Fred Phelps takes it up the ass.

[Sampiro]

For those with the patience, here’s a post-verdict audio interview with her. As batshit crazy and unrepentant and unapologetic as you think, but you can tell that in there somewhere she’s scared shitless about this verdict.

From her wiki is this comment:

Keith Allen revealed in his documentary on the WBC, “Keith Allen Will Burn In Hell”, that Shirley has an illegitimate son, Sam, after it was uncovered by a local media student.[7]

I’m wondering if this is true (and if the baby’s Fred’s). I’m pretty sure she’d have sued wiki and the writer and the makers of Jergen’s Lotion and the governor of Hawaii if it wasn’t. (The family files lawsuits constantly against psychotically random targets- most never go to trial.)

[dropzone]

@mhendo

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.”

To the best of my knowledge it has not, but since, as near as I can tell, most of their trips to court have been for lawsuits filed by them, the topic has apparently not come up. The Snyder suit appears to have been the first to come to trial that was filed by the victims of Phelps’ psychosis; I assume other people have been either scared off by his lawyers or thought it best to ignore the rabid dog in hope that he’d go away.

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.

Reread my posts and you’ll see I mentioned the narrowing a couple times.

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.

Many equally reasonable people would disagree with you, which is why we need a legal system.

Oh, and folks should note that the complaint (found here-PDF, but not that big) is not limited to, or primarily about, the funeral protests. One way Phelps makes life easier for lawyers is that he posts so much juicy stuff on his website. Quoted in the complaint are these two nuggets that are patently defamatory:

God blessed you, Mr. and Mrs. Snyder, with a resource and his name was Matthew. He was an arrow in your quiver. In thanks to God for the comfort the child could bring you, you had a DUTY to prepare the child to serve the LORD his GOD - PERIOD! You did JUST THE OPPOSITE - you raised him for the devil.

and

Albert and Julie RIPPED that body apart and taught Matthew to defy his Creator, to divorce, and to commit adultery. They taught him how to support the largest pedophile machine in the history of the world, the Roman Catholic monstrosity. They also, in supporting satanic Catholicism, taught Matthew to be an idolator.

The internet has given Fred a forum, but it has also given him rope, and he pulled off more than enough to hang him.

[Digital_Stimulus]

@dropzone

Quoted in the complaint are these two nuggets that are patently defamatory:

It’s not clear to me that those are defamatory (much less patently defamatory) – my knowledge of what qualifies (legally) is close to non-existent. Can you tell me why they would be considered such?

[mhendo]

@dropzone

Quoted in the complaint are these two nuggets that are patently defamatory.

Really?

And yet not one news article about the story mentions that WBC was ruled to have defamed anyone. Every story i’ve read says that the award was for “invasion of privacy and intent to inflict emotional distress.”

In fact:

Westboro Baptist Church did not defame the father of a Marine when it wrote on its Web site that he taught his son about adultery and idolatry, a federal judge ruled Monday.

On the Web site, members of the Topeka, Kan., church said Spring Garden Township resident Albert Snyder taught his son, Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder, those lessons by being divorced.

In his ruling, U.S. District Court Judge Richard Bennett said those accusations might have harmed a person’s reputation in the 16th century but not in 2007.

The fundamentalist church, which pickets soldiers’ funerals, was cleared of defamation in the lawsuit filed by Albert Snyder, but still faces other allegations, including invasion of privacy, at a trial set to begin next week.

Why is it that legal terms like “defamation” and “fighting words” bring out so many people who claim to know exactly what they mean, and yet are contradicted by the evidence and the rulings in the very case they’re discussing?

[dropzone]

Because the courts are WRONG! I mean, DUH!

(my post was written before I saw the ruling, which is STILL wrong. I mean, DUH!)

[Tuckerfan]

NPR interview with Rodney Smolla of the Washington and Lee University School of Law on the ruling and it’s implications.

[Liberal]

@Tuckerfan

NPR interview with Rodney Smolla of the Washington and Lee University School of Law on the ruling and it’s implications.

I thought this comment from the article was telling:

Sarpy County Attorney Lee Polikov said when the Westboro followers specifically target grieving families, "they don’t really deserve the protection of freedom of speech, freedom of religion."What the fuck? It’s not enough that our rights are bestowed by government fiat, but now we must deserve them as well? I guess that explains why gays can’t get married: when they do all those icky things, they don’t deserve equal protection.