Archive

Supreme Ct. to Rule on Funeral Protesting A holes

  • Quint
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20100331/ts_csm/291560

    The U.S. Supreme Court accepted the case between the Westboro Baptist Church and the father of a marine killed in Iraq. Albert Snyder originally received a $5,000,000 judgment against them for intentional infliction of emotional distress stemming from the fact they protested his son's funeral; but, it was reversed in the appellate court. He is responsible for paying for their legal fees now (about $16k), and he refuses to pay until the SC rules on the case.

    I hope the Supreme Court does the right thing and holds that this is the type of speech not protected by the First Amendment. These people are evil. Here is a segment from the article:

    The Westboro group has been protesting at military members’ funerals for years. The church leader, Fred Phelps, preaches that American deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan are punishment for the nation’s tolerance of homosexuality. (He was among those banned from Britain last year for fostering hatred or extremism.) The protests have nothing to do with the fallen service members' sexual orientation, and the church says its protests are held within a “lawful distance” of the funerals.

    “Military funerals have become pagan orgies of idolatrous blasphemy, where they pray to the dunghill gods of Sodom and play taps to a fallen fool,” states a press release posted on the church’s website, announcing the rally at a memorial service for Lance Cpl. Justin Wilson. At the bottom of the press release are printed the words “Thank God for IEDs,” referring to the roadside bombs that have killed thousands of troops in both wars.
  • buckeyefalls
    Quint,

    While I am in no way in favor of them removing Phelps' freedom of speech, since our government has already began taking away other "rights/freedoms" then maybe they need to amend this one to get rid of Phelps and his hateful message.

    On the flip side, why don't Americans stand up against this and have a million man march/demonstration in Kansas where this group lives? Stand outside their house and make comments like they do in a civilized way until they promise to stop their hatred. Heck, if they can't get out of their drive way and if millions of people show them how they truly feel about them, maybe they will stop.

    However, we let it go on. How unfortunate.
  • tk421
    buckeyefalls wrote: Quint,

    While I am in no way in favor of them removing Phelps' freedom of speech, since our government has already began taking away other "rights/freedoms" then maybe they need to amend this one to get rid of Phelps and his hateful message.

    On the flip side, why don't Americans stand up against this and have a million man march/demonstration in Kansas where this group lives? Stand outside their house and make comments like they do in a civilized way until they promise to stop their hatred. Heck, if they can't get out of their drive way and if millions of people show them how they truly feel about them, maybe they will stop.

    However, we let it go on. How unfortunate.
    That would be to much work, Americans would rather the Supreme Court take away even more freedoms, even if this group isn't doing something that is popular.
  • believer
    ^^^The path of least resistance.
  • Writerbuckeye
    If a large group attempted to do such a thing, Phelps would simply use every law at his disposal to get the crowd dispersed; and if any organized groups were a part of it, he would sue them for intimidation.

    Today's laws do not protect honest, decent and God fearing people from shysters and the dirtbags who use them to their evil fullest.
  • derek bomar
    Does anyone know where I can contribute to this guys legal fund? This shit aint right
  • majorspark
    derek bomar wrote: Does anyone know where I can contribute to this guys legal fund? This shit aint right
    I saw a link to this on Mark Levin's website. He also has a link to their facebook page.

    http://www.marklevinshow.com/Article.asp?id=1752504&spid=32364
  • CenterBHSFan
    What's really sad is that although the family (fred, wife, kids) has always been kooky, they were never this outrageous until ole Fred snapped and proceeded to brainwash the rest of his family in the way that accorded his mental instability.
    Thankfully, some of his kids got away from it and actually built a normal life for themselves and are now speaking out about it.
  • LJ
    I don't consider what the Westboro church is doing to be "peacefully" assembling.
  • tk421
    LJ wrote: I don't consider what the Westboro church is doing to be "peacefully" assembling.
    Who can say? The public doesn't like it, but they are not physically harming anyone. If the Supreme Court rules Westboro can't assemble as they like, what's next? Political protests?

    The KKK has the right to assemble and march just like any other group. How is that any different from the Westboro Church?
  • LJ
    tk421 wrote:
    LJ wrote: I don't consider what the Westboro church is doing to be "peacefully" assembling.
    Who can say? The public doesn't like it, but they are not physically harming anyone. If the Supreme Court rules Westboro can't assemble as they like, what's next? Political protests?

