# The Phelps Specifically/Limits of Free Speech in General **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 14, 2008, 5:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-phelps-specifically-limits-of-free-speech-in-general/472673 "2008-11-14T05:26:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 7\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2008, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-phelps-specifically-limits-of-free-speech-in-general/472673/41 "2008-11-14T21:57:05Z")
> [@Sampiro](#): > > Incidentally, a child can be taken away from a home for emotional and verbal abuse even if there’s no physical abuse. I wonder how this gets around the parents’ right to free speech. There are actual legal and scientific standards to establish that someone is being abused and is suffering an actual harm. I don’t think you can establish that having to put up with a Phelps lunatic on a single occasion causes that kind of harm. And, as I said, funerals can be held on private property, and thus the Phelpses are largely avoidable. > [@outlierrn](#): > > then again, no one is suggesting that That’s exactly what a “free speech zone” is. ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2008, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-phelps-specifically-limits-of-free-speech-in-general/472673/42 "2008-11-14T22:02:01Z")
> [@Sampiro](#): > > I > Also- if I’m a co-worker and I harangue you everyday at work- never threateningly, just telling you why I don’t like you, why I hate your clothes, why I think you’re a bad person and why you’re going to burn at hell, but never anything threatening or sexually harassing, perhaps only in the parking lot or the break room or wherever, I’m within my rights of free speech and you don’t really have the option of getting away from me unless you quit your job. I would think at the very LEAST, you’d get majorly disciplined, and if you cnose not to stop, they’d fire your sorry ass. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2008, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-phelps-specifically-limits-of-free-speech-in-general/472673/43 "2008-11-14T22:22:34Z")
> [@acsenray](#): > > There are actual legal and scientific standards to establish that someone is being abused and is suffering an actual harm. I don’t think you can establish that having to put up with a Phelps lunatic on a single occasion causes that kind of harm. The manner of that occasion is significant here, don’t you agree? Certainly the legislatures in question do - they have determined that protests are less odious before or after the funeral and not during it. I can live with that. > [@acsenray](#): > > And, as I said, funerals can be held on private property, and thus the Phelpses are largely avoidable. Many cemeteries are not private property, and funeral processions must use public streets. Are these people out of luck because they happen to stray from areas where they have a modicum of protection? Or can the law act to afford them a reasonable accommodation as well? We are abdicating our responsibility if we throw up our hands here and say there is nothing we can do. The law is quite clear that there is a difference between the overall public sphere and times and places fit for public expression. Since this is so, the crafting of laws managing this is not only permissible, but necessary and responsible. I have said in the past that I’m uncomfortable with free speech zones, but I can see why they were instituted in the first place - I’ve both demonstrated against politicians and have had these sorts of protests interfered with. And I can see the difference between bad law and unconstitutional law. Frankly, though, here the law is pretty good - it is narrowly crafted and content neutral. And it is constitutional. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2008, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-phelps-specifically-limits-of-free-speech-in-general/472673/44 "2008-11-14T23:28:47Z")
> [@Sampiro](#): > > Rarely does anybody really intentionally inflict emotional distress on the Dope. I sincerely disagree with you. I think we have a number of members who enjoy hurting others. > [@](#): > > Also, while I regard some Dopers as friends and a couple as decidedly “not friends”, we ultimately don’t really know each other- at best we’re a form of pen pals. If I start a JSGODDESS IS A [insulting expletives here] thread, I have no real way of knowing that you’re in a really depressed mood that day, or that you had to battle all the kids in elementary school calling you a [insulting expletives here] and it’s really touched a raw nerve, or that in the past 24 hours your cat scratched the kid in the bubble who lives next door and your favorite aunt just got arrested for morals charges and you just found out you’re pregnant with Clay Aiken’s baby due to a mixup at your last gynecology appointment