SCOTUS to hear case on military funeral protests.

Started by Oniya, October 03, 2010, 11:38:33 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Oniya

I don't usually start posts in P&R, but I caught this as a news-bite about tomorrow's opening day.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/30/AR2010093006323.html

It's often said that 'my right to swing my arm stops at your nose' - or in other words, when my arm-swinging inflicts damaging pain.

The question before the court is whether the WBC's right to free speech stops when it inflicts damaging pain on these grieving families.
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

errantwandering

This is one issue where I am a bit torn.  On the one hand, I am against curtailing individual rights in any way, shape, or form.  I think that every individual has the right to express themselves and their opinions, and that government does not have the right to curtail it except in very extreme cases.

That being said, what WBC says and does is an abomination.  I am hoping the the supreme court will rule for them, because they have the right to be evil, bitter, psychotic lowlifes if all they are doing is protesting on public property.  Still, I am equally hoping that at one of their protests someone beats them into unconsciousness with their own signs while the cops look the other way.

Callie Del Noire

#2
Sadly I fear that for the 'greater good' the asshats at the WBC will be winning this. Freedom of Expression is one of those 'all or nothing' rights that has to be protected.  It galls me, as a person, as a veteran even, that they will have to win to protect those rights and privileges that I swore to uphold as a sailor in the Navy.

That being said I very much doubt that I'd pee on a member of the Phelps clan if they were fire. A more hideous example of human refuse I don't think I have ever been sad to admit were Americans. Petty, racist, vile in ways that make me sad to think of.

RubySlippers

The right to not be offended on its own is not enough to stop the greater right of free speech especially religious speech.

Not that I like what they are doing but its not like they are inciting dangerous acts like yelling "fire" in a crowded movie theater.

Oniya

Except that they (the WBC) are trying to incite people to be violent towards them, so that they can press assault charges.  They've fully admitted that they aren't trying to get anyone to join their side.
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

MasterMischief


OldSchoolGamer

I don't know which way SCOTUS will rule on this.  I do blame the government, mostly, for the rise and antics of ABC.  I call it the Asshole Protection Clause that's implicit in the American legal system: the more deviant, bizarre and obnoxious you are, the more the law comes down on your side.  If you're a normal, everyday person just earning a living, paying your taxes--hey, screw you.

I don't think it will end until someone beats the crap out of a WBC protester, and maybe spectators join in.  Normally not the way I like to see disputes of this nature resolved, of course.  But seeing these people in action brings to mind a Robert Heinlein quotation:

"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life."

To be clear, I have no interest in seeing anyone die at or about a WBC protest.  But I think, by removing ALL consequences of being an utterly insensitive, pompous, self-righteous, annoying asshat, the government bears some responsibility for WBC's antics.

Trieste

Quote from: Oniya on October 03, 2010, 04:17:48 PM
Except that they (the WBC) are trying to incite people to be violent towards them, so that they can press assault charges.  They've fully admitted that they aren't trying to get anyone to join their side.

This admission right here places them outside the protections of the Constitution, as far as I'm concerned.

OldSchoolGamer

Quote from: Trieste on October 03, 2010, 06:40:35 PM
This admission right here places them outside the protections of the Constitution, as far as I'm concerned.

No, no, they're deviant, obnoxious, annoying wackos so we have to trample all over the rights of veterans and honest citizens to protect these poor, oppressed WBC people!

/sarcasm

Jude

Quote from: Oniya on October 03, 2010, 04:17:48 PM
Except that they (the WBC) are trying to incite people to be violent towards them, so that they can press assault charges.  They've fully admitted that they aren't trying to get anyone to join their side.
Can I see the source of this?  In my research regarding the WBC that isn't the impression that I got.

ReijiTabibito

It's like GIFT, only IRL, and done by a bunch of people who would make suicide bombers squeamish with how dickish they're being.  Say what we will about Islams and terrorists and all that, but I'd be willing to bet that shenanigans like this don't go on in Islamic countries.

meikle

Quote from: ReijiTabibito on October 03, 2010, 07:51:51 PMSay what we will about Islams and terrorists and all that, but I'd be willing to bet that shenanigans like this don't go on in Islamic countries.

Wow.  This is just ... wow.

Muslims, by the way.
Kiss your lover with that filthy mouth, you fuckin' monster.

O and O and Discord
A and A

Trieste


Oniya

Quote from: Jude on October 03, 2010, 07:15:06 PM
Can I see the source of this?  In my research regarding the WBC that isn't the impression that I got.

There was a portion of another thread a while back that gave me that impression:

https://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?topic=75128.msg3381338#msg3381338

Also, the BBC documentary on the Phelps family (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1000764/) included statements from Phelps-Roper (Fred's daughter) that the money used to travel to all their protests was to 'spread God's hate'.
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

Serephino

To every rule there are exceptions, and I think this is one of them.  You can't yell fire in a crowded theater, and you can't commit liable or slander.  And like the analogy of my right to swing my arm ends at your nose; your rights end when you impede on someone else's.  The families of those soldiers had the right to bury their loved ones in peace, and the WBC did take that away from them.  I really hope they lose. 

Jude

#15
Quote from: Oniya on October 03, 2010, 08:58:23 PM
There was a portion of another thread a while back that gave me that impression:

https://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?topic=75128.msg3381338#msg3381338

Also, the BBC documentary on the Phelps family (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1000764/) included statements from Phelps-Roper (Fred's daughter) that the money used to travel to all their protests was to 'spread God's hate'.
All of that really paints them in a bad light, but I don't see evidence to support your claim that they fully admitted that they weren't doing this to get people on your side.

I agree that the WBC is deplorable, but I also know that if you take rights away from them, you're giving the government precedence to do it to other people.  I think that's a dangerous line of reasoning to follow, when in reality they aren't causing any actual harm, just emotional distress and offense with their shenanigans.

OldSchoolGamer

I certainly can appreciate the civil libertarian point of view on this.  I concur that we need to be mighty careful with setting any precedent involving the abridgment of free speech.  But...

(Warning: semi-rant ahead, not directed at anyone here)

I do see a tendency amongst some on the Left to value the rights of people in direct proportion to how deviant, crazy, psychotic or otherwise contrary to societal norms they are.  Too much of a tendency to identify people like that as part of some oppressed group and want to accord them special treatment and bend over backwards to cater to them.

While I'm in favor of reasonable protections for unpopular or even bizarre viewpoints, ordinary, tax-paying normal everyday working people conducting a funeral for a loved one who gave his or her life defending our country--well, guess what, THEY have rights, too.  I'm seeing too much focus on the right of people to act like moron sociopaths, and not enough on the rights of people to peaceably conduct funerary rites like normal society has done for millennia.  Presumably because a common Christian funeral is, well, not bizarre enough to merit protection. 

I think a precedent should be set: normal people have rights, too.  When a funeral is being conducted, the people conducting it have the floor.  Asshats with sociopath slogans and bullhorns, can, to put it bluntly, drink a nice big cup of STFU while the funeral is in progress.  They can protest before the funeral.  They can protest after the funeral.  In locations and times where funerals are not being conducted, they can shout whatever hateful, pea-brained slogans pop into their 8-bit brains.  But at the funeral...the rights of NORMAL people hold sway.

Jude

#17
I agree if the protesters can actually interfere with the funeral itself, but that isn't the case with WBC I think.  As far as I'm aware, they're far enough away that their idiocy isn't audible during the service.  As far as I understand it, the opponents of WBC don't want them to be able to perch outside of these funerals, nearby, to spread their nonsense.  This isn't about silencing them so that the service can go unimpeded, removing their presence so that they don't block the funerals, or any of that -- because of all that is quite clearly against the law, so they don't do it -- this is about taking away their right to freedom of speech because their exercising it hurts people's feelings.

That's not something I can ever agree with no matter what vile, idiotic thing is being said.

HairyHeretic

While I would be happy to see the WBC disappear from existance, banning any speech sets a very dangerous precedent, and can be the thin end of a wedge. Because once you allow the banning of one, you can ban another, going that next small, perfectly sensible, perfectly logical step to the next. Then the next. And the next one after that.

As much as I would like to see the WBC shut up, they have the right to spew their hatred.
Hairys Likes, Dislikes, Games n Stuff

Cattle die, kinsmen die
You too one day shall die
I know a thing that will never die
Fair fame of one who has earned it.

ReijiTabibito

Having sat down and thought over the issue, and listened to the much more informed viewpoints than mine on this topic, I've come to the following conclusion.

1. If this is about ]whether or not they are allowed to say these things, period, then I would go with the esteemed Voltaire on this one.

2. If this is about whether or not they are allowed to say these things at the funeral, then I'm saying no.  It's a disruption of a sacred ceremony, and the peace, and as such should not be tolerated.

Personally, if half of what I've been hearing here is correct, and WBC is doing this to piss people off so that they can get people arrested, that is so morally repugnant that I would say they aren't Christian at all.

Plus, this is a problem in the personal responsibility sense.  If they don't suffer any sort of consequences for this sort of misbehavior, then they are only going to be further emboldened to do more like this.

Callie Del Noire

Quote from: HairyHeretic on October 04, 2010, 12:38:00 PM
While I would be happy to see the WBC disappear from existance, banning any speech sets a very dangerous precedent, and can be the thin end of a wedge. Because once you allow the banning of one, you can ban another, going that next small, perfectly sensible, perfectly logical step to the next. Then the next. And the next one after that.


HH, you put it better than I could. I particularly like the wedge comparison. Every time I see the Phelp's clan I think that the head of it is clearly 'neurologically screwed up'. He seems to be running very wild at times.

Remiel

I propose a compromise.   While I am forced to agree with Hairy that public discourse, no matter how distasteful, should be Constitutionally protected, perhaps they could be sued in a civil court for intentional infliction of emotional distress?

Oniya

I know that in a few states, they have been successfully 'banished' to outside a certain perimeter (it varies, state to state, and is usually a couple hundred yards at least.)  What if that were changed to the middle of some field, 5 miles outside of town?  That way, the people attending the funeral wouldn't have to rely on heroes like the Patriot Riders to shield them from the vitriol, the WBC could spew to their hearts content, and whoever wants to hear them (shyeah) will have free access to do so.
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

Will

Quote from: Remiel on October 04, 2010, 01:09:19 PM
I propose a compromise.   While I am forced to agree with Hairy that public discourse, no matter how distasteful, should be Constitutionally protected, perhaps they could be sued in a civil court for intentional infliction of emotional distress?

That is a fantastic idea.  Though I do worry that it would just give the crazies more press.

I'm also under the impression that they have to stay some distance from the actual funerals.  If that distance isn't enough to put them out of eye/earshot, then increase it.  Silencing them seems like an unnecessarily extreme method, and very much the "thin end of a wedge," as Hairy so eloquently put it.
If you can heal the symptoms, but not affect the cause
It's like trying to heal a gunshot wound with gauze

One day, I will find the right words, and they will be simple.
- Jack Kerouac

Callie Del Noire

Quote from: Remiel on October 04, 2010, 01:09:19 PM
I propose a compromise.   While I am forced to agree with Hairy that public discourse, no matter how distasteful, should be Constitutionally protected, perhaps they could be sued in a civil court for intentional infliction of emotional distress?

You know.. given that they have a BUNCH of lawyers in the Phelp's family that wouldn't be a good idea. In fact they have sued several states/cities/whatever and gotten some big payoffs in lawyers fees. Last time I heard the father of the marine they picketed was looking to have to PAY their fees after getting a decision overturned on appeal.

ReijiTabibito

Quote from: Callie Del Noire on October 04, 2010, 02:31:42 PM
You know.. given that they have a BUNCH of lawyers in the Phelp's family that wouldn't be a good idea. In fact they have sued several states/cities/whatever and gotten some big payoffs in lawyers fees. Last time I heard the father of the marine they picketed was looking to have to PAY their fees after getting a decision overturned on appeal.

Wait.  Someone is actually willing to represent these people in civil court?  Criminal court I can understand, since there everyone has the right to a lawyer, but that's not the case in civil court...

kylie

          Myeh.  Emotional distress suit, pushing them further out to the edges of civilization...  If it can be done to them, it can be done to someone else too.  And we're back to Hairy's "wedge" problem.  That would be another case of legislating privileges for "normality."  But most everyone's ideas are improper to someone. 

Quote from: OldSchoolI do blame the government, mostly, for the rise and antics of ABC.  I call it the Asshole Protection Clause that's implicit in the American legal system: the more deviant, bizarre and obnoxious you are, the more the law comes down on your side.  If you're a normal, everyday person just earning a living, paying your taxes--hey, screw you.
The WBC is claiming this is about their idea of God's take on gay identity.  So there is a flip side to this here.  People in a same-sex relationship who want to be recognized publicly as equal, who want to go about their lives without being harassed at media-worthy public events if they are out of the closet, are not fully and regularly protected under the law as "normal" or "everyday" across much of this country.  They don't get to just go about their business -- neither under the laws of business, nor in the face of protests. 

          Who actually gets the most thickly defended privacy?  People with very big bucks and/or government support (often, one and the same).  I'm thinking of those ultra-fortified Republican conventions.  I do happen to find their ideology pretty "bizarre and obnoxious."  I wouldn't characterize their convention leaders and their financial backers as "everyday" people in terms of racial mix or income.  They insist they are because hey, they are "business" and "family" people.  And very much like the WBC, the neo-conservative leaders keep arguing that family/business success is the sign of what should be considered normal and untouchable: 'If you were doing it right, obviously you would be prosperous like us and God (or Deity Whomever) would not frustrate you and deny you assets and companions.' 

          I'd be concerned about how you would propose to determine just who gets the "normal" identity cards.
     

HairyHeretic

Quote from: ReijiTabibito on October 04, 2010, 02:34:51 PM
Wait.  Someone is actually willing to represent these people in civil court?  Criminal court I can understand, since there everyone has the right to a lawyer, but that's not the case in civil court...

No. A bunch of them are lawyers.
Hairys Likes, Dislikes, Games n Stuff

Cattle die, kinsmen die
You too one day shall die
I know a thing that will never die
Fair fame of one who has earned it.

