests" and just standing there and asking random members about this? Especially to do it over and over again, since they cannot do anything to you over it without going against their own defenses.

And I like the ejaculating-on-the-coffin idea, but that probably wouldn't work.

However, you find out where the funeral/burial is and get every homosexual person you can find to go, stand in a 100-foot circle around the place and, well, do just enough to not get arrested.

I don't think anyone outside of that cult would have an issue with that.

We got it covered...sorta:

Quote:

It all started back in early August of 2005 with the American Legion Riders chapter 136 from Kansas. They were appalled to hear that a fallen hero’s memory was being tarnished by misguided religious zealots who were protesting at funerals. They decided to do something about it. At the ALR 136 August meeting, Director: Chuck " Pappy " Barshney appointed members, Terry “Darkhorse” Houck, Cregg “Bronco 6” Hansen, Steve “McDaddy” McDonald, and Bill ”Wild Bill” Logan to form a committee to strategize and form a battle plan to combat Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church.

When they heard that the WBC was going to protest at the Funeral of Sgt. John Doles in Chelsea, Oklahoma, they established a Mission Statement, which included getting the families permission and contacting Law Enforcement and other Motorcycle Groups in Oklahoma. They agreed that their ultimate goal was to get veterans and motorcycle organizations involved in every state so that each state could handle the situation internally and not rely on other states to do the job. They were very successful in mustering riders to honor Sgt. Doles and limiting the intrusion by the WBC.

After the Chelsea Mission the Kansas American Legion Riders wanted all Motorcycle Groups/ Organizations to be recognized. On the 18th of October 2005 the Patriot Guard name was established and was announced on the 27th of October 2005 to the 100 + motorcyclists present at the Tonganoxie Mission to Honor Spc Lucas Frantz.

Following the missions in South Haven, KS and a later ride in Edmond, OK, Jeff “Twister” Brown, from Broken Arrow, OK, decided to do more than just ride. He saw a need to get a strong nation-wide communications and recruiting program in place. He contacted the original AL riders in Kansas and told them of his plans. They openly shared their experiences, suggestions, and encouragement. Within a matter of days, Brown had formed the Patriot Guard Riders and began a nation-wide campaign to garner support.

Similarly, after a mission ride in Greeley, CO, Hugh Knaus and Jason “Waldo” Wallin answered the call of the newly formed Patriot Guard Riders, becoming the national webmaster and communications director, respectively. Within a matter of days, a mission statement was refined and a website was built, rebuilt, and launched. A call immediately went out to individual riders and groups across the nation to join and ride with the PGR. State Captains were recruited to work more closely with the members in their area.

The growth has been phenomenal. Within a week their membership included many riders from associations like the VFW, American Legion, Rolling Thunder, ABATE, Combat Vets Motorcycle Association, Intruder Alert, Leathernecks Motorcycle Club, and almost five hundred individual riders. To the credit of Hugh and “Waldo”, the PGR website had received almost 566,000 hits in the first two weeks! Patriots from all over America and several foreign countries responded. Emails were pouring in from people wanting to support and join the newly formed PGR.

So, that’s a pretty concise picture of where we came from and where we are today. A great deal of credit goes to that small group of Kansas American Legion Riders, but none of this could have ever been accomplished without the patriot member who takes time out of their life to honor a fallen soldier and their family.

History of the Patriot Guard
We (the PGR) are now over 118,000 strong, stretching from Puerto Rico to Alaska and every place in between.
The WBC is not much of an issue-118,000 vs. 20....at a recent NJ KIA soldier's funeral, they arrived in a rented van, saw the PGR lined up with their flags and kept going

Since the verdict, their website has been down. They will have to use all their resources to continue appeals and that doesn't amount to much. They are mostly Phelps family members and their primary lawyer is Phelps' daughter, so you know there isn't a lot of monetary backing there.

djtestudo · 11-02-2007, 07:58 PM

Believe me, I'm not talking about the Patriot Guard

ngdawg · 11-02-2007, 08:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by djtestudo

Believe me, I'm not talking about the Patriot Guard

We got gays...they just look tough. Cuz they're women

analog · 11-02-2007, 08:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Telluride

The whole point of protesting is to create a public disturbance.

Making a public statement of protest and being a public disturbance are far from the same thing.

Quote:

And if you turn on your TV, turn on your radio, open a magazine or go outside, you are doing so with the knowledge that you may see or hear things you find objectionable. We don't have a right to be shielded from things that may offend us.

