Latest on Fred Phelps

[twickster]

@fetus

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.

That’s obviously a false analogy.

[Nanoda]

(Incidentally, here’s another recent article which includes a Phelps member’s opinon on the legislation).

Linty Fresh - I don’t know an extensive amount about FSZ in the U.S. I just brought them up 'cause if you’re going to go ahead with that type of thing, you might as well do some good while you do it.

I’m personally happy with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It’s sometimes disparaged by U.S. citizens (usually specifically with respect to hate speech legislation), but if I lived in the 'states, I’d be hopping mad every day when it came to things like police powers, wiretap laws, government corruption, and pretty much the entire Patriot Act.

I can see why you don’t want such restrictions to continue, but from my point of view it’s a done thing, and it may as well be applied against people who call private funerals “patriotic pep rallies” (see first link above).

[Hostile_Dialect]

@twickster

That’s obviously a false analogy.

OK, how about sitting inside a McDonald’s establishment wearing a cow suit and screaming that “beef is murder”? Does McDonald’s not have the right to kick you out? Will the Supreme Court not side with them when they do?

Also, couldn’t a restaurant or bar ban smoking in a state where it’s not necessary, and if you smoked inside that establishment couldn’t they kick you out? Would you win if you subsequently sued them?

I’m not being rhetorical here. I really want to know; do the high courts traditionally agree with me that there’s no right to protest on private property? I don’t know the case law.

[Marley23]

@Linty Fresh

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.”

I know how this stuff works, and I think it’s a shame that the Fourth Amendment has long since been voted off the island. But that doesn’t mean I think all purported restrictions on Constitutional rights are created equal. In this case, when we’re talking about private property, I’m not sure the right exists at all. What makes this law worse than other restrictions on protests?

[Linty_Fresh]

@Marley23

I know how this stuff works, and I think it’s a shame that the Fourth Amendment has long since been voted off the island. But that doesn’t mean I think all purported restrictions on Constitutional rights are created equal. In this case, when we’re talking about private property, I’m not sure the right exists at all. What makes this law worse than other restrictions on protests?

And as I’ve mentioned above, I would have no problem with the Phelps clan being arrested if they set one foot on private property. Also, as I’ve mentioned above, this is not the case.

@Linty Fresh

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.

[twickster]

fetus – the answer to your question is covered by Linty Fresh right above here – since the protestors aren’t on private property, talking about the rights of property owners to control who uses their premises and how is irrelevant.

[Bosda_Di_Chi_of_Tricor]

@fetus

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.

Well put, except that given the quality of McDonald’s food, who would notice?

[Linty_Fresh]

@Marley23

I know how this stuff works, and I think it’s a shame that the Fourth Amendment has long since been voted off the island. But that doesn’t mean I think all purported restrictions on Constitutional rights are created equal. In this case, when we’re talking about private property, I’m not sure the right exists at all. What makes this law worse than other restrictions on protests?

This law is worse, because it calls for the suppression of a group that is not doing anything illegal at all. As bad as their behavior is, they conduct themselves in a lawful manner, and they don’t do it on private property. When you vote to censor that speech just because you don’t want to hear it, you are messing with the Bill of Rights. Do you seriously not see the big problem here?

You know, we didn’t always used to have the drug example to the fourth amendment. More than a few attempts at drug testing without probably cause got shot down for being unconstitutional. I give you Lovvorn v. Chattanooga, Capua v. City of Plainfield, and Jones v. McKenzie for starters.

It wasn’t until Shoemaker v. Handel when the tide started to turn. To make a long story short, the dam burst with Vernonia School District 47J v. Acton , and voila, there’s your exception. Now take a look at this excerpt from the Vernonia opinion delivered from Justice Scalia:

(d) The nature and immediacy of the governmental concern at issue, and the efficacy of this means for meeting it, also favor a finding of reasonableness. The importance of deterring drug use by all this Nation’s schoolchildren cannot be doubted. Moreover, the Policy is directed more narrowly to drug use by athletes, where the risk of physical harm to the user and other players is high. The District Court’s conclusion that the District’s concerns were immediate is not clearly erroneous, and it is self-evident that a drug problem largely caused by athletes, and of particular danger to athletes, is effectively addressed by ensuring that athletes do not use drugs. The Fourth Amendment does not require that the “least intrusive” search be conducted, so respondents’ argument that the drug testing could be based on suspicion of drug use, if true, would not be fatal; and that alternative entails its own substantial difficulties. Pp. 14-18.

In other words, “Hey, we know there’s the fourth amendment and all to consider, but think of the children! Isn’t the health of a bunch of kids more important than some amendment? These are drugs we’re talking about!!” And people bought it! Understandably enough, I suppose. You can see the effects of drug abuse. If you’re unlucky enough, you can experience the effects of drug abuse first hand. Faced with such problems, the fourth amendment can be reduced to an abstract intellectual exercise, and before you know it . . .

This is what I see happening with the first amendment through the actions of the Wisconsin legislature, Marley. “Yes, we’ve got a free speech amendment, but think of the veterans. Think of the poor veterans’ families. The WBC is a bunch of animals. They don’t deserve the first amendment.” My heart goes out to the vets and families, especially when I hear about another Phelps picket, but this is a dangerous line we’re approaching.

It’s a line I don’t want to see crossed in my lifetime. Save the restrictions for the people who are actually committing crimes while demonstrating. Leave the law-abiding citizens alone, no matter how silly and fucked up they are. Nothing that Phelpses are doing or saying is anywhere nearly as damaging and dangerous as the implications and consequences of this law.

[Fish]

Either that, or when a funeral is scheduled, automatically grant the grieving family a permit to peaceably assemble on nearby public property. Subsequent permits to assemble at that public location for any reason would be rejected.

[The_Seventh_Deadly_Finn]

@Fish

Either that, or when a funeral is scheduled, automatically grant the grieving family a permit to peaceably assemble on nearby public property. Subsequent permits to assemble at that public location for any reason would be rejected.

I’m not sure that would work… I’ve seen an awful lot of protests where there were counter-protestors from the opposite side of the issue on the same premises.

Moreover, do you need a permit to protest something? I know you do in some instances-- say, if you’re going to have 2000 people in a public park-- but I’m not sure that every act of political speech requires a prior arrangement with the authorities.

[Hostile_Dialect]

It appears that they’re not traipsing about on private property doing whatever they please. My moral objections stand, but my legal objections are hereby withdrawn.

I keep doing this crap…

@thetruewheel

Moreover, do you need a permit to protest something? I know you do in some instances-- say, if you’re going to have 2000 people in a public park-- but I’m not sure that every act of political speech requires a prior arrangement with the authorities.

The fact that permits are ever needed to exercise Constitutional rights on public grounds is a travesty, if you ask me. That’s like getting a permit to write a blog denouncing the President.