Certainly not. It becomes aggression in proximity to a funeral. Keep in mind those people are attempting to assemble as well, for their own purposes. They have every right to do so.
Removed from overly close proximity to that funeral, the assembly becomes far less an act of aggression, and cannot then be interfered with outside of existing laws that control such matters.
But they shouldn’t have the right to government protection from someone else’s political speech. Again, if public speech in a public place offends you so much, then take your own assembly indoors.
I’m not saying it’s the fundamental reason, but saying that homophobia has nothing to do with the disparity in reactions is every bit as naive as saying that homophobia is the only reason for the disparity. Phelps is targetting one of the most revered minorities in the country, and is getting a reaction comensurate with that minority’s position in our society. And when he targetted the funerals of prominent homosexuals, he got the reaction comensurate with that minority’s position in our society, which was hardly any reaction at all.
“When he targeted veterans he in turn was targeted.” I guess that sums it up, doesn’t it? It’s not about altruism, it’s about protecting your own. Which is laudable enough on its own, but let’s keep it in its proper perspective.
Yes, funerals are very sad, aren’t they? I hope the families of the deceased can take some solace in the outpouring of support from across the nation in the face of Phelps abominable actions. It would have been nice if that same solace had been available to the Shepherds, but when Phelps targetted that funeral, the nation just shrugged and turned away. Because when Phelps was just going after the fags, it wasn’t about you, was it?
To me, it’s a moral abomination, but not an ethical aggression. An aggression, as far as I’m concerned, occurs when someone’s rights are abridged.
By the same reasoning, do you believe that it should be illegal for any protest to occur in proximity to any other event?
And when it was about you, how quickly did you stand up? What has been your sacrifice; other than lip service?
What sacrifices have I demanded from anyone else over Fred Phelps, other than lip service?
Earlier in the thread there was a question over who Shirley Phelps-Roper was married to.
Her husband is a church member, Brent Roper. The following article is from 2002, about ol’ Fred’s 50th wedding anniversary, and it names just about all of the then family members. Note that the reception is hosted by the children(nine) who “kept the faith”. There’s no mention of the four kids who are out of the church.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4179/is_20020512/ai_n11782417
Oh, and it’s Margie Phelps, the second oldest daughter, who had a kid and was never married. Virgin birth maybe?
Two different issues. Yes, I’d be upset…but I’d be more upset by a government that chose to stifle freedom of expression. Even when the expression is reprehensible. Hello! That’s how the poor kid died…protecting the free speech of everyone.
I’m all for this, too. But I don’t see how you could do it without disrupting the service. Can you explain what “legal and non-violent” means you employ?
I have to agree here. I don’t think what they’re doing is bad, but this isn’t what I’d call “patriotic,” either. I don’t think that word means what a lot of people think it means. In fact, one could consider this an *anti-*patriotic act. They’re simply providing a shield for grieving family members (though I’d still like to hear how they actually do that). Do they shout them down? Give 'em the stink eye? I just can’t picture how they’d do it without disrupting the service.
I just want to state at this point that I am not the OP and I came to this thread to advise Phlosphr that the Patriot Guard is still involved in these types of situations and he should advise the local membership of the upcoming event on the off-hand chance they were unaware.
I have stated that I am not, nor do I wish to be, a spokesperson for our group. Additionally, as I am not the OP, I did not come here seeking opinions or approval by those participating in this thread. To those that have expressed support, I thank you from the bottom of my heart because this has, at times, been very difficult for me personally. Thank you.
To those that have not supported this effort, that is your right. I do not seek your approval. I am doing what I feel is the right thing against very ugly and hate-filled people aiming to bring more pain to a grief-stricken family. I can’t be all things to all people, but I try to do what I can and will continue to do so.
I will continue to follow this thread because the Phelps bunch is of interest to me but I will not make anymore attempts to sway opinion. If you have questions, I believe there is a method at the site to ask them and I recommend that you do so.
Again, thanks very much to those who support the efforts of our group.
