I think we have more than enough homophobes in this state without importing them. Haven’t we had enough hatred in the last 3 months?
http://www.theomahachannel.com/oma/news/stories/news-110122520011203-161226.html
Isn’t there a point at which spouting hatred at a person or a group is no longer considered Free Speech. I think the right to live without hearing hatred is a right too, and the point at which free speech must be abridged.
You do have a right to not hear Fred’s hatred. Stay off his website, don’t read newspaper or online articles about him, tune out the TV and radio.
But you don’t have a right to shut him up.
There is no right to hear things you don’t like. There is a right to free speech and that especially includes unpopular speech.
Marc
Fred Phelps has the right to speak his piece; I wouldn’t want to live in a country where that wasn’t the case.
In fact, I’m grateful to Mr. Phelps; in presenting the horrific face of homophobic ignorance in great, disgusting detail, he makes hating gay people seem less and less appealing. People who would otherwise feel secure in their mild feelings of revulsion or dislike of gay people are presented, in Freddy’s antics, with a caricature of those feelings taken to a logical extreme, and they may end up having to examine their position on gay people, and possibly change for the better.
Ummm… most of Europe has laws against (to use Sweden’s as an example, Sweden being where I live) “inciting racial hatred and/or violence”. It’s not as obvious as you make it out that people like Phelps need to have freedom of speech.
If I tell you that “I’m gonna kill you, you sonufabitch”, then I’m commiting a crime.
If I say that I’m going to kill you and your family, then that’s illegal as well.
But once you get a big enough list of people to kill (e.g. all niggers or all jews or all fags) it suddenly becomes legal. Huh?
Well, Dryga, the US is not Europe. And Europe is not the US. And I think both sides like it that way. Fred Phelps (so far as I know) has never advocated nor condoned the murder of any homosexuals. So your analogy doesn’t hold.
The general principle is that as long as he doesn’t communicate a credible threat, he’s free to speak his mind.
When the speech of the most dispicable and revolting person is protected, then everyone’s speech is protected. This is essentially the argument that Larry Flint’s lawyers presented before the Supreme Court of the United States.
SCOTUS agreed.
The big difference is in that word “incite.” Here in the U.S., we have similar anti-incitement legislation. In other words, you can express hatred all you want, but the moment you start advocating action based on that hatred, you’re in trouble.
For Fred Phelps to say, “I hate all fags and wish they would be killed,” is disgusting and hateful, but legal.
But if he says, “I hate all fags, and I want my listeners to go kill them,” that’s illegal.
I have no idea whether the various European countries put the dividing line in a different place, and in fact I’d be curious to hear about it. I do know that Germany has outlawed various forms of speech and expression that merely refer to Nazism, so I’m aware that the philosophy is different. Is there a similar correlation for banning the expression of hateful racial/sexual speech vs. overt incitement?
I think the Phelps clan should be free to speak whatever garbage they want, but not when it means harassing people. Picketing at the funeral of Matthew Shepard for example really crossed the line. To me, this is a morally criminal act. I don’t mind what they put on their website, but there should be limits–couldn’t they be charged with slander or harassment for their threatening and hateful actions?
Neurotik wrote:
No, but that animated GIF of Matt Shepard burning in hell on his website (at http://www.godhatesfags.com/memorial.html) is a tad much.
I agree, that is one of the most disturbing things I’ve experienced.
I’m not saying that I think Fred Phelps is a good, tolerant man, just that what he says doesn’t fall under the directly inciting violence rules, and so his speech, for better or worse, is protected.
I hate having to defend people like Phelps.
Funny, just yesterday I was commenting that people who want to ban free speech should be banned from using free speech. What a conundrum that is, eh?
Oh, I quite understand that. However, how about the students in the school that Fred will be picketing? You’re saying that all they have to do is close their eyes and cover their ears, and everything will be just fine.
I believe that no ones rights can infringe on the rights of another. The problem comes when somebody is doing something in a publice venue.
You have a right to smoke. I have a right to not smell smoke.
I have a right to play my music as loud as I want. You have a right to not hear it.
There are already laws in place to limit free speech. For instance you can’t yell ‘Fire’ in a crowded theatre. This is safety concern obviously. But it’s also a curtailment of the right to free speech. Do you agree with this? If so, aren’t you then saying one curtailment of free speech is ok, but the other is not?
