Fred Phelps takes it up the ass.

The BBQ Pit
81

Gladly.

Like I said before, this fits in with existing law, so think it is appropriate that existing law be modified to deal with this contingency. Here in Virginia, when lawmakers set out to do this, they already had a statute on the books dealing with disorderly conduct in public places - so they amended it:

Now, as I said above, this fits in well with existing laws concerning protests in other public places, one of which is addressed in this section of the code, so it is appropriate that the change be made here. Penalties were left the same - I bolded the amended sections. This is appropriate too - similar crimes should be punished similarly.

Also, I think this law is appropriate in that it does not address picketing as a specific act - only that such may be punished if it is disruptive. Presumably localities will handle this when drafting ordinances - that is as it should be, since they know how conditions are in their specific areas and may wish to handle this in the law in their own way.

It is appropriate too in that all funerals are treated the same. I don’t think we should set up any protections for “military” funerals (a misnomer, if you ask me, since the official military component of these private funerals is quite limited) that aren’t granted to all funerals. While this was necessary at the federal level because of their jurisdiction over federal veterans cemeteries, legislation at the state level should address funerals in general.

82

Nonlawyer checking in to make some points that I hope the attorneys among us will confirm, amend, or overrule if need be:

The court system is indeed part of our government, but in a civil case – which this lawsuit is – the courts provide a neutral forum in which the private parties can hash out their dispute, within the contours of law and precedent governing such matters but without an official thumb on the scale. The judge rules on the questions of law – think of him/her as a referee – while the jury makes an impartial assessment of the evidence presented and determines who’s (more) in the right. That’s the theory, and while the reality isn’t always so pristine, our court system is on the whole remarkably fair and just.

In a civil suit the government (unless it’s one of the parties to the action) isn’t doing anything of its own volition; it’s proving the means for a private party to seek redress for a perceived wrong. 'Tain’t the gubmint putting the price tag on Phelps’s free speech rights; 'tis the litigant who sued Phred for damages, and the 12 citizens who heard the case as presented by both sides, digested the law as explained by the judge, and made up their minds who was right and who got what.

On the public-park permit issue: A government is entitled to put reasonable restrictions on access to a public space in its role as guardian of public health, welfare and safety, but the key word here is “reasonable”. Yes, it can require a permit, within narrowly drawn parameters, but a patently ridiculous fee would be struck down pronto by the courts (there they go sticking their noses in again, eh?). The burden in fact is on the government to show damn good reason why access, conduct and/or speech should be trammeled.

83

Well, I right there with you as a layperson not a lawyer, but in a civil case like this isn’t the court acting as a mediator between 2 citizens, and the judgment decided by a jury? Other than imposing court costs, “the government” isn’t collecting any money, so I don’t see that as imposing prohibitive barrier to 1st ammendment rights.

84

Ok. I won’t pretend I understand all that fully, and i’d very much like if someone could explain this part to me;

“However, the conduct prohibited under subdivision A, B or C of this section shall not be deemed to include the utterance or display of any words or to include conduct otherwise made punishable under this title.”

I think really my problems are with the actual law itself rather than the addition of funeral and memorial services to it. If I understand this correctly, I would be able to use this law to, for example, ban any kind of protest at my governmental building on the basis that it negatively affects my entrance or entry to the building. This would include any kind of protests with significant numbers, regardless of the actual unpleasantness of the protestors. Likewise at schools, literary society (what’s a literary society, anyway? A book club?) or place of religious worship. No to courtrooms, too.

So really, this would mean that any political protest would have to be carried out either by a pathetically small group (so as not to impede entry/exit), or in a place removed from what’s being protested.

In terms of actually working… i’m not sure. Can it be proved that Phelps and his ilk’s actions have a tendency to cause violent retribution? How many times does it need to happen for it to be considered a “tendency”?

More on the just interesting side, it means it’s perfectly legitimate for me to shout death threats, insults and so on at the President while he’s travelling in a motorcade (at least under this law alone); he will not respond with acts of violence whatever I say. It’s nice to know I can’t be arrested for being an ass to the President in Virginia (treason or something certainly though). :wink:

85

Those utterances would be the aforementioned fighting words, which could turn the whole thing into an unlawful assembly and make this particular law moot in this case.

