The question, however, isn’t whether or not his followers are going to go and do something, but whether or not his speech constitutes a threat. (Think of Beavis and Butthead – are they responsible for idiots setting things on fire?) Saying “I wish so-and-so was dead” is not a threat; you’re simply saying you’d be happy if they were dead, not that you’re going to kill them, so it’s not a crime. This also applies to hating a group instead of an individual. Now, if Phelps tells his followers to actually kill someone, then it’s a threat.
Yes, either way it probably does influence people, but that’s the nature of freedom of speech. I don’t want to see rules about thoughtcrime.
Posit: If Fred Phelps has the right under the First Amendment to spout bigoted homophobic garbage, do the citizens of Omaha have the right to organize to prevent him from coming to town?
Is saying “We don’t want your hatred here; get out” and backing that up with action protected under the First Amendment?
Absolutely. The idea that individuals must suffer the speech of others in the name of the First Amendment is positively ludicrous. The government may pass no law restricting freedom of expression, but this in no way means that individuals are forced to abide by the same rules. The ability to employ counterspeech to drown out, obstruct, and otherwise interfere with the speech of others is a vital aspect of the First Amendment.
The citizens of Omaha have every right to exercise their heckler’s veto and ride Fred Phelps out on a rail.
Yup–and it’s an absolutely meaningless statement, given that no pat definition of “free speech” exists against which various state restrictions could reasonably be compared.
I don’t think that people ought to be able to exhort the violent overthrow of the government on public street corners–am I thus in favor of “banning” free speech, erislover?
I disagree, Maeglin. You have the right to not want Phelps to be there. You have the right to say so. However, trying to force him out is not a right. Noone has the right to take rights away from other people – not even a majority. “Ride him out of town on a rail” – does this mean physically removing him? Assault. Using the government to remove him? Violating freedom of speech.
Sorry. If you value freedom of speech, it has to be for everyone. If you are in favor of freedom of speech only when it’s speech that you like, it’s meaningless.
To take a somewhat anachronistic and unpopular tack, here:
I do not believe that Fred Phelps should be allowed to preach; nor do I think that Nazis should be allowed to rally in predominantly black communities, for that matter.
The First Amendment, we should all note, reads: “Congress Shall Pass No Law …”
It does not read: “The Omaha City Council Shall Pass No Law …”
The Supreme Court has managed to twist the plain words of the Founders to mean something entirely different than what they state.
I think communities have compelling interests in banning offensive material–especially as it is distributed in public forums, where everyone (including children) is subject to it. Think for a few minutes about the ancillary consequences of “offensive” speech–for instance, businesses within proximity of it are subject to loss of commerce because people don’t want to hear it.
The purpose of the First Amendment, in my opinion, is to protect the people from the inherently-more-oppressive Federal Government. A town council is a far different entity, as government is concerned, from the Federal Government.
Well, maybe someone will catch phelps saying “kill fags” and he can be arrested, or maybe someone would kill him, or he would kill himself. I know he has a right to free speech, but his message is really ignorant and unjustified.
The expression was rhetorical, given that we are talking about Omaha. They are free to bring it about that Phelps would not be welcomed. At all. I am not interested in using the government or assaulting him physically. Inventive citizens have all sorts of weapons in their arsenal that involve neither the government nor breaking the law.
What’s meaningless? Speech I like? I do not have to value everyone’s speech, and I sure as shinola don’t. I don’t value “freedom of speech,” either, as I don’t think it is an abstract that necessarily contains any value.
Ah yes, I remember how the national government (federal government includes local, state and national) was the last to integrate. Man, all those people marching around DC demanding that the national government stop banning blacks from public schools. Why, the Alabama state police even had to guard those kids on their way to the DC schools.
Actually the statement should read “The Bill of Rights is to protect individuals from a potentially oppressive strong Federal government”.