The problem is that allowing Phelps his right to free speech is that he is infringing upon what I see as the rights of other individuals to NOT hear what he was to say. But unfortunately, in my view there are no laws that prevent one persons rights from being more important than aothers. The individual doesn’t have any rights.
My stand has always been that, my rights end, where yours begin. But I think even that needs fine tuning. Phelps has a right to spout hatred. I have a right to walk away. But don’t I have to right to not have to walk away? And if so, what does that do to his right to free speech?
I think, perhaps, I’ve argued myself into a circle. 
I’ve stood up for people’s rights to do something I detest. But somewhere, someone else’s rights are being stepped on. I need to try to define what an individual’s rights are. Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness?? The first two are really meaningless, but the third is always true. I suppose I just need to fall back on that, and hope that Fred Phelp’s god will take action.
“I may not like what you say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it”… But if I’m going, I’m taking you with me…
David
Coalition of Straights for Gay Rights
And if he says, “I hate all fags, they should be killed.” - what then?
You don’t have a right to ‘not be offended’.
In a public venue, you have to accept (whether or not you like it) that others will use that venue. They may do so in a manner you or I find reprehensable, but so long as they’re not causing a public nuisance or violating a fairly short list of laws, you’ve just gotta deal with it. That’s the price of a free society, and those same rules apply to you, so if you want to, go ahead and counter-picket. It’s when his use of a public venue interferes with the use of a private venue that you can finally get authority to stop him.
The smoke and “fire in a theater” restrictions are based on public health: You don’t have a right for your habit to damage the health of others, and you don’t have the right to incite a panic that may result in death.
Phelps’ activity is unlikely to cause a health issue, and it’s unlikely to cause a panic, so where’s the pressing reason for gagging him? Unless it’s simply because you just don’t like what he’s saying (of course, under that rule, he could gag you right back), in which case, who gets to say what’s gagable and what isn’t?
If he were picketing in such a manner that you couldn’t get peace and quiet in you own home, then, again, you’d have something with which to hammer him (a la the loud music).
Don’t get me wrong, Phelps is feculent misanthrope, but you know, he’s also in America, where even the assholes get fair play.
Check out http://www.godhatesfundies.com/misc/ath/ A local reporter did a real in depth investigation of this guy and his family. Very interesting, if long, read. Lemme know what you think.
We had Fred Phelps come to Madison, WI last year. Madison is a very tolerant city, and many people wanted to try to oust him. My opinion was that he has the right to speak, regardless of where he is from and what he has to say.
Local LGBT/Ally groups did a very smart thing, and had a protest of his protest (PEACEFUL protest, I might add) across the street from where he was meeting. Even better, they encouraged others to let Phelps speak, because they were taking pledge donations that were based on the number of hours that Phelps protested! That is, the longer he stayed, more money would be donated to LGBT groups. This turned out very well, and the protest was quite peaceful. Phelps got the news cameras, but the counter-protest got money and community support, so who cares?
In my opinion – and I know my fundies – Phelps is a charlatan. He has no wish to actually win the hearts and minds of others. When I saw him, he never spoke – except in front of the cameras. Other than that, he just stood there. No preaching, no gospel, just “wait for the cameras”. His family and supporters were the worst sort of people, too – taking rainbow flags and jumping on them, and shouting slurs, but never actually speaking about why they were doing what they were doing. They’re all about PR, and trying to get people to sue them. Yep, the family lives off of legal winnings from people attacking them (even verbally). Most of them are lawyers. Watch if you want, but don’t interact.
I don’t think he’s a fraud-I think he’s a genuine nut. He’s crazy-I mean, seriously seriously crazy. I think he’s seriously messed up, and could probably be very dangerous.
He’s obviously deranged.
You aren’t have to defending Phelps; you are defending everyone’s First Amendment rights. Completely different things.
I know – I merely brought it up because the previous replies seemed to made like “Duh, of course he has to have the right to say that” like it’s the most obvious thing in the world.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but aren’t we talking about the guy who put up GOD HATES FAGS signs at Matthew Shapard’s funeral?
Hmm… #1 seems to be exactly the same thing as #2, but with different verb forms. Do you think that statements like #1 will increase violence against homosexuals? IMO, his listeners would be just as likely to kill homosexuals no matter which one he says…