ReijiTabibito

Quote from: HairyHeretic on October 04, 2010, 02:40:43 PM
No. A bunch of them are lawyers.

This particular WBC clan are lawyers?  Damn.  Sometimes I forget our educational system has its downsides...

HairyHeretic

Hairys Likes, Dislikes, Games n Stuff

Cattle die, kinsmen die
You too one day shall die
I know a thing that will never die
Fair fame of one who has earned it.

Jude

#30
Phelps in particular has a lot of experience with this sort of thing since he was part of the Civil Rights Movement.  He's using pretty similar tactics, just for an unpalatable reason, which is exactly why their actions need to be protected now, or we run the risk of other causes that are legitimate suffering the same fate as this.

The damage being done to any bystanders or even the family of those suffering is minimal at best, I don't see how someone saying something stupid could possible result in deep-seated emotional distress that does long-term damage, especially when the majority of our society disagrees with them and openly shows extra support in exchange for their nonsense.

I reject the notion that people are so fragile that simply seeing this kind of idiocy for one day in their life causes permanent, lasting trauma.  It makes a terrible day worse for the families of our fallen soldiers, which isn't right, but unfortunately weakening protections on speech would be far worse.

ReijiTabibito

Quote from: Jude on October 04, 2010, 03:01:37 PM
Phelps in particular has a lot of experience with this sort of thing since he was part of the Civil Rights Movement.  He's using pretty similar tactics, just for an unpalatable reason, which is exactly why their actions need to be protected now, or we run the risk of other causes that are legitimate suffering the same fate as this.

When you say 'part of the Civil Rights Movement,' do you mean on the side of Martin Luther King and his people, or on the other side?

Because if he was a proponent of King's Civil Rights Movement, then it's quite jarring for me to learn that he's fallen so far in the last forty-odd years.

Callie Del Noire

Below is the section of his Wiki page that deals with his legal career and education.  The general feel I've gotten in other pages is that he went into Civil rights to make cash, just like he and his family do with the lawyer fees over the suits.

Quote
Education

In 1947, Phelps enrolled as a student at Bob Jones University, which he left after three semesters.[citation needed] He then spent two semesters at the Prairie Bible Institute.[citation needed] In 1951, he earned a two-year degree from John Muir College. While at John Muir, Phelps was profiled in Time magazine for preaching against "sins committed on campus by students and teachers ... promiscuous petting ... evil language ... profanity ... cheating ... teachers' filthy jokes in classrooms ... [and] pandering to the lusts of the flesh."[10]
[edit] Civil rights attorney

Phelps earned a law degree from Washburn University in 1962, and founded the Phelps Chartered law firm in 1964.[citation needed] The first notable cases were related to civil rights. "I systematically brought down the Jim Crow laws of this town," he says.[8] Phelps' daughter was quoted as saying, "We took on the Jim Crow establishment, and Kansas did not take that sitting down. They used to shoot our car windows out, screaming we were nigger lovers," and that the Phelps law firm made up one-third of the state's federal docket of civil rights cases.[11]

Phelps took cases on behalf of African American clients alleging racial discrimination by school systems, and a predominantly black American Legion post which had been raided by police, alleging racially based police abuse.[citation needed] Phelps' law firm obtained settlements for some clients.[12] Phelps also sued then-President Ronald Reagan over Reagan's appointment of a U.S. ambassador to the Vatican, alleging this violated separation of church and state. The case was dismissed by the U.S. district court.[12][13] Phelps' law firm, staffed by himself and family members also represented non-white Kansans in discrimination actions against Kansas City Power and Light, Southwestern Bell, and the Topeka City Attorney, and represented two female professors alleging discrimination in Kansas universities.[11]

In the 1980s, Phelps received awards from the Greater Kansas City Chapter of Blacks in Government and the Bonner Springs branch of the NAACP, for his work on behalf of black clients.[14]
[edit] Disbarment

A formal complaint was filed against Phelps on November 8, 1977, by the Kansas State Board of Law Examiners for his conduct during a lawsuit against a court reporter named Carolene Brady. Brady had failed to have a court transcript ready for Phelps on the day he asked for it; though it did not affect the outcome of the case for which Phelps had requested the transcript, Phelps still requested $22,000 in damages from her.[citation needed] In the ensuing trial, Phelps called Brady to the stand, declared her a hostile witness, and then cross-examined her for nearly a week, during which he accused her of being a "slut", tried to introduce testimony from former boyfriends whom Phelps wanted to subpoena, and accused her of a variety of perverse sexual acts, ultimately reducing her to tears on the stand.[15] Phelps lost the case; according to the Kansas Supreme Court:

    The trial became an exhibition of a personal vendetta by Phelps against Carolene Brady. His examination was replete with repetition, badgering, innuendo, belligerence, irrelevant and immaterial matter, evidencing only a desire to hurt and destroy the defendant. The jury verdict didn't stop the onslaught of Phelps. He was not satisfied with the hurt, pain, and damage he had visited on Carolene Brady.[15]

In an appeal, Phelps prepared affidavits swearing to the court that he had eight witnesses whose testimony would convince the court to rule in his favor. Brady, in turn, obtained sworn, signed affidavits from the eight people in question, all of whom said that Phelps had never contacted them and that they had no reason to testify against Brady. Phelps had committed perjury.[15]

On July 20, 1979, Phelps was permanently disbarred from practicing law in the state of Kansas,[15] though he continued to practice in Federal courts.

In 1985, nine Federal judges filed a disciplinary complaint against Phelps and five of his children, alleging false accusations against the judges. In 1989, the complaint was settled; Phelps agreed to stop practicing law in Federal court permanently, and two of his children were suspended for periods of six months and one year.[16]


OldSchoolGamer

I'm just opposed on principle to decent society having to undergo these contortions because this one man and his family following him around like Grateful Dead fans decide to pointlessly disrupt the lives of innocence people.

Will

Unfortunately, you can't make it illegal for people to be tasteless/classless.  It's far too subjective, and it's shooting yourself in the foot in the long run.
If you can heal the symptoms, but not affect the cause
It's like trying to heal a gunshot wound with gauze

One day, I will find the right words, and they will be simple.
- Jack Kerouac

kylie

Pulling some stuff on Phelps from the Southern Poverty Law Center. 
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/profiles/fred-phelps

Callie has mentioned some of Phelps' less successful legal maneuvers.  Another summary:
QuoteSince 1951, Phelps has been arrested repeatedly for assault, battery, threats, trespassing, disorderly conduct, and contempt of court. He has been convicted four times, as well as disbarred, but has successfully avoided prison.
Perhaps he/his defense team can yet trip and fall in deeper waters...

I also thought this was pertinent.  Phelps is apparently himself a major inspiration in some of the laws that do exist protecting military funerals, etc.
(among other laws he probably would not approve of)
Quote...his attempts to picket in Canada resulted in that country's first hate-crime law, informally known as the "Fred Phelps Law." Other legislation sparked by Phelps' protests includes the federal "Fallen Heroes Act." Passed in May 2006 after Phelps made headlines targeting the funerals of U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq, it prohibits protests within 300 feet of any national cemetery from 60 minutes before to 60 minutes after a funeral. Twenty states have since passed laws similar to the Fallen Heroes Act, while many cities, including Phelps' hometown Topeka, have enacted local ordinances tailored to thwart Phelps. The American Civil Liberties Union filed suits in Missouri and Ohio on behalf of Phelps' church, without success.

     

kylie

#36
Quote from: JudeIt makes a terrible day worse for the families of our fallen soldiers, which isn't right, but unfortunately weakening protections on speech would be far worse.
Well I can agree with you about all of that, and yet I feel that something very pertinent is missing:  SPLC begins their report: “Fred Phelps is America's most notorious anti-gay activist.”  Not anti-military per se, but most consistently anti-gay!
QuoteHe and his flock — primarily composed of most of his 13 children, their children and other relatives — have picketed events ranging from theater performances to the funerals of fallen U.S. soldiers to children murdered or killed in traffic accidents. These protests share a simple theme: Attacking America's perceived tolerance of homosexuality and celebrating God's perceived wrath as just rewards for "fags" and "fag-enablers."
This is not going to be a case only about military funerals.  I wager as the Phelps gang goes on talking about it (not least in the media outside the courtroom), it will continue to be about the public representation of same-sex relationships.   

          Again, Phelps and Church are often saying that they are critical of soldiers because according to them, things to do with the military like casualties are (among other symbols of state power), symptoms of the country's trend toward recognizing LGBT.  Unfortunately, it seems that public opinion allows them the largest leeway on the anti-gay front -- and that is actually the one they mean to push.  It's only for challenging 1) soldiers and 2) the shining image of American policy as generally benevolent that a large public backlash is notable. 
QuotePhelps and his followers have crisscrossed the country to picket the funerals of AIDs victims and engage in other, similar protests. But it is his group's picketing of the funerals of soldiers killed in Iraq — to tell the world, as Phelps argues, that their deaths are God's punishment for America's "fag-enabling" ways — that has inspired almost universal revulsion and contempt.

On that note...  Hey, Politics thread:  I have to wave a little fidgety hand up and say:  Okay, I realize that a couple individuals have produced some easy excuses for mods to shut threads on gay politics recently, including some barely out of the gate.  Yet, here is the issue come knocking again.  Locking stuff up doesn't make it go away.  Phelps is using military funerals (among various other events) as a stage to bash at gay rights.  Nonetheless, here on this site supposedly so adult and devoted to relatively open understandings of sexuality, most of the extended discussion thus far is primarily about how funerals and soldiers must be protected.  I'm almost waiting for someone to cue the gymnasium to play "Proud to Be an American" here, as if that is the only marketable public response? 

          I think speaking as if Phelps' agenda were confined to the chosen thread title is missing Phelps’ own central front.  That means allowing him space to go on with all sorts of annoyances.  You can say, but this is a funeral; I have to complain about this, no matter what I think about gay rights.  Meanwhile, he has another how many weeks before the cameras ranting drivel about Sodom.  So for the sake of relevance, how about this: How many opportunities to stir an anti-gay media platform is a Supreme Court case going to give this guy?  Could it backfire on Phelps and further gay rights, simply because he's produced such negative publicity, even by the standards of some anti-gay figures?
     

Asuras

This would be my soundbite if I were the Oliver Wendell Holmes of the day (which fortunately for American jurisprudence I have no intention of being):

"A funeral is as sacred and more than the home, and as as no man has the right to enter my home against my desires despite petitions to exercise 'freedom of speech,' much less does a man have a right to violate my funeral and petition or force the same. It is an invasion."

Will

It's because Phelps' right to protest against gay rights (or anything, just like any citizen) in public spaces is well-established and accepted.  You're not going to find an uproar about that, period.

But when it crosses into the realm of protesting funerals, whether they're for soldiers or not, it switches up the game for some people.  It crosses a line for them.  It's disrespecting a member of someone's family that has just died.  As in, recently.  As in, they're still grieving, weeping, etc.  Lots of people feel like this is just too much, that it is somehow so bad that it transcends the right to protest.

And if it actually disrupts the funeral, then I agree.  But I think pushing them further away from the funeral is the answer, not shutting them up entirely.  If he wants to protest gay rights, that's totally fine.  If he wants to protest anything at all, that is fine, as he is an American citizen and has the right to do so.  A funeral just isn't the place for it.
If you can heal the symptoms, but not affect the cause
It's like trying to heal a gunshot wound with gauze

One day, I will find the right words, and they will be simple.
- Jack Kerouac

Oniya

Quote from: Will on October 04, 2010, 11:26:50 PM
But when it crosses into the realm of protesting funerals, whether they're for soldiers or not, it switches up the game for some people.  It crosses a line for them.  It's disrespecting a member of someone's family that has just died.  As in, recently.  As in, they're still grieving, weeping, etc.  Lots of people feel like this is just too much, that it is somehow so bad that it transcends the right to protest.

Recalling the thread about the Phelps clan showing up at a sci-fi convention, I'm firmly of the opinion that the average person who wants to combat the hate-spewing is capable of doing just that, with sometimes humorous results.  Turning them into something pathetic takes away from the 'Crusaders for Morality' image that they want to put out there.  Funerals, weddings, baptisms (or the equivalent in whatever faith you have), are private and worthy of respect.
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

Callie Del Noire

He's doing nothing any worse (or better) than the American Nazis marching through Skoke in the mid 70s.

Does it make the stomach of any moral and sensible person that he does these things? Yes.

Thing is.. if you don't allow those you can't stand the same measure you'd allow someone you like, you're not protecting your own personal freedoms.

That being said, I personally hope that Fred Phelps screws up and does something that they CAN legally hammer him for HARD.

He's the type of person I would gladly pour gas on if he was in a ditch on fire. He makes me ashamed to be an American and furious to see him spit on the faces of the men and women who served so that he can have the right mock and insult them.

kylie

#41
Quote from: WillIt's because Phelps' right to protest against gay rights (or anything, just like any citizen) in public spaces is well-established and accepted.  You're not going to find an uproar about that, period.

But when it crosses into the realm of protesting funerals, whether they're for soldiers or not, it switches up the game for some people.  It crosses a line for them.  It's disrespecting a member of someone's family that has just died.  As in, recently.  As in, they're still grieving, weeping, etc.  Lots of people feel like this is just too much, that it is somehow so bad that it transcends the right to protest.
Oh yes, I get that.  I just don't think that talk is the biggest political show.  Certainly not for Phelps, and probably not for some of the "sacred space" funeral defenders either.  Many of the same claims about privacy and critical moment worthy of extra protection can just as reasonably be made whether it's a soldier's funeral, any other funeral, a hetero marriage ceremony, or a gay one.  We only see the discussion now and framed in terms of funeral sanctity for the moment, but perhaps that is as much because Phelps realized not enough people really cared, or wanted to make him infamous by responding to defend other sites.  Whether it's going to help or hurt his anti-gay agenda to actually draw larger-scale response (and the Supreme Court!) over this incident remains to be seen.  For the moment, though: 

       I think this case is unique in the sense that Phelps has effectively gambled that he can shake the country (or at least the political right-wing and sympathizers) into an 'oh-so-masculine' backlash against gay rights by continually declaring national policy to be basically "weak"/unmanly.  Here, we have some apparent fans of the military, one of the more infamously masculine-idyllic (and sometimes plain abusively masculinist) state institutions.  By and large they're insisting well, they could care less whatever about "Fag-nation" Phelps is waving at military families...  (I'm not exactly convinced yet.)   But damn, the reply continues, we're going to react because it's a matter of privacy and okay, a little insulted pride and patriotism.  The reaction is phrased in terms of "insult" and a large sympathy crowd gathers around them in ways they do not circle the wagons for Phelps v. AIDS funerals or Phelps speaking v. gay legislative agendas. 