    The KKK has the right to assemble and march just like any other group. How is that any different from the Westboro Church?
    They are disrupting a peacefully assembly and are creating mental anguish on a "person" that can be named (The families of the deceased). They are disrupting a peaceful assembly by protesting something off base. It's not like they are standing there saying "no more war" they are saying "God hates fags". That has nothing to do with the funeral and is disturbing a peaceful assembly.
  • tk421
    LJ wrote:
    tk421 wrote:
    LJ wrote: I don't consider what the Westboro church is doing to be "peacefully" assembling.
    Who can say? The public doesn't like it, but they are not physically harming anyone. If the Supreme Court rules Westboro can't assemble as they like, what's next? Political protests?

    The KKK has the right to assemble and march just like any other group. How is that any different from the Westboro Church?
    They are disrupting a peacefully assembly and are creating mental anguish on a "person" that can be named (The families of the deceased). They are disrupting a peaceful assembly by protesting something off base. It's not like they are standing there saying "no more war" they are saying "God hates **". That has nothing to do with the funeral and is disturbing a peaceful assembly.
    Mental anguish shouldn't mean a thing. I'm sure every time the KKK marches, they create "mental" anguish. I'm sure political protests in D.C. create "mental" anguish. I don't like the Westboro Church anymore than the rest, but the SC has no business ruling against them. It's a long slippery slope.
  • CenterBHSFan
    Nowdays, prosecutors are filing criminal charges for "taunting". There's that new case now about the teenage girl who killed herself because she was taunted.

    The WBC are doing the same exact thing.

    I just don't know where I stand, really, on the legalities. At any other level I absolutely hate it.
  • I Wear Pants
    tk421 wrote:
    LJ wrote: I don't consider what the Westboro church is doing to be "peacefully" assembling.
    Who can say? The public doesn't like it, but they are not physically harming anyone. If the Supreme Court rules Westboro can't assemble as they like, what's next? Political protests?

    The KKK has the right to assemble and march just like any other group. How is that any different from the Westboro Church?
    Does the KKK plan marches around black people's funerals?
  • LJ
    tk421 wrote:
    LJ wrote:
    tk421 wrote:
    LJ wrote: I don't consider what the Westboro church is doing to be "peacefully" assembling.
    Who can say? The public doesn't like it, but they are not physically harming anyone. If the Supreme Court rules Westboro can't assemble as they like, what's next? Political protests?

    The KKK has the right to assemble and march just like any other group. How is that any different from the Westboro Church?
    They are disrupting a peacefully assembly and are creating mental anguish on a "person" that can be named (The families of the deceased). They are disrupting a peaceful assembly by protesting something off base. It's not like they are standing there saying "no more war" they are saying "God hates **". That has nothing to do with the funeral and is disturbing a peaceful assembly.
    Mental anguish shouldn't mean a thing. I'm sure every time the KKK marches, they create "mental" anguish. I'm sure political protests in D.C. create "mental" anguish. I don't like the Westboro Church anymore than the rest, but the SC has no business ruling against them. It's a long slippery slope.
    But see, that is not against a specific person. They are specifically attacking the deceased's family and disrupting a peaceful assembly.

    Illinois has a law against protesting funerals and that is the way I feel it should be. It is no place for a protest and it is most definitely not "peaceful" as it is clearly an attack.
  • NNN
    buckeyefalls wrote: Quint,

    While I am in no way in favor of them removing Phelps' freedom of speech, since our government has already began taking away other "rights/freedoms" then maybe they need to amend this one to get rid of Phelps and his hateful message.

    On the flip side, why don't Americans stand up against this and have a million man march/demonstration in Kansas where this group lives? Stand outside their house and make comments like they do in a civilized way until they promise to stop their hatred. Heck, if they can't get out of their drive way and if millions of people show them how they truly feel about them, maybe they will stop.

    However, we let it go on. How unfortunate.
    tk421 wrote: That would be to much work, Americans would rather the Supreme Court take away even more freedoms, even if this group isn't doing something that is popular.
    Writerbuckeye wrote: If a large group attempted to do such a thing, Phelps would simply use every law at his disposal to get the crowd dispersed; and if any organized groups were a part of it, he would sue them for intimidation.

    Today's laws do not protect honest, decent and God fearing people from shysters and the dirtbags who use them to their evil fullest.
    tk421 wrote: Who can say? The public doesn't like it, but they are not physically harming anyone. If the Supreme Court rules Westboro can't assemble as they like, what's next? Political protests?

