Fred Phelps takes it up the ass.

The BBQ Pit
41

[QUOTE=BellRungBookShut-CandleSnuffed]
Well, there wasn’t anything that happened when they disrupted Phillips Exeter during a protest back in 2000 (or maybe 01). They were protesting the school changing its rules about allowing the cohabitation of same-sex faculty. The school’s response to the WBC showing up was to remove all of the students from the classroom areas and gather them in the gym (away from the protest). This was certainly a disruption of the normal school functioning.

Unless Exeter wasn’t protected by whatever laws you might remember because it’s a private school, I’m not sure there are laws like that (unless they just weren’t acted on, but that seems unlikely). I agree with you that I’d like schools to be protected as well.
[/QUOTE]
Quite possibly i’m remembering wrongly. My memory is not fantastic!

42

[QUOTE=niblet_head]
Sure they are. Like the other night when I and friends sat around a table at a public restaurant and strongly criticized this administration and not a one of us was picked up by a goon squad later. Or anyone who expresses an opinion at any time and isn’t punished for it. It’s such an everyday freedom that most people don’t realize they’re using it when they are. I think that’s what it’s for as much as organized larger protests against (or for) whatever.
[/QUOTE]

OK, but as I say, it just seems like that isn’t the case. The thorn is more palpable than the rose.

43

I usually avoid threads regarding Fred Phelps because they’re too fucking depressing for the human soul. But I just saw an article at MSNBC and immediately recognized what this thread must be about, and wanted to say fuck yah.

44

[QUOTE=Mangetout]
I realise there are many things wrong - in terms of principle - with saying this, but I can’t think of another way to express it: If free speech is so great, why does it always seem that the high-profile notable examples of it consist of vile bollocks like Phred spews?

I mean, I do think free speech is great, it just seems like people generally aren’t making best use of it.
[/QUOTE]

Basically, because it’s only when people are offended by free speech that they want to shut it down. It’s the hard cases, like the Phelps clan and “Illinois Nazis”, that generally moderate people want to stop because “They go too far.”

But personally, I’m happy for the Phelps family to keep on offending nice, moderate people because they clearly do for more harm than good to their insane anti-gay agenda.,

45

I’m with Miller. You simply cannot suspend civil liberties when it suits you. If they’re on private property, then haul them off to jail for trespassing. But on public property, we must uphold people’s right to speak their mind. Holding up anti-abortion posters in front of an abortion clinic or screaming “Good! Another dead soldier” as a funeral procession passes are vile ways to express ourselves, but we must tolerate them in a free society. Once we start picking and choosing what is acceptable, we lose the essence of liberty.

Personally, I’d much rather face a man like Phelps, who spouts his nonsense loudly and publicly, than a KKK guy who tries to recruit people in secrecy. It’s refreshing to know who your enemies are so you can make sure your kids don’t play with their kids.

Sadly, Phelps hasn’t taken it up the ass. This verdict will do nothing to shut him down because he’ll never pay a dime of it. He’ll continue to work his particular brand of hatred, which is his prerogative as a citizen of the United States of America. The home of the free and the brave. And also the stupid and closed-minded. (That was in verse 3.)

46

Miller,you’re like the pied piper with all these people following you around.

Freedom of speech means nothing if only speech YOU agree with is protected. Before you know, we’ll only be able to voice our opinions in “Free Speech Zones” and have to show papers proving we agree with the government before allowed into arenas where politicians are speaking. . .
Oh SHIT!

47

What does the First Amendment, which limits the right of Congress to limit free speech, have to do with a tort developed under common law?

48

[QUOTE=mhendo]
Anyway, sure the owner of private property can restrict what people say on his or her property. After all, the owner always has the option of asking the offensive person to simply leave the property. He or she can say, essentially, “Don’t say stuff like that, or you have to leave,” and can then ask the person to leave if they don’t comply. And if they don’t leave, the property owner can call on law enforcement to remove them.
[/QUOTE]

To a certain extent, the government may act as the “owner” of public property – for instance, try distibuting antiwar leaflets in the halls of the Pentagon and see how far you get (answer: you won’t even get inside said halls if you don’t have government-approved business there).