        That seems to imply to me, the "save military funerals" crowd has not fully avoided feeling demeaned by Phelps' talk about failing to be tough and rightist-style (read: anti-gay) masculine?  I'm not so sure they're blind to the gay rights part, although I suppose DADT might keep some people in the military quiet about whatever they do think...  The silence on here about Phelps' orientation message has been pretty loud so far.  One can say, oh never mind the banners being waved as the reason for this whole mess, all that matters is about "respect" for funerals or the troops.  So apparently the fact that Phelps has shown up representing the military as wimpish doesn't count?  "Support the troops" folks would all be happy to listen to that at any other public venue and not bat an eye?  No effect of gender or orientation talk at all in whether "supporters of the troops" (I can't help adding "come what may" after that -- they are symbols of state power like it or not)/defenders of funerals feel this particular protest is especially intrusive or not?  I wonder.
     

RubySlippers

Quote from: Oniya on October 03, 2010, 04:17:48 PM
Except that they (the WBC) are trying to incite people to be violent towards them, so that they can press assault charges.  They've fully admitted that they aren't trying to get anyone to join their side.

Using that logic you could ban speech by any other minority position that is very unpopular just because they Might or Incite a few others to commit violence to them. I would say people that do attack them are not in the right not the people acting within their free speech rights.

KKK people marched in areas that were mainly black or sensitive to their opponents and the Courts have upheld their right to demonstrate.

The case here is narrow a family sued the group on the groups of causing emotional distress. I would argue that the groups right to free speech trumps their right not to be offended - there is no right to not be offended by someone elses speech.

HairyHeretic

At a funeral though, people are already going to be upset and highly strung. A wedding will generally be a happy occasion, and most of those at a con would just point and laugh at the Phelps, if not outright mock them.

Those at a funeral don't need anything upsetting them more.
Hairys Likes, Dislikes, Games n Stuff

Cattle die, kinsmen die
You too one day shall die
I know a thing that will never die
Fair fame of one who has earned it.

Trieste

Quote from: HairyHeretic on October 05, 2010, 07:28:51 AM
At a funeral though, people are already going to be upset and highly strung. A wedding will generally be a happy occasion, and most of those at a con would did just point and laugh at the Phelps, if not outright mock them.

Fixed.  ComicCon, anyone?  ::)

Oniya

Quote from: HairyHeretic on October 05, 2010, 07:28:51 AM
A wedding will generally be a happy occasion, and most of those at a con would just point and laugh at the Phelps, if not outright mock them.

I don't know about you, but if someone had tried to turn my wedding/handfasting (it was a complicated situation) into their own personal soapbox, the people doing the sword-arch would have had something to say about it.  Yes, it's a happy occasion.  For many people, it's a day that they want to remember for the rest of their lives. (Regardless of how it ends - even an eventual divorcee has high hopes at the beginning.)  To have that disrupted by Mr. 'Look-at-me' Nutcase would likely enrage just as many people as when he disrupts a funeral.

(Thanks, Trie - for some reason, the name of the con wasn't sticking in my head.  That was precisely the incident I was referencing.)
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

Will

Quote from: kylie on October 05, 2010, 04:15:38 AM
        That seems to imply to me, the "save military funerals" crowd has not fully avoided feeling demeaned by Phelps' talk about failing to be tough and rightist-style (read: anti-gay) masculine?  I'm not so sure they're blind to the gay rights part, although I suppose DADT might keep some people in the military quiet about whatever they do think...  The silence on here about Phelps' orientation message has been pretty loud so far.

The message is not shocking; the venue is.  I fail to see the disconnect in the discussion here.  Should we all preface our threads with a statement of support for gay rights?  Personally, I can't help but feel somewhat accused by your implications.

Looking back over the thread, I've only seen specifically military funerals mentioned a handful of times, and half of those mentions are now by you.  For me, it isn't really a matter of who the funeral is for; it's the fact that they are harassing people who absolutely do not need to be harassed.  I fail to see the "masculine-idyllic" slant in that opinion. :P
If you can heal the symptoms, but not affect the cause
It's like trying to heal a gunshot wound with gauze

One day, I will find the right words, and they will be simple.
- Jack Kerouac

Trieste

Quote from: kylie on October 04, 2010, 10:50:22 PM
On that note...  Hey, Politics thread:  I have to wave a little fidgety hand up and say:  Okay, I realize that a couple individuals have produced some easy excuses for mods to shut threads on gay politics recently, including some barely out of the gate.  Yet, here is the issue come knocking again.  Locking stuff up doesn't make it go away.

As I told you in my PM to you when you asked me about this, it is not the issue itself but the tone and rancor of the posts that caused the thread in question to be locked. In the future, if you have a grievance, the appropriate venue is via PM, with staff - as you did in the first place. However, be prepared for the answer to be 'no'.

Callie Del Noire

Fred isn't just about funerals, he's protested the Laramie Project (which if I recall right portrays the hideous murder of a gay man in Laramie) anywhere he and his nutjobs can drive to. He did the ComicCon this year but I think that it was a wash.

I'm not sure if Ronnie Dio's funeral (I hope survival instinct kicked in) and supposedly would have done the same to Micheal Jackson but I think they didn't have time to set things up.

I'm surprised that they haven't started doing cops and firemen's funerals (again sense might have creapt up.

They don't JUST do funerals, but the military funerals get the most press.

Oniya

The SCOTUS case, however, is specifically with regard to protests at military funerals. 
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

Jude

There is no private occasion that shouldn't be protected, that's why we have private property laws, but you don't have a right to be protected on the way to the occasion.  If WBC protests were audible during the service, they would be arrested, they're not.  They aren't allowed on the grounds, they're merely waiting a ways outside the gates with their nonsense, and people are offended because they have to see their signs and hear their rhetoric on the way.

Enshrining a particular cultural venue with extra protections which is not universal (not everyone buries their dead by the way) seems like a poor choice.  The private property laws do their job; the only thing we need to guard against is public infringement on private property, and that isn't the problem here.

Driving past a few WBC signs on the way is not akin to desecration of the funeral.  Even if they were moved, I don't think people would be any less upset if they were still along the "route of entry" for military families.  The impulse here is to shelter them from that hurtful message to make the day easier.  That's something I would gladly do for any of my family members if someone who we love died; I can relate to the concept.  That doesn't mean enshrining it into law is a good idea.

It's been said that they pay for their protests and travels with the legal fees they make from being sued over this.  That literally means that the power that they have to offend is directly proportional to how much people let them offend them.  There's an easier solution to the WBC problem:  ignore them.

DarklingAlice

Quote from: Jude on October 05, 2010, 12:51:50 PM
There is no private occasion that shouldn't be protected, that's why we have private property laws, but you don't have a right to be protected on the way to the occasion.  If WBC protests were audible during the service, they would be arrested, they're not.  They aren't allowed on the grounds, they're merely waiting a ways outside the gates with their nonsense, and people are offended because they have to see their signs and hear their rhetoric on the way.

Are we sure this is true? Because I don't think I recall anything like this in any private property laws (which vary by state) that I have seen (and it is admittedly like 5 years since I last researched this). If it is widely true then I have to agree with you, nothing more should be done. I am just not 100% sure that it is. I think most noise violations are handled under "disturbing the peace" which applies awkwardly to organized protests. I don't think there is generally a "private property" stipulation concerning noise violation. Now it may be irrelevant in the case of an actual church service or something like comic-con where they aren't allowed close enough to the building to be heard, but what about the service in the open air of the gravesite? The graveyard is private property yes, but is it a violation for you to stand across the street and be audible on private property? I genuinely do not know.
For every complex problem there is a solution that is simple, elegant, and wrong.


Jude

#52
I was fairly certain that noise-pollution rules would be readily applied to this, but if they aren't applicable, then I can totally agree with something being done there to make sure they don't interrupt the services (such as the passage of rules that do restrict this).  The thing is, in all of the examples and live protests I've seen of the Westboro Baptist Church, I've never actually seen them demonstrate loudly and close enough to the service that it could cause a disruption.  They're often moved several hundred feet away so that the spectacle they cause doesn't block roads, etc.

Now, I don't think they have any right to actually interrupt the services or anything like that -- but I'm not sure if the same would apply to other protested situations (for example, protesters at the G4 economic summit shouldn't be removed from the venue because they're making too much noise).  It's a question of where the line is drawn, and I'm not so sure I can come up with a clear delineation, because if there were people sitting at the gates of the White House yelling at all hours of the night I don't think that would be right either.

Serephino

The trick would be to word things carefully.  They could make a law specifically for funerals, or maybe private functions period.  That way people could still protest at the White House and stuff.  I would dearly love to see them have to at least be a lot further back.  Even if you only see them on the way in, something like that is the last thing you need when grieving the death of someone you love.   

Jude

I agree with the idea of moving them far away if they are in any way being disruptive to the proceedings inside, but further than that is just moving them out of sight so that their message can't be heard -- which is a violation of their freedom of speech.

I'm not comfortable with saying that protesting a funeral is always bad.  Imagine President Bush chose, while he was in office, to visit the funeral of high-ranking member of the KKK:  protesting that would not, in any way, be a moral hazard in my view.

You can't judge the action legal in one situation and illegal in another when it's based on something subjective.

Will

Even in that case, that high-ranking member of the KKK would have been someone's family, would have had people who cared about him (otherwise there wouldn't be a funeral worth protesting :P).  It wouldn't be right to disrupt the funeral of this individual and cause their loved ones more grief just because of the message he espoused when he was alive.  Especially when those loved ones might not have been involved with that message in any way, and not have done anything to warrant such abuse.

Again, my opinion on where Phelps' rights begin and end has absolutely nothing to do with the character/occupation of the people in the grave, nor with the message written on his signs.  Not even in the slightest.
If you can heal the symptoms, but not affect the cause
It's like trying to heal a gunshot wound with gauze

One day, I will find the right words, and they will be simple.
- Jack Kerouac

Oniya

Quote from: Jude on October 05, 2010, 10:03:04 PM
I agree with the idea of moving them far away if they are in any way being disruptive to the proceedings inside, but further than that is just moving them out of sight so that their message can't be heard -- which is a violation of their freedom of speech.

I'm not comfortable with saying that protesting a funeral is always bad.  Imagine President Bush chose, while he was in office, to visit the funeral of high-ranking member of the KKK:  protesting that would not, in any way, be a moral hazard in my view.

You can't judge the action legal in one situation and illegal in another when it's based on something subjective.

If a President decided to visit a Klan rally, I would certainly protest there.  At a funeral, the Klansman and his family are not making any statement that extends beyond their own family and friends - at least, I would hope not.  I would expect that there would be some sort of public backlash regarding the decision, however - and that the President's PR people would advise against either appearance.
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

kylie

#57
Quote from: WillThe message is not shocking; the venue is. 
If it were simply about the defense of funerals in general, then we should expect an equally fervent public response to have materialized after Phelps' appearances at AIDS funerals.  That did not occur.  That starts narrowing down the cause of the relative uproar.  What's left as possible explanatory factors for the uproar happening now?  His talk about gay rights (and perhaps the heightened public status of issues like DADT and marriage), his talk about Iraq/foreign policy, soldiers and family, masculinity.  I'll bet it's a fiery combination.  Or, is there something else about this particular funeral that I've missed?

QuoteI fail to see the disconnect in the discussion here.  Should we all preface our threads with a statement of support for gay rights?
I haven't said that, and I think that part is clearly hyperbolic.  I can see how you probably felt I was being over the top too, though.

QuotePersonally, I can't help but feel somewhat accused by your implications.  Looking back over the thread, I've only seen specifically military funerals mentioned a handful of times, and half of those mentions are now by you.  For me, it isn't really a matter of who the funeral is for; it's the fact that they are harassing people who absolutely do not need to be harassed.  I fail to see the "masculine-idyllic" slant in that opinion. :P
Okay, let me tone done and focus.  If you think critically about society, then there is often room to admit responsibility for not recognizing how one shares in issues that are immediately pressing but apparently (notice I didn't say actively or intentionally) being sidestepped by one's group for rather uncomfortable reasons.  That being said, I grant you that I raised the anthem-singing imagery in response to probably too few specific posts.  The thread title does include "military" -- which makes it a little harder for me to just remove "the troops" from my evaluation of how it's all being framed here.  I was also thinking in particular of Callie's (I think it was) mention of "insult to service."  To which I might better say: If one says that the point of military service is to protect certain rights, then isn't it somehow self-contradictory to claim insult when people go out and exercise those same rights? 

         However, Will, you're correct that it didn't amount to good evidence that the whole thread was taking on that particular air.  I wasn't actually presuming that most people here are generally so masculinist or even so conservative.  I was trying to stir up some discussion about what I still feel is a pretty significant area of omission.

         As I posted earlier, Phelps has already himself inspired the creation of laws to protect funerals.  Perhaps he will do so again with this case; I don't see that he should feel he has a lot to lose in that regard, assuming he's followed currently existing laws in his style of protest.  I expect that he is going to use this case as a platform to inflate his position with the media.  Now he has attention, yes because he went to a funeral -- and a soldier's one to boot.  The Supreme Court should not care if part of his testimony is that (he may say with great emphasis) for example, the military is insufficiently defending its own policy of DADT and the President is not fully in line with DOMA and whatever else he can find.  And yet, the Court has been known to render a judgment that affected real legal conditions well outside the initial scope of a case before: Think Citizens United. 