And I don’t particularly care whether you have a problem with this whole law or not. I’m far more concerned with whether it is constitutional. Since nearly every state has laws just like this one on the books, the answer points to yes.

86

Don’t bet on it. There are lots more laws in the code than I’ve quoted here.

87

Actually, despite the claims made in this thread, the issue of “fighting words” was not even a live one in the case at hand. It might become relevant if/when the case makes it to a higher court on appeal, but those implying that “fighting words” doctrine are at the heart of this ruling are, so far at least, mistaken.

And for me, it’s the precise opposite.

I don’t care if those laws happen to pass constitutional muster; i still think they’re bad laws for a case like this, and that those who support them don’t really support free speech, no matter how much they might kid themselves to the contrary.

88

Please see Hustler Magazine vs. Falwell:

IANAL etc. and I do not know how much if any of this ruling would apply in the case of a protest at a funeral for a private figure, but the notion that the First Amendment may not serve as a defense against this claim is false.

Nor do I know how much if at all the “fighting words” doctrine would apply. Personally I find the fighting words doctrine abhorrent.

89

It is not “peaceful assembly,” meaning the right to gather and be left alone by other people. It is “the right of the people peaceably to assemble,” meaning that the government may not prohibit people from gathering together for non-violent purposes.

90

Fair enough, then. But I would suggest to you that you still need populour support for the thing, and while you needn’t care about what I think you should probably care about what other Americans think on this. Even if you think they’re wrong.

Thank you for pointing out what I explicitly pointed out twice in the segment you quote here.

91

Lucky for you, I reckon, that saying “fuck yah” isn’t criminal. Yet.

92

I apologize if I made it appear that fighting words had anything to do with the court’s decision. I mentioned it only as a counter to all of the hand wringing over the First Amendment in this thread, showing that the SCOTUS has already set some limits on it.

93

Right, but you also specifically said that “what the Phelps family does is still what would be considered ‘fighting words’ and is not protected speech.” I’m not convinced of that—especially not in a protest that takes place 1000 feet away from the event, and that the plaintiff acknowledges he didn’t even witness in person—and i’m not aware that the Phelps family’s speech has ever been deemed by a court to be “fighting words.”

Also, while you quoted from the Chaplinsky decision, you neglected to observe that, in the 65 years since that decision was handed down, the courts have continually narrowed the scope and definition of what constitutes “fighting words” and the extent to which such words can be prohibited.

Personally, i think that even some of the revisions or qualifications still go too far. For example, the 1971 Cohen v. California decision states that fighting words are “personally abusive epithets which, when addressed to the ordinary citizen, are, as a matter of common knowledge, inherently likely to provoke violent reactions.” Well, i don’t think that reasonable people should ever resort to violence in response to mere words, unless those words are themselves a direct threat of imminent violence, such as “I’m going to beat the crap out of you.” Just MHO.

94

Well, like you mentioned, the major difference was that Falwell was a public figure, and as such, the Sullivan rule applied.

95

New link to the Hustler v Falwell decision, as the previous one, while I could access it previously, is now leading to a subscription sign-in page.

96

Why can’t he be arrested for disturbing the peace? Or is that way too obvious and naive? How about hate speech?
And can someone link a pic of Shirley? I have a hankering to see crazy lamplight eyes (and I’m afraid to google).

Thanks.

97

Shirley

98

Ummm…correct me if I’m wrong, please. But that law, as written, doesn’t apply to the Phelps case. Specifically, neither of the following:

is satisfied. Snyder, by his own admission, did not see or hear the protestors. I would think that takes care of (i). Since no altercations occurred, I’d say that (ii) doesn’t apply on its face.

Now, I understand that part of your point was simply to provide a constitutional example restricting free speech. But part of Revenant Threshold’s request was one which I don’t think could lead down a bad road. Not to put words in his post (as he seems to be satisfied), but I would think that a suitable example law should specifically cover the WBC case. The devil is in the details, after all.

99

They weren’t disturbing the peace. And, as I understand it, there is no such thing as an independent crime for hate speech – it simply serves to augment the punishment for an underlying crime.

100

Obligatory “Seperated at birth” link.