RIP: The Right To Protest (1776 - 2007)
 

Jury awards father $11M in funeral case

I'm no fan of Fred Phelps and his funeral protests, but this is ridiculous. I guess we can now keep people from protesting by threatening to sue them for making us unhappy and "invading our privacy" by being near us when we're in public places.

I totally agree.

You mean juries give out large awards based on how they feel, regardless if anything really wrong happened?

As a doctor I for one am SHOCKED!

I hope this gets overturned on appeal. Otherwise, I may have to stop flipping people off when I drive.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. I know this isn't the first dumb court ruling in American history. But this is a HORRIBLE precedent with "slippery slope" written all over it.

I actually saw this posted at another forum while browsing the internet, and way too many people were all giddy about it. I'm sure they'd be singing a different tune if some whiny Christian sued the organizers of a gay pride parade for emotional distress and won $11 million.

As someone who actually cares about individual rights (even when I disagree with the individual), this scares the shit out of me.

Is this about the right to hate on someone's funeral?

So where should you draw the line on the First Amendment?

What bothers me most about this is that it's based primarily on what the "victim" felt, not on what Phelps' loonies did. If I were to say "Jesus was just a man" and some Christian felt deeply offended, would I end up having to pay millions?

you don't.

there weren't any lines when they wrote it, and there shouldn't be now.

OK....obviously no one here has had to deal with the details of the background of this case in any way.
What these morons do is stand in (attempted) full view of the grieving families of men killed in action in the middle east and shout things such as "Thank God for IEDs", "Your son died for faggots", "God hates America", ad nauseum.
I really and truly hope that none of you have to stand with crying mothers, sobbing fathers and bewildered children as an honor guard carries the body of your child to the back of a hearse as these lowlifes shout shit.
What these people do is now, thankfully, criminal up to the federal level; they can not 'protest' within the parameters of any national cemetery nor can they disrupt the services for any servicemen.
This is not about free speech. They are still 'allowed' to spew their venom. What they are not allowed to do is be disruptive, abusive and try to provoke the grieving, which is what they were doing and why they were sued.
I hope they're sued over and over until they STFU and crawl back to the hole they came out from.

When they wrote it, dueling was still an accepted and common practice.

Perhaps if that were back in, some people would be more civil.

The "right" to protest has been gone for a while. See any recent national republican or democratic convention, or, every place the president went during his last campaign.

If they're disruptive, they can be prosecuted for disturbing the peace. Being verbally abusive and provoking people, while extremely asshole-ish, is defined by someone else's (e.g. the mourners, the jury) emotional response. Making that illegal is making people responsible for the emotional state of others. You're essentially saying "you can be mean, but don't be really, really mean or you'll have to pay more money than you have".
Where does this lead? Will you be able to sue an ex who breaks up with you in a cruel manner? What about someone who tells you your religion is stupid rather than just saying "I think you're wrong"? Is it ok only to offend/insult those with a thick skin? This precedent is all about punishing people for someone else's feelings.

$11 million dollars is ridiculous, but so is protesting at a funeral

people should show at least some class. i mean seriously, a person is grieving enough and they're trying to have some closure and you're standing there with a stupid sign. they didn't deserve to get sued, though

The right as it originally existed (and was interpreted without protest for some one hundred and some odd years) was the right to speech free of prior restraint, not free from consequences. That is to say, "There shall be no laws saying 'You can't say the king is a jackass'" as opposed to "You can say whatever the fuck you want whenever the fuck you want to say it."

Now, it fairly clearly DOES mean the first (and nothing about this CIVIL suit which has little constitutional merit changes that) it does not and has never meant the second.

This is the operative paragraph of the article:

Both of those torts have specific elements that must be met and the elements are tempered by the free speech rights of others. But no right is absolute, especially when it causes measurable legal harm to another person. You might be surprised to know this, but there are a great number of privacy torts and here the jury and judge determined that you have a right to privacy at the funeral of a family member, as you might have a right to privacy in your backyard. Furthermore, intentional torts (like intentional infliction of emotional distress-which I presume was ACTUALLY the tort in this case as opposed to "intent to inflict emotional distress") have NEVER been exempted, so long as the elements of the tort have been fulfilled. Also note that the "harm" required to fulfill intentional infliction of emotional distress isn't "I felt sad that someone said this to me" but rather "I have had to seek psychological counseling" or "I can't sleep at night thinking about it" or "I've had to miss work because I'm so upset."

