Latest on Fred Phelps

Each right is seperated by semicolons.

Remember, most cemetaries are private property. The exact wording of the law is also important. It might be quite appropriate to create a stronger law to protect cemetaries from tresspassers (people who come there for another purpose than to honor the passing of the dead) & to prevent people from disturbing the peace to disrupt a religious ceremony (Freedom of Religion is also guarenteed, & a funeral is a religious ritual).

Great point. No right to assemble is granted on private property.

A hamburger is no place for salmonella. A burlesque house is no place for a 10 year old. A funeral is no place for a protest. I stand by my previous assertion.

Governmental entities here locally are scared of the Phelps because the federal courts have been so willing to side with them and award them attorneys fees when they sue. I’m not sure that tough new anti-picketing legislation is worth it if the courts are just going to overturn it and award them another $200,000 or more in attorneys fees.

As an aside, there’s a recent interview with Phelps and footage of his church by a local TV station here:

http://www.kake.com/home/headlines/2252792.html

Non-sequitor. This has nothing to do with legalities.

Another non-sequitor. Those legalities here deal with child-endangerment and prostitution.

I agree. Phelps does not. The law, as far as I can tell, sides with Phelps.

OK, I’m with you on that. So if Phred and his phucked up little phamily venture into a cemetary, or any other private property, then yes, I’d be all for hauling them in on a trespassing charge.

Then again, from what I can see of the photos and videos of his site, they tend to congregate in parks and sidewalks after getting permits to do so. Private property doesn’t apply. Don’t forget, quite a few family members are practicing lawyers, and I’m pretty sure they have knowledge from both books and experience about what they are and are not allowed to do, which, I imagine, separates them from most of the cretins who pull this shit.

When we’ve had similar laws pass in other cases, not to mention other debates going on in this country, I can’t interpret this proposal as the one that’ll trash the Constitution.

Why not rig a fake funeral. Make it a gay soldier that died or some such stuff.

Make it near Topeka, so Freddy boy and his hate mongers cannot resist.

Have hidden cameras at every angle and pro actors as mourner ( or just get professional mourners.)

Just when Freddy gets his nonsense spewing, have the casket top open up to reveal an animated robotic zombie flipping off Phelps while shouting, “Punk’d!”

Just a thought.

I’m ready to pitch in for this.

Right - my mentioning of FSZ was legal-ish. The rest of my post wasn’t. As for the proposal being legal, I’m with Marley23. If it passed, it’s not like it would be the first thing that was arguably “unconstitutional”. (See FSZ, for one).

Can I get the DVD? :smiley:

Oh oh! And I just found out that God Hates Canada, which makes me feel just a bit better. :slight_smile:

Their website also has a link about how “God Hates Sweden” too. AT their church the American flag flies upside down. Sometimes it’s below the Candadian maple leaf flag, and sometimes below the Swedish flag. They fly those upside down too, but with the Swedish flag you can’t really tell.

And each time I drive by the WBC compound there’s a banner on it proclaiming “God Hates America”

Thank god (sic) God is omnipotent, because it must be a hell (sic) of a challenge to keep track of all the people, countries, etc., whom He hates.

It’s no trouble at all. Phred and Co. hate everybody but themselves.

I’m not even convinced about that.

Or “Gotcha Ya”?

Shirley Ujest: You are a genius. If anyone were to really arrange something like that, I’d have to find a way to participate.

Bork bork godless sodomy bork bork bork.

Thanks so much for sending me into a helpless fit of the giggles just as my boss walked by… :smiley:

Constitutional rights don’t get trashed all at once, Marley. It happens a little bit at a time. You pick a real hot button issue, and you get folks fired up enough about it until they don’t really have the inclination to think it through, and you just chip away at it. It doesn’t just happen with the first amendment, you know. Don’t forget about “the drug exception to the fourth amendment.” .

But let’s stay on topic. Let’s talk about free speech zones, for example. Nanoda neglected to mention the class action suit brought by the ACLU, not to mention other protests by civil libertarians, so it’s not exactly a forgone conclusion that they’re here to stay, but even if it was, is this a good thing? Should we use the existence of free speech zones to justify further screwing around with the constitution? I mean, I read things like:

and I think to myself, "Wait a minute. nanoda doesn’t even like FSZ’s, and s/he’s using them as a valid precedent against Phelps. What is a person who actually supports FSZ’s going to think about it? What’s to stop CFA from getting the flag amendment passed on the basis that burning flags hurts those poor vets who fought for it over in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Three examples I gave above, Larry Flynt, Margaret Sanger, and assorted flag burners, have something in common: They were arrested for exercising their right to free speech. They have something else in common: None of them were particularly likable. Flag burners are commonly regarded as scumbags, even by the people who support their right to burn. Margaret Sanger was a virulent racist who supported enforced eugenics, and Larry Flynt? Well, did you see The People Vs.Larry Flynt ? Even that movie painted him as a total sleaze.

When you support curbing free speech to save the feelings of others, you’re not walking down a slippery slope. You’re flying down it on a souped up Yamaha 800 snowmobile, and there’s a nasty little surprise waiting for you at the bottom.

No matter how you slice it, this is censorship.

Of course! I must’ve just missed the 11th Amendment, which states that citizens shall have the right to traipse about freely on private property doing whatever they please. I suggest you use that legal argument when the cops arrive mid-stream while you’re urinating on the counter at McDonald’s.