Ah, thank you for correcting me. I knew there was one daughter’s kid whose paternity was (officially) unknown; just got confused as to which and hadn’t the stomach for researching the Phelps clan to pinpoint who.
It’s my understanding that they vroom their motorcycles between the mourners and the protesters while the funeral procession enters/exits the church or other place of assembly where the funeral services are held. While the mourners are inside there’s no need to drown out the assholes’ shouting since it can’t be heard inside. They also act as a visual barrier.
Certainly not. But I think it is perfectly appropriate for our society to recognize the solemnity of the funeral assembly and protect it from disruption, just as it recognized that protest is entirely appropriate so long as it did not target people in their homes.
Law exists entirely to make distinctions like this, and for us to throw up our hands and say there should be no distinction is, in my opinion, abdicating our responsibility in crafting appropriate policy in matters such as these.
And this is where Mr. Moto and I part ways. I think it is perfectly inappropriate for society to interfere with any exercise of my rights, so long as I do not harm another. In a public location, I may assemble peaceably, say what I want, and petition my government as much as I want.
If it offends some, so be it. If they offend me, so be it. Such is the price of liberty, which I value more than peace.
But earlier you argued that such funeral protests are somehow infringing on funeralgoers’ First Amendment rights. If so, then the same rights are still being infringed upon at every other event that is protested. Why do other events-- weddings, family reunions, political rallies, etc.-- not deserve the same “right of solemnity” as funerals? Why do you think funerals should be the only form of assembly where people are arrested for disruption in this manner?
It seems to me that you’re not so much protecting funeralgoers’ existing rights as inventing a new right unique to funerals. And if solemnity is the real issue, why should protests be singled out, instead of any potentially disruptive event?
I’m not saying there shouldn’t be any distinctions, I’m asking why you think one is needed in this specific case. If you propose to curtail the existing rights of every citizen in America, then you really ought to have a good reason to make a ‘distinction.’ I’m trying to understand why you feel such a law is necessary, but so far it doesn’t seem like your argument runs any deeper than personal distaste for this particular form of expression.
Well, they very well may. That is why, when the law was crafted recently here in Virginia, it amended the disorderly conduct law and applied it also to memorial services and funerals. The existing law made it illegal to disrupt a public meeting, religious meeting, or meeting of a literary society.
Now, this covers disorderly conduct. As for unlawful assembly, that is covered by a statute that generally takes the “fighting words” doctrine:
“Whenever three or more persons assembled share the common intent to advance some lawful or unlawful purpose by the commission of an act or acts of unlawful force or violence likely to jeopardize seriously public safety, peace or order, and the assembly actually tends to inspire persons of ordinary courage with well-grounded fear of serious and immediate breaches of public safety, peace or order, then such assembly is an unlawful assembly”
Now, I think there isn’t any serious doubt that the language and tactics used by the Westboro bunch do in fact cause that fear in people of ordinary courage - indeed, if that were not the case, the Patriot Guard riders would not have to come.
I don’t think normal protest ought to be criminalized, by any means. But when protesters started picketing private homes, we as a society decided that was not a normal avenue of protest, and infringed on the rights of others, and restricted the practice. This is a similar case. No normal political organization would dream of protesting at someone’s funeral - and even if they had, most wouldn’t have done so in as vile a way as this bunch.
You ask about this specific case - well, I answer that if Fred Phelps wanted to protest in general or stand silently outside of a funeral, he wouldn’t have been the target of any legislation at all. The combination of the two constituted a breach of the peace that had to be addressed.
Isn’t the form of expression precisely what is being debated here?
I mean, the people who were protesting outside of private homes were antiabortion protesters, a viewpoint I have considerable sympathy for. That does not mean I find that tactic any less vile, nor lacking in consideration of the rights of others.
In any case, I feel my opinions have the weight not only of moral correctness but also of legal and constitutional justification.
I hope it is not your view that the law justifies. That has been the view of every fucked up cause from witch burning to racial segretation.