          I think Phelps will use the national attention surrounding the funeral incident to pump up his stature before the media (particularly Fox etc.) and perhaps other neo-conservative organizations.  I expect the Court will either declare it simple protected speech or lay down yet another funeral safeguard law.  To me, so far, that is not especially new.  Phelps' agenda is to see how this can be spun against gay rights:  Could the Court somehow pull another Citizens' United in his favor?  What else can he do with his increased stature on the political right?  Will some Swift Boat-style group of vocal "military advocates" show up to further his cause of driving a thicker wedge between masculinist nationalist ideals and gay rights?  All of this is going on all around the facade of that narrow "free speech v. funeral" thing.  As Callie put it: Phelps does not only do funerals.  What he does keep doing is looking for a route to slam gays. 
     

itsbeenfun2000

A few questions about this. If funerals in the past have always been considered off limits, sacred, private, wouldn't common law suggest that this continue?

Also free speech as important as it is does now allow you to incite a riot. If this group has indeed declared they are trying to be assaulted this by definition would be incitement.

Callie Del Noire

Another WBC event. Seriously, they have to be crazy to protest the funeral of a SEAL at Arlington National Cemetery? That seems to be just shy of certifiably crazy.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/local-breaking-news/church-protests-military-funer.html

Noelle

It got media attention, didn't it?

Voila, your answer.

Remiel

After hearing a report on the WBC protests on the radio this morning, I'm reversing my position.  According to the report, the WBC members take great care to observe all applicable laws, including ones which mandate that they stay a specified distance (I believe the number was 300 yards) away from the funeral grounds from one hour before the service begins to one hour after the service ends.  They even go so far as to ask police where they are allowed to protest.

Of the rights enumerated in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, the right not to be offended is not among them.  As distateful as it may be, as long as they obey all local, state, and federal laws, the Phelps clan are within their First Amendment rights to be complete assholes.

to quote Neil Gaiman:

Quote
If you accept -- and I do -- that freedom of speech is important, then you are going to have to defend the indefensible. That means you are going to be defending the right of people to read, or to write, or to say, what you don't say or like or want said.

Callie Del Noire

#62
I like the quote Remiel, I appreciate the logic, I respect the need to do it.

Doesn't mean I have to LIKE doing it or the psycho asshats who spent 3 weeks after the funeral giving a mourning father the grief they did.

And I seriously think at least Fred, and more than a few of his spawn, needs to be sat down by a shrink and checked out.

ReijiTabibito

Neil Gaiman's quote was probably inspired, or informed, to at least a degree by the classic quote from Voltaire:

"I may not like what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

Not saying that it's any less true, just saying that this is not a new idea, either.

MasterMischief

Where does the WBC get their money for the travel?

OldSchoolGamer

Judging from a couple posts here, I think there's a good question as to whether these people are psychotic...or trying to provoke people so they can gain money from lawsuits.

If the latter, they are racketeers, and deserve to be stamping license plates whilst being mighty careful not to drop the soap.

Noelle

I have to go to the contrary. If anything, it's more shameful that people are reacting violently at all -- suppressing free speech, however disrespectful, with acts of violence is not a show of greater intelligence or integrity. I don't agree with their message, but I also would never agree that people seriously deserve to be throttled for saying what they do. If everyone treated them for the joke they are, they'd quickly have to find new ways to support their little hobby.

Oniya

So far, I don't think anyone has reacted with violence - or at least it hasn't made the news.  The Comicon crowd did a counter protest with many funny signs, and a lot of the funerals have some group or other 'screening' the attendees from the WBC.  Notably, there is the Patriot Riders (who provide both a physical and auditory screen), and another group that dresses in flowing white robes like you see in a choir to form a visual screen.
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

Noelle

It doesn't seem common, but here you have it. This site also seems to have some coverage of various incidents.

It probably wouldn't make the news because the WBC might be the one topic most Americans of all political persuasions can agree are a bunch of fucks ;P As far as I know, a lot of incidents are 'minor' -- they have things thrown at them or have people get up in their face. On the second site I linked, they're actually quoted as saying they're against violence!

Callie Del Noire

Quote from: MasterMischief on October 07, 2010, 09:48:56 PM
Where does the WBC get their money for the travel?

From what I've read.. by winning civil suits and smacking down some major lawyer's fees on the folks that bring suit on them. Word is the father who sued them and is the basis of the case in front of the court is looking at some major fees if the Supreme Court rules against him. (Granted there are about a dozen journalists/celebrities offering to pony up the fees)

It looks like that was why Fred Phelps got involved in the civil rights movement to begin with.. to squeeze money out of folks for a 'good cause'.

Jude

#70
Proving intent is hard.  There isn't a single shred of evidence, aside from other people's interpretations of their actions that fly in the face of what they actually say, that they are doing this to cause emotional distress.  When asked, they always say they are doing it to save people's souls, and that makes sense in its own twisted way.  They're going off a hard-line literal interpretation of the bible.

I think people see what they want to see in WBC largely in order to justify taking away their rights and their means to voice their opinion.  They're bad enough without cynicism:  taking them at their word along with a little genuine observation, they're a cultlike enclave with good intentions, idiotic beliefs, and a healthy supply of delusion.

They are a problem that will sort itself out if people stop trying so hard to take away their first amendment rights by means of litigation or force.  I kind of expect more of the society at large than the wackos, and it's especially sad that the Phelps-Asylum is showing more reverence for the Constitution than they are.

Oniya

Just as a note - the court actually heard the arguments on this case on Wednesday, and isn't expected to make a ruling on it for a couple of months.
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

Sho

Maybe they do want to save people's souls - which is fine, so long as they don't bother me. I don't want my soul saved by them, to be sure. I don't think giving them the right to practice their free speech anywhere they'd like to would solve the problem - I think that they would just show up in even more places, and even more inappropriate times.

Frankly, if I was attending a funeral of any sort and the Phelps clan rolled in, waving their signs and being a general disgrace to any sort of taste, I'd be furious. I do think that the government should mandate for the Phelps clan to say away - far away - from funerals. Like how they can't go to the national cemetaries within 60 minutes before or after  funeral. I think that should be spread across the board.

Their actions, in my opinion, are harmful.

They target people who they know are in a weak, distraught emotional state, and they seek to use that to incite people. They use the emotional insensitivity of their actions to get onto the news - and they clearly know that what they are doing is generally seen as reprehensible, or else why would it make the news?

Even if they have good intentions, the means do not necessarily justify the end. If they 'save' a soul at the cost of a mother's last chance to see her son buried, that's not proper, at least for me. I think that at the point where they are pushing people who are already in a fragile state of health, such as at a funeral, they are breaking their rights by causing mental harm to another person.

Noelle

They are not protesting on the funeral grounds. They are in no way impeding on a mother's "last chance to see her son buried", said example probably does not see or hear them during the actual service. They are in no way, shape, or form disrupting the actual funeral itself. There is nothing legally 'sacred' about a funeral that differentiates it from any other event -- law does not make exceptions for the spiritual/religious/etc. because the law is acting as a secular entity, as it was intended. The meaning imbued into a funeral is done individually by those who it affects. That's not enough to make a law about it, nor should it be.

Like them or not, the WBC is not comprised of idiots. Lunatics, yes. Idiots, no. They comply with local legislature in their protests, they take care not to resort to violence, and they exercise their free speech in places that may be reprehensible by so-called 'common knowledge', but 'common knowledge' is not written into law. If they weren't intelligent people to some degree, they would've been shut down ages ago.

Fact is, we can't write the majority out. That's half the point of the way our country works, we defend the rights of the minority because it ensures our own rights, as well. Someday, you might have an unpopular opinion (albeit probably not to the extent of WBC), and you will want the right to be heard. You have a right to the freedom of expression because everyone else does, too. If someone else's right gets banned, it's not so impossible to think yours won't, too.

Asuras

There are limits to free speech. You can't break into my apartment and start shouting at me and claim in a courtroom that it's free speech.

Congress passed a law specifically to get these people away from funerals for soldiers. If they want to protest they can do so in other forums. Not a funeral. I'd rather someone break into my house than violate my father's funeral.

Caeli

#75
As has already been noted, Phelps/WBC always comply with local legislature and laws. They strictly remain outside of the distance stipulated in that law, they do not protest inside the church or on funeral grounds, they leave X amount of time before the service begins and don't return until X amount of time after the service ends. They phone into the local police to tell them that they will be protesting there; sometimes, the local police will inform the family (as was done in the Snyder case), in which case the family can reroute the funeral procession (as was done in the Snyder case).

For Snyder's case specifically, he saw the signs and heard what was said at the protest after the funeral service, from his own home, on his television. The Phelps/WBC crew never ventured closer than they were legally allowed - I believe that they make every effort to stay within legal bounds.

As much as I personally find their actions morally reprehensible, I disagree with the sentiment that what they are doing should be made unlawful. They have a right to their free speech as much as anyone else, even if 99% of the rest of the American population disagrees with their message and their methods.

Edited for clarity.
ʙᴜᴛᴛᴇʀғʟɪᴇs ᴀʀᴇ ɢᴏᴅ's ᴘʀᴏᴏғ ᴛʜᴀᴛ ᴡᴇ ᴄᴀɴ ʜᴀᴠᴇ ᴀ sᴇᴄᴏɴᴅ ᴄʜᴀɴᴄᴇ ᴀᴛ ʟɪғᴇ
ᴠᴇʀʏ sᴇʟᴇᴄᴛɪᴠᴇʟʏ ᴀᴠᴀɪʟᴀʙʟᴇ ғᴏʀ ɴᴇᴡ ʀᴏʟᴇᴘʟᴀʏs

ᴄʜᴇᴄᴋ ❋ ғᴏʀ ɪᴅᴇᴀs; 'ø' ғᴏʀ ᴏɴs&ᴏғғs, ᴏʀ ᴘᴍ ᴍᴇ.
{ø 𝕨 
  𝕒 }
»  ᴇʟʟɪᴡʀɪᴍᴏ
»  ᴄʜᴏᴏsᴇ ʏᴏᴜʀ ᴏᴡɴ ᴀᴅᴠᴇɴᴛᴜʀᴇ: ᴛʜᴇ ғɪғᴛʜ sᴄʜᴏʟᴀʀʟʏ ᴀʀᴛ
»  ひらひらと舞い散る桜に 手を伸ばすよ
»  ᴘʟᴏᴛ ʙᴜɴɴɪᴇs × sᴛᴏʀʏ sᴇᴇᴅs × ᴄʜᴀʀᴀᴄᴛᴇʀ ɪɴsᴘɪʀᴀᴛɪᴏɴs

Noelle

Quote from: Asuras on October 09, 2010, 11:56:54 PM
There are limits to free speech. You can't break into my apartment and start shouting at me and claim in a courtroom that it's free speech.

Congress passed a law specifically to get these people away from funerals for soldiers. If they want to protest they can do so in other forums. Not a funeral. I'd rather someone break into my house than violate my father's funeral.

Pretty sure this is a case of straw man fallacy (though anyone is free to correct me if that's not quite it). Your example is not comparable at all to reality. Breaking and entering is most definitely not the same thing as taking legal measures to obtain permission to protest on public property outside of the cemetery. Caeli's post details the measures they take to ensure legality. Being offended is not enough, nor should it be.

And on another note, has anyone made the point yet as to why funerals need a special law outside of one's own subjective personal views? What grounds do we have to ban their speech besides any kind of spiritual or emotional connection you have with a funeral (I say this because laws aren't/shouldn't be made based solely on an individual's perception, even if it's shared by a lot of people)?

MasterMischief

If it is true their money comes from the lawsuits, then it seems to me people should stop suing them.  It is very counter-intuitive, but if you choke off their funds, you would choke them out.

HairyHeretic

Usually I believe it is them sueing other people, for the likes of assaulting them.
Hairys Likes, Dislikes, Games n Stuff

Cattle die, kinsmen die
You too one day shall die
I know a thing that will never die
Fair fame of one who has earned it.

OldSchoolGamer

Quote from: Jude on October 08, 2010, 04:22:08 PM
I kind of expect more of the society at large than the wackos, and it's especially sad that the Phelps-Asylum is showing more reverence for the Constitution than they are.

I don't think Phelps and Co. are showing "reverence" for anything...to the extent that they respect the Constitution at all, it's only in their own self-serving interest as it allows them to go around trumpeting their infantile message, a pseudo-theological "f*ck you."  This doesn't even rise to the level of the Moral Majority...at least they had a (largely) coherent agenda.

The Founding Fathers had things like the Federalist Papers and the Constitution and literature and art in mind when they penned the Constitution and the First Amendment thereto.  Not blatant disrespect of fundamental cultural norms and signs telling all and sundry to FOAD. 

Jude

#80
On second thought I think you're right about that.  WBC is using the constitution as a shield; they only seem to follow the rules because it allows them to continue doing what they do.  I don't know how much respect they have for freedom of speech because I've never read them commenting on it, but I suspect they'd rather live in a theocracy since that's a description of their daily life.  The Westboro Baptist Church is a cult.  They are certainly morally reprehensible and would be dangerous if they actually had the clout to influence people; thankfully their over the top behavior has kept them from actually swaying public discourse the way the way many other religious organizations do.

One thing I'd actually like to see happen, is for them to lose their tax exempt status.  They're acting as a political entity which is against the rules for non-profit organizations such as churches; really we need to start policing all of the churches that do this, including the church that bankrolled the advertising of Prop 8 in California.

DarklingAlice

Quote from: Jude on October 10, 2010, 10:12:54 PM
One thing I'd actually like to see happen, is for them to lose their tax exempt status.  They're acting as a political entity which is against the rules for non-profit organizations such as churches; really we need to start policing all of the churches that do this, including the church that bankrolled the advertising of Prop 8 in California.

Agreed. The current penalties for this are a pittance. The Mormon church involved in funding anti-prop 8 activism wound up being fined a pittance compared to what they actually contributed. There need to be stronger disincentives to control religion's interference in politics. If they want to be  a political group they can operate under the rules of a political group.
For every complex problem there is a solution that is simple, elegant, and wrong.