    The KKK has the right to assemble and march just like any other group. How is that any different from the Westboro Church?
    The Court has ruled before that speech is not protected if it is used to induce panic (the old example of yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater) or carries a high risk of provoking a violent incident (so-called "fighting words").

    In this case, I figure the Supreme Court will consider the following.
    - Phelps and his band of loonies have been doing this for years
    - States have been forced to pass laws specifically to keep them as far away from funerals as reasonably possible
    - The 4th Circuit Court, for reasons unknown, issued a two-page decision with no explanation that both overturned an existing ruling and carried its own verdict

    I don't think Phelps wins this one. I wouldn't be surprised to see a 7-2 decision here.
  • CenterBHSFan
    I Wear Pants wrote:
    tk421 wrote:
    LJ wrote: I don't consider what the Westboro church is doing to be "peacefully" assembling.
    Who can say? The public doesn't like it, but they are not physically harming anyone. If the Supreme Court rules Westboro can't assemble as they like, what's next? Political protests?

    The KKK has the right to assemble and march just like any other group. How is that any different from the Westboro Church?
    Does the KKK plan marches around black people's funerals?
    No, tea partiers generally just stick to city streets and public squares.

    KIDDING!!!! (or am I taunting?) mwuahahaha!!!!
  • tk421
    NNN wrote:
    buckeyefalls wrote: Quint,

    While I am in no way in favor of them removing Phelps' freedom of speech, since our government has already began taking away other "rights/freedoms" then maybe they need to amend this one to get rid of Phelps and his hateful message.

    On the flip side, why don't Americans stand up against this and have a million man march/demonstration in Kansas where this group lives? Stand outside their house and make comments like they do in a civilized way until they promise to stop their hatred. Heck, if they can't get out of their drive way and if millions of people show them how they truly feel about them, maybe they will stop.

    However, we let it go on. How unfortunate.
    tk421 wrote: That would be to much work, Americans would rather the Supreme Court take away even more freedoms, even if this group isn't doing something that is popular.
    Writerbuckeye wrote: If a large group attempted to do such a thing, Phelps would simply use every law at his disposal to get the crowd dispersed; and if any organized groups were a part of it, he would sue them for intimidation.

    Today's laws do not protect honest, decent and God fearing people from shysters and the dirtbags who use them to their evil fullest.
    tk421 wrote: Who can say? The public doesn't like it, but they are not physically harming anyone. If the Supreme Court rules Westboro can't assemble as they like, what's next? Political protests?

    The KKK has the right to assemble and march just like any other group. How is that any different from the Westboro Church?
    The Court has ruled before that speech is not protected if it is used to induce panic (the old example of yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater) or carries a high risk of provoking a violent incident (so-called "fighting words").

    In this case, I figure the Supreme Court will consider the following.
    - Phelps and his band of loonies have been doing this for years
    - States have been forced to pass laws specifically to keep them as far away from funerals as reasonably possible
    - The 4th Circuit Court, for reasons unknown, issued a two-page decision with no explanation that both overturned an existing ruling and carried its own verdict

    I don't think Phelps wins this one. I wouldn't be surprised to see a 7-2 decision here.
    I imagine they don't, but if Phelp's group went to a funeral and just held up signs saying whatever they think without making a sound, would you still support banning that? I just think it's a bad idea. It sets a precedent that will be used in the future.
  • LJ
    tk421 wrote:
    NNN wrote:
    buckeyefalls wrote: Quint,

    While I am in no way in favor of them removing Phelps' freedom of speech, since our government has already began taking away other "rights/freedoms" then maybe they need to amend this one to get rid of Phelps and his hateful message.

    On the flip side, why don't Americans stand up against this and have a million man march/demonstration in Kansas where this group lives? Stand outside their house and make comments like they do in a civilized way until they promise to stop their hatred. Heck, if they can't get out of their drive way and if millions of people show them how they truly feel about them, maybe they will stop.

    However, we let it go on. How unfortunate.
    tk421 wrote: That would be to much work, Americans would rather the Supreme Court take away even more freedoms, even if this group isn't doing something that is popular.
    Writerbuckeye wrote: If a large group attempted to do such a thing, Phelps would simply use every law at his disposal to get the crowd dispersed; and if any organized groups were a part of it, he would sue them for intimidation.

