Oh shit, no it wasn’t… his last name was Felt. I have no idea why that is coming up…
Not sure what constitutes a “dead thread” around here, so if this is a necrobump, I apologize.
I think there is. It’s how we, as a society, balance out the freedom of one person and the freedom of another. It’s what binds rights and duties. I suppose that “an implied right to not hear the message” is not the best choice of words, but I did explain myself a bit more clearly than that.
Well, who says you get to draw the line? Who says that I do? The issue with the first amendment is that is simple almost to a fault. No, it doesn’t say “unless it’s porn,” or “unless Eminem says ‘fuck’ at a concert.” It also doesn’t say, “unless it becomes harassment” either. Yet, I don’t think either of us think that the First Amendment protects harassment in any form.
I ask—and I don’t mean this as some sort of rhetorical “gotcha”—does the First Amendment protect the right of the KKK to ‘peacefully protest’ the funeral of a black man while carrying signs that say “God Hates Niggers” and shouting the same?
I agree that additional laws are not necessary and possibly detrimental, what I am saying is that Phelps and his ilk cross the line of laws that are already in place.
No, it isn’t. They are two very different words and two different meanings. The content of Phelps message is “God Hates Fags.” This is virtually irrelevant to the issue. The context however, is the time, place, and method of delivery. They both relate to the issue at hand, but one is not a subset of the other. The only way content and context are related for this discussion is by alliteration. Phelps can think what he wants whenever he wants. He can preach his message almost as he sees fit. However, he cannot shout it into another persons ear repeatedly after that person has asked him repeatedly not to. We don’t prohibit such actions because of the content of the message, but because of the time, place, and method of delivery; the context.
I think we agree more than it would seem from this discussion. Put simply:
[ul]
[li]The First Amendment protects absolutely Phelps right to have his beliefs and to express them.[/li][li]The First Amendment does not protect the right of one citizen to harass another, nor one group of citizens to harass another group.[/li][/ul]
I still say that to follow someone around against their will, screaming insults at them, constitutes harassment, and that this rule applies to individuals as well as groups. Just because WBC hides what they do behind some sort of cause doesn’t make it any less harmful or harassing.
Furthermore, I find the need that so many people have to pat themselves on the back regarding the First Amendment astounding. People are taking a part of our governing document that was designed to protect and promote the free exchange of ideas in an open society and turning it into a shield for all types of harassment, all the while we congratulate ourselves as though we are defenders of the faith.
Very nicely phrased. It’s completely lacking in legal basis, but it’s very nicely phrased.
That’s not a fault. That’s the whole point of the first amendment. Everyone gets to say whatever they want unless they break existing laws or trespass or violate the constitutional rights of others.
Then why haven’t we arrested them? Why aren’t Phelps and his crew in jail or paying massive fines? I think that if it were harrassment, Phred and his ilk would have been shut down a long time ago, and I wouldn’t have a problem with that.
Where are you getting this? What is your legal basis for this? Show me the cases that support this statement. They don’t exist, because this statement is wrong.
Like it or not, Fred Phelps is protected by the same rights you are. You’ve got the right to mouth off and be obnoxious. So does he. Period.
Except for the right that my rights (and your rights) end where another’s nose begins. Phelps and his followers, in my opinion more than cross that line when they verbally assault, intimidate, and threaten violence. They do these things regularly, read Baker’s accounts of various pickets that they witnessed by the WBC in Topeka.
That should read “Except for the fact” etc. :o
All of which is already illegal, and does not require the passage of any additional, free-speech-limiting legislation to prosecute.
But I’m saying that they are in fact, violating the rights of others. Rights don’t exist because the constitution; it’s not some magical document that grants us the right to do this or that, but a list that protects certain rights that are inherent. These aren’t the only rights in existence, and I count the right to not be harassed and or otherwise violated among rights not explicitly defined in the Constitution. The “legal precedent” for that can be found in any of the existing laws on the books that protect citizens against harassment.
I don’t, however, believe that legal precedent “creates” or “defines” morality or rights, and I have given other reasons why I believe harassment to be wrong.
I ask that question every time he makes news with his nonsense. I can only conjecture that this is partly because everyone of the Phelps clan is trained in legal matters and begin suing everyone left and right every time people intervene with their crap. Add to that the “freedom fighters” who seem to think that they do our nation a service by fighting to allow Phelps to follow people around at funerals telling them that God hates them. But my utter cynicism at humanity is neither here nor there…
You have repeatedly requested some sort of legal precedent, or some sort of previous case that confirms my assertations on this matter. I have not given any because, quite frankly, I do not know nor do I care if they exist.
You ask for this information, and I ask you: why is it necessary? I have not based my argument from a standpoint of “legal precedent” at all. What I have offered is an argument based on the political philosophy that helps define this nation, and the logic that accompanies that, which has be been concurred by other posters in this thread, and which you have thoroughly dismissed out of hand. You haven’t addressed my points other than to say that you were skeptical. If what I said in my earlier post that began this discussion is logically invalid or unsound, than please point out how.
Too much reliance on legal precedent is detrimental to a living political body, and promotes nothing but stagnation. Previous legal decisions are very useful for determining the way a society worked in the past, understanding the intricacies of legal language, and—if the reasoning behind the previous legal decision was sound—revisiting the logic for maintaining the status quo. However, to rely on them as the sole basis for an argument, as you seem to be doing, is little more than an appeal to traditional authority.