Serephino

That I can definitely agree with.  They shouldn't be able to have their cake and eat it too.  Also, I don't think they should be allowed to protest funerals because a funeral is a private function for close friends and family of the deceased.  There is nothing political to protest, only an excuse to spew their filth. 

And again, even though they are following existing laws, they are still infringing upon the right of the family to bury their loved ones in peace.  The family still knows it's happening, and they can see it before and after.  All right, so a funeral is largely a religious thing.  Doesn't that mean that the families have a right to practice such a ritual without interruption?  So technically the WBC could be violating freedom of religion with their speech because they're protesting a religious ritual.  I know I certainly wouldn't be allowed to gather a few friends and protest a church service if I had any inclination to do so. 

Jude

#83
You can protest church services.  Freedom of religion (combined with free speech) includes the right to disagree with a religious practice and show open disdain for it, as long as you obey other laws (such as a respect for public property).

Noelle

#84
Quote from: Serephino on October 11, 2010, 10:25:54 PM
That I can definitely agree with.  They shouldn't be able to have their cake and eat it too.  Also, I don't think they should be allowed to protest funerals because a funeral is a private function for close friends and family of the deceased.  There is nothing political to protest, only an excuse to spew their filth.

This is largely irrelevant. A private function is not immune to protest and never has been. People protest private gatherings and private organizations all the time. The fact that people at this event are probably upset does not make it immune to the Constitution. If this were any other private function, there would not be nearly the kind of outrage raised. The dead don't have any kind of trump card. And even if there wasn't anything political to protest (and there is -- even if you find it reprehensible and don't agree, they are sending a political message about the way America is being run), what difference does that make? There's no asterisk next to the right to public assembly that says "unless there's no apparent political cause".

QuoteThe family still knows it's happening, and they can see it before and after.

Just as the family can realize that they, too are closer to death every second. They can realize there are other military men and women out there losing their lives. They can realize the war is still going on, or that there are children in Africa are starving. It is not the government's responsibility to coddle them, even if such a protest is socially frowned upon. They've made the accommodations to be able to practice their right to free speech and people keep moving the goalpost back. They follow the law, but somehow their law-following is beneath everyone else's or not good enough. That kind of double-standard does not hold up.

QuoteAll right, so a funeral is largely a religious thing.
Which means you are defining funerals largely as Christians define marriage, and thereby excluding the non-religious, possibly gays, as well as leaving in the grey area those who don't practice the "standard" burial route most take. We've seen how well the whole marriage thing has gone down, wonder how this definition would take...

QuoteDoesn't that mean that the families have a right to practice such a ritual without interruption?
Absolutely not. The WBC is not inhibiting the funeral from happening in any way, shape, or form. They are largely unseen and unheard during the whole ceremony and respect the boundaries set up for them to protest in.

QuoteSo technically the WBC could be violating freedom of religion with their speech because they're protesting a religious ritual.  I know I certainly wouldn't be allowed to gather a few friends and protest a church service if I had any inclination to do so. 

By that standard, technically, people with babies shouldn't be allowed in church when they're crying because it's interrupting everyone else's service, thereby violating their freedom to practice their religion. And people I don't like shouldn't be allowed at my grandpa's funeral because they're disrupting my ability to mourn in peace. And people driving blue cars shouldn't be allowed to infringe on my right to have a funeral free of blue cars because my sister was hit and killed by a blue car, and that image is upsetting me deeply...I think you see where I'm going.

Religion should never, ever be given a special status that exempts them from criticism or protest. There's a huge problem with that. I don't condone the actions of WBC, but stating that a funeral might have a religious connotation alone does not make it immune to another person's right to express their opinion about it, even if the rest of society finds it disgusting.

And actually, you would be allowed. It's been done before, it'll be done plenty of times in the future. Hell, even strippers have protested a church.

Asuras

Quote from: NoellePretty sure this is a case of straw man fallacy (though anyone is free to correct me if that's not quite it). Your example is not comparable at all to reality. Breaking and entering is most definitely not the same thing as taking legal measures to obtain permission to protest on public property outside of the cemetery.

You miss my point. Someone can't come into my home and claim it's free speech - no matter how careful they are about not damaging my property - because my home is inviolable. That's the justification for the law. Harassment - even from public property, even private property, outside my home - can be sanctioned for the very reason that a private person has a right not to be harassed.

Quote from: NoelleCaeli's post details the measures they take to ensure legality.

Ensurance of legality is insufficient to be justified.

Quote from: NoelleBeing offended is not enough, nor should it be.

All law is about being protected about taking offense, whether it's being offended by being butchered to death by a psycopath, raped, stolen from, or merely annoyed. These are degrees.

Quote from: NoelleAnd on another note, has anyone made the point yet as to why funerals need a special law outside of one's own subjective personal views? What grounds do we have to ban their speech besides any kind of spiritual or emotional connection you have with a funeral (I say this because laws aren't/shouldn't be made based solely on an individual's perception, even if it's shared by a lot of people)?

All law is made because many individuals perceptions converge on something, whether that thing is the sanctity of a funeral or free speech.

Such as what a funeral is. If the vast majority of Americans thought that a corpse could be thrown to the crows then this wouldn't matter.

Noelle

#86
Quote from: Asuras on October 12, 2010, 01:02:37 AM
You miss my point. Someone can't come into my home and claim it's free speech - no matter how careful they are about not damaging my property - because my home is inviolable. That's the justification for the law. Harassment - even from public property, even private property, outside my home - can be sanctioned for the very reason that a private person has a right not to be harassed.

No, it's not that I miss your point, it's that your point was not logically sound -- it wasn't even on the same legal ground as what you're trying to compare it to. Breaking into someone's house to tell them your opinion is not the same as acquiring the legal permission to protest.

Notice that in your quote, it's your home, where you're legally entitled to spout as much crap as you want -- even yell 'fire', if you deem it appropriate for your legal property. That's why someone can't come onto your property and do so, but that's irrelevant because not only are their protests not happening on your -- or anyone's private property, they're protests are occurring in publically-sanctioned places. Just because you don't like what you're hearing doesn't mean it's necessarily harassment. WBC is good at riding the line on this one. Notice that WBC does not target the specific person being buried -- they don't say JOHN Q SMITH IS GOING TO HELL, they target a larger group. That's the magic grey area.

QuoteEnsurance of legality is insufficient to be justified.

I fail to see how whether or not you feel they're justified in protesting a funeral pertains to their right to do so under the law.

QuoteAll law is about being protected about taking offense, whether it's being offended by being butchered to death by a psycopath, raped, stolen from, or merely annoyed. These are degrees.

I'm pretty sure being offended is not the main reason those things are a crime. We create laws to aid in the persistence of a civilized and functioning society according to what's best for people, place, and time. Being offended alone isn't enough because personal offense is subjective to all three of those things and in some instances ignores the direct result of said action. It might play a part, but I'm almost certain we don't put murderers on trial solely because the rest of society doesn't like their actions. We do it because they took a life and thereby violated another's so-called sovereign rights that we have integrated into our law. If we only took action to protect our own delicate sensibilities, I would imagine we'd have a lot more nanny laws to coddle us.

Basically, by saying that all law is based on offense is, in my view, akin saying that we don't hold the murder trial because the person has forced another person's life to end, but because the rest of us need a way to feel better about it. It ignores certain unalienable rights. The person murdered can't be offended about being murdered. They're dead.

Some protection is offered for certain levels of offense -- libel and slander, TV/radio profanity, etc., but in general, we err on the side of free speech because it makes us all freer as a result. It's harder to reinstate rights than it is to take them away.

QuoteAll law is made because many individuals perceptions converge on something, whether that thing is the sanctity of a funeral or free speech.

Such as what a funeral is. If the vast majority of Americans thought that a corpse could be thrown to the crows then this wouldn't matter.

So let's all converge and ban your right to ever speak your opinion ever again because the majority here doesn't like what you have to say and we don't feel like we need to protect the minority. Does it seem so fair now?

The vast majority of America is also Christian, but miraculously we aren't living under a theocracy. If the vast majority of Americans decided gays weren't real people and that Muslims needed Jim Crow-era separation, we would probably oppose it. We protect the minority for a reason, even if they're fringe lunatics.

There is no objective reason that a funeral need special protection, at least none I've seen. By the logic that society has deemed a funeral day somehow special, why not protect marriage ceremonies, baby showers, birthdays, and Harry Potter releases too? Why can't I get anyone arrested who ruins my birthday?

Jaybee

Though the parents MUST take their fair share of the blame for the way their kids turned out, ie by signing up for the military in the first place, and though it is perfectly legal for anyone to picket a funeral, I think it's somewhat tasteless for the unwilling victims/loved ones of that grunt's stupidity to be hurt.

Don't get me wrong - I am as much against the disgusting, inhumane practices of all those who volunteer for service, be they usmc or taliban, as the next right-minded citizen, but it's the absolute HEIGHT of schmuckishness to turn up and disrupt the grief of those who did not CHOOSE for their loved ones to enlist.

I also think it's dangerous for the paper in question to state that this tests "the limits" of America's guarantee of freedom of speech.  My emotions are ENTIRELY my own responsibility; my safety is PARTLY that of the state's.  The line is drawn there; the day it gets changed is the day I move to Australia and watch the rest of the First World crumble.

OldSchoolGamer

Quote from: Jaybee on October 15, 2010, 05:24:29 PM
Don't get me wrong - I am as much against the disgusting, inhumane practices of all those who volunteer for service, be they usmc or taliban,

I think you're painting with a rather wide brush there.

The vast majority of our servicemen/women have fought honorably.  I would suggest that, if you have a philosophical problem with the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan, you take it up with the leaders who decided to send our troops to fight there. 

Oniya

Quote from: OldSchoolGamer on October 15, 2010, 06:41:41 PM
I think you're painting with a rather wide brush there.

The vast majority of our servicemen/women have fought honorably.  I would suggest that, if you have a philosophical problem with the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan, you take it up with the leaders who decided to send our troops to fight there.

Quoted for emphasis.  You'll find quite a few servicemen/women and children of servicemen/women around here.  My father was in one of the most unpopular wars before Iraq, as well as the war that everyone forgets as being something other than a prime-time comedy.  I won't deny that in every group there are a few scumbags, but you should neither judge the whole by the actions of a few, nor judge them for being willing to serve their country when the call went out.
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

Jaybee

#90
Quote from: OldSchoolGamer on October 15, 2010, 06:41:41 PM
I think you're painting with a rather wide brush there.

The vast majority of our servicemen/women have fought honorably.  I would suggest that, if you have a philosophical problem with the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan, you take it up with the leaders who decided to send our troops to fight there.

Firstly, most "service"men have never actually fought in a war.  Please be clear on that, and even clearer on the fact that the entire world has a problem when any section of it experiences operational combat (I am not calling it a "war").  We're lucky to be so far away from the front lines, and you'd need to be a psycho to volunteer to be any closer. 

I chose my "brush" very carefully and very thoughtfully, thank you.


mystictiger

#91
QuoteWe're lucky to be so far away from the front lines, and you'd need to be a psycho to volunteer to be any closer.

Or brave.
Or principled.
Or patriotic.
Or believe that you can make a diference in the lives of people less fortunate than you.
Or think that there are more important things than your own precious behind.
Or just different to you.

*still has a pretty pale blue Mark 6 Combat Helmet cover*

QuoteI chose my "brush" very carefully and very thoughtfully, thank you.

You have the luxury to choose that brush because in whichever country you are from, there are people to do the limb-breaking sanity-damaging life-threatening work that you are to afraid to do. Your 'thoughtful' choice of words is deeply offensive.
Want a system game? I got system games!

Jaybee

#92
Quote from: mystictiger on October 16, 2010, 07:36:11 AM
Or brave.
Or principled.
Or patriotic.
Or believe that you can make a diference in the lives of people less fortunate than you.
Or think that there are more important things than your own precious behind.
Or just different to you.

*still has a pretty pale blue Mark 6 Combat Helmet cover*

Are you  (ex)-military?  Were you conscripted?  If not, why are you here?

QuoteYou have the luxury to choose that brush because in whichever country you are from, there are people to do the limb-breaking sanity-damaging life-threatening work that you are to afraid to do. Your 'thoughtful' choice of words is deeply offensive.

Well, if indeed you ARE (ex)-military, you have/had joined an organisation that agrees to commit state-sponsored murder on command.  Then a fig for your oversensitivites, my fellow.  It is extremely unsoldierly and hypocritical of you to take umbrage at the expression of the very freedom to communicate that you were supposed to safeguard. 

How many people did you kill, during your "service"?

Valerian

Stop.  Right now.

I'm locking this thread for the time being, before it gets any more rude and thoughtless.
"To live honorably, to harm no one, to give to each his due."
~ Ulpian, c. 530 CE

Callie Del Noire

I find that it was a good thing that Valerian locked the thread for a day or so.
Jaybee's responses pissed me off something fierce, since he seemed to infer that all military members were thugs and murderers.

It's the sort of attitude I'd expect from the 70s and not today. I just recalled the following poem and took many long cleansing breaths.  And a bottle of Sangria.

A Soldier (of any service) is a man/woman who stepped up, took an oath to protect the country and citizens from all enemies foreign and domestic and to uphold the constitution. I think if you take umbrage for the policies of the country, and our society at large, that there are forums better than the funeral of a fallen serviceman to air them. I find myself wondering how much longer it will be before the WBC folks do this with fallen cops and firemen?

I served a goodly portion of my adult life as a Sailor. I stood in front of a bunch of people three times, and repeated the Oath each time. I took it seriously. I take GREAT offense at the inferred comments that if you serve you're a thug and a killer. I have, and will, defend your right to speak what you think. At least respect the sacrifice that those in service give to allow you to take such a foul and mean attitude towards them.

Quote
It Is The Soldier


It is the Soldier, not the minister
Who has given us freedom of religion.


It is the Soldier, not the reporter
Who has given us freedom of the press.


It is the Soldier, not the poet
Who has given us freedom of speech.


