Mississippi hands Westboro it's ass.

Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share
121

No, it is not simply “I don’t like what you are saying”, though I suppose if you want to add a straw-man to the slippery slope you can look at it like that if you want. :wink:

Rather, it is that this is the very specific and restricted sort of speech that does not deserve constitutional protection - speech that is intended to harm specific, identified individuals, that is so vile and contemptuous of them that an unbiased and objective observer would reasonably conclude that its purpose was to incite the victims to violence (whether or not it actually does).

I can see nothing “political” in the message ‘god hates your dead, gay son’. I can’t see that as adding anything worthwhile to the public discourse.

The fact that these godawful trolls are effective in rules-lawyering their way around the US legal system by the simple expedient of using the context to make their hateful message for them (that is, by “picketing” not directly at the funeral, but a couple of blocks away - relying on the media to connect the obvious dots) points out the weaknesses in that system, not its strengths - one could argue that such weaknessess are the price one must pay for liberty, but on the other hand, allowing such weaknesses tends to bring the administration of laws into disrepute and encourages law-breaking in others, which has to be weighed against that.

122

That’s simply your opinion. And it’s the Phelpses opinion that it does. That’s how free speech works.

You keep using the word “trolls” as if it should mean something in the context of free speech. It doesn’t. People get to speak. If you don’t like what they’re saying, you have the option of not listening to them.

It’s a weakness that someone who is not actually harassing someone or interfering in someone else’s business can actually find a way to speak in public? No, it’s a strength.

Or, people learn to get used to the fact that some people have things to say that you don’t agree with. As a society we have over time become more and more tolerant of disagreeable speech and less and less tolerant of the idea that people have a right to seek societal suppression of nothing more than a stranger expressing a wild-eyed opinion on a street corner somewhere out of earshot. The way to deal with it is to get used to it and ignore it.

123

Ascenray, your whole argument hinges on the false equivalence of hate speech and political speech. I’m just pointing that out. That you don’t think there is a difference says a lot about you.

124

Hate speech IS political speech, and it has all the same protections.

125

It says that I’m not a hypocrite. People get to say things that I don’t like. So long as it doesn’t constitute an actual threat, interference with my life, or create an actual harm to my reputation, or some other effect beyond mere speech, they get to do it. In exchange, I get to do it too.

I could make an argument that Fox News causes tangible harm to many more people in this country by disseminating false information and influencing people to make political decisions that harm their economic future. This is a much more plausible argument than the Phelpses – whose opinions are dismissed as lunacy by the public at large – standing somewhere in the general vicinity where I can’t hear them is causing anyone actual harm. The Phelpses are like children acting stupid – no one is forced to pay them any attention. To actually want to use societal power to shut them down reveals a deep insecurity and weakness.

126

No, you made a very specific claim that I’m disagreeing with, one made by you - that this speech falls into the category of “political speech”. From your post:

Are you now of the opinion that such “facts” as whether something is, or is not, “political speech” is simply a subjective matter of opinion? If so, does that not totally ruin the point of having some extra-special category labelled “political speech” that is entitled to the “highest level of governmental interest to restrict it” (again, your terms, not mine)?

‘You keep using the term “defamation” as if it should mean something in the context of free speech. It doesn’t. People get to speak. If you don’t like what they’re saying, you have the option of not listening to them’.

See how that works? Not all speech is constitutionally protected. You don’t get to deliberately defame people, and nor (I would argue) do you get to figuratively spit on the corpse of someone’s relation at their funeral.

No, it;s a weakness that someone, through clever rules lawyering, gets the opportunity to freely insult people attending a funeral. The fact that so many people can, easily, visualize excusing the relations for beating their sorry asses demonstrates the problem.

If this were a matter of the government hunting down the Phelps clan and throwing them in the clink, I might be tempted to agree. But it is not. It is a matter of the aggreived family resorting to the courts for private remedies as an alternative to engaging in a fist-fight.

The whole ‘well, they are so far away, doesn’t affect them’ is a sham - it is essentially rewarding the Phelpses’ rules-lawyering.

I see no reason why folks should “just get used to” defamation and I see no reason for folks to “just get used to” what the Phelps clan does, either.

127

Hate speech directed at a protected minority group and political speech criticizing the actions of an elected group are not analogous and you should stop equating them.

128

I think you have too narrow a perception of the meaning of “political speech.” Hate speech actually is a form of political speech, but the significant legal distinction is that the Supreme Court said the Phelps were making speech on matters of “public import,” which meant it was protected.

Hate speech is protected too, for the record.

129

I agree with ascenray completely. What does that say about me? Please, by all means, be specific.

130

I made clear earlier in the thread that I’m not talking about legal designations, but moral ones. There is a reason that nearly everyone wants to kick the asses of the Phelps clan, but almost nobody wants to kick the asses of political dissenters.