Get off your first amendment high horse and do some reading about what it means, was intended to mean and has been held to mean. And then think about in the context of what ngdawg said.

This all would be very different if they were in a public park protesting to the general public. They're not. They're maliciously targeting specific families who are already grieving and trying to make them feel worse. You do not have a carte blanche right to free speech, particularly if it causes an individual legally measureable harm. Stop pretending that you do.

Edit: Since I'm noticing a lot of replies about this, almost every jurisdiction in the country recognizes intentional infliction of emotional distress as a common law tort action. So yeah, you can be mean to people, but if you're really really really really mean and are so hurtful that you cause them actual damages (as I tried to define above) you can be held civilly responsible for that. Important safety tip!

Phelps has stated that he will appeal, which will bring him more of the attention he is trying to bring to his "cause." He claims his right to express his beliefs has been given unequal treatment in order to silence him. Frosstbyte, does his claim have any standing in civil law?

1. You have the right to do whatever you want. I also have the right to sue you for whatever I please. Nothing has changed by this verdict.

2. Phelps will appeal. I imagine that even though he's an evil evil excuse for a human the verdict will be tossed.

I saw this on the news earlier today. Really, there's not much you can say here. Idiocy wins again. Oh well... Like they say... If you've got a problem with someone, sue them.

Without knowing more about the case, it's hard to say. It's certainly no joke that he's running at a disadvantage to his rights because of what's he's saying and doing, and that's certainly the legal angle that you'd go after it. Essentially the argument is that this is "jury nullification." He has the right to protest and should be allowed to exercise it, but the jury was so repulsed by that result (i.e. it's ok to say "Your son died because American loves fags" at his funeral) that they ignored the law and found what they believed to be right instead of what the law says is right.

My response was mostly towards the general notions of what the first amendment does or does not mean. I have NO idea if those torts were adequately satisfied in this case. If they were, I don't think he's got much ground to stand on. If they were sketchy and the decision looks like one made based on a gut reaction to his beliefs instead of any real impact to the plaintiff, he has a good chance of pulling it off.

This is what I believe, you may think otherwise, and that's cool :-P

I'm protesting at Fred's funeral by paying gay men to ejaculate on his casket.

So you wouldn't sue me for harrasement if i were to follow you around to all interviews and any business meetings or dates held in public places and scream "CRACK HATES FAGGOTS AND JEWS, IS LAZY, AND WILL GIVE YOU AIDS" etc etc at high volume every time you were not in the privacy of your own home?

This is not a free speech issue, it is a harassment issue. Noone is going to arrest them for saying God Hates Fags, that is perfectly legal. It is the manner in which they are 'saying' it that is illegal.

If I get arrested for pulling a bullhorn and screaming anti-Christian remarks during an outdoor easter service, to the point of disruption, would we be having this discussion?

I think the issue here is that he is doing two things 'wrong', and it is difficult to seperate them mentally. He is delivering hateful messages (legal), in a harrassing manner (illegal). One of them is a free speech issue, and one is not.

I may be misunderstanding the issue here. And also, IANAL.

The overly dramatic sentiment expressed in the thread title notwithstanding, the opening post isn't telling me anything other than you disagree with the court finding. That doesn't really give me any indication of why you find it disagreeable (on what terms) or why you feel like the award of money is akin to the outright criminalization of protesting.

There's a huge difference between protesting something and intentionally trying to cause emotional distress by way of a public disturbance. Other things of importance, besides that of the right to protest, are the right to personal privacy, a basic level of respect, and the ability to live without persecution.

Phelps' organization is spreading his message of hate by protesting homosexuality under the dubious guise of religious freedom and freedom of speech. Their actions are disgusting both in intention and execution. They are using the high-profile and sensitive nature of the burial of fallen soldiers to gain the maximum amount of media attention by way of intentional outrage.

They're not simply protesting. They're not simply expression their religious freedom to believe that God is dropping our servicemen and women because America tolerates homosexuality. They're engaging in a calculated campaign of outrageous behavior to attract attention to their cause.