I think the FCC would disagree with you on that. In the interest of public decency, the TV, radio, and print publications you reference are quite rigidly censored based largely on the idea of what is "offensive". Now, there is no federal law saying that you can't say "fuck" on a public street corner, but that doesn't mean you can't be cited for public disturbance based on the fact that you're using offensive language in a public setting just for the sake of using profanity or because you're just a crude idiot. You're comparing "saying whatever you want, in public" and a protest. They are not the same thing.

Quote:

And, in a free country, Phelps and his followers would have the right to do just that.

First- if you don't think you're in a free country, feel free to leave. Second, no one says they don't have the right to protest.

You're not even demonstrating the ability to differentiate between civil proceedings and federal law. You're taking a win in a civil court between two individuals, having nothing to do with the government, and extrapolating the government-sponsored downfall of the right to protest... which is utterly stupid.

The judge didn't say they can't protest. No one said anything about not being allowed to protest. A family was harassed by a group of people and won a settlement in a civil court. That's all. Under the guise of protest or not, these people were proven, in court, to demonstrate the characteristics of a harassment.

Now, if you want to slide that down your slippery slope and think that suddenly all protests will be held as harassment, I'd say that's extremely far-fetched. Do you even know the requirements for something to be considered harassment? Do you know what needs to be demonstrated by the complainant for something to even make it to trial as a civil harassment charge? If you can't, why would we even consider your slippery slope?

Telluride · 11-03-2007, 04:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ngdawg

What 'cause'? To intentionally inflict pain through verbal abuse?

Their cause is their disapproval of American policies. It just so happens that some of their tactics tend to offend many people.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ngdawg

You need to go over the case again, then. What the WBC is doing is proclaiming some right to free speech. It's a defense, nothing more. Their 'cause', their reason for what they do is purely to harrass and disrupt the solemnity of military funerals.

I happen to agree with their defense, even though I find their cause and methods tasteless.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ngdawg

No, it is not. The primary 'point' of protesting is to protest, be it governmental action or against another group. Those that cause a disturbance seek to do so.

If all they wanted to do is bring attention to their cause, they would write letters to the editors of magazines and newspapers. Maybe take out an ad in the local newspapers. The whole point of gathering tons of people in a public place, waving signs and yelling slogans is to disrupt and draw attention to yourself.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ngdawg

This suit was not about being offended. It was about the emotional distress that resulted from the presence and abusive actions of these lowlifes.

In other words, the victim was offended to the point of being emotionally distressed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ngdawg

The victim's right to properly mourn and bury his son were violated.

As far as I know, the son was still buried. How was this "right" violated?

Quote:

Originally Posted by analog

I think the FCC would disagree with you on that. In the interest of public decency, the TV, radio, and print publications you reference are quite rigidly censored based largely on the idea of what is "offensive".

Not necessarily. A radio show host who says that homosexuality is abnormal and sinful, for example, probably isn't violating FCC regulations, but these statements will undoubtedly offend many people. Dr. Laura, anyone?

Besides; the concept of rights exists independently from the law.

Quote:

Originally Posted by analog

First- if you don't think you're in a free country, feel free to leave. Second, no one says they don't have the right to protest.

I never claimed that these people were being banned from protesting.

Quote:

Originally Posted by analog

You're not even demonstrating the ability to differentiate between civil proceedings and federal law. You're taking a win in a civil court between two individuals, having nothing to do with the government, and extrapolating the government-sponsored downfall of the right to protest... which is utterly stupid.

Civil courts are part of the judicial branch of the government, in case you didn't know. And I said nothing about federal or state laws. I said that if this lawsuit becomes a precedent, we may very well end up seeing people/organizations/business entities use the threat of financial ruin to discourage their protestors. I don't know if I would say the government would be sponsoring it. But it's certainly assisting; sort of like an accomplice.

Quote:

Originally Posted by analog

The judge didn't say they can't protest. No one said anything about not being allowed to protest. A family was harassed by a group of people and won a settlement in a civil court. That's all. Under the guise of protest or not, these people were proven, in court, to demonstrate the characteristics of a harassment.

I'm aware of what was proved in the court. And I disagree with the legal requirements for harassment if this incident meets those requirements.

An animal rights group that is protesting a specific restaurant's treatment of animals has the right to protest in front of that restaurant.

Abortion protestors have the right to protest in front of abortion clinics.

People who hate the Westboro Baptist Church have the right to protest in front of that church.

