They called my pregnant friend a few days after her soldier husband was blown to bits in Iraq. They told her that her husband was a fag. She looked at her stomach, laughed, and asked how they figured that out. They said:
[ul]
[li]The military lets gays in.[/li][li]Being gay is contagious.[/li][li]Therefore, all soldiers are gay and when God kills them with IEDs, it’s just the good Lord ridding the world of those dirty, anal-lovin’ ho-mo-sex-ualllls (you have to say it all slow and drawn out like that).[/li][/ul]
How in hell is this protected by free speech? It’s harassment pure and simple, and probably easy to prove (the phone records should be checkable, and since your friend I’m sure has no connection to the Phelps and the Phelps are only known for one thing and it ain’t condolence calls you’d think it’d be an open and shut case.
Well, I don’t think this would be protected by by the first amendment. I was referring to their right to demonstrate, not to make crank calls. I’m allowed to peacefully demonstrate against the war in Iraq as long as I don’t trespass or violate others’ constitutionally protected rights. I’m not allowed to call Rummy at his house and telling him that he’s gonna rot in hell. One is a constitutionally protected action, and the other is a crime. I think her friend should press charges. I’m not saying that we shouldn’t fight back. I’m just saying that we should fight back constitutionally.
I’m sure if they got too disruptive at a funeral (no fucking way they’d be allowed inside the church or temple, or the funeral home itself), you could call the cops and have them arrested for harassment, or disturbing the peace.
I don’t think there’s such a thing as an “open and shut case” when the Phelps’s get involved. I’m thinking that pressing charges is going to lead to a never-ending series of counter-suits. I don’t think Fred reacts well to being challenged. Unless you’ve got deep pockets, you’re probably better off just biting your tongue until the malicious old fuck fixates on a new target for harassment.
However, I do agree with Linty and the ACLU that Fred has a legal right to protest funerals. Fred is pretty puny and insignificant compared to the Bill of Rights. It’s not worth harming one just to harm the other.
I understand that completely, and I agree. I’m just saying that I think Diosa’s friend should press charges. If she can prove it happened then I don’t think she’d have ANY trouble paying legal fees- one web story and the donations would come in from the gay, military and just decent folk in general communities; I’d certainly donate a few bucks.
Why should she press charges? To waste all of the money the military gave her to help raise her and her dead husband’s baby? I mean, don’t get me wrong- initially I said the same thing, but with a little thought it’s easy to see why pressing charges wouldn’t do much but give Phred the attention he wants. And even if she could get the money donated: she’s a single mom, she doesn’t need THAT as added stress (trust me, that baby is QUITE the adorable, adorable handful).
Plus when they called, she was the only one who wasn’t pissed. She was laughing. She couldn’t believe anyone would be that ignorant and stupid. The call itself didn’t do a thing to her, it was the fact that they were trying to ruin her chance to say goodbye to her husband that bothered her (by protesting the funeral).
In the end, Phred’s “church” was in town- a local gay rights group was tailing them the whole morning. From a Denny’s, Phred sent out one of his kids to survey the church. Said kid returned, explained that the SWAT team, the Army, the Hells Angels, and a whole lot of pissed of Veterans and rednecks (this IS Bakersfield) were waiting. Apparently, the Good Phred decided it’d be best to move along.
So there is the answer my friends: pose a genuine threat and those cowards wont show up.
You are correct about this. And I meant to include this in my earlier post, that this is the crux of the ACLU’s argument. Sorry. There are troublesome issues involved in creating these laws when they are provoked by such a specific instance or group. However, I would argue that this is not “content based censorship,” but context-based, which takes it out of the realm of censorship at all. I will address this below, because I do believe, factually, that what the WBC does is harassment, not just “protesting.” Therefore, we circumvent the need for a special law and the problems it creates by simply enforcing the laws that exists for harassment.
I have no issues with flag burning, as I think it’s an empty gesture. I do understand that a veteran will probably take great offense to the idea of a flag being burned, but the consequence of a free society is that we sometimes, or often, see things that we find horribly offensive. (Don’t think me a hypocrite yet, I will explain.)
Agreed, entirely. They do have a right to think what they think, and the right to say what they say, regardless of how ignorant or repellent I think it is. However, as I said above, this isn’t an issue of content, but of context. Does the WBC have the right to stage a demonstration in the public forum (or their own private domain) to advertise and promote their virulent hatred for homosexuals? Absolutely. Them’s the breaks in an open society. However, they are crossing a very important line.
In the public forum, such offensive displays as the WBC, a KKK rally, or flag burning are protected free speech, because we all accept the “risk” of offense when we accept the rights we have in our society. However I think it is a huge leap to assume that a funeral is within the domain of the “public forum.” Just because they are outside, doesn’t mean that they aren’t private affairs. The difference between the WBC staging a rally in downtown Topeka, KS or following people to a funeral is the same difference in me burning a flag in protest in downtown Anywhere, US or following a veteran to his home or place of business and burning a flag on the sidewalk outside while shouting “Baby killing fag!” over and over.