And you know what? Even if we took a step back and thought the impossible- that their intentions are true and they're NOT just doing it this way because it will garner the best possible attention- the rights of one person to protest do not automatically trump the rights of another to peaceably observe over the proceedings of a private funeral, most especially when the protest exists solely to slander the party involved and cause a disruption to the proceedings, which themselves are frequently going to be religious observations.

The bottom line is, rights do not trump or rule each other, they work with each other to attempt to guarantee the most liberty and freedom to each person without interfering with guaranteeing the same for anyone else.

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.

Wait... Do you remember this thread? How's this situation any different than that one? If the KKK has the right to march through a predominantly Jewish/minority town without being sued for 'emotional distress', then why shouldn't Phelps-- Or anyone for that matter-- Be allotted the same right? It seems to me that most people's inherent dislike for Fred Phelps makes them unable to view this objectively. Oh well...

QFMFT!!!!

It's one thing to stand there with signs, but it's entirely another to knowingly invade someone's privacy and scream these hateful things at them during the most horrible and difficult time of their lives.

They can protest and have their free speech, but they CANNOT harass these families!

linky
I'm so glad someone finally found a way to nail those motherfuckers. I hope the ruling sticks.

Let's pretend for a moment that the thread you recalled was anything like what we're discussing now...

Marching is not a protest, first of all. It's convening in public as a group. It's displaying the right to assemble and to publicly express beliefs. That is not a protest of any kind, whatsoever.

So, let's also pretend that what the Nazis were doing was a protest.

Their presence was pre-arranged and a permit to march was obtained, which means someone approved their right to march and display their beliefs based on their intentions.

The only way this would have compared to the Nazi march is if Nazis showed up randomly to synagogues yelling racial slurs at people peaceably gathering to observe their religion with the agenda to harass and cause disturbance. As much as I may hate the Nazis, what they were doing was in no way illegal. Simply speaking words that offend people does not constitute harassing them.

You're also comparing a single event of marching against a constant, habitual act of targeted intent. They make it personal, and they do it every chance they get. The nazis, as I stated, are not running around yelling slurs in front of synagogues every time they hold services. If they were, they'd be similarly accountable for their targeted harassment.

Yes they do have the right to free speech, but I would consider celebrating our enemies killing our soldiers in war an act of treason.

Analog:

No offense, but your post has nothing to do with anything I've said thus far. You stated that there's a difference between protesting something and intentionally trying to cause 'emotional distress' by way of service. Well what would you call the KKK purposely marching through towns mainly populated by minorities? What, exactly, are they protesting? The only reason they do such things is because they want to garner attention. They know that marching through a town full of the very same people they deem 'inferior' will undoubtedly get people upset, yet I don't see you sitting here telling me that I should be allowed to sue them for $11M because they'd happen to cause me 'emtional distress' (Which, by the way, they wouldn't). That's simply innane. Under the First Ammendment I have the right to say whatever I want as long as it's not advocating murder or the violent overthrow of the US government. Conversely, you have the right to not listen. Wonderful, isn't it?

The fact that you're trying to rationalize one action against the other based on a pre-arranged permit is, in my opinion, quite astonishing. Are you telling me that, assuming the state explictly granted FP and his Church the right to protest the military funerals, it would somehow become more acceptable? That suddenly that 'harrassment' would be transformed into a legitimate platform for protests? I'd be willing to bet that it wouldn't be. Really, this is nothing more than a case of punishing FP for being FP. The precedent this case sets is quite stupid. It gives yet another reason for people to sue just to sue. Simply because you disagree with what another person has to say doesn't entitle you to some sort of compensation.

Also, I'd encourage you to get out more if you don't believe the KKK makes a living of trying to incite the common populace into action.

This has got nothing to do with being mean or breakups or religion for that matter. what this is people is HATE SPEECH. and in our bill of rights it states that freedom of expression/speech/religion is not prohibited as long as it doesnt amount to hate speech or incite violence, because that is in fact illegal and in fact can even amount to jail time.

you can protest, you can picket, you can march, you can demonstrate but do it for a cause that is meaningful.