A couple of years ago I saw nurses who were on strike protesting in front of the hospital they worked for.

If the protestors were following the people around all day; to their place of employment, to their home, to the restaurant they eat dinner at...that would be harassment. I don't think this should be considered harassment. I'd say it's more a case of going where the action is.

Jadast · 11-03-2007, 04:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Menoman

heh 11 million? I'd say they got off easy.

hopefully never occur but should one of my family in the force die and they show up.

They will have alot more going through their head than the money. Like a fucking bullet.

Any defending those people is insane and ridiculous, they are not protesting, they are harassing, and I'd be happy if sometime a military funeral blows the fuck out of them for it.

I am thinking on Menoman's lines. Picture this scene, we are burying my only son. My wife and I are grieving. Family and friends are there to support us. It is a time of mourning. If these people show up I going to throw them a beating. I'm sure a jury of my peers would let me off.

ngdawg · 11-03-2007, 05:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Telluride

Their cause is their disapproval of American policies. It just so happens that some of their tactics tend to offend many people.

Their 'cause' is hatred. How sweet you call it a 'disapproval of American policies". Perhaps we should all join the WBC.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Telluride

I happen to agree with their defense, even though I find their cause and methods tasteless.

You agree with harassment, verbal abuse and stalking, eh? Using 'free speech' was a defensive try, not a defense.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Telluride

If all they wanted to do is bring attention to their cause, they would write letters to the editors of magazines and newspapers. Maybe take out an ad in the local newspapers. The whole point of gathering tons of people in a public place, waving signs and yelling slogans is to disrupt and draw attention to yourself.

Under 20 people, usually about 10, is hardly 'a ton', unless they're really overweight. Yes, yelling slogans in public will get attention...stick around for the rest of their Modus Operandi, which I will explain to you later.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Telluride

In other words, the victim was offended to the point of being emotionally distressed.

As far as I know, the son was still buried. How was this "right" violated?

You're joking, right? I won't even glorify this assinine statement with an explanation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Telluride

Not necessarily. A radio show host who says that homosexuality is abnormal and sinful, for example, probably isn't violating FCC regulations, but these statements will undoubtedly offend many people. Dr. Laura, anyone?

Besides; the concept of rights exists independently from the law.

I never claimed that these people were being banned from protesting.

Civil courts are part of the judicial branch of the government, in case you didn't know. And I said nothing about federal or state laws. I said that if this lawsuit becomes a precedent, we may very well end up seeing people/organizations/business entities use the threat of financial ruin to discourage their protestors. I don't know if I would say the government would be sponsoring it. But it's certainly assisting; sort of like an accomplice.

I'm aware of what was proved in the court. And I disagree with the legal requirements for harassment if this incident meets those requirements.

An animal rights group that is protesting a specific restaurant's treatment of animals has the right to protest in front of that restaurant.

Abortion protestors have the right to protest in front of abortion clinics.

People who hate the Westboro Baptist Church have the right to protest in front of that church.

A couple of years ago I saw nurses who were on strike protesting in front of the hospital they worked for.

If the protestors were following the people around all day; to their place of employment, to their home, to the restaurant they eat dinner at...that would be harassment. I don't think this should be considered harassment. I'd say it's more a case of going where the action is.

Abortion protesters have to go by the laws in their states. They can not harass clinicians or their patients, they can not block entrances, they can not stalk or verbally abuse, touch or assault clinicians or patients.
Last I checked, any strikers march in front of their place of employment...

Now...to educate as to why the WBC was found to be harassing, not protesting:
The WBC's MO is to go to sites like the Patriot Guard and scan for the most recent KIAs. They then make arrangements-buy plane tickets, rent vans, have meetings and travel to the locations where the funeral takes place. They gather together, making sure to be in clear sight of any mourners and start their verbal abuse to anyone coming or going to the service.
This, under NO circumstances, is "protesting". It's stalking and it's harassment and that is why the jury voted as they did.
You read a couple of articles about a jury verdict and proclaim it to be 'wrong' without actually knowing what's been going on.

Bill O'Rights · 11-03-2007, 09:36 PM

I sit here slackjawed in utter amazment.

I cannot believe that I'm actually seeing posts in support of goddamn Fred Phelps and his fucking sham of a Westboro Baptist Church. Does anyone actually believe that the WBC is anything more than a tax dodge, and a platform from which Freddy Phelps can spew his shit? Does anyone really believe that this is just a simple matter of protest and freedom of speech? Does anyone really and truly believe, in their heart of hearts, that this is what freedom of speech is about? That this is what the First Amendment was meant to protect? Honestly?