It is the Soldier, not the campus organizer
Who has given us freedom to protest.


It is the Soldier, not the lawyer
Who has given us the right to a fair trial.


It is the Soldier, not the politician
Who has given us the right to vote.


It is the Soldier who salutes the flag,
Who serves beneath the flag,
And whose coffin is draped by the flag,
Who allows the protester to burn the flag.


Charles Michael Province, U.S. Army

RubySlippers

First my position on the military I love them all, honor anyone that will toss themselves in between me and some enemy out to hurt or kill or enslave me and I don't think any should be commited into a foreign operation not in the most vital defense of the nation and its soil. So find the current conflicts we were in an utter waste of our men and women.

In the case of the protesters they have a legitimate theological view that due to grave sins like abortion and homosexuality Godis letting us fall into conflicts with enemies including Islamists, so feel compelled to get their message out. I just think in a childish way and in a way not becoming Christians. But we can't just ban speech only because its offensive to many without a good reason. Noone gave me a case for that.

Serephino

That's a nice poem, and I can understand why such sentiments would piss you off.  I may not agree with the war, but I do respect those that serve.  There have been some abuses, but those were cases of individual misbehavior.  And seriously, they do deserve better than the shit the WBC is pulling.  There has to be a line drawn somewhere.   

Noelle

Not all soldiers are saints. People -- conservatives especially, I've noticed -- make a point of stereotyping them all into being white, God-fearing men who love their country so much that they enlist and that each and every man is clean and respectful and humble...And on the opposing side, you get those with the misconception that every single soldier is a bloodthirsty troglodyte with an itchy trigger finger and an inexplicable hatred for brown people.

Yes, you get people on both sides of the spectrum, yes, there have been horrifying instances of misconduct that have been shameful to both the soldier and the millitary, but I would venture to say that most fall in the vast grey expanse in the middle. Some enlist to serve their country out of the desire to show their patriotism, others do it because they don't have any real direction in life, some for the college payoff, others to fulfill a sense of purpose...the reasons go on. You don't have to glorify them, to make them into infallible demi-gods, to stoop down and kiss their asses -- hell, you don't even have to like what they do or who they are as people. They could be the biggest assholes you've ever met or the nicest men and women in the world and you don't have to be their friend or throw a parade for them. But these people do deserve your respect for doing what you don't want to -- or even have to do. The number people who enlist are people who stand between you and being involuntarily drafted to the organization that you may very well hate.

That being said, as far as drawing lines goes? There have been. There have been plenty of lines drawn that carefully pare down exactly where the protesters can assemble while also trying to give the family adequate space to hold the funeral, as well. It's been a compromise to try and extend protections both ways without stepping on toes. There's no need to keep pushing the line back, especially when the WBC has been using the same tactics year after year. They can't afford to become more radical and push those boundaries too hard because they've got their own delicate balance to maintain. They stay just inside the law for a reason -- if they up the ante and begin doing more and more ridiculous things, they can be arrested or sued, and boom, there goes their profit.

It's a shitty deal for those who do fight for our country, but the fact is, you can't pick and choose what kinds of freedoms and the various instances of them that you want to defend. If you want to defend free speech, you defend all free speech, even the things you don't want to hear. What makes the country great is not just all the nice things you want to hear, but the fact that you're allowed to express an unpopular or "wrong" opinion, as well.

mystictiger

In regards to the WBC, can someone point me to somewhere I can learn more about their theological underpinnings?

In relation to the freedom of expression, it's always interesting to note the different ways its dealt with in the EU in general, the UK in particular, and then in the US. We, on this side of the pond, routinely restrict it - on grounds of public order, national security, public policy, and so on. I found the Rwanda tribunal judgment on this to be particularly interesting. The 'gut feel' bias I have of this is that one may have a freedom to express oneself, but one should choose an appropriate manner to express those ideas. My right to freely express my contempt for broccoli (it tastes like snot and looks like lung. Yuck!) does not trump the right to privacy and respect for family life of the broccoli growers of this country.

So while I believe we all have a right to say and think whatever we like, I think we have a duty to exercise our rights with utmost concern for other people. And yes, I have been called a 'European Socialist Liberal' before.

I suspect that if the WBC attempted to protest outside Churches in the UK, they would be arrested. In Scotland, we have a lovely offence called 'breach of the peace' - this translates as "I'm a Police officer and I don't like what you're doing". Or failing that, a great many riot police would be on duty. There are few things that, in my experience, stir up the British populace: football, the armed forces, and tea. Say something bad about one of those and you're stuffed.
Want a system game? I got system games!

Lilias

Quote from: mystictiger on October 18, 2010, 07:02:17 AM
In regards to the WBC, can someone point me to somewhere I can learn more about their theological underpinnings?

From the horse's mouth.
To go in the dark with a light is to know the light.
To know the dark, go dark. Go without sight,
and find that the dark, too, blooms and sings,
and is traveled by dark feet and dark wings.
~Wendell Berry

Double Os <> Double As (updated Feb 20) <> The Hoard <> 50 Tales 2024 <> The Lab <> ELLUIKI

RubySlippers

This group is not in the European Union nations thankfully, we have the honor of having our First Amendment likely the greatest of the rights afforded to us as Americans.

And like I said they have a legitimate ,if I view it gravely flawed, theological position when one treads on ones religious liberty in the US one must be very careful its particularly protected over any other.

Lilias

Quote from: RubySlippers on October 18, 2010, 10:06:37 AM
This group is not in the European Union nations thankfully, we have the honor of having our First Amendment likely the greatest of the rights afforded to us as Americans.

The European Union nations also have legislation protecting free speech, although I don't quite get what they have to do with the topic of the thread.
To go in the dark with a light is to know the light.
To know the dark, go dark. Go without sight,
and find that the dark, too, blooms and sings,
and is traveled by dark feet and dark wings.
~Wendell Berry

Double Os <> Double As (updated Feb 20) <> The Hoard <> 50 Tales 2024 <> The Lab <> ELLUIKI

Asuras

Quote from: NoelleBreaking into someone's house to tell them your opinion is not the same as acquiring the legal permission to protest.

I would rather someone break into my home and protest than do so within earshot or sight of the funeral of a friend or a member of my grieving family. So I agree - it's not the same, it's worse.

Quote from: NoelleNotice that in your quote, it's your home, where you're legally entitled to spout as much crap as you want -- even yell 'fire', if you deem it appropriate for your legal property.

Actually...no, if I have a packed house for a party or whatever and yell "fire" and it causes a human stampede, I'm liable. As well it should be. I would have killed people.

Quote from: NoelleThat's why someone can't come onto your property and do so, but that's irrelevant because not only are their protests not happening on your -- or anyone's private property, they're protests are occurring in publically-sanctioned places.

I can't streak across Central Park either. There are limits to the rights we have in public places and I think this ought to be one of them. Congress agrees.

Quote from: NoelleJust because you don't like what you're hearing doesn't mean it's necessarily harassment.

I agree.

Quote from: NoelleI fail to see how whether or not you feel they're justified in protesting a funeral pertains to their right to do so under the law.

It doesn't. I'm pointing out that if the law is unjustified it should be changed. As neither of us are lawyers in a courtroom we should be arguing what the law should be in terms of justice rather than what it actually is.

And actually - since Congress has passed this law - you are actually the one defending illegality.

Quote from: NoelleI'm pretty sure being offended is not the main reason those things are a crime. We create laws to aid in the persistence of a civilized and functioning society according to what's best for people, place, and time. Being offended alone isn't enough because personal offense is subjective to all three of those things and in some instances ignores the direct result of said action. It might play a part, but I'm almost certain we don't put murderers on trial solely because the rest of society doesn't like their actions. We do it because they took a life  and thereby violated another's so-called sovereign rights that we have integrated into our law. If we only took action to protect our own delicate sensibilities, I would imagine we'd have a lot more nanny laws to coddle us.

We have a vast corpus of law protecting our delicate sensibilities - laws against pot smoking, against suicide, against nudity on television, against me streaking across Central Park, against me having sex with my boyfriend on a park bench in Union Square, against a fervent WBC nut blaring at my apartment with a horn telling me that I'm going to hell because of what I want to do with my boyfriend in the privacy of my apartment.

And, honestly, "sovereign rights." Let us question this. Where do those "sovereign rights" come from other than the vast majority of people being offended if they weren't "sovereign rights?"

Quote from: NoelleBasically, by saying that all law is based on offense is, in my view, akin saying that we don't hold the murder trial because the person has forced another person's life to end, but because the rest of us need a way to feel better about it. It ignores certain unalienable rights. The person murdered can't be offended about being murdered. They're dead.

Murdered people have never written laws. The people who cared about them did.

Quote from: NoelleSo let's all converge and ban your right to ever speak your opinion ever again because the majority here doesn't like what you have to say and we don't feel like we need to protect the minority. Does it seem so fair now?

Actually I'm pretty sure the majority of Americans are on my side in keeping the WBC away from soldiers' funerals, but...

You argued that I made a straw man, well, this is a straw man. What I have said is that a funeral should be at least as private a space as a home. Saying that this is tantamount to the majority dictating who and who can't "speak your opinion ever again" is nothing like what I've argued. There are plenty of places other than a funeral that I'd rather the WBC do this, I'm not arguing that they're outlawed from speaking. Including my apartment if that's what it takes to keep them away from a funeral.

Quote from: NoelleThe vast majority of America is also Christian, but miraculously we aren't living under a theocracy.If the vast majority of Americans decided gays weren't real people and that Muslims needed Jim Crow-era separation, we would probably oppose it. We protect the minority for a reason, even if they're fringe lunatics.

The only thing I'm arguing is that a funeral - whether it's a WBC member, a Muslim, a gay guy, or a soldier that died in Iraq - should be treated with respect and that the law should defend that. That funeral should be treated as private space.

Noelle

#103
QuoteActually...no, if I have a packed house for a party or whatever and yell "fire" and it causes a human stampede, I'm liable. As well it should be. I would have killed people.

My mistake, I was thinking more or less of this instance:

Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theaterJacob Hornberger of the Future of Freedom Foundation, a libertarian think tank, has claimed that in most cases free speech issues in the U.S. depend upon whose property one is on at the time. If someone falsely shouted "fire" and created a stampede  which was clearly against the wishes of a theatre owner's policy of conduct, then the theatre owner would be within his rights to prepare charges against the agitator. If, however, the theatre owner decided it would be good for business to have patrons yell "Fire! Fire!" whenever they felt like it, then he would be within his rights to do so.[2]


QuoteI can't streak across Central Park either. There are limits to the rights we have in public places and I think this ought to be one of them. Congress agrees.

I'm pretty sure they don't. At least not the way you're making it sound. The WBC isn't even protesting on the funeral grounds thanks to the laws passed. That's the only thing that's really been done, is to limit the distance from the funeral they can be and their allotted time slot to do so. Congress has only agreed that they shouldn't be directly ON the site and shouldn't hang around too long, not that their speech needs to be removed entirely. Maybe I missed something?

Time and time again, our judicial system, the very thing that is supposed to be interpreting the intent of our Constitution, has upheld their right. Sorry you don't agree, but the last I checked, they have just as much of a check and balance as the other branches.

QuoteAnd actually - since Congress has passed this law - you are actually the one defending illegality.

I have yet to see what Congress has passed that makes doing what they do illegal. Care to point this out for me? As far as I'm concerned, defending a person's right to express their viewpoint in a public forum is still legal, but maybe I didn't get the memo. I'm also going to refer to this little gem of a quote from the link I provided earlier:

QuoteRichards and O’Neil warn that many of the laws may not only be content based but also may constitute an egregious form of content discrimination known as viewpoint discrimination. Content discrimination generally refers to general subject-matter discrimination, such as a law that bans political speeches in parks. Viewpoint discrimination goes beyond mere subject matter and restricts speech based on viewpoint. An example would be a law that prohibits Republican Party speakers in a park but allows Democratic Party speakers.

“The other question I would have is what would happen if people who loved the deceased held up signs outside the church or funeral home saying, ‘We love you. We’ll miss you,’” Richards said. “Would those folks face criminal charges? If not, there’s a viewpoint-based discrimination issue.”

THIS is why it's so tough to actually pass a ban on funeral-based protests.

QuoteWe have a vast corpus of law protecting our delicate sensibilities - laws against pot smoking, against suicide, against nudity on television, against me streaking across Central Park, against me having sex with my boyfriend on a park bench in Union Square, against a fervent WBC nut blaring at my apartment with a horn telling me that I'm going to hell because of what I want to do with my boyfriend in the privacy of my apartment.

Not all of the laws you're talking about involve offense. Pot is not banned because people are offended, pot is banned because of the false notion our government has upheld that legalizing it will be a detriment to our society. Again: laws are passed to maintain a functioning and healthy society, not just because some people take personal offense to it. That's absolutely ridiculous. Suicide is illegal, as far as I understand, largely to get help for those who are unsuccessful -- and even then, those people aren't usually punished, they're sent to a mental health facility. Suicide is unhealthy for society, so we discourage it.

I believe I already mentioned earlier that there ARE "offense laws", so yes, things like public nudity and public sex and banning nudity/swear words/etc on TV are offense-based. And they're largely not always in the right. I think at least the swearing/nudity on TV/radio/etc ones are ridiculous, but that's a whole different topic.

QuoteAnd, honestly, "sovereign rights." Let us question this. Where do those "sovereign rights" come from other than the vast majority of people being offended if they weren't "sovereign rights?"

IDK, my BFF The Social Contract which is also closely related to the more generalized social contracts, the very things by which our society -- and government have formed? Hahaha, ridiculous commercial reference aside, I think Hobbes and Rousseau and the gang would be awfully offended at their long-researched, debated, and well-formulated philosophies were boiled down to little more than people getting offended. It's a little more complex than that.

QuoteMurdered people have never written laws. The people who cared about them did.

Um, exactly? But the people writing them weren't writing them solely to avenge their own offense, that's selfish and undermines the life that was taken. If all that's keeping murder from being obscure is how offended people get, then there surely isn't anything inherently wrong with taking another life, it's merely a social perception. I hope the illogical aspect of that assumption is evident to you.

