Forget it, John. I have no problem with laws which target speech which causes danger or assembly which turns violent or which prevents constitutionally protected actions, but I don’t want laws being put on the books which restrict legal speech or peaceful assembly. Congress is trying to criminalize speech because they don’t like the message. This isn’t congress’s decision to make, and it’s not ours either.
Once again, if you’re going to eliminate protests at funerals, you have to eliminate all demonstrations, including those pro-America or pro-military or it’s unconstitutional. Hell, it’s probably unconstitutional anyway. You can’t just target protests.
I think the funerals should be protested for completely different reasons from Phelps. But since I think the funerals should be protested, we shouldn’t stop Phelps from protesting just because we have different.
(I won’t go into my reason for wanting the funerals protested becuase it is not relevant to the thread.)
Viewpoint discrimination is that worst form of anti-free speech measures. So since the funerals should be protested (for other reasons), we shouldn’t stop Phelps no matter what his reasons (reasons that I don’t support).
I am joining in over here…good idea, Whynot, to start a new thread. Didn’t mean to completely hijack the old one…
Just to start off, an answer to something jsgoddess said to me over on the other thread…
I don’t believe in screaming! I have some very definite opinions on this & other subjects, but I don’t believe that people who disagree with me are evil, or stupid. So, I try to approach it from that viewpoint. Besides, I really don’t believe that anything said here has much possibility of changing anyone’s mind…the most we can hope for is to try to understand where the other side is coming from. This is why I asked the question in the first place.
Anyway, I read the article, and it was very interesting. However, I still believe the conclusion is wrong. First, I want to re-post something else I said in the previous thread, because I think it is relevant here…
First of all, the article makes the statement that a fertilized egg is no different from a sperm cell or egg cell separately, in terms of its potential to be a baby. As I said above, this makes no sense to me. The fertilized egg WILL BE a baby, if it is healthy and nothing interferes with it, but an egg by itself or a sperm by itself will NEVER be a baby. Saying again and again that the zygote is a “potential” person does not erase the fact that it will be a person…it is biological destiny.
Also, I think their search for a “uniquely human characterisitic” is a little remiss…they skipped over a huge one without even a mention…human DNA. I think my OB/Gyn would have been pretty startled if he did an amnio on me and discovered my baby had horse DNA! And I can never really get past the fact that even women who have had an abortion, when given the opportunity to see an ultrasound of their wanted baby at 8 weeks gestation, will still call it “my baby” and show the picture to people, even though it looks like a tadpole. So, I don’t think the fact that it doesn’t have the characteristic of *looking * human at that stage is relevant.
Finally, I don’t like their conclusion that human thought is the relevant turning point into “personhood.” To me, it is too much of a slippery slope, that this criteria will also be applied to people after they are born. Fir instance, some babies are born with nothing but a brain stem…is it ok to kill these babies?
So, again, thank you for the article…it gave me the insight I was seeking into the logic used by the pro-choice side, but it also actually reinforced my own opinion.
It’s not the message being outlawed, it’s the manner in which it’s delivered. Phelps and his ilk will be able to say the exact same thing a little further away, where it isn’t disrupting a funeral to the same degree.
I’m normally about as pro-free speech as anyone, but there have to be some restrictions on how that speech is delivered. A person can’t legally stand outside your house at 3 AM screaming at you over a megaphone. Why should they have any more right to disrupt the funeral of your loved ones than they have to disrupt your sleep? Why should Congress have any less right to regulate that?
I only wish the bill applied to all funerals, not just military funerals.
Sure, if it’s a private cemetary. But isn’t a national cemetary public property? In any case, from what I’ve seen on their site, these guys don’t go into the actual cemetary. They stand outside on the sidewalks (public property and very protected by the constitution) or in parks (also protected), protesting from there. Then again, a lot of cemetaries they’ve protested at have been private and not protected by the constitution. I have no idea what the existing laws are in a national cemetary (but if it wasn’t public property, why do we need a special law?).