Now why are these two latter infractions harassment, and not protected speech? Because of the implied right of the people in regards to offensive material—the right to avoid it if they so choose. This is what makes the offensiveness tolerable in an open and supposedly peaceful society. If I think a painting is offensive, I can speak out, and more importantly, I can simply choose to not view/support the painting—which is the defense many of us Libertarians have in the past invoked when confronted with issues of offense. If I think a television show is mean spirited, I can turn it off. And if I think rally/demonstration is offensive, I have the right to avoid it if I so choose. What is so wrong about the individual illustrations I have stated above, and with Phelps, what makes what they do harassment, is that they rob people of this second implied right, which is just as essential as freedom of speech to the open society we supposedly enjoy. They aren’t just demonstrating offensive ideas, which is their right to do absolutely, they are following around specific individuals and groups and targeting them for harassment. They are, in the pursuit of their own “liberty,” trampling all over the liberty of others. That’s not free speech, in any sense; it is the enemy of free speech. It’s worse than a perversion of the First Amendment; it is a threat to everything that the First Amendment was designed to protect.
I understand where you are coming from; believe me, I am a Libertarian as well (If I’m wrong in that assumption, I apologize). It seems the natural Libertarian reaction to assume that “free speech” should always be protected, regardless of how offensive it is. And I concede to your agreement with the ACLU that special laws inspired by Phelps are more dangerous than necessary and could be more harm than good. I do not, however, believe for a second that Phelps is within his rights as an American citizen here, ethically, politically, or legally. And I will not concede that the right to free speech can be construed to mean the right to harass.
Whoops, sorry about that. I guess I get a little trigger-happy whenever I find myself discussing the WBC.
IIRC, the Phelps clan actually did protest right outside of people’s houses in Topeka before they became national news. I don’t recall exactly what happened, but I believe they crossed the line somehow, and the courts ruled it harrassment. They haven’t done it since.
Really? Is there an implied right not to hear the message? Does it have precedence in higher court? I’m skeptical here, Mercury.
The first amendment is very simple, and it’s very clear. Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or the right of the people peaceably to assemble. It doesn’t say “unless people can’t get away from the message at a funeral” any more than it says “unless it’s porn,” or “unless Eminem says ‘fuck’ at a concert”. If it turns into harrassment, they can be prosecuted under laws already existing, just like if they trespass onto private property. I would have no trouble with the whole lot getting arrested and doing time if they were to fuck up like this. But no laws governing their constitutional rights. That’s where I draw the line.
When you talk about content-based legislation vs. context-based legislation, you’re making a distinction that simply isn’t there. Context-based is just a subset of content-based, and that does indeed make it censorship.
And Julian Beck scared the living crap out of me when I saw that Poltergeist movie as a kid. I mean, seriously- I had nightmares from the fucking previews.
I too had never seen a picture of Phelps, but he makes Beck look like the happy Buddha. Whoever said “evil eating him from the inside out” was dead on.
If (God forbid) my brother dies in a war zone, part of me hopes those assholes try to show up. I’ve got a bunch of sober bikers who would love to say “howdy” to 'em.
Seconded. Preferably of heart attacks brought on by the shock of cops bursting into their rented L.A. bungalow and busting them for producing and starring in gay donkey porn without the proper licenses or a member of the SPCA present.
Sweet Mercury, as long as that funeral is held in public, on public grounds, there’s not a damned thing you can do about it. Period.
Now, I’m sure that no funeral director in his right mind would allow them into the funeral home, nor would anyone at a church allow them into the service. As for the cemetary-that depends, they might be forced to stay outside, depending on whether or not it was a private cemetary. I don’t know the laws.
But no, as long as they’re not harassing anyone, they have that right to protest.
I have absolutely no sympathy for that family and if Hannity and Colmes ripped that person a new one than good for them. They take the God that I worship and love and turn him into one of them. There are people out there who look at this family and really think that is what mainstream Christianity is all about. When they stop making a mockery of Christians, I may have a heart for them in that that whole family is brainwashed.
IF they are ripped apart enough, it just may get through to some members about how wrong they are. The thing is, it would have to be done by a Christian (probably a group from the Independent Baptist camp). I am sure this family feels that they are above being corrected by anyone else. BUT a Christian can pull out some Bible verses about correction and discipline by a brother or sister and they would be Biblically required to listen which I don’t know if they would do or not do. (Now, this has probably happened and they have apparently not taken the advise.)
Maybe after Freddie boy leaves this earth to spend eternity in hell, someone will get ahold of this people and get them deprogrammed.
Oh, 3 of the Phelps kids are estranged from their family. I think only one still resides in Kansas.
One thing I take comfort in is that everyone I’ve seen on this board has been unanimous in denouncing Fred Phelps. I don’t think there’s any other issue where everyone is so completely in agreement.
Mrs O’Malley’s Cow, keep in mind, these people have really never been exposed to any other viewpoint BUT their father’s. The four that got away were the lucky ones, but even they have plenty of problems.
I can see what you are saying, and I do agree up to a point. However I think that it is time for the laws to be clarified in some respects, it is time that the rights of those targeted by protests be explained too. I will point out though, that the WBC threatens and intimidates people (one of the sons threatens bodily harm/rape on women regularly) when they protest and even spit on people. That isn’t “peaceful” demonstration at all. Not only that, but some of these laws only reinforce the boundaries that Phelps and others like him must stay within, making them stay back from the proceedings and not letting them get in the faces of the mourners. I am not sure what the difference is in the law the ACLU is challenging, can anyone elucidate? Does the law being challenged prohibit any kind of protest at all?
No, of course it’s not. However, if and when they do that, THEN the police should be called. (making threats I would assume is just as illegal as spitting on someone). However, if all they’re doing is standing there with signs and shouting stupid shit like, “God hates those hell-bound homos!” or whatever, that is their right. And goddammit, as much as I loathe them, I love our rights even more.