You have asked me for the existing laws that back up my claim, and I say again that I do not know nor do I care if they exist. I have given you my reasons based on political philosophy, logic, and implicitly, morality. These things are antecedent to laws or precedents. One must first have established political philosophy and morality, both based on logic, and and then begin to create laws around these concepts. It doesn’t work the other way around. The way you keep imploring me to give you laws or previous decisions to back up my argument is working backward. Laws and precedents do not define or establish what is right or wrong, they reflect what has already been established as right or wrong. And, if they do not do this, then they are not good laws and should be changed or abandoned as necessity dictates.
You’re allowing “legal precedent” and laws to do your thinking for you. It doesn’t make sense. There have been plenty of cases where unfair, unnecessary laws have been in place, as well as plenty of legal precedents set that were not in accordance with good judgment or morality.
As to the question “where are you getting this,” I get my definitions for “content” and “context” from my knowledge of the English language; my argument was deduced from those definitions. If I am incorrect in my definition or application of those definitions, please tell me how.
Aren’t you putting the cart before the horse here? If the laws don’t exist, then that is independent of whether or not my statements are right or wrong. Just as my statements are independent of laws. They stand or fall on their own accord, according to the logic they represent.
Yes, he is. As am I or anyone else. But neither him nor I am allowed to harass people. Simply mouthing off and being obnoxious is a separate matter from harassment. You have stated, and given reasons to back it up which you haven’t addressed, that I believe what Phelps does crosses the line between being obnoxious and harassing people. He might not do it always, but he does do it.
I ask again: how do you define harassment? Where and how do you draw the line between what is just obnoxious or unseemly and what is harassment against another person or group of people? Regardless of other discussion, this is the only real issue of contention here.
Agreed. The passage of “Phelps laws” would be unnecessary and possibly damaging. All that is required is to enforce laws already in existance.
Well then–your bluster about how great it would be if we could just start passing laws abridging freedom of speech and assembly based upon your personal opinion of what is decent behavior aside–you and I are in agreement.
Of course, this is quite different from what you said here:
If you recall, this was in reference to to your disagreement with the ACLU’s opposing a new law banning the Phelps gang from protesting funerals. Now that you are in agreement with the ACLU about how there shouldn’t be any new laws, I’m in agreement with you.
Hey, if you can get the Phelps gang jailed using existing harrasment laws, I’ll consider you my new best friend. You could come up to Boston, and I’ll buy every beer that passes your lips. I should point out, however, that I’m more than a little pessimistic. Something tells me that if this constituted harrassment, Phelps would have been phinished a loooong time ago.
Most likely it does, as long as they’re on public property. If they set foot on a private cemetary, or church grounds, or a funeral home, then you can kick them out.
I was thinking (always a dangerous prospect) that at some point - and I’m not a lawyer nor any kind of legal professional - after you filed so many frivolous lawsuits that the court could label you a “vexatious litigant” and bar you from filing any more lawsuits unless a judge first approved the filing? I heard that somewhere and was just curious. If he’s filed that many lawsuits, I wonder if that could happen to him…but that sounds like a kick-ass idea. If only there were some gazillionaire around who would do this… 
I believe it has happened to him. But not to his minions.
Given the circumstances of the OP, I’m curious: do the Phelps clan ever seem surprised that everyone disagrees with them? Do they ever ask someone like Hannity, “Mr. Hannity, you don’t think fags deserve marriage, or anything else, any more than we do! How can you revile us like that?”
From what I’ve read Fred Phelps thrives on conflict, is a sociopath and is dragging family down with him. So he isn’t looking for consent, he wants as much hate as possible. I doubt they want to be agreeable, they are like pissed off people in a bar looking to pick a fight because they are angry about something else.
But that won’t stop our Congress from acting.
It’s typical that Congress couldn’t even be bothered to know who Phelps was back when he was only picketing gays and gay sympathizers. Now that they’re picketing military funerals, the Honorable Gentlemen (snerk) are falling all over themselves to do something about this travesty… :rolleyes:
Now comes the countdown to when the ACLU takes Fred’s case the first time this is challenged.
I think they’re already on it. There is a case in Kentucky, I believe, that the ACLU is handling against a state version of the law. I don’t have the details and I’m afraid what will happen if I type Fred Phelps’s name into the search engine here.
This is a great point, jayjay, and one I hadn’t considered before. They sure took their time about doing “the right thing” on this one.
I don’t want to start a debate three pages into an existing thread, so I began one here, if you want to discuss it more.
Don’t get me wrong…I think a Phelps law is unnecessary and possibly unconstitutional. More importantly, it’s a really bad precedent and horrible PR for those who oppose WBC. Nothing makes someone an underdog faster than the opportunity to paint oneself a martyr, especially in a context like 1st Amendment rights.
I’m not surprised at all that Phelps remained a nobody while he was limiting himself to gay funerals. Even his picketing of Matthew Shepard’s funeral was only in the news to those who were already knowledgeable about the subject. It wasn’t until he picketed Mr. Freakin’ Rogers that he started to get national press.