    Today's laws do not protect honest, decent and God fearing people from shysters and the dirtbags who use them to their evil fullest.
    tk421 wrote: Who can say? The public doesn't like it, but they are not physically harming anyone. If the Supreme Court rules Westboro can't assemble as they like, what's next? Political protests?

    The KKK has the right to assemble and march just like any other group. How is that any different from the Westboro Church?
    The Court has ruled before that speech is not protected if it is used to induce panic (the old example of yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater) or carries a high risk of provoking a violent incident (so-called "fighting words").

    In this case, I figure the Supreme Court will consider the following.
    - Phelps and his band of loonies have been doing this for years
    - States have been forced to pass laws specifically to keep them as far away from funerals as reasonably possible
    - The 4th Circuit Court, for reasons unknown, issued a two-page decision with no explanation that both overturned an existing ruling and carried its own verdict

    I don't think Phelps wins this one. I wouldn't be surprised to see a 7-2 decision here.
    I imagine they don't, but if Phelp's group went to a funeral and just held up signs saying whatever they think without making a sound, would you still support banning that? I just think it's a bad idea. It sets a precedent that will be used in the future.
    Depends.... Does it say something that actually pertains to the deceased, or is it something completely off base? THAT is the difference.
  • tk421
    LJ wrote:
    tk421 wrote:
    NNN wrote:
    buckeyefalls wrote: Quint,

    While I am in no way in favor of them removing Phelps' freedom of speech, since our government has already began taking away other "rights/freedoms" then maybe they need to amend this one to get rid of Phelps and his hateful message.

    On the flip side, why don't Americans stand up against this and have a million man march/demonstration in Kansas where this group lives? Stand outside their house and make comments like they do in a civilized way until they promise to stop their hatred. Heck, if they can't get out of their drive way and if millions of people show them how they truly feel about them, maybe they will stop.

    However, we let it go on. How unfortunate.
    tk421 wrote: That would be to much work, Americans would rather the Supreme Court take away even more freedoms, even if this group isn't doing something that is popular.
    Writerbuckeye wrote: If a large group attempted to do such a thing, Phelps would simply use every law at his disposal to get the crowd dispersed; and if any organized groups were a part of it, he would sue them for intimidation.

    Today's laws do not protect honest, decent and God fearing people from shysters and the dirtbags who use them to their evil fullest.
    tk421 wrote: Who can say? The public doesn't like it, but they are not physically harming anyone. If the Supreme Court rules Westboro can't assemble as they like, what's next? Political protests?

    The KKK has the right to assemble and march just like any other group. How is that any different from the Westboro Church?
    The Court has ruled before that speech is not protected if it is used to induce panic (the old example of yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater) or carries a high risk of provoking a violent incident (so-called "fighting words").

    In this case, I figure the Supreme Court will consider the following.
    - Phelps and his band of loonies have been doing this for years
    - States have been forced to pass laws specifically to keep them as far away from funerals as reasonably possible
    - The 4th Circuit Court, for reasons unknown, issued a two-page decision with no explanation that both overturned an existing ruling and carried its own verdict

    I don't think Phelps wins this one. I wouldn't be surprised to see a 7-2 decision here.
    I imagine they don't, but if Phelp's group went to a funeral and just held up signs saying whatever they think without making a sound, would you still support banning that? I just think it's a bad idea. It sets a precedent that will be used in the future.
    Depends.... Does it say something that actually pertains to the deceased, or is it something completely off base? THAT is the difference.
    So, a sign that says "god hates so and so" that is being buried is fine, but one that says "god hates gays, etc" would be wrong? What's the difference?
  • majorspark
    tk421 wrote:
    LJ wrote:
    tk421 wrote:
    LJ wrote: I don't consider what the Westboro church is doing to be "peacefully" assembling.
    Who can say? The public doesn't like it, but they are not physically harming anyone. If the Supreme Court rules Westboro can't assemble as they like, what's next? Political protests?