The framers of the Constitution were only supposed to be looking into modification of the Articles of Confederation. Instead they came up with a document that left no room for the individual or the states. Thomas Jefferson, Richard Henry Lee, and their compatriots realized what was happening and drafted the “Bill of Rights” to protect individual freedom. The framers of the constituion really didn’t like this, as indicated by Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and others, in the “Federalist Papers”. A telling quote is this, from John Jay, “Nothing is more certain than the indispensable necessity of government, and it is equally undeniable, that whenever and however it is instituted, the people must cede to it some of their natural rights in order to vest it with requisite powers”. You can find more here: Declaration of Independence, U.S. Constitution, Historical Documents (American Memory from the Library of Congress)
Now if you want to consider this 18th Century dogma, you may. However, this is the basis of this country. But it’s not surprising that given the schism of our Founding Fathers, and the dichotomy of their views, they we still argue about what they really meant.
In my viewpoint, I think that the only way to oppose the vileness spouted by Fred Phelps, is to have an equal and opposite protest. He is free to say what he wants, and I am free to voice my opposition.
Absolutely. Where is it written that non-violent resistance has to be passive? I see nothing wrong with the citizens of Omaha getting a big enough crowd together to shout Phelps and his family down, and force 'em to retreat back to whatever bus or van brought them there.
The unpleasant Mr. Phelps came to my home town in support of a student who wore a “Straight Pride” T-shirt to high school. Phelps wound up condemning even the student himself to hell, for refusing to endorse Phelps’ positions on gays in toto.
The debate over the limits on free speech will continue as long as we hold onto that right. This is healthy - especially since Phelps does a better job than I ever could of making himself look like the biggest twit God ever made.
Well, I was just perusing the Texas Constitution, and it’s pretty clear from that document that the Houston City Council cannot abridge the freedom of speech. I would guess that Nebraska has a similar provision in its Constitution. I would certainly not have a problem with the argument that states should look to the Supreme Court’s precedents on free speech in interpreting their own constitutions, even if the First Amendment did not apply to the states by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Governmental entities may have compelling interests about legislating the time, place and manner of public speech (but you gotta be reasonable about it), but not the content. That’s why Skokie IL can require the Klan to get a license before marching, but cannot prevent the march itself, unless it prevents every entity from doing so. Otherwise, we leave it to local city councils to decide what is valuable speech and what isn’t, and I dunno about y’all, but that makes me very uneasy indeed.
Well, see, Shodan, I see a problem with the citizens of a town running Muslims/gays/Blacks/atheists/Freedom Riders out of town.
See, Phelps is advocating complete and total hatred of a whole section of society based on nothing more than an abstract moral concept. The other groups don’t. As a matter of fact, most of those groups are demanding some form of justice for groups in society that have previously been targets of hatred. One side I support, and would gladly welcome into my town. The other side I detest, and see it well within my rights to send the firm and clear message that they are not, nor will they ever be, welcome in my town.
About every month or so we get into this 14th Amendment thing. It is beyond argument that the Post-Civil War amendments to the US Constitution worked a profound change in American Constitutional theory. Up until then the Constitution operated to restrict the powers of the national government. With the enactment and ratification of the 14th Amend., and to a lesser extent the 15th, the restrictions on the national government was extended to the States to the extent those restrictions were regarded as necessary to an ordered liberty. It is just foolishness to think that, for instance, the City of Omaha or the State of Nebraska has a power to restrict public speech that is denied to the national government.
With regard to European restrictions on speech, much of the difference lies in what the civil society is afraid of. In Germany the reemergence of Nazism is a major fear and neo-Nazi groups and speech is restricted. The was a minor brouhaha a few years ago about the ability Germany to prosecute an American citizen operating out of, I think Omaha, for violations of the German anti-Nazi laws who was sending neo-Nazi writings into Germany by the mail. His behavior was lawful and privileged under US laws where he was acting but unlawful under German law where the stuff was being received.
On the other hand, European sensibilities allow commercial public sexual conduct that would be characterized as obscene and not constitutionally protected almost any where in the US, not excepting Las Vegas. I guess it depends on what pulls your chain.
One of the modern Supreme Court justices summed up the 1st Amend. Rule pretty nicely by saying that speech all agree with does not need protection, and that the 1st Amend. operates to protect speech that all find abhorrent.