QuoteActually I'm pretty sure the majority of Americans are on my side in keeping the WBC away from soldiers' funerals, but...

And the majority of Americans want to ban gay marriage and end abortions and the majority believe in God, blah blah blah. Irrelevant. I've already been over this. Besides, I wasn't just referring to your opinion on this matter. I'm saying if the majority didn't want to hear you talk about being gay and banned it, you'd probably be pretty indignant about it.

QuoteYou argued that I made a straw man, well, this is a straw man. What I have said is that a funeral should be at least as private a space as a home. Saying that this is tantamount to the majority dictating who and who can't "speak your opinion ever again" is nothing like what I've argued. There are plenty of places other than a funeral that I'd rather the WBC do this, I'm not arguing that they're outlawed from speaking. Including my apartment if that's what it takes to keep them away from a funeral.

They're not protesting on funeral grounds. They are not literally at the funeral. They are OUTSIDE the funeral. They are NOT there on the grave dancing in top hats and pissing on the headstone. They are literally NOT at the funeral at any point in time during their protest. Plenty of other places? Kind of like how there are plenty of other places to put a mosque away from Ground Zero? How far is far enough? What places are we talking exactly? If a public place that can be used by any other group isn't good enough, then you can refer right back to content discrimination.

QuoteThe only thing I'm arguing is that a funeral - whether it's a WBC member, a Muslim, a gay guy, or a soldier that died in Iraq - should be treated with respect and that the law should defend that. That funeral should be treated as private space.

And it is. See "WBC is not at the funeral" above.

Jude

#104
There seems to be a lot of repetitive arguing, so I'm going to echo things that have already been said in order to reinforce points already made that people seem to be ignoring:

- WBC does not protest at funerals, they protest outside them at a fair distance.
- I haven't seen any evidence that they've disrupted the proceedings in anyway, not even with noise.  If you have evidence to the contrary please present it instead of making assumptions.  It does not appear to be happening as far as I can tell.
- The most recent "victim" to sue them didn't even see them before or after his son's funeral -- he saw them on the news after the fact.

A couple of questions for people who still don't think they should be able to protest as they are now:

1)  How far away would be an acceptable distance to you?  Are you simply opposed to the protest happening at all, even if it wasn't nearby?
2)  If you're outlawing funerals as a venue of protest are you comfortable protecting all events that people deem "sacred," and if so, how would you respond to the charge that because "sacred" is a subjective property, protesting anything can be banned essentially under that rule.
3)  If you don't buy into the subjective sacred argument because you see the potential for abuse, what makes a funeral special?  Is it because everyone is so upset who attends a funeral?  If so, what about the myriad of other societal events wherein people are deeply upset.  Why aren't those off-limits too?
4)  Lets say they were protesting the war outside of these military funerals and actually had a positive message for the military men (in terms of wanting to save their life), would that be OK with you?  If not, isn't that outlawing a very powerful form of activism that could be used to end wars, and if so, aren't you essentially siding with the totalitarianism of thought and expression that our soldiers die fighting against to begin with by silencing certain opinions on the basis of the ideas expressed therein?  Doesn't that make your actions more dishonorable than any of the protesters?

mystictiger

Quote1)  How far away would be an acceptable distance to you?  Are you simply opposed to the protest happening at all, even if it wasn't nearby?

Out of sight and earshot. Protest in the same city by all means.

Quote2)  If you're outlawing funerals as a venue of protest are you comfortable protecting all events that people deem "sacred," and if so, how would you respond to the charge that because "sacred" is a subjective property, protesting anything can be banned essentially under that rule.
3)  If you don't buy into the subjective sacred argument because you see the potential for abuse, what makes a funeral special?  Is it because everyone is so upset who attends a funeral?  If so, what about the myriad of other societal events wherein people are deeply upset.  Why aren't those off-limits too?

You're right - a rule based only on location is dumb. I would therefore favour some kind of nature-and-location test. If you're going to require a large amount of police resources to protect / police such an event (I think of various Marches in Northern Ireland, or the recent gay pride march in Serbia), then there should be the ability to relocate / reschedule the event in the name of public order.
Quote
4)  Lets say they were protesting the war outside of these military funerals and actually had a positive message for the military men (in terms of wanting to save their life), would that be OK with you?  If not, isn't that outlawing a very powerful form of activism that could be used to end wars, and if so, aren't you essentially siding with the totalitarianism of thought and expression that our soldiers die fighting against to begin with by silencing certain opinions on the basis of the ideas expressed therein?  Doesn't that make your actions more dishonorable than any of the protesters?
Quote

That's quite a leap. Protests and hate-speech directed at the military has never stopped a war. Rather, demonstrations addressed as elected officials does that quite well.

Would you be equally as sanguine about me protesting outside a gay wedding / civil partnership, holding banners saying that, I dunno, Judy Garland was staight or something? Or perhaps outside a Bar Mitzvah in an SS uniform saying that "The only good Jew is a dead one" (I actually met someone like that. I gave him a hug, and he was so revolted at the thought of being a jew hugger, he ran off). Or perhaps outside a predominantly African-American church in a KKK outfit with a burning cross?

I think I might build an effigy of Hobbes and ceremonial burn him outside your house! :)
Want a system game? I got system games!

Caeli

#106
Quote from: mystictiger on October 19, 2010, 06:46:04 AMOut of sight and earshot. Protest in the same city by all means.

The protests are happening out of sight and out of earshot of the actual funeral. They are not happening during the funeral, and they are not happening inside funeral grounds. This has been stated several times by me as well as a few others.
ʙᴜᴛᴛᴇʀғʟɪᴇs ᴀʀᴇ ɢᴏᴅ's ᴘʀᴏᴏғ ᴛʜᴀᴛ ᴡᴇ ᴄᴀɴ ʜᴀᴠᴇ ᴀ sᴇᴄᴏɴᴅ ᴄʜᴀɴᴄᴇ ᴀᴛ ʟɪғᴇ
ᴠᴇʀʏ sᴇʟᴇᴄᴛɪᴠᴇʟʏ ᴀᴠᴀɪʟᴀʙʟᴇ ғᴏʀ ɴᴇᴡ ʀᴏʟᴇᴘʟᴀʏs

ᴄʜᴇᴄᴋ ❋ ғᴏʀ ɪᴅᴇᴀs; 'ø' ғᴏʀ ᴏɴs&ᴏғғs, ᴏʀ ᴘᴍ ᴍᴇ.
{ø 𝕨 
  𝕒 }
»  ᴇʟʟɪᴡʀɪᴍᴏ
»  ᴄʜᴏᴏsᴇ ʏᴏᴜʀ ᴏᴡɴ ᴀᴅᴠᴇɴᴛᴜʀᴇ: ᴛʜᴇ ғɪғᴛʜ sᴄʜᴏʟᴀʀʟʏ ᴀʀᴛ
»  ひらひらと舞い散る桜に 手を伸ばすよ
»  ᴘʟᴏᴛ ʙᴜɴɴɪᴇs × sᴛᴏʀʏ sᴇᴇᴅs × ᴄʜᴀʀᴀᴄᴛᴇʀ ɪɴsᴘɪʀᴀᴛɪᴏɴs

mystictiger

I did a quick google search, and it seems that WBC protest 'close' to the funeral:

Funeral Protests
"... but as they filed into the funeral, they were confronted with..."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11488556
"Mr Snyder filed the lawsuit in March 2006 after members of the church picketed the funeral of his son, Lance Cpl Matthew Snyder, who was killed in a Humvee accident"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6507971.stm
"In any country, let alone one as patriotic as the US, few actions are as provocative as protesting at a soldier's funeral. "

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=wbc+funeral+video&docid=280621614177&mid=1AC86FD42D7C7188474B1AC86FD42D7C7188474B&FORM=VIRE3#
The Patriot guard would be pointless if they weren't within eartshot ;)
Want a system game? I got system games!

Caeli

#108
"But as they filed into the funeral" could have been in a car that was in a procession on the way to the funeral site, as far as I'm concerned; your news report in that video doesn't make it very clear how close or far away they were. It would be quite a different story if you had documentation from an article or a news site about them trespassing inside a church, funeral grounds, etc.

I did not state that the protest was not happening 'close', only that it did not take place inside funeral grounds. Legally, that makes a difference. As I stated in my first post, Phelps & WBC do make sure that they stay within what is legally allowed.

Furthermore, while WBC did picket at Snyder's funeral, he did not even see them until he saw it on television after the funeral itself, because the city police (who had been informed about the protest) called Snyder, who rerouted the funeral procession.

QuoteOn the other side, the ACLU and other free-speech advocates are supporting Westboro's right to offend, as are many news organizations. Chief among their arguments: having changed the route of the procession, Snyder did not directly encounter the picketers or any of their signs at his son's funeral. He saw and read about them afterward while watching the news and searching online.

...

Aside from the sometimes cruel irony of First Amendment law, some specifics of Snyder's case could hurt him. At the jury trial, Snyder won an invasion-of-privacy claim. But how, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wondered during the oral argument, could Snyder's privacy have been invaded if Westboro picketed in an area at the edge of the church's property, some 200 to 300 ft. (60 to 90 m) from the rerouted funeral procession, as directed by law enforcement? Snyder insists that the stress of dodging the Westboro group was an intrusion, that the protesters forced him to change the funeral route and to practically sneak into a church he attended for years. Privacy law, however, tends to require a stricter, "up in your grill" prying standard. The picketers were not inside the church, shouting above the priest. In fact, they left shortly after the service started.

Also, Snyder first saw what was on the protest signs on TV, not at the funeral. Yes, the Phelpses send out press releases about their upcoming protests, but should they be held liable for what the media choose to cover? And although the Phelpses posted an awful rant against Snyder on the Internet, they did not mail it to him or pin it on his door. He found it using Google.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2021068-1,00.html

I haven't got much time to research about instances in which the Patriot Guard have shown up, but "within earshot" is rather subject to interpretation.

My impression is that the presence of the Patriot Guard serves more as a shield for funeral attendees than to actually block out noise during the actual funeral. If they were blaring music and revving their bikes during the funeral itself, you wouldn't be able to hear the priest, now would you? :P

I'm not going to derail this topic further by stating what has already been repeated. The facts of the protests are fairly clear; the issue is not whether or not they've broken the law, but whether or not the protests should be allowed "at" the funerals military servicemen and servicewomen.



When debating and posting in P&R, please find sources with evidence to back up your claims.
ʙᴜᴛᴛᴇʀғʟɪᴇs ᴀʀᴇ ɢᴏᴅ's ᴘʀᴏᴏғ ᴛʜᴀᴛ ᴡᴇ ᴄᴀɴ ʜᴀᴠᴇ ᴀ sᴇᴄᴏɴᴅ ᴄʜᴀɴᴄᴇ ᴀᴛ ʟɪғᴇ
ᴠᴇʀʏ sᴇʟᴇᴄᴛɪᴠᴇʟʏ ᴀᴠᴀɪʟᴀʙʟᴇ ғᴏʀ ɴᴇᴡ ʀᴏʟᴇᴘʟᴀʏs

ᴄʜᴇᴄᴋ ❋ ғᴏʀ ɪᴅᴇᴀs; 'ø' ғᴏʀ ᴏɴs&ᴏғғs, ᴏʀ ᴘᴍ ᴍᴇ.
{ø 𝕨 
  𝕒 }
»  ᴇʟʟɪᴡʀɪᴍᴏ
»  ᴄʜᴏᴏsᴇ ʏᴏᴜʀ ᴏᴡɴ ᴀᴅᴠᴇɴᴛᴜʀᴇ: ᴛʜᴇ ғɪғᴛʜ sᴄʜᴏʟᴀʀʟʏ ᴀʀᴛ
»  ひらひらと舞い散る桜に 手を伸ばすよ
»  ᴘʟᴏᴛ ʙᴜɴɴɪᴇs × sᴛᴏʀʏ sᴇᴇᴅs × ᴄʜᴀʀᴀᴄᴛᴇʀ ɪɴsᴘɪʀᴀᴛɪᴏɴs

Oniya

Quote from: Caeli on October 19, 2010, 08:07:37 AM
My impression is that the presence of the Patriot Guard serves more as a shield for funeral attendees than to actually block out noise during the actual funeral. If they were blaring music and revving their bikes during the funeral itself, you wouldn't be able to hear the priest, now would you? :P

I was pretty sure I'd seen this somewhere else, but a lot of the older articles on the Patriot Guard Riders' website for media sightings are expired.  Forgive me for resorting to a Wikipedia quote.

QuoteThe Patriot Guard Riders is a US motorcycle club that attends the funerals of members of the United States Armed Forces at the invitation of the deceased’s family.

The group was initially formed to shelter and protect the funerals from protesters from the Westboro Baptist Church, who claim that the deaths of American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan are divine retribution for American tolerance of homosexuality. The Patriot Guard positions itself to physically shield the mourners from the presence of the Westboro protesters by blocking the protesters from view with their motorcade, or by having members hold American flags. The group also drowns out the protesters' chants by singing patriotic songs or by revving motorcycle engines.
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

mystictiger

#110
I'm not familiar with US federal procedure, but I understand that this is is document that made the appeal to the Supreme Court. I understand further that appealate jurisdictions deal with questions of law rather than fact. I therefore find the following quote to be both insightful and horrifying;

Quote(ffOL. ffiii AT 2156, 2195.) mR. sNYDER KNEW THAT THE
PHELPSES WOULD BE PRESENT; NONETHELESS, HE ATTEMPTED
TO PUT THEM OUT OF HIS MIND AND FOCUS INSTEAD ON HIS
SON’S BURIAL. oN THE DAY OF THE FUNERAL, THE PHELPSES
PLACED THEMSELVES AT THE MAIN ENTRANCE OF sT. JOHN’S
¢ATHOLIC ¢HURCH PROPERTY TO ENSURE THAT mR. sNYDER AND
HIS FAMILY WOULD ENCOUNTER THEM. iN RESPONSE, mATTHEW
sNYDER’S FUNERAL PROCESSION WAS RE-DIRECTED TO AN
ALTERNATE ENTRANCE. (ffOL. ffiii AT 2244.) eVEN AFTER
READJUSTING THEIR ROUTE, THE sNYDERS WERE ONLY 200–300
FEET FROM THE PHELPSES DURING THE FUNERAL PROCESSION.
(ffOL. ffii AT 2079, 2141.) oN THE WAY FROM THE VIEWING TO
THE FUNERAL, AS mR. sNYDER WAS TRYING TO FOCUS ON THE
MEMORY OF HIS SON, HE LOOKED AT HIS DAUGHTERS AND SAW
THE PHELPSES’ SIGNS BEHIND THEM. (ffOL. ffiii AT 2144.)