Infinite_Loser · 11-04-2007, 02:28 AM

^Further proof of what I said earlier in this thread. This is about Fred Phelps voicing unpopular opinions. Nothing else. If this were anyone else-- Any other group-- I can assure you that 90% of the responses here would be vastly different.

Oh well...

analog · 11-04-2007, 04:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser

^Further proof of what I said earlier in this thread. This is about Fred Phelps voicing unpopular opinions. Nothing else. If this were anyone else-- Any other group-- I can assure you that 90% of the responses here would be vastly different.

Oh well...

Considering I don't think anyone in this thread has denied, or disagreed with, their right to protest, regardless of their position on whether or not a civil harassment suit may be legitimate for the way he carried out said "protest", I'm not sure what you're still on about.

No one, that I remember, has said they shouldn't be allowed to protest. Yes I hate them- yes, I think they should be allowed to protest- NO, I do NOT think they can get away with blatant harassment. If you don't think what they did was harassment, then fine, that's your opinion- but no one is saying they shouldn't maintain the right to protest.

ratbastid · 11-04-2007, 05:13 AM

The problem is, this group dances on the line between protest and harassment. This civil penalty expresses the opinion of the jury that what happened was harassment. I think turning that into "Oh my god we can't protest anymore" in the OP is vastly overstating what has happened here.

If you really want to talk about the curtailment of the constitutional right to free speech and freedom to protest, let's talk about the arrests of protestors at the RNC in 2004, or the sudden appearance of chain-link "Free Speech Zones" at Bush appearances.

Ustwo · 11-04-2007, 06:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

The problem is, this group dances on the line between protest and harassment. This civil penalty expresses the opinion of the jury that what happened was harassment. I think turning that into "Oh my god we can't protest anymore" in the OP is vastly overstating what has happened here.

If you really want to talk about the curtailment of the constitutional right to free speech and freedom to protest, let's talk about the arrests of protestors at the RNC in 2004, or the sudden appearance of chain-link "Free Speech Zones" at Bush appearances.

You seem to forget the same thing happened at the DNC

"Free Speech Zones"

Edit: I'll add in 1999 the DNC was only about half a mile from me, and we saw a lot of protesters, mostly because they were not allowed closer.

mrklixx · 11-04-2007, 06:54 AM

To the OP: Expressing accurate facts go a long way toward measuring the validity of one's argument. First Amendment, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights, was adopted on December 15, 1791.

Push-Pull · 11-04-2007, 07:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill O'Rights

I sit here slackjawed in utter amazment.

I cannot believe that I'm actually seeing posts in support of goddamn Fred Phelps and his fucking sham of a Westboro Baptist Church.

BOR, I agree. IT'S BASIC COMMON DECENCY PEOPLE!!!!!

ratbastid · 11-04-2007, 07:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

You seem to forget the same thing happened at the DNC

It's probably a matter of which blogs I read, but I heard a lot more about it happening at the RNC than at the DNC. I don't doubt it happened at both.

Bill O'Rights · 11-05-2007, 06:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser

^Further proof of what I said earlier in this thread. This is about Fred Phelps voicing unpopular opinions. Nothing else.

Bullshit.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

The problem is, this group dances on the line between protest and harassment.

I'm gonna have to disagree with you there, Bud. There ain't no line. It is harassment. I've been to two military funerals, as commander of my American Legion post. Shirley Phelps-Roper was, along with a contingency of about a half dozen others, at both of 'em. What they did was disgusting, and can in no way be confused with protest.

filtherton · 11-05-2007, 06:16 AM

To all of the supporters of phelps's extended first amendment rights here: would agree that i have an absolute right guaranteed by the constitution to follow your mother around all day calling her a whore and telling everybody she talks to what a horrible whore she is? Would you call the cops? What if i said i was "protesting"?

roachboy · 11-05-2007, 07:10 AM

phelps' tactics seem to work at one level anyway: there is a debate about whether they are or are not political protest, and each move in the debate requires that you take his positions seriously enough to consider the question. post 15 gave the thread a way around this backhanded legitimation of this guy's politics simply by arguing that fred phelps does not get to define what kind of case this is, whether it is a first amendement or a simple harrassment matter.
but the debate has conceded phelps' point repeatedly, even if it is to deplore it.
strange that.

as for the question of fred phelps hero of political protest...this seems like infotainment from the far right's martyrdom machinery, the place that gave us the story of ruby ridge and other such legitimate-the-militia-movement type treats. i assume that problems encountered over a period of years by americans who operate from a left perspective would not count as political problems in that world, as americans who operate from the left are not americans at all. so its only when a rightwing extremist runs into trouble that "Big Questions" like the state of the right to protest in the us become Issues.

it makes me laugh.