Listen to politicans. When they saw they are against the war, listen how they qualify it by saying something about how great the troops are or what a great job the troops are doing.
I know that they say that. So what? That’s not the same as the “if you’re against the war, you’re against the troops” garbage that apparently worked on almost everybody when the war was starting.
Truth is, SCOTUS has restricted free speech which was peaceful - they’ve ruled strip bar laws are OK, but they shouldn’t.
If it’s not violent nor infringing on someone else’s rights, you have to deal with the fact that a cost of freedom is hearing from assholes every once in a while.
I am joining in over here…good idea, Whynot, to start a new thread. Didn’t mean to completely hijack the old one…
Just to start off, an answer to something jsgoddess said to me over on the other thread…
I don’t believe in screaming! I have some very definite opinions on this & other subjects, but I don’t believe that people who disagree with me are evil, or stupid. So, I try to approach it from that viewpoint. Besides, I really don’t believe that anything said here has much possibility of changing anyone’s mind…the most we can hope for is to try to understand where the other side is coming from. This is why I asked the question in the first place.
Anyway, I read the article, and it was very interesting. However, I still believe the conclusion is wrong. First, I want to re-post something else I said in the previous thread, because I think it is relevant here…
First of all, the article makes the statement that a fertilized egg is no different from a sperm cell or egg cell separately, in terms of its potential to be a baby. As I said above, this makes no sense to me. The fertilized egg WILL BE a baby, if it is healthy and nothing interferes with it, but an egg by itself or a sperm by itself will NEVER be a baby. Saying again and again that the zygote is a “potential” person does not erase the fact that it will be a person…it is biological destiny.
Also, I think their search for a “uniquely human characterisitic” is a little remiss…they skipped over a huge one without even a mention…human DNA. I think my OB/Gyn would have been pretty startled if he did an amnio on me and discovered my baby had horse DNA! And I can never really get past the fact that even women who have had an abortion, when given the opportunity to see an ultrasound of their wanted baby at 8 weeks gestation, will still call it “my baby” and show the picture to people, even though it looks like a tadpole. So, I don’t think the fact that it doesn’t have the characteristic of *looking * human at that stage is relevant.
Finally, I don’t like their conclusion that human thought is the relevant turning point into “personhood.” To me, it is too much of a slippery slope, that this criteria will also be applied to people after they are born. Fir instance, some babies are born with nothing but a brain stem…is it ok to kill these babies?
So, again, thank you for the article…it gave me the insight I was seeking into the logic used by the pro-choice side, but it also actually reinforced my own opinion.
I strongly agree on an intellectual level with those arguing against this law. The fact that Phelps would most probably win in a lawsuit and thus fund his evil organization for years to come is an additional factor that really clinches it for me. But this view is an almost purely intellectual one for me.
I distinctly recall a philosophy professor I once had teaching us that there are times that we really must listen to that tiny voice inside our heads proclaiming “poppycock!” Might this be a time where our intellect is leading us to an unjust position?
Given the widely held opinion that the first person in a debate to employ the Nazis in an argument automatically loses, I must concede defeat. But in the rest of my mind/heart/gut, I’m far more sympathetic to Woody Allen’s character’s view in Manhattan as seen in this snippet of dialogue:
Now, I’m well aware of – and I agree with – all the moral, legal, and rational arguments against violence as a solution either in Isaac’s view or in these cases, so please don’t bother to inform me of them. But must we really be reduced to the party guest’s position?
I reiterate that I’m convinced intellectually that this law is too risky and almost certainly unconstitutional, and because of these grounds I do not support it. Yet I can’t help feeling that this law is morally and ethically just and that we have a moral obligation to find a constitutional way to achieve these goals.
No. Many groups have devised counter-protests to WBC protests, and they’ve had great ideas. The best I’ve heard is the ‘telethon’ fundraiser idea - the group opposing Phelps starts raising money to donate to some sort of pro-gay rights group, and continues collecting funds for as long as the WBC continues to protest. It’s sheer brilliance, if you ask me.