Hate speech is not moral equivalent of political speech. That’s why (the majority of) people get uncomfortable when we bring up censorship of political dissidents, but (the majority of) people do NOT get uncomfortable when we talk about shutting up the Phelpses. They’re legally allowed to do it; that has NO bearing on the morality of their actions. They’re fucking repugnant, and if Fred ZXLhelps was in front of me right now I’d be sorely tempted to pop my first into his jaw.

131

How about just, “God hates your gay son,” or “God hates you, you gay person, you.”

Political? Or how about religious, which I seem to recall might also cropping up somewhere in the first amendment?

132

You may have missed this, but the people equating hate speech with political speech are making legal arguments, not moral arguments.

133

Personally, I think it says that you are incorrect on this particular issue. :wink:

In general, the battle here is one of whether freedom of speech is, or ought to be, an absolute right, or one that is subject to exceptions; and if it is subject to exceptions, should what the Phelps clan does fall into one of them?

My answer to both those questions is:

(1) Nowhere, not even in the US, is freedom of speech absolute. There are exceptions. Care is taken to make those exceptions specific and limited.

(2) It simply makes sense that, if there are going to be exceptions, what the Phelps clan does ought to be one of 'em, because what they do has absolutely no potential redeeming value, and has the potential to create harm.

The sort of “harm” it can create is indicated by this very thread: it seems an open incitement to violence, quite literally “fighting words”. I can easily see the mom or dad of one of these ‘god hates your dead gay son’ funerals smacking a Phelps around, and a jury simply refusing to convict them - how many here on the Dope, let alone in reality, would really want to see a mom who smacked a Phelps down under such circumstances convicted and imprisioned for assault? - particularly as the Phelpses have ‘the law on their side’ to spread their hate. This situation is the sort of thing that has the potential to bring the law into disrepute - where it is simply too far outside the ambit of what the ordinary woman-in-the-street thinks is “right” (whatever they happen to think of, say, gays).

134

You are shifting the fact situation - I see a slippery slope here. :stuck_out_tongue:

The very point of what the Phelps clan does is to picket funerals, because they know this is ultra-extra outrageous and harmful - thus will rile people up in ways that ‘god hates you’ will not.

Hence the need, assuming exceptions to freedom of speech should be made, to make them as targeted and limited as possible - on a case by case basis. Use a reasonable person standard. Would a reasonable person find this particular behaviour in its context so indecent to humanity, so outrageous to dignity, so designed to incite violence, as to be unworthy of consitutional protections - whether couched as “religious speech”, “political speech” or any other sort of speech?

Obviously, such cases are gonna be rare.

135

Those people are also trying to pretend that there’s no difference whatsoever in calling someone’s dead son a faggot, and calling Obama a bad president BECAUSE there is no legal distinction between them. These are not morally equivalent statements, though. Legal distinctions are not the only ones that matter when we’re talking about hate speech.

136

Please show where someone has made that argument.

137

Well, I figured that’s what you’d say, but you’re punching at a much higher weight than the person I was talking to.

Well, in theory, it’s “redeeming value” would be that it would convince people to turn away from homosexuality, and support laws criminalizing homosexual activities. In practice, I suspect it largely has the opposite effect, but simply because the speaker is incompetent at achieving his goals does not justify removing his ability to speak.

I think this is a slight bit of topic drift here, because the issue is not protesting at the funerals of dead homosexuals, it’s the protesting of funerals of dead soldiers. As I noted up thread, Phelps spent years and years protesting at the funerals of dead gays, and there were no supreme court trials or debates on the floor of congress about it. It’s only when Phelps started targeting military funerals that it suddenly became a national issue. This strongly suggests to me that the problem is not the action itself, but the target. It was socially acceptable for Phelps to show up at Matthew Sheppard’s funeral with a “God hates fags” sign - or at least, not so far outside of the mainstream that anyone outside of the gay community and its allies was willing to do anything about it. This says to me that the objection to Phelps’ actions is ultimately content-based: it’s okay to say that a dead queer is burning in hell, but it’s not okay to say a dead soldier is burning in hell, or, worse, that a dead soldier might be queer.

138

I did a quick search for preemptive banning of defamatory speech, and couldn’t come up with anything. You do get to defame people - but you might get punished for it from a suit by the person defamed. If someone wants to sue Phred and phamily for defamation based on the stuff they said, I’d donate to the legal fund. I don’t think there would be that good a chance of success, but that is a more reasonable remedy.

Remember when Oprah supposedly defamed the cattle barons? Do you think they should have had the right to prevent her speech?

139

The Snyders would have no defamation case because the Phelps didn’t say anything about them at all, much less anything defamatory.

140

Has any members of the Phelps clan ever had a funeral? Was it quiet?