and so you’re in a really raw and emotionally fragile mood that day. You can know that, though, if I were to post (given the broader context of this thread), “My dad died today.” I think I did post something like that when my dad died. I’m not certain. > [@](#): > > Now if I DO know these things- you just posted a “Things that have happened in the last 24 hours that I’m in a raw and emotional fragile mood” thread and I read it and the pitting is in response to it, then I’m an asshole, no question, and my thread is definitely inflicting intentional emotional distress (herafter IIED). **However** , you have an option: don’t read it. Quit the Dope. You’re not- nobody is- _required_ to read or participate in SDMB threads for their income or health (except maybe Ed- does _anybody_ receive a lion’s share of their income from the Dope?). I had a famous at the time/hopefully forgotten now flame-out/meltdown over what was undeniably IIED some while back when my mother died. I stopped reading and stopped posting to the SDMB for a couple of months til, in the words of Buddy from NIGHT COURT, “I’m much better now”. Going to funerals is voluntary, too. I know. I haven’t been to one since my father’s and don’t intend to go to another with the possible exception of my mother’s. And if I knew that trolls and troglodytes would be there (well, more than my immediate family), I would have even more impetus to skip it. > [@](#): > > Now, if I start a website called JSGODDESS IS A [INSULTING EXPLETIVES HERE].COM, then… hmm. It’s a bit different. You’d be a remarkable human indeed if vanity and curiosity and self-interest didn’t absolutely compel you to log on and see what I’ve said. There WAS such a site about me, years ago. Well, they filled in the insulting expletives. 😃 > [@](#): > > Now, if on that site it’s nothing but my Pit style ramblings and rantings on “10 More Things I Hate About jsgoddess” and “Things I Imagine She Does in her Spare Time With Strangers She Picks Up at the Bus Station”, then- no matter how vile (and I’m using you hypothetically obviously- I really don’t think you’re a [insulting expletives here] and I honestly have no idea what you do with the strangers you pick up at the bus station), I think it should be protected by First Amendment. I’m expressing my opinions and my viewpoints and even to some degree I’m protected from exaggeration and embellishment. I agree. > [@](#): > > On the other hand, if on that site I say “jsgoddess’s real name is Manitoba Cumi Jenks and her address is 4321 Birthing Chair Lane, Chestnut Creek AL, and her home phone number is 987-654-3210”, and that information is really correct, _gasp_ How did you know? 😃 > [@](#): > > **THEN** you have recourse. Since you’re not (presumably) a public figure, I’ve invaded your privacy, and that is NOT protected by free speech, at least to my understanding. (Of course if your name and address are published info I might be in a gray area.) I don’t know what the legality of this is. I don’t think it should be illegal. It’s unethical in every situation I can think of. > [@](#): > > Further, if I make threats against you- “I’m going to go to her house and set fire to her lawn ornaments”- that’s not protected. Libel- “I think jsgoddess is the true killer of Nicole Simpson” (and it’s clear I’m really accusing you and not being hyperbolic), you have recourse- that’s not protected. Unless I do these things though, if I just maintain a website talking about my hatred of you and why I think you’re going to burn in hell and all that crap ala Fred Phelps, even if I’m dead serious, I’m not harassing you. You don’t HAVE to look at my website. Agreed. > [@](#): > > However, in The Waking the rules are different. There are times and places when you do NOT have an option of getting away from me. A funeral for example: if a loved one dies and I’m picketing the funeral, **I** may be fully within my rights as to what I’m saying about you or the deceased, but… I can say it anywhere I want to, while you don’t really have a choice about where you go to the funeral. You can’t really say “I don’t want to put up with that jackass today… I’ll just go to another funeral instead of Uncle Ned’s and I’ll think about Uncle Ned when they light the bier”- no, your Hobson’s choice is either to go past my display or don’t go at all, neither an appealing option. Sure, but we don’t always get to have appealing options (I originally wrote “appalling” options, which was a funny typo, but I fixed it to avoid confusion and then mention it anyway because confusion is apparently joyous). > [@](#): > > Also- if I’m a co-worker and I harangue you everyday at work- never threateningly, just telling you why I don’t like you, why I hate your clothes, why I think you’re a bad person and why you’re going to burn at hell, but never anything threatening or sexually harassing, perhaps only in the parking lot or the break room