    The KKK has the right to assemble and march just like any other group. How is that any different from the Westboro Church?
    They are disrupting a peacefully assembly and are creating mental anguish on a "person" that can be named (The families of the deceased). They are disrupting a peaceful assembly by protesting something off base. It's not like they are standing there saying "no more war" they are saying "God hates **". That has nothing to do with the funeral and is disturbing a peaceful assembly.
    Mental anguish shouldn't mean a thing. I'm sure every time the KKK marches, they create "mental" anguish. I'm sure political protests in D.C. create "mental" anguish. I don't like the Westboro Church anymore than the rest, but the SC has no business ruling against them. It's a long slippery slope.
    They KKK doesn't protest black funerals. A funeral is a private function. No one has the right to force themselves upon a private group engaging in a private function. Period. If the Supreme Court were to rule that the 1st amendment allows citizens to impose their speech at a private event, that would be the slippery slope.
  • I Wear Pants
    What if the sign said "Rubber Baby Buggy Bumpers?"
  • LJ
    tk421 wrote:
    LJ wrote:
    tk421 wrote:
    NNN wrote:
    buckeyefalls wrote: Quint,

    While I am in no way in favor of them removing Phelps' freedom of speech, since our government has already began taking away other "rights/freedoms" then maybe they need to amend this one to get rid of Phelps and his hateful message.

    On the flip side, why don't Americans stand up against this and have a million man march/demonstration in Kansas where this group lives? Stand outside their house and make comments like they do in a civilized way until they promise to stop their hatred. Heck, if they can't get out of their drive way and if millions of people show them how they truly feel about them, maybe they will stop.

    However, we let it go on. How unfortunate.
    tk421 wrote: That would be to much work, Americans would rather the Supreme Court take away even more freedoms, even if this group isn't doing something that is popular.
    Writerbuckeye wrote: If a large group attempted to do such a thing, Phelps would simply use every law at his disposal to get the crowd dispersed; and if any organized groups were a part of it, he would sue them for intimidation.

    Today's laws do not protect honest, decent and God fearing people from shysters and the dirtbags who use them to their evil fullest.
    tk421 wrote: Who can say? The public doesn't like it, but they are not physically harming anyone. If the Supreme Court rules Westboro can't assemble as they like, what's next? Political protests?

    The KKK has the right to assemble and march just like any other group. How is that any different from the Westboro Church?
    The Court has ruled before that speech is not protected if it is used to induce panic (the old example of yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater) or carries a high risk of provoking a violent incident (so-called "fighting words").

    In this case, I figure the Supreme Court will consider the following.
    - Phelps and his band of loonies have been doing this for years
    - States have been forced to pass laws specifically to keep them as far away from funerals as reasonably possible
    - The 4th Circuit Court, for reasons unknown, issued a two-page decision with no explanation that both overturned an existing ruling and carried its own verdict

    I don't think Phelps wins this one. I wouldn't be surprised to see a 7-2 decision here.
    I imagine they don't, but if Phelp's group went to a funeral and just held up signs saying whatever they think without making a sound, would you still support banning that? I just think it's a bad idea. It sets a precedent that will be used in the future.
    Depends.... Does it say something that actually pertains to the deceased, or is it something completely off base? THAT is the difference.
    So, a sign that says "god hates so and so" that is being buried is fine, but one that says "god hates gays, etc" would be wrong? What's the difference?
    You are 100% missing what I am trying to say. Let's say you were an executioner and you died, people come to protest at your funeral...

    "God hates killers". Now see, that is relevant, you put many many people to death.

    On the other hand they come to your funeral with signs "God hates child molesters". Ok so are they claiming you molested children? Who molested children here? Why are they protesting child molesters at a funeral? Is the officiant a child molester? The list goes on and on. They are creating an un needed and off base disruption to a peaceful assembly, therefore they are not being peaceful.
  • NNN
    tk421 wrote: I imagine they don't, but if Phelp's group went to a funeral and just held up signs saying whatever they think without making a sound, would you still support banning that? I just think it's a bad idea. It sets a precedent that will be used in the future.
    That's not what they were doing, and that's not what's being addressed. Look, the original case that dealt with "fighting words" was in 1942, and I'm sure plenty of people then were clamoring against the ruling on the basis that it would create a wave of banning, arresting, and charging people on the basis of something that might offend. It hasn't happened anywhere, except for (oddly enough) on college campuses that have imposed speech codes.
  • majorspark
    People are misunderstanding the first amendment as it applies to free speech. It was intended to prevent the federal government from prohibiting political speech against the government. It was never meant to allow citizens to berate themselves at private funerals. It does not give you the right to cuss out your boss, slander your neighbor, or shout down your political opponent. It gives you the right to say the federal government sucks and why by any public means. It does not give you the right to force your opinion on any other citizen. No citizen should be forced at a private event to listen to your political opinion.