The differences are that the government (unlike a private owner) must show that its restrictions on the use of public property are not arbitrary and not so comprehensive as to effectively silence a given person or viewpoint. I predict that the courts will find that protecting military funerals from disruption qualifies as a sufficient rational basis to satisfy the former condition, and that such a narrowly-tailored restriction clearly satisfies the latter condition.

Perhaps one of the resident legal eagles will chime in on this point.

49

[QUOTE=Cat Fight]
I’m delighted by the verdict, but am no fan of the thread title. If you’re really not into homophobia, using ‘takes it up the ass’ as a slur, one that’s implicitly against homosexuals (or women or even pegged straight guys), is sort of ironic.
[/QUOTE]

So if I said I got screwed by the IRS, it would be a slur against straight women? If I say *Battlefield Earth * sucks, am I insulting gay men or straight women who practice fellatio? Please explain how this works. :confused:

50

[QUOTE=sciurophobic]
What does the First Amendment, which limits the right of Congress to limit free speech, have to do with a tort developed under common law?
[/QUOTE]

One relevant case is New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, where the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment limited Sullivan’s right to sue for the torts of defamation and libel.

51

[QUOTE=PunditLisa]
I’m with Miller. You simply cannot suspend civil liberties when it suits you. If they’re on private property, then haul them off to jail for trespassing. But on public property, we must uphold people’s right to speak their mind. Holding up anti-abortion posters in front of an abortion clinic or screaming “Good! Another dead soldier” as a funeral procession passes are vile ways to express ourselves, but we must tolerate them in a free society. Once we start picking and choosing what is acceptable, we lose the essence of liberty.
[/quote]
Here’s the thing, at least to me. The Constitution and the First Amendment were meant to protect people from the actions of the government. While pHELLeps has every right, under the Constitution, to stand and say whatever he likes on public property, he still has to face the consequences of those actions. This isn’t a case of “suspension of civil liberties”, it’s one citizen suing another citizen for a tort.

I agree, the enemy you know is better than the one you don’t. But both are still enemies.

Again, this is a civil case for actions taken by one person against another. This isn’t the US Government stopping somebody from talking.

Fred certainly has the right to say what he wants, but that doesn’t mean he has the right to avoid any consequences for his actions.

52

The right to swing your fist ends at my nose.

Now the question is where does the right to yell “Your son is burning in Hell!” ends.

53

Doesn’t the first amendment, which grants the Phelp’s freedom of speach, also grant the family of the deceased a right to a peaceful assembly? I don’t know I’m asking. And if that is the case wouldn’t it be proper to conclude that the actions of the WBC were to deliberately cause distress or at least provoke a (preferably violent then-we-can-sue)response.

54

[QUOTE=Hamlet]
I agree, the enemy you know is better than the one you don’t. But both are still enemies.
[/QUOTE]
Also, more of one kind doesn’t necessarily mean fewer of the other, so it’s not really even a choice.

55

In other threads I have stressed that the funeralgoers had rights as well, ones that were being given short shrift by the people who feared the civil-liberties implications of funeral-specific legislation pending at that time.

I know this is a different topic, but it is a related one. Nobody is saying that Phelps shouldn’t protest, or even censoring what he says. Any measure passed so far is a time and place restriction, and these have generally been found constitutional so long as they are not terribly confining and are content neutral in their application.

56

[QUOTE=mhendo]
I’m sure you’re right. In fact, the verdict in this case makes clear that you are (at least until the appeal).

But, IMO, freedom of speech should be a defense in cases like this. What good is a First Amendment right if someone can sue you into bankruptcy for exercising it on public property?
[/QUOTE]

I think an appropriate analogy might be a picnic at a public park. Just because my picnic is at a public park doesn’t give you the right to crash it.

Church members aren’t protesting by marching down a public street as the Nazis did in Skokie. Funerals are private events at which people mourn and therefore involve people who are suffering. By protesting at these private events, Westboro’s protests are intended to hurt. Moreover, these funerals are for private citizens, not public figures, and I think that needs to be taken into consideration.