If I could hijack my thread for a second, I want to float my theory as to why this is such a great idea.
I’ve been following these guys since they picketed Matt Shepard’s funeral in '98. I’ve read their website and read “Addicted to Hate” multiple times. I never pass up the chance to catch them on a news channel. After all this, I think I might have an idea about what makes these guys–specifically Fred Phelps–tick.
Don’t get hung up on the insanity, sadism or the brutality. They exist, but they’re secondary. The main thing is control. These guys are control freaks. Phred’s children have inherited this from him, because they have never known any other way of life.
As long as they are protesting and pissing people off, these guys feel like they’re in control. They really are bullies. Upsetting and angering total strangers makes them feel big and in charge. Even if you outlaw the protests, they feel that control, because they know they can fight the law in court–and get their message out at the same time. Don’t forget: They’re lawyers. Good ones, too, from what I hear. Outlawing their protests just bucks them up. They get to close ranks and play the aggrieved oppressed, beating their breasts right into a huge settlement (not to mention reversal of the law).
When you hold a fundraiser based on how long they protest, you take that dynamic away from them. Suddenly, they’re not the center of attention anymore; the fundraiser is. All their protest does is earn money for charity. Let them think that you want them to keep protesting longer and louder, and you take away that feeling of control. I remember reading a couple of posts in which this was tried, and according to the poster, the protest broke up very soon afterward. In addition, I remember a scene from The Awful Truth in which Michael Moore and a group of homosexuals disrupted a funeral, heckled the WBC good-naturedly and peacefully, and filmed the entire thing. Once the protestors realized that Mike and company wanted them to keep protesting, they just went away.
Now I’m not positive that Moore didn’t edit the film to make it appear like he’s a genius, but something tells me it went down the way he said it did. Take away the feeling that they’re in charge, and you’ve solved the problem.
Or maybe I’m pulling this out of my ass . . . You tell me
I fail to understand how purposely causing a vocal ruckus at someone’s funeral is peaceable assembly.
Another thing that strikes me as odd is that what those protesters is doing is attacking a helpless target, someone who really can’t defend himself. Take a lot of class, doesn’t it, to attack the dead?
It really is, for a number of reasons. Other posters have said that when the WBC sees one of these counter-protests and catches on to what’s happening, sometimes they leave. Which is also great.
I don’t know the precedent, but I don’t think “peaceable” means “quiet.” The WBC loonies aren’t trying to start a riot, they’re just trying to get themselves noticed, which is often the goal of a protest.
Classless would actually be one of the nicer words you could throw at these people.
I think it could be argued–and argued very well, at that–that raising a ruckus at a funeral and insulting the deceased is a pretty good attempt at inciting a riot.
I think the law is a prima facie violation of the 1st Amendment and a bad idea in general. Something else that bothers me about it is that it gives special protection to military funerals only. I smell an Equal Protection problem.
On a side note, is anyone else a little put off by the fact that conservatives only started caring about the Phelps’ brand of harrassment when they started targeting soldiers? Where was the self-righteous outrage when they were only doing it to AIDS victims. I can’t help feeling that all this fresh new outrage from the right is a little disingenuous in that they only care about it insofar as it affects the families of dead soldiers and not about the anti-gay bigotry at the root of it. As long as Phelps was only harrassing homos, the right didn’t see it as a problem. Now it’s a problem because it affects military funerals but if Phelps were to back off and go back to harrassing victims of AIDS and hate crimes, the right would forget all about him.
I have some very definite opinions on this & other subjects, but I don’t believe that people who disagree with me are evil, or stupid. So, I try to approach it from that viewpoint. Besides, I really don’t believe that anything said here has much possibility of changing anyone’s mind…the most we can hope for is to try to understand where the other side is coming from. This is why I asked the question in the first place.