or wherever, I’m within my rights of free speech and you don’t really have the option of getting away from me unless you quit your job. I can complain to my boss, but essentially yeah. > [@](#): > > This reminds me of a comment of my mother’s. There used to be a PSA, I think from the Mormon’s, in which a child is being verbally abused. At the end the announcer says “Words… they hurt far more than a fist.” > > My mother (a former lady wrestler and all around hellion when pissed) remarked “Whoever said that clearly doesn’t know how to throw a punch right.” (then a remark about the flying leg scissors in a fight with Mae Young). > However, my sentiments I must admit are more with the commercial. There are words that do far more damage than a blow ever will. While I think that 99.9999% of those should be legally protected, I do think there are some limits. > > Incidentally, a child can be taken away from a home for emotional and verbal abuse even if there’s no physical abuse. I wonder how this gets around the parents’ right to free speech. Certainly words can have more lasting damage than a fist in some cases. But generally speaking I’d say that for words to matter that much they have to be uttered by someone who matters–not by a freaky little man with a freaky little religion who has the biggest gay fetish imaginable outside of the RNC (heck, maybe inside the RNC! He’s pretty damned freaky). I don’t disagree at all that Phelps is a monster. I don’t. But he’s a monster who thrives on the degradation of our humanity, our ethics, our rights, our souls if you swing that way. He wants to harm us. He wants to drive us to cultural suicide. ---
**Author:** ![outlierrn](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/outlierrn/32/3005_2.png) [@outlierrn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/outlierrn)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2008, 4:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-phelps-specifically-limits-of-free-speech-in-general/472673/45 "2008-11-15T04:55:54Z")
> [@acsenray](#): > > There are actual legal and scientific standards to establish that someone is being abused and is suffering an actual harm. I don’t think you can establish that having to put up with a Phelps lunatic on a single occasion causes that kind of harm. And, as I said, funerals can be held on private property, and thus the Phelpses are largely avoidable. > > That’s exactly what a “free speech zone” is. I’m sorry, I’m not getting this. No one can hear them at their church, in front of the mall, on their web site, when they’re on TV, if they print a newsletter? No one is suggesting limiting their ability to do any of those things. ---
**Author:** ![Kalhoun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3bc359/32.png) [@Kalhoun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalhoun)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2008, 11:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-phelps-specifically-limits-of-free-speech-in-general/472673/46 "2008-11-15T11:22:25Z")
> [@Guinastasia](#): > > It would certainly bother me-that’s PRIVATE property, you do realize? Ditto, as was stated above by **jackdavinci** , churches and some cemetaries. No…it’s not private property. If Phelps protested on private property, he’d be arrested. I’ve neve heard it stated that he was anywhere other than on the sidewalk out front, or across the street. In fact, I can’t imagine a funeral home director or anyone else allowing the Phelps clan on the property at all. There may be some exceptions to this, and I’m sure if there was a way to have him removed from the scene, the grievers and police would take advantage of it. I agree…if they’re breaking the law, they should be arrested. However, as much of an asshole as he is, Phelps isn’t stupid. He uses the law to promote his agenda. Most of his protests follow the rules that are laid out. That’s why they’re inventing grief laws to silence him! ---
**Author:** ![Baker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/bb73d2/32.png) [@Baker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Baker)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2008, 11:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-phelps-specifically-limits-of-free-speech-in-general/472673/47 "2008-11-15T11:40:42Z")
A former poster here once started a Pit thread about a woman she knew. This poor lady was the young, pregnant widow of a serviceman. The Phelps were going to go to California to picket his funeral They didn’t actually show, but somehow managed to get the widow on the phone and told her how her husband was in Hell. That’s what the poster was incandescent about. Only speech, they were never in the young woman’s presence, but I don’t think they had the right to act as they did. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-phelps-specifically-limits-of-free-speech-in-general/472673.md?page=2)