Look. I’m not saying that the Phelps clan doesn’t have the right to speak their piece. They do, and I will defend that right, much as I don’t agree with their point of view. What I am saying is they don’t have the right to step on people who are already in pain. That’s twisting the knife, don’t you think?

Robin

57

[QUOTE=LonesomePolecat]
So if I said I got screwed by the IRS, it would be a slur against straight women? If I say *Battlefield Earth * sucks, am I insulting gay men or straight women who practice fellatio? Please explain how this works. :confused:
[/QUOTE]

Are you really saying ‘takes it up the ass’ isn’t considered an insult to a straight man because it likens him to a homosexual (or a woman)? I just find it funny that you’d use that particular slur in this particular instance (delighting in the downfall of a noted homophobe). As another poster said, I was expecting to find out that Phelps is, indeed, a homosexual a la Larry Craig.

58

[QUOTE=Tuckerfan]
Wouldn’t Phelps use of “God Hates Fags” banners and the like constitute “fighting words” which are clearly not protected by freedom of speech?
[/QUOTE]
Exactly. The rest of this discussion is pointless, because Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 1942, states that

While there has been some narrowing of the definition since then, what the Phelps family does is still what would be considered “fighting words” and is not protected speech.

59

[QUOTE=Cat Fight]
Are you really saying ‘takes it up the ass’ isn’t considered an insult to a straight man because it likens him to a homosexual (or a woman)? I just find it funny that you’d use that particular slur in this particular instance (delighting in the downfall of a noted homophobe). As another poster said, I was expecting to find out that Phelps is, indeed, a homosexual a la Larry Craig.
[/QUOTE]

No, I think it’s supposed to be considered hateful to Phred (that is, something that he really, really would not want to happen to him), in this instance. But we’ve had long and really, really retarded arguments on this board as to whether “sucks” is a homophobic insult, so by all means, have at it.

60

[QUOTE=Hamlet]
Again, this is a civil case for actions taken by one person against another. This isn’t the US Government stopping somebody from talking.

Fred certainly has the right to say what he wants, but that doesn’t mean he has the right to avoid any consequences for his actions.
[/QUOTE]

(I’m a layperson, not a lawyer.) I hear what you’re saying, and it makes some sense. I know the First Amendment was established to prevent the government from hauling me away if I say, “Fuck Bush.” I also know that, if I say that in front of a Young Republicans meeting, they can yell “Shut up!” at me until they’re hoarse, because they’re not the government.

But – and here’s my ignorance – isn’t the court system part of the government? They’re essentially saying, “OK, the government can’t stop you from saying that God hates fags, but it can put an $11 million price tag on such actions.” Isn’t that, de facto, essentially the government halting my ability, since I’m not a multi-millionaire, to yell “God hates fags”?

It seems akin to a city government saying, “You can say whatever you want in this public park, because of the First Amendment. You just need to buy a permit first. Please bring your $125,000 to the cashier’s window.”

Separately, I totally get that the Phelps were disrupting the funeral, and were even being dicks about it. But isn’t the fine for disturbing the peace, even in a dickish manner, significantly less than $11 million?

Me, being non-lawyerly, would have liked a decision along the lines of, “Fred, you can of course say what you want, because this is America. In that spirit, I’d like to say that you’re a piece of worthless shit. Quite literally, actually. You’re found guilty of disturbing the peace, and I sentence you to [maximum penalty for such a transgression]. Also, there’s a restraining order now in place between you and this cemetery. Fuck off.”

[Added on preview] dropzone says that what the Phelpses say isn’t protected because they’re “fightin’ words” (that phrase doesn’t need a ‘g’), that is, “[they] are no essential part of any exposition of ideas…” I’d say that the Phelpses are indeed trying to express an idea, to wit, that this country is too pro-gay. The logic that leads them to protest military funerals because of this country’s perceived pro-gay agenda eludes me, but there’s certainly a (reprehensible and almost senseless) idea there.