Absolutely.
‘Free speech’ is not the same thing as ‘opinions the Government will allow you to have’.
No, it’s not relevant. If what I’m saying is dangerous…not just unpopular, but dangerous, I shouldn’t be allowed to say it, even if I don’t like the fact that I’m not allowed to say it. These people are preaching hatred, no less than neo-nazis or Klansmen. They’re dangerous, and they need to be stopped, and if stopping them means making what they’re saying and doing illegal, then lets do it, and to hell with their “rights”.
That’s a dangerous and un-American mindset. That kind of thinking sounds less like democracy and more like something you’d hear out of North Korea.
Everything is dangerous. Defending democracy is certainly dangerous. And worth the risk.
If Fox News doesn’t ignore this story altogether, it will ignore the Phelps’ anti-gay Christian conservatism and spin it as “ACLU defends anti-military flag desecraters”.
You’re setting up a false dichotomy here. Either we let anyone say anything they want, no matter how hateful it is, or we’re North Korea? Look, governments, even democratic governments, place restrictions on speech all the time. In the US, you’re not allowed to say “I’m going to kill the President”. In Canada, you can’t advocate genocide. In Germany, you can’t say that the Nazi party should be brought back. All of these are restrictions on speech, but they’re seen as neccesary restrictions by the governments because that sort of speech is seen as ultimately destructive to the society.
Before taking the case, the ACLU should require Phelps-Roper to make a public statement in support of gay rights and/or repudiating their earlier anti-ACLU stance.
Tastes great, less killing?
I think the A.C.L.U. should defend them. It is why they exist and the charges are tissue paper-thin. Really, if you want to go about this legally, you need to have local laws that have some teeth that they are found guilty of. Problem is, as much as I completely revile what they are doing and what they stand for, they get to have their say with their voices just like everyone else in America.
Why does that kindergarten phrase, " Sticks and stones can break my bones but words can never hurt me" come to mind?
And, what Kalhoun said. You want Un-American? That’s what you are promoting.
The country has freedoms that live and breathe and embrace an awful lot of ideas and words and statements.
A lot of times I’ve seen the Fox headlines misrepresent them as “war protesters.” Not only is that a disingenuous way to avoid calling attention to their super-Christian, gay-bashing psychosis (a position which Fox News fans all pretty much support) and to falsely suggest an association with the anti-war movement, it’s FACTUALLY false. The Phelps’ are not protesting the war in Iraq. They SUPPORT the war in Iraq. They just support it for some very bizarre reasons.
I think it speaks very highly about this board that people wouldn’t piss on Fred Phelps if he was on fire, but will defend his right to express himself. That’s what enlightenment means.
Our laws are based on principles as set forth in the constitution. People say hateful things all the time. So fuckin’ what? I’ve supported the Nazis marching on Skokie, which, if I recall correctly has (or had) the highest concentration of German jews (many rescued from concentration camps) in the nation.
Freedom of speech is freedom to criticize, freedom to express your thoughts and feelings, and freedom to do so without threat of bodily harm. That’s right…if anyone physically harms a member of the Phelps clan because they don’t like what they’re saying, your tax dollars pay the police to protect them and arrest anyone who tries to harm them.
Your example of saying you want to kill the president is a threat; that’s illegal. You can, however, say, “I wish the president would just drop dead” and no one can stop you.
Provided this is the best use of the ACLU’s limited resources at this moment in time. The Phelps should not be a priority case if the ACLU feels flag desecration has had its moment and there is nothing new here or if there are better cases to test the law simply because the ACLU and the Phelps are at odds in their opinions.
Hate speech is not protected speech, just like yelling ´fire´in a crowded theater isn´t protected…I think that limits on free speech should be few and far between, but I agree that it´s a false dichotomy to say either we can say anything we want to or we´re North Korea. When people preach hate towards gays, lesbians, queers, and transpeople, they are preaching hate and it is not protected by the constitution.
For purposes of clarification, I didn’t say “we’re” like North Korea. I said that poster’s comments sound like something that would come out of North Korea.
While flag desecration is an important part of the incident, there are other elements here. One is using child abuse laws against parents bringing their children to a political demonstration, and even encouraging their children to take an active part.
Here is an interesting starting point to the subject in Wiki: Hate speech - Wikipedia
Note the section toward the end of the article that highlights some of the problems inherent in limiting speech.
If you tell Phelps he can’t blather on about how much he hates fags, you’d be stepping on his right to religious expression. Food for thought.
If you’re going to arrest the Phelpses for bringing kids, then yes, you need to arrest the funeral attenders for bringing kids, too. I don’t think either group should be arrested, though. Both sides should be equally free to exercise their freedom of speech and assembly, and if they feel their children should be included in that exercise, so be it.
Immaterial. If they aren’t going to the funeral with the express purpose of starting violence, then it is unfair to charge them with endangering a child. They aren’t the ones endangering it: it is the person who attacks them who is causing the danger, and they are the ones who should be charged.
I’m not ignoring it at all: I’m saying that it is unjust to hold the protestors responsible if someone else decides to committ assault against them. Note that the Phelpses have been doing protests like this for years, and to my knowledge, they have never resulted in violence. If riots were routinely breaking out when they did this, I might see more merit in your position, but after dozens of these protests with no resultant violence, the idea that Phelps-Roper was putting her child at any particular risk by having him at the funeral simply doesn’t hold water.
Actually, there have been violent incidents (against Phelpsians) most did not occur at funerals:
But that doesn’t mean its guaranteed to be dangerous, nor does it mean parents should exclude their children from every potentially dangerous occurrence they might run into. People don’t live that way.
Do you have a cite for anyone being imprisoned, fined, cited, or even tried for saying, “I’m going to kill the president,” absent concrete evidence that they intended follow through on their threat? Sure, it might get you investgated by the Secret Service, but there’s no actual law or ruling forbidding it, so far as I’m aware.
Uh, yes, hate speech is protected by the Constitution. I’m particularly amazed that you think hate speech towards gays in unconstitutional, as that particular minority has virtually no federal protections at all, and precious few on the state level. There is a good bit of distance between outlawing hate speech and living in North Korea, but limiting the expression of unpopular ideas is a step in that direction, and not one that I’d like to see our nation take. Particularly considering the number of unpopular ideas I like to express, including the idea that gays and lesbians deserve federal protection. If one can succesfully argue that Fred Phelps’s speech should be stifled for the protection of society at large, one can just as easily argue that gay rights activist’s speech should be stifled for the same reason. Keeping Phelps’s speech free keeps my speech free, and anyone who is at all concerned with the treatment of minority groups in the US ought to be standing up to protect the right of trogolodytes like Fred Phelps to spout his poisonous ideology in public. The first ammendment cannot survive if we enforce it only for messages we want to hear.
Well, there’s Vikram Buddhi
The law or ruling forbidding it would be 18 US Code 871 and 18 US Code 879.
871 says:
879 says:
Again…there’s a difference between threats and unpopular speech. My scenario above is perfectly legit.