You’re still justiying violence as a response to speech. It’s not much of a qualification to say that you’re only talking about yourself, since that would be an idiosyncratic view with no application to the wider topic and no application the Phelps story.
We’re not talking about manners, but civil liberties. People have the right to be rude.
My point, which you seem to have missed, was that I understand why someone might wish to respond to the Phelpses’ odious, hateful, sadistic behavior with violence. I don’t expect people to be perfect. And while such a response shouldn’t be legal, nor should the Phelpses deliberate courting of such a reaction be ignored, and the fact that they are doing purposefully inflicing emotional pain on others should be taken into account if anyone ever does kick one of their asses for what they do.
Note that I said if. I’m not convinced the story in the OP actually happened for several reasons; it wouldn’t surprise me if it were an urban legend.
It is not always right to exercise one’s rights. No liberty is absolute. No, make that few liberties; I’m sure I’ll think of at least one exactly five minutes and one second after I hit submit. Anyway, I can think of many occasions in which I could say something but forebear out of a desire not to be an asshole. The Phelpses have long since passed the point where their freedom of speech is harmful to others.
Nothing the Phelps have merely said has been, or could be harmful to others. What’s morally "right’ is neither here nor there. They have the right to say stupid things 500 yards away from cemeteries. It doesn’t hurt anybody and it can’t justify violence. It’s dangerous road to go down to suggest that it can.
To quote former Vikings head coach Denny Green, “The great thing about America is that everybody has the right to an opinion. The other great thing is that you don’t have to listen to it.”
You do if they are within 500 yards of where you are burying your child.
No you don’t, actually. 500 yards is a long way. Five football fields. The family that brought the recent Supreme Court case never even knew the Phelps had been there until they saw it on the news after the funeral.
I would say that emotional harm is genuine harm, though much harder to quantify than physical injury. And it is not my position that kicking the Phelpses’ asses for their asshattery should be legal: just that I can understand the impulse and would be inclined to be lenient to someone who did so, especially a grieving parent whom they were provoking in their cynical, hatefilled way. People are not perfect, and my morality requires me to be merciful and understanding when I can.
I frequently fail at that last bit, by the way.
They were aware of it afterwards and it didn’t cause them grief?
I’ll just back off. I really don’t like snapping at each other instead of discussing things. 
You don’t have a right to not be offended.
The Supreme Court rejected the assertion that the Phelps do “emotional harm” to the bereaved, by the way.
The Supreme Court said it didn’t. They were perfectly free to change the channel. The Phelps also hadn’t said anything specifically about them or their son.
That is not true. The Supreme Court ruled that the Phelpses were due, as a matter of law, special protection for their speech. That is not the same as saying that they do not do emotional harm; it’s prioritizing free speech rights over people’s rights not to be harassed. From Justice Roberts:
The record confirms that any distress occasioned by Westboro’s picketing turned on the content and viewpoint of the message conveyed, rather than any interference with the funeral itself. A group of parishioners standing at the very spot where Westboro stood, holding signs that said “God Bless America” and “God Loves You,” would not have been subjected to liability. It was what Westboro said that exposed it to tort damages.
Roberts is explicitly conceding that Westboro Baptist may well be (and, let’s be honest, surely is: there are no Vulcans on this planet) inflicting emotional harm, even as he judges that free speech protection is more important.
I’m not arguing against that opinion, by the way. The Phelps are scum whom I could not trouble myself to piss of if they were aflame, but it’s in the national interest that their free speech rights be protected.
So I may call your children lesbian vegetarian communist retarded…REPUBLICANS, and as long ad you don’t see it on TV it doesn’t bother you?
I’ve said it before, but since it seems again to be relevant – I believe that a military funeral is not a purely private event. Particularly when it occurs at a public/national cemetery or incorporates military honors, it is also a political act, inviting political commentary.
Bullshit.
We’re not talking about a state funeral here. We’re talking about people burying their dead loved ones.
We’re not talking about a televised funeral of a high-ranking general. We’re talking about ceremonies for enlisted men and women, following orders.
It is unconscionable – no, it is outright evil – for the Phelps to act as they do, and it is ridiculous to suggest that funerals as the recent Supreme Court case was concerned with are inviting controversy.
If they are incorporating symbols of the state–which they are doing by their own choice; nobody is forcing them to–they are doing more than just burying their dead loved ones.
You’re misunderstanding that point. The Court, in that passage, wasn’t making any finding one way or the other about emotional harm, but was saying that they didn’t disrupt the funeral so any hope of damages would have to come from the content of the speech. The Court then went on to say that “intentional infliction of emotional harm” rested on whether the speech was of “public or private” import, found that speech was of public import (meaning that it expressed general public opinions and did not contain any specific accusations or insults against the plaintiff), that they couldn’t sustain a tort for an infliction of emotional harm.
The entire text is here. It’s pdf, so I can’t copy and past, but read what it says about “public and private import.”
Furthermore, the Court found that the funeral was not disturbed, and that the plaintiffs were not a “captive audience” (they could neither see nor hear the protest). The family was not harassed. Someone saying things you don’t like about public policy 500 yards away from you is not harassment.
It wouldn’t bother me no matter where you said it as long as I didn’t have to hear it.
The Phelps did not disturb the funeral. They are entitled to say whatever they want about public policy 500 yards away from one. No harm is done to anybody. Calling it “evil” cheapens the word. The least an “evil” act should do is cause somebody some kind of harm.
I’m not misunderstanding the point, Diogenes; I am disagreeing with you.
You wrote
.
The Court did not rule that the WBC was not inflicting emotional distress. It ruled that the emotional distress it was inflicting was not so severe or egregious that it did not merit First Amendment protection, which is a different thing.
I don’t know why you think you can’t cut & paste from a PDF, by the way. Here’s a relevant bit I just C&Ped:
It would not be necessary to note that Snyder is barred from recovery for intentional infliction of emotional distress if the WBD hadn’t in fact done such. The fact that WBC’s actions did not rise to the level of impermissible or illegal harassment does not mean it was not harassment. Not all levels of harassment are illegal.
I’m perfectly comfortable with making aimed, “baiting” hate speech against protected classes illegal. But it isn’t illegal. It’s still HIGHLY immoral. There are no moral courts in this country, so I think it’s perfectly MORALLY acceptable for enraged mourners to beat Fred Phelps’s ass (while wearing masks so he can’t file a retaliation lawsuit, of course). I’m not going to change my mind about this, ever. I’m not a lawyer and I’m not speaking to that. I don’t care. Fuck that fucker up.
The reason WBC hasn’t stopped being asshole funeral-ruining douchebags is because THEY FACE NO FUCKING CONSEQUENCES. If Freddie boy knew he’d get a black eye every time he picketed a funeral, I have a feeling he’d stop picketing funerals post-haste. Whatever it takes.
I’m a pinko liberal commie and I don’t plan to debate my view on this subject. The Phelpses have made themselves into a special case.
Be sure not to read the thread, “Dio’s kids are commie veggie eaters!” then.