At the Church gate is too close.

Edit: I have no idea why the text is fubared.

Edit 2: Can someone find me a link to the case reports from the two courts this has previously been through? Sadly, my Westlaw sub only covers UK cases, and I've been unable to find them reported anywhere else.
Want a system game? I got system games!

Caeli

#111
Again, the issue isn't one of legality. 200-300 feet away is within the bounds of what is allowed. If you're saying that is too close, then how far do you suggest is far enough? 500 feet? 1000 feet? Not allowed to picket? When should it be allowed - before and after two hours? Not on the same day? Not allowed at all?

Once you start setting regulations on how close funeral protesters are allowed to protest and allowed to express their free speech, you move onto a slippery slope of "how much". If you rule this a case of free speech that shouldn't be allowed, what's to say that some other protest or form of free speech will be cut because it offends someone's religion and sensibilities?
ʙᴜᴛᴛᴇʀғʟɪᴇs ᴀʀᴇ ɢᴏᴅ's ᴘʀᴏᴏғ ᴛʜᴀᴛ ᴡᴇ ᴄᴀɴ ʜᴀᴠᴇ ᴀ sᴇᴄᴏɴᴅ ᴄʜᴀɴᴄᴇ ᴀᴛ ʟɪғᴇ
ᴠᴇʀʏ sᴇʟᴇᴄᴛɪᴠᴇʟʏ ᴀᴠᴀɪʟᴀʙʟᴇ ғᴏʀ ɴᴇᴡ ʀᴏʟᴇᴘʟᴀʏs

ᴄʜᴇᴄᴋ ❋ ғᴏʀ ɪᴅᴇᴀs; 'ø' ғᴏʀ ᴏɴs&ᴏғғs, ᴏʀ ᴘᴍ ᴍᴇ.
{ø 𝕨 
  𝕒 }
»  ᴇʟʟɪᴡʀɪᴍᴏ
»  ᴄʜᴏᴏsᴇ ʏᴏᴜʀ ᴏᴡɴ ᴀᴅᴠᴇɴᴛᴜʀᴇ: ᴛʜᴇ ғɪғᴛʜ sᴄʜᴏʟᴀʀʟʏ ᴀʀᴛ
»  ひらひらと舞い散る桜に 手を伸ばすよ
»  ᴘʟᴏᴛ ʙᴜɴɴɪᴇs × sᴛᴏʀʏ sᴇᴇᴅs × ᴄʜᴀʀᴀᴄᴛᴇʀ ɪɴsᴘɪʀᴀᴛɪᴏɴs

mystictiger

There are two seperate issues: what is said and also where it is said.

If the Phelps were holding a prayer vigil while sat on the church fence / roof / doorstep, and said nothing offensive, carried no hate-filled banners, then I wouldn't have any problem with that. Given the content of their messages, the deliberate targetting of Mr Snyder, their anti-catholic, anti-war, anti-gay message (and the random conflation of all of these), I do have a problem.

You talk about 'slippery slope'. Towards what? Towards the backwards and tyranical regime we have in Europe? Still, this precious freedom of expression is routinely curtailed on grounds of national security, public decency, libel laws, public order, and so on.

The American concept of the freedom of speech is the product of a very strongly individualist approach to human rights. By contrast, the rest of the world is less extreme in their approach to this, giving varying weights to the views of the rest of the community. The Phelps can protest anywhere and anywhen. The Snyders could only bury their son once. I know which party I favour there.

Freedom of speech should never be used an excuse for hate.

Too much tolerance means that the intolerant can take over. We should be utterly tolerant, except of intolerance. Is that hypocritical? Maybe. So what.

This strongly divergent opinion stems from the divide across the Atlantic I suspect. Go and try and denying the holocaust in mainland Europe ;)
Want a system game? I got system games!

Jude

#113
Europe has terrible free speech laws, so yeah, that is what I'm afraid of.  There's a reason why the UK's libel and slander laws are the shame of the entire western world and the subject of legal tourist suits to silence controversial speech throughout the globe.  Then you have France, which is stripping away the rights of Muslims, Germany which is saying multiculturalism has failed, and that's really just dipping your toe into the problem.  Europe doesn't have enough respect for the rights of individuals in my opinion; society doesn't need to be protected by one person's words, that's idiotic, words do no real harm unless you internalize and obsess over them (except in the fire in a crowded theater, but that's got nothing to do with this) which is the personal choice of the supposed "victim."

When we get so thin-skinned as a society that we start mandating nice behavior by law in any circumstance, we're heading towards a place I don't wanna go.  That isn't the purpose of law; law exists to allow individuals to pursue whatever course they wish as long as they don't stand in the way of other people pursuing their goals.

Noelle

Quote from: mystictiger on October 19, 2010, 03:28:16 PM
If the Phelps were holding a prayer vigil while sat on the church fence / roof / doorstep, and said nothing offensive, carried no hate-filled banners, then I wouldn't have any problem with that.

All you're saying is that if you personally find it offensive, it should be banned. This has been gone over so many times in this thread that I think it should answer why offense is not a valid excuse to ban speech. If there's any lingering questions, I'd be happy to address them.

QuoteGiven the content of their messages, the deliberate targetting of Mr Snyder, their anti-catholic, anti-war, anti-gay message (and the random conflation of all of these), I do have a problem.

Already been covered. Content-based discrimination isn't acceptable. The WBC does not target these people personally, they make general statements in order to keep from being sued on charges of slander and the like. Covered here already.

QuoteYou talk about 'slippery slope'. Towards what? Towards the backwards and tyranical regime we have in Europe? Still, this precious freedom of expression is routinely curtailed on grounds of national security, public decency, libel laws, public order, and so on.

What works for Europe does not work for the US. See also: socialist benefits, attitudes towards nudity/sex, secular laws, etc. This isn't Europe, this is the US, and as much as I'd like to adopt some of Europe's finer ideas, this is not one of them. In fact, you said it yourself. We have a different culture here and in this culture, we don't require laws to prohibit people from saying something stupid. That's the beauty of it. Everyone knows it's stupid. It works for us.

QuoteFreedom of speech should never be used an excuse for hate.

Freedom of speech that you don't want to hear about is still a form of speech that's protected. The only violence their speech has incited has been other people physically attacking them. They haven't moved anyone else to protest funerals, to beat up gays, or to evangelize that America's going to hell. Freedom of speech that has limits is no longer as free as it starts out. We always err on the side of pre-established rights because it's much easier to take them away than it is to give them back.

QuoteToo much tolerance means that the intolerant can take over. We should be utterly tolerant, except of intolerance. Is that hypocritical? Maybe. So what.

This is an exaggeration. The WBC is in no way "taking over". If taking over means having laws passed that LIMIT you by moving your protest away from funeral grounds and limits it to certain times before and after, then yeah, I guess taking action the way we have and threatening even more legal cases to further limit their rights means we're doomed, or something.

mystictiger

QuoteAll you're saying is that if you personally find it offensive, it should be banned. This has been gone over so many times in this thread that I think it should answer why offense is not a valid excuse to ban speech. If there's any lingering questions, I'd be happy to address them.

See the new thread! :)

QuoteAlready been covered. Content-based discrimination isn't acceptable. The WBC does not target these people personally, they make general statements in order to keep from being sued on charges of slander and the like. Covered here already.

I strongly suggest you read the two cases. Phelps admits deliberately targetting Snyder.
Want a system game? I got system games!

Will

Snyder had to deliberately -seek out- the stuff that was offensive.  His only legal complaint was that rerouting the procession was "stressful."  I'm sure it was.  But, really?  Can we really sue someone for stressing us out?  If so, I've got quite a list, and I need to find an attorney like yesterday.
If you can heal the symptoms, but not affect the cause
It's like trying to heal a gunshot wound with gauze

One day, I will find the right words, and they will be simple.
- Jack Kerouac

Asuras

Quote from: NoelleI'm pretty sure they don't. At least not the way you're making it sound. The WBC isn't even protesting on the funeral grounds thanks to the laws passed. That's the only thing that's really been done, is to limit the distance from the funeral they can be and their allotted time slot to do so. Congress has only agreed that they shouldn't be directly ON the site and shouldn't hang around too long, not that their speech needs to be removed entirely. Maybe I missed something?

Thanks to the laws passed. If you agree with the law we have nothing to argue about.

Quote from: NoelleTime and time again, our judicial system, the very thing that is supposed to be interpreting the intent of our Constitution, has upheld their right. Sorry you don't agree, but the last I checked, they have just as much of a check and balance as the other branches.

Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire. The Court said unanimously that even if you have political content to your message there is a level of incivility - even in a public place - which does not fall under First Amendment protection. The Supreme Court continues to uphold that reasoning to this day.

Quote from: NoelleNot all of the laws you're talking about involve offense. Pot is not banned because people are offended, pot is banned because of the false notion our government has upheld that legalizing it will be a detriment to our society.

Wrong or not people think that society will be worse off.  They think they'll be worse off. They think they'll be hurt, offended, annoyed. I don't think they're particularly concerned with the pot smoker.

Quote from: NoelleAgain: laws are passed to maintain a functioning and healthy society, not just because some people take personal offense to it.

Which is in the eye of the beholder. I think funerals free of heckling are cogent with a functioning and healthy society.

Quote from: NoelleThat's absolutely ridiculous.

Thanks.

Quote from: NoelleSuicide is illegal, as far as I understand, largely to get help for those who are unsuccessful -- and even then, those people aren't usually punished, they're sent to a mental health facility. Suicide is unhealthy for society, so we discourage it.

But there you are. It's not about the individual doing what he/she wants - as you say, it's about being unhealthy for society.

So you agree that society can dictate whether a person dies of his own accord. It seems like less of an imposition to dictate that they can't protest within some distance of a funeral.

Quote from: NoelleI believe I already mentioned earlier that there ARE "offense laws", so yes, things like public nudity and public sex and banning nudity/swear words/etc on TV are offense-based. And they're largely not always in the right. I think at least the swearing/nudity on TV/radio/etc ones are ridiculous, but that's a whole different topic.

It's not a different topic since you've invoked legality and constitutionality on several occasions, and yet.

As I said before we aren't lawyers, though, so I think it's irrelevant.

Quote from: NoelleIDK, my BFF The Social Contract which is also closely related to the more generalized social contracts, the very things by which our society -- and government have formed? Hahaha, ridiculous commercial reference aside, I think Hobbes and Rousseau and the gang would be awfully offended at their long-researched, debated, and well-formulated philosophies were boiled down to little more than people getting offended. It's a little more complex than that.

No one that has read Leviathan would cite Hobbes in defense of free speech. It is the most fervent argument in favor of fascism since Plato and he would say that I'm not being nearly hard enough on the WBC.

And "social contract." It has nothing to do with "sovereign rights," which you have cited before. These concepts are incoherent with one another. Neither Hobbes nor Rousseau thought that there was such a thing as "sovereign rights" - they thought society should arrive at a contract, a purely artificial thing, based on what materially benefits them. Harm and offense are part of that. Rousseau had a far more expansive concept of liberty than Hobbes did but I'm not sure that even he would see the social value in protesting a funeral.

Quote from: NoelleBut the people writing them weren't writing them solely to avenge their own offense, that's selfish and undermines the life that was taken.

When I was growing up I used to think that, but then I realized - why don't people care about people dying in Rwanda or the Congo? It's on TV all the time, they see it when they sit down for dinner, why don't they care? Why don't they do something? They pay for police, an army, they're prepared to fight for their country - if it was their family being shot up what would they do?

It's because they don't value human life. They value the people they love and they protect them. Anyone else is charity. It's selfish.

Quote from: NoelleI'm saying if the majority didn't want to hear you talk about being gay and banned it, you'd probably be pretty indignant about it.

Actually since I'm closeted I probably wouldn't mind but if they closed my gay clubs I'd be pretty fucking pissed.

But I'm not asking the WBC to stop talking. I'm just questioning the venues.

Quote from: NoelleThey're not protesting on funeral grounds. They are not literally at the funeral. They are OUTSIDE the funeral. They are NOT there on the grave dancing in top hats and pissing on the headstone. They are literally NOT at the funeral at any point in time during their protest.

Yeah, there's a line drawn in the sand at the edge of the property line that magically hides the protesters from the funeral...

They don't have to physically be on the tombstone to disrupt the funeral. And frankly even if the funeral cortege has to see them I'm not sure that's far away enough.

Quote from: NoelleKind of like how there are plenty of other places to put a mosque away from Ground Zero?

As someone who works in one of the tallest buildings in Manhattan, I want that mosque there. The people setting up that mosque are the kind of people that Islam needs to represent it in America. And actually there is already a mosque in that building.

But if people show up next to Ground Zero with placards saying that me (a gay guy) or my friends in the military deserve to die, there is a place for them in American political discourse but there can be certain reasonable limitations on where they can do that. The WBC and the people setting up that mosque downtown are not the same.

Quote from: NoelleWhat places are we talking exactly? If a public place that can be used by any other group isn't good enough, then you can refer right back to content discrimination.

Does the WBC need to be at a funeral to get its point across? Because I fervently agree that it its valuable for an unpopular viewpoint to have a place to state its beliefs. The WBC, Muslims, and gay guys all deserve a place to speak. But society (the judiciary) can - and does routinely say - that they can do that somewhere else if it causes greater harm to American society than it benefits American democracy. A funeral is not the only place these people can go. Can we not draw a line without erasing them?

Trieste