Cateyo is too shy to post this link, but I thought it was interesting: Targeting Phelps protests.
“Punishable by up to three years…”
Somehow, the idea of Phelps, et al becoming roomies with the members of Hell’s Satans, who are currently doing time for sodomy and armed robbery brings a smile to my face.
Are these sort of laws constitutional?
If it’s not content-based, it could be Constitutional. Some restrictions of abortion clinics have been upheld as Constitutional, if I remember correctly.
http://www.cjonline.com/stories/020206/leg_protest.shtml
This link is to an article from the Topeka Capital-Journal, which is the newspaper for Topeka, my home, and regretably that of Phelps as well. The article appeared in yesterday’s paper, and is about arguments for and against greater restrictions on the picketing of funerals. I almost didn’t want to touch yesterdays paper, as Phelps is on the front page. The man is a troll, really, living to piss other people off.
About the article, you have to be registered to read it, sorry, it’s free though.
Both houses of the Wisconsin legislature passed a law yesterday banning disorderly conduct within 500 feet of a funeral and 2 hours ( I think) before or after. This was directly due to the Westboro baptists. Our governor , “Diamond Jim” Doyle, says he’ll sign it today.
Personally I don’t see the necessity, we already have laws against disorderly conduct, but whatever.
Sigh . . . Before I post this, I want to get one or two things straight.
First off, I despise Phred. I hate the man. I think he’s a vicious coward, a bully who used to get his jollies beating (and possibly doing worse to) his family, and who now concentrates on hurting the families of dead soldiers by all legal means possible.
Secondly, I’m a vet (though I never saw combat) who, like a lot of us here, lost loved ones in 9/11.
That said, I have a problem with these laws. A big problem.
Not only do I think they’re unconstitutional, I think they violate the most important rights of all, namely those of free speech and peaceful assembly. As awful as these people are, as long as they don’t do anything illegal, I don’t think it’s the prerogative of the Wisconsin legislature or anyone else to dictate what is or isn’t acceptable signage or speech at a funeral. I feel terrible about those poor families, I really do, but my outrage stops short of violating another’s civil rights, no matter how terrible they may be.
The comparison with abortion protestors doesn’t hold water, as far as I can see. IANAL, but I did some research into these cases and they seemed to be geared toward insuring the safety of patients seeking medical care.
For example, from Portland Feminist Women’s Health Center vs. Advocates for Life, Inc. the court states that
I don’t see that happening here. The Phelps clan is not attempting to deprive anyone of his or her constitutional rights, such as the right to get an abortion. Neither are they causing anyone immediate danger, such as shouting “fire” in a movie theater. They are certainly causing grief, but not feeling grief isn’t a constitutionally protected right.
Fred Phelps and his ilk are not the first people to provoke outrage and anger at their antics. They’ve just figured out a way to push the envelope a little bit. Now if they do something actually illegal, by all means, get it on tape, lock 'em up, and throw away the key. I’d be very happy to see that happen.
Just don’t trash the constitution for the sake of a warrior who died while sworn to protect it.
God, I hate defending these cretins. I’m going to go take a shower now. 
Fred and his acolytes were in Lafayette last week for the funeral of local soldier Matthew Frantz. In her column this morning, Journal and Courier executive editor Julie Doll (a Kansas native who “feel[s] some odd responsibility for the hatemonger” Phelps) weighs in on the newspaper’s coverage of the controversy.
I agree with Julie Doll on a few things in the article, although I have to ask:
-
Why should she feel any sort of responsibility at all about Phred just because she came from Kansas. I’m certainly not going to lose sleep over nutjobs from Boston. Phred’s not originally from Kansas anyway. I believe he grew up in Mississippi.
-
Are there really people–other than the Phelps clan–who try to make the argument that newspapers aren’t fair and balanced unless they give every single idiot airtime? That’s not what fair and balanced means.
I don’t know if this law is constitutional or not -
On the one hand, constitutionally we all have rights to free speech and freedom of expression.
On the other hand, people have a right to privacy and dignity, and Phelps violates that when he pulls his shit at funerals. He is also interfering with their freedom of expression - the freedom to grieve a loved one.
But, legal gobbledygook aside, I hope the law goes into effect, I hope Phred gets arrested, I hope he spends zillions of his own ill gotten money on court fights, and finally I hope he loses and goes to jail.
Side remark… My personal and extreme hatred for Phelps colors my judegment. Don’t bother trying to scold me for it, I don’t care and don’t apologize.
The problem here, Steve, is that in this equation legal gobbledygook=sacred constitutional rights. I’m not with you that the right to privacy and dignity trump the first amendment.
People have said pretty much the same thing you just did when talking about Larry Flynt, Margaret Sanger, and John T. Scopes, as well as flag burners. Would you not agree these people have the right to free expression?
Yeah, it’s stuff like this that makes me doubt my commitment to the First Amendment – for about a tenth of a second. Alas, I think the First Amendment is the single greatest thing this country has ever done.
Like I said in my post, my feelings toward Phelps affect my judgement. It would be so much simpler if he would just die already.
I hear you. I’m certainly not going to disagree with that.
Sadly, even after he dies, I bet someone’s eventually going to replace him as the worst. It’s the nature of things, I suppose. The envelope always gets pushed back. Someone’s always testing the limits.
Hell, maybe we’ll get lucky, one or more of the family will screw up, and one way or another, they’ll be able to dismantle the group, pit one clan member against the other, and send some of those Phelps phucks to prison. I’ve seen these guys on interviews, and while they might be acting within the law, they seem wired awfully tight. The best scenario would be if they snap, give a counterprotestor, a minor injury, and go to jail.
Hey, I can hope, can’t I?
If I’m reading that correctly, protestors could still make their point; they just need to avoid disorderly conduct while doing it, or else wait until two hours after the funeral. Seems reasonable to me. Whether it’s a literal violation of the First Amendment or not remains to be seen, probably when the Phelps clan challenges it in court.
I’d be all for it; you guys already have “Free Speech Zones”, which IMHO are waaay lamer than this legislation. I don’t care much about making politicians jobs easier, but a funeral is no place for a protest.
This is not your decision to make.
It is reasonable. It’s also illegal. This is not the Wisconsin legislature’s decision to make, either.
The first amendment is pretty simple. It doesn’t just say that citizens can speak their minds. It explicitly forbids the government from creating laws that would prohibit or restrict those citizens from speaking their minds. Courts have since sided with restricting this right in the case of potential danger to others, or in the case of denying others their constitutional rights, but this has no bearing on the Phelpses. While what they are doing is disgusting, it’s perfectly legal.
Counterprotest them, ridicule them, or simply ignore them. Don’t mess with their civil rights.
I, for one, would die in the counterprotest for this cause.
And free speech zones, an utter travesty if you ask me, were the first thing I thought of when I opened this thread. I’m glad I wasn’t the only one.
Which Government is Phelps petitioning for a redress of which grievances? His beef isn’t against any government, it’s against private citizens, specifically a country full of them, who he sees as too tolerant of alternative lifestyles. This may be covered by the freedom of speech, but if you ask me it’s not covered by the right to peaceably assemble. I don’t see that anyone’s argued that it is, but I want to weigh in before it happens.
There’s a comma between “assemble” and “and petition.” Those are two separate rights. You can peacefully assemble for a chess match or a discussion of mathematics, and the constitution would protect that.
Hmmmm . . . Or do I have that wrong? The wording is a bit hazy . . .