And don't let closed mindness be the root of your protest.

and while i think the amount of $11 million is quite high and ridiculous, the family was well within their right to sue. and that church, like ngdawg said, should get sued over and over again until they get the message.

this protest is absolutely terrible and i feel horrible knowing that their are people out their who would pounce upon grieving families...

makes me wonder how it would pan out had the situation been reversed?

The most democratic answer I've found here.

I have no idea why you said that, considering I specifically said:

So really, I'm not sure you're even reading what I'm writing. It's right there. It was my first point.

And the thing about the permit? Who gives a shit about a permit? I only mentioned it to drive home the fact that the Nazi march is JUST a display of "we are allowed to do this and we WILL do it". Phelps' agenda is just to harass people and get publicity. Constantly. In organized fashion. With signs. And yelling.

And yes, thank you for pointing out that Nazis aren't saints in their off time. Really. It brings the discourse to a whole new level when you take the time to point out that bigots aren't just mean and nasty in groups, but do engage in random acts of bigotry by themselves on the streets and such. This is not anything like the random, single-serving racial slurs some Nazi walking down the street may sling.

I then went on to explain why what Phelps is doing should be considered harassment, whereas the Nazi march is, conversely, NOT harassment. I don't give a flying duck (yes, duck) what community the Nazis march through. They do it, what, once a year? If that? If Phelps held an anti-gays rally once a year in the gayest damn town in all of the USA, we still wouldn't be having this conversation.

It's the volume. It's the constant, unrelenting attacks. They are at every funeral they can get to. They specifically seek to defame, demoralize, and cause public disturbance. Once again: Nazi rally- pretty damn infrequent, not going after anyone in specific, just there to speak their minds... Phelps- constant, personal attacks to defame, slander, and harass.

Not at all the same thing. Apples and oranges. The only common denominator is they're all scumbags.

Two extra points:

1. It seems like you're going out of your way to support Phelps without actually saying you agree with his position. Just an observation.

2. You keep switching Nazis and the KKK. It was the Nazis who marched. The KKK and the Nazis are not at all alike, other than they're both hate groups. Just because they both happen to hate some of the same people doesn't mean they're similar.

I know that we all love to jump up on our soapboxes and expound how the world has changed for the better or the worse (depending on your point of view) when we read articles like this, but let me just remind everyone that it's WAAAAAAAAY to early to declare anything of the sort.

Westboro Babtist has already announced their appeal. That means that they don't have to pay anything at this point. The Appeals Court will hear their case, which I'll bet has a much more 1st Amendment-centric bent to it than the trial did. If that doesn't work, they'll keep appealing until they get a Supreme Court test.

This is not the law of the land now. It is not citable precedence for legal scholars, lawyers or even law students.

As far as the case itself goes, I think this falls under the conventional wisdom about juries that anyone involved in litigation follows: all juries are dumb all the time. They are not made up of the best and brightest, and they aren't intended to be. They were given two versions of the truth and told to pick between them. They didn't even have to be unanimous in a civil case, just have a majority.

So all of you who are ready to condemn this as the worst assault on the First Amendment there's ever been, calm down and wait until it actually turns into something. This is just the opening salvo of a long, long battle.

First off, they don't 'protest the military funerals'; their only purpose is to harrass. Period.
Second, this suit was not about 'disagreeing with what another person has to say', it's about a father who buried his hero son amid the venomous shouts of a small gang of verbal abusers whose sole purpose was to disrupt a solemn moment of grief.
Third, the WBC most times does not ask for 'permits', they show up and have shown up as far as here in NJ. Now that there are laws in most states that address the congregating of any 'protesting' group within the parameters of a military (or any other) funeral, they generally have to request a permit. Not getting one does not stop them, though.
You are not getting the reasons for the suit, apparently. It has nothing whatsoever to do with first amendment rights.

Just because they weren't sued doesn't mean that they couldn't have been. Big difference....

This kind of reminds me of when some celebrity (anyone remember the Dixie Chicks incident?) opens their mouth to voice an opinion and start crying when the backlash starts.

So yes, you can say whatever, whenever. But remember, they can "protest" back, whether it be them suing you, hiring former military members to keep you at bay, or not buying your records or whatever.

Okay, I'm pretty sure I read the entirety of the posts here, but if I bring something back up I apologize. My first question is...