11-02-2007, 07:02 PM	#41 (permalink)
Kryptoni Upright Location: Baltimore, MD	free speech is intended to protect the individual from government censure. This case is not a free speech case, it is a harassment case and the 4th circuit as a very conservative court it not likely to overturn the case. __________________ *Two Ball Cain?*

11-02-2007, 07:58 PM	#44 (permalink)
djtestudo Baltimoron Location: Beeeeeautiful Bel Air, MD	Believe me, I'm not talking about the Patriot Guard __________________ "Final thought: I just rented Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine. Frankly, it was the worst sports movie I've ever seen." --Peter Schmuck, The (Baltimore) Sun

11-03-2007, 09:36 PM	#50 (permalink)
Bill O'Rights will always be an Alyson Hanniganite Location: In the dust of the archives	I sit here slackjawed in utter amazment. I cannot believe that I'm actually seeing posts in support of goddamn Fred Phelps and his fucking sham of a Westboro Baptist Church. Does anyone actually believe that the WBC is anything more than a tax dodge, and a platform from which Freddy Phelps can spew his shit? Does anyone really believe that this is just a simple matter of protest and freedom of speech? Does anyone really and truly believe, in their heart of hearts, that this is what freedom of speech is about? That this is what the First Amendment was meant to protect? Honestly? __________________ "I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony "Hedonism with rules isn't hedonism at all, it's the Republican party." - JumpinJesus It is indisputable that true beauty lies within...but a nice rack sure doesn't hurt.

11-04-2007, 02:28 AM	#51 (permalink)
Infinite_Loser Junkie Location: Lake Mary, FL	^Further proof of what I said earlier in this thread. This is about Fred Phelps voicing unpopular opinions. Nothing else. If this were anyone else-- Any other group-- I can assure you that 90% of the responses here would be vastly different. Oh well... __________________ I believe in equality; Everyone is equally inferior to me.

11-04-2007, 06:54 AM	#55 (permalink)
mrklixx President Rick Location: location location	To the OP: Expressing accurate facts go a long way toward measuring the validity of one's argument. First Amendment, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights, was adopted on December 15, 1791. __________________ This post is content. If you don't like it then you are not content. Or perhaps just incontinent. This is not a link - Do not click here I hate animated avatars.

11-04-2007, 05:13 AM	#53 (permalink)
ratbastid Darth Papa Location: Yonder	The problem is, this group dances on the line between protest and harassment. This civil penalty expresses the opinion of the jury that what happened was harassment. I think turning that into "Oh my god we can't protest anymore" in the OP is vastly overstating what has happened here. If you really want to talk about the curtailment of the constitutional right to free speech and freedom to protest, let's talk about the arrests of protestors at the RNC in 2004, or the sudden appearance of chain-link "Free Speech Zones" at Bush appearances.

11-05-2007, 06:16 AM	#59 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	To all of the supporters of phelps's extended first amendment rights here: would agree that i have an absolute right guaranteed by the constitution to follow your mother around all day calling her a whore and telling everybody she talks to what a horrible whore she is? Would you call the cops? What if i said i was "protesting"?

11-05-2007, 07:10 AM	#60 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	phelps' tactics seem to work at one level anyway: there is a debate about whether they are or are not political protest, and each move in the debate requires that you take his positions seriously enough to consider the question. post 15 gave the thread a way around this backhanded legitimation of this guy's politics simply by arguing that fred phelps does not get to define what kind of case this is, whether it is a first amendement or a simple harrassment matter. but the debate has conceded phelps' point repeatedly, even if it is to deplore it. strange that. as for the question of fred phelps hero of political protest...this seems like infotainment from the far right's martyrdom machinery, the place that gave us the story of ruby ridge and other such legitimate-the-militia-movement type treats. i assume that problems encountered over a period of years by americans who operate from a left perspective would not count as political problems in that world, as americans who operate from the left are not americans at all. so its only when a rightwing extremist runs into trouble that "Big Questions" like the state of the right to protest in the us become Issues. it makes me laugh. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite