Oh my God... I feel sorry for a Phelps and I agree with Sean Hannity

The BBQ Pit
41

Just curious, do you have a cite for this info? I would like to read it.

I saw that wretched excuse for an interview (online, I don’t watch Hannity & Colmes). What angers me about the whole process is two things: first, whether or not she deserved it, there was no need for those two to bring her on the show just to hurl insults in her direction. They have the moral high ground in the situation from the start, so it’s a waste to spend time posturing and affirming this. Of course, that’s just par for the course for those retards…

Second, why was she on a major news network at all? Why give these loons any sense of validity, and why even put the inkling of validation in the minds of the public? Sensationalism, nothing more. The major news networks should be embarrased they they have to stoop so low to bring in viewers, and we the public should be embarrased that we allow ourselves to be fed this garbage as “news.”

Yes, everyone in America has the right to voice their opinions. Howver, this doesn’t mean the media has an obligation to give everyone a soapbox.

42

I’ve never heard of him except on here - however, I can’t help wondering if he is so evil and his children are so evil and this is public information, why are his grandchildren not taken away?
I agree with Kalhoun - for me, this only further illustrates that religion and god is a man(sic)made construct.

43

Actually, they weren’t faking it quite so much-I think one of them said for a few years after leaving, he was terrified of going to Hell someday because everyone outside of the family was damned.
MelCthefirst-on what grounds? What legal reason would they have for taking the kids away?

44

I think getting Old Freddie boy together with that mormon leader that is on the lam ( what the hell is his name and has he be caught yet?) would be something worthy of a cage match PPV.
Oh, with some Osama thrown in for the final hilarity (babel fish for all!)

45

Well I’m pretty sure you have the same laws in the States as here (maybe I’m wrong?) - if a child is being mistreated, physically, mentally, sexually - then Child Youth and Family come in and take them away. Ofcourse there are regional issues and lack of social workers to investigate claims, but generally this is how it works.

46

You’re aware this is Fox News, right? You have to know by now that they’re unencumbered by things like shame or decency. I’m not even using “it’s Fox” as a punchline at this point, I just can’t believe people are unaware this is what they do over there.

47

Why are they anti-soldier?

48

I think they’re more pro-free-publicity.

49

Because they say America has angered their god by tolerating gays. Or because they’ll say anything to shock people and try to provoke them so they can sue. In that sense it depends on who you ask. There’s plenty about them online, and a lot of threads here too.

50

First, you have to prove they’ve been mistreated. Second, considering the family consists of a pack of lawyers, they probably know these laws upside and down, and you’d have to tread very carefully.

51

Oh I am well aware of what typifies Fox News antics, as well the usual shenanigans from Phelps. However, they are really only the worst out of a list of useless news organizations. There is really very little glory for CNN if the best they can do is to be a little better than the lowest of the low. Either way, just because I am aware of it, doesn’t mean it has stopped pissing me off.

I still say that all the critism that the hard left throws towards Fox News—well deserved though it may be—can be turned right around and said about plenty of other news networks. And I still stand by my earlier statement that we, the public, should be collectively embarrassed that we haven’t taken advantage of the power that the free market gives us to regulate the media; that we have allowed ourselves to be fed this nonsense until we have convinced ourselves that it’s “news.”

52

Because apparently, the American Army is a fag army!!!11one!

Basically, they see every misfortune that befalls the country, including September 11, as proof that God is punishing America as a modern day sodom. The Iraq war would be the same.

53

Well, now the ACLU has stepped in. They are suing on behalf of the Phelps’. At least the spokeswoman has the grace to blush when she speaks on the matter in the CNN video titled "Group Sues to protest funerals dated May 2.

54

[QUOTE=Zabali_Clawbane]
Well, now the ACLU has stepped in. They are suing on behalf of the Phelps’. At least the spokeswoman has the grace to blush when she speaks on the matter in the CNN video titled "Group Sues to protest funerals dated May 2.
[/QUOTE]

I’m with the ACLU on this one. (I said more or less the same thing here in this thread .) I think that censorship based on content is dangerous and wrong, and while I’m not a huge fan of the ACLU, they’re right on this one.

55

[QUOTE=Linty Fresh]
I’m with the ACLU on this one. (I said more or less the same thing here in this thread .) I think that censorship based on content is dangerous and wrong, and while I’m not a huge fan of the ACLU, they’re right on this one.
[/QUOTE]

Yes, but I would still blush and feel dirty if I were going to bat for the Phelps’. Also, we need to remember that the mourners have First Amendment rights, and perhaps we should look at the laws as placing the rights of those who mourn above the rights of those who are out to offend? There isn’t an easy answer on this, and it leaves me feeling split. I wish it were clear, how we can let those who are greiving have some peace and dignity, while allowing others to say their hateful opinions.

56

[QUOTE=Sweet Mercury]
Because apparently, the American Army is a fag army!!!11one!

Basically, they see every misfortune that befalls the country, including September 11, as proof that God is punishing America as a modern day sodom. The Iraq war would be the same.
[/QUOTE]

They protested at Mister Rogers’s memorial service. Anywhere they can get publicity.

57

[QUOTE=Ogre]
Beck looked less corpselike than Phelps.

In real life the bad guys usually look no different than anybody else. But this guy. . . the evil is eating him from the inside out.

58

[QUOTE=Linty Fresh]
I’m with the ACLU on this one. (I said more or less the same thing here in this thread .) I think that censorship based on content is dangerous and wrong, and while I’m not a huge fan of the ACLU, they’re right on this one.
[/QUOTE]

Hmm, that’s interesting. Well, I gotta hand it to the ACLU for at least being principled…

Honestly, I usually am a fan of the ACLU, but I think they are wrong on this one. Yes, the First Amendment protects speech that people find offensive and hurtful, but it does not protect harassment. I can’t follow around a black person calling him a “filthy coon” or follow around a gay person calling him a “filthy queer,” while proclaiming the First Amendment protects my right to do so. (Nor do I have any desire to.)

The issue now is this: does the WBC actually have a message? Or are they doing on a group level what I described above on an individual level, following someone around harassing them? I say it’s the latter, and therefore unprotected by the First Amendment. The liberty of one man extends so far as the liberty of another, and no further.

59

[QUOTE=Sweet Mercury]
The issue now is this: does the WBC actually have a message? Or are they doing on a group level what I described above on an individual level, following someone around harassing them? I say it’s the latter, and therefore unprotected by the First Amendment. The liberty of one man extends so far as the liberty of another, and no further.
[/QUOTE]

Yes! That mirrors my thoughts on the matter. They are violating the rights of the mourners, harassing them. I’d say that because they are overstepping the boundaries of decency, that reinforcing the lines they must stay within are not a violation of their rights at all.

60

[QUOTE=Sweet Mercury]
Hmm, that’s interesting. Well, I gotta hand it to the ACLU for at least being principled…

Honestly, I usually am a fan of the ACLU, but I think they are wrong on this one. Yes, the First Amendment protects speech that people find offensive and hurtful, but it does not protect harassment. I can’t follow around a black person calling him a “filthy coon” or follow around a gay person calling him a “filthy queer,” while proclaiming the First Amendment protects my right to do so. (Nor do I have any desire to.)

The issue now is this: does the WBC actually have a message? Or are they doing on a group level what I described above on an individual level, following someone around harassing them? I say it’s the latter, and therefore unprotected by the First Amendment. The liberty of one man extends so far as the liberty of another, and no further.
[/QUOTE]

I sympathize with you Mercury. I really, really do sympathize with you, and I think your heart is in the right place. I hate these people’s guts, and I hate the fact that I feel I need to defend them, but I do.

IANAL, but if what they did really constituted harrassment, then why would we need a special law to prohibit them from protesting at funerals? No matter how you slice it, this is content-based censorship, and content-based censorship is a dangerous thing. Counterprotest them, shout them down, or let the Patriot Guard come down to block them from the family. Just don’t violate their civil rights for the sake of a serviceman or -woman who died while sworn to protect them.

It’s sort of like flag-burning. Quite a few people would like to see this outlawed as well, and I can’t say as I blame them, as I consider flag-burners total scuzz-buckets, but I don’t think flag-burning should be outlawed either. I might hate it, but it’s protected by the constitution (until the right-wingnuts manage to get that amendment passed, anyway).

Again, I hate the Phelps’s. I hate what they say. But I sure don’t hate their right to say it.