WTF is wrong with you people?

I enlisted, quite of my own accord, in the US Army. I have a better paying civilian job, I have no problematic issues in my life that drove me to the military. I enlisted because I felt it was my duty.

If someone thinks I should die for enlisting, that's fine. If they want to wave a sign on main street saying "Xepherys supports fags because he fights overseas", that's fine. But there are distinct moral lines drawn into even our rights. Human rights are generally defined as those "inalienable" rights that all men and women should have, such that their right do not DIRECTLY infringe on the rights of others.

An extreme example... you can protest abortion. You can protest in front of abortion clinics. You cannot beat a woman walking into the clinic to get an abortion. You cannot burn the clinic down. You cannot poison the woman. You cannot involuntarily rip the fetus from her womb and grow it in an incubator. See where I'm going with this?

If they had this protest downtown? Great! Even on the day of the funeral? Sure, why not! At the fucking cemetery with the family there? The ONLY purpose for this is to try to cause additional grief to the family. There is no other possible explanation. So, we have a god-given, inalienable right to purposefully cause grief to other humans? I'm pretty sure there was no intent implied in the Constitution or Bill of Rights. In fact...

"Pursuit of Life, Liberty and Happiness"...

It makes me happy to scream at children. Can I go to a school playground and stand at the fence yelling obscenities at kids. Screaming at them? Why not? If I do not physically touch them, what am I doing wrong? I mean, I have rights too, right?

The "Founding Fathers" can only be assumed to have penned those documents with the understanding they would be viewed with some of amount of common sense, and likely common decency. Fred Phelps and his cronies seem to have very little of either (likely none of the latter).

At any rate, I support flag burning, I support activist and parades and protesting. I support, as I stated, your freedoms, so long as they do not step on the toes of my freedoms. Perhaps it's a shame the the founders of our country hadn't forecasted something like this and added a specific "Right to Peaceful Mourning". Seriously people? I just can't fucking believe that anyone in their right mind thinks that FP and his gang should have this "right". If you'd kindly all give me your addresses, I'll watch the papers for family deaths and be sure to be there at their funerals causing your families some grief.

Harassment isn't protected speech.

The 1st ammendment prevents the government from interfering with Phelp's protest. It does not prevent him from being sued from someone who believes he has been harassed.

The government acted properly in allowing the protest and a father sued believing he had been harassed. I'm not sure about the dollar amount of the judgement, but I really don't see any constitutional issue here.

I can't find any mention of "hate speech" in the Bill of Rights. Please tell me where it is.

Phelps and his bunch seem to find this cause meaningful.

I find this court ruling apalling because of my concern for the individual right to protest that which one may find objectionable. And why I feel the ruling is a threat to the right to protest should be pretty obvious: How many people/organizations out there have millions of dollars they can afford to throw away due to bullshit lawsuits? If (or when) this lawsuit becomes a precedent for others, financial ruin will be used as a weapon to discourage protests.

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

You don't have a right to privacy except when on private property. 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.

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

I still haven't seen how the "victim's" rights were violated.

I agree. But this only works if we have a rational definition of individual rights.

I think of it as a violation of common decency.

I totally support the court's decision - Phelps' group spews hatespeech all over the place. They're getting sued in this one incident.

What about the family's right to grieve in peace? The government also instituted a law to ban protests at federal funerals.

Apparently some people need to be schooled in respect.

I hope this bankrupts his organization. They hate Jews, gays, blacks, minorities, Americans.. they suck.

Mandy lives in South Africa.


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

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.
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.


This suit was not about being offended. It was about the emotional distress that resulted from the presence and abusive actions of these lowlifes.
The victim's right to properly mourn and bury his son were violated. I find it ironic and really stupid that the same group that would decry everything that the military defends, including the right of free speech, would turn around and use the same laws they turn their backs on to try and make a defense for themselves by claiming 'free speech'.
That's like using the 'right to bear arms' as a defense for shooting your neighbor in the ass for being unhappy.

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.

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:
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:thumbsup:
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.

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

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

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

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.

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?

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

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

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


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.


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


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.

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?

^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.

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.

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.

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

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.

Bullshit.


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.

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"?

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.