This. For years, nobody gave a damn about Phelps because he was merely targeting gays, and gays were considered fair game. Now that he’s targeting military families people are coming out of the woodwork to challenge him. Many of Phelps’ johnny-come-lately critics are just as hateful and intolerant as he is.
It really depends on what you mean by being free from religion. Are you free from never having to see a cross, crescent moon, or the figure of the Buddha sitting in the lotus position? Of course not.
There is no right to be free from speech.
Yes - you have the right not to speak.
What you don’t have is the right to keep others from speaking.
Just to echo an earlier poster, but nobody supports what the WBC stands for. A lot of people on this board still think of Phelps as primarily a homophobe, but the fact is, he’s long since moved on to other, more mainstream targets. The specific subject of this brief is not funerals of AIDS victims or gay bashings. It’s soldiers who died in the line of duty. Very little of the current popular outrage over his antics is directly connected to his anti-gay views, and I doubt most people are more than peripherally aware that the roots of his current funeral protesting campaign began at funerals for prominent gay figures.
I disagree. Freedom of speech is not a magical trump card over laws regarding breach of peace. There is a balance in there somewhere.
Ok, lets skip the issue of your right not to look at hypotheticals. And I assume there is a hypothetical in the text of the case somewhere, the case seems to be about an actual flag burning.
I don’t know of anyone being forced to watch the flag burning in that case. It was done during a politcal protest directed at a politcal party convention, kind of seems like the appropriate time and place, if the protesters weren’t preventing the conventioners right to speak. But I wouldn’t object to reasonable restrictions on that type of expression.
I never liked this case as the test for the right to burn a flag. There is a consensus that the flag in question was stolen. I’ve always maintained my right to burn a flag on the less explicit right to own private property. If I own a flag, and I’m not violating aws regarding burning things in general, why can’t I burn the flag that I own if I want to?
Actually, the best tactic for dealing with the Westboro Cult that I’ve heard of is the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster’s counter-demonstrations to them. Apparently, people dressed up as pirates and preaching the Gospel of Pasta gets more media attention than some idiots who hate the whole world.
On the subject at hand, though, I agree that it’s not a good idea for government in any capacity to try to squash the Westboro Cult. Even if it is constitutional, all it’ll do is encourage them. I have no idea as to Cuccinelli’s motivations, but the end result is correct.
I have no idea why Cuccinelli has decided to stand up for free speech now but am kind of saddened he is only one of 2 willing too stand on that side.
Sure Phelps is an asshole and making lives of others difficult but to me that’s an acceptable consequence of a free society.
To pile on to an earlier comment Mathew Shepard was buried in 1998. Phelp’s was there at that funeral making those peoples suffering worse. For those 48 AG’s that have a problem with that use of free speech, why has it taken 12 years for them to talk about it? Was it OK when it only affected the families of gays and lesbians? Now that he’s expanded his hate to impact other people something needs to be done?
I’m not sure if anyone has ever watched one of the documentaries on WBC, but generally speaking anyone who isn’t in WBC would be stupid to support WBC. When this British reporter did a series of videos on them, they make it very clear that they view themselves as the only church on the planet that is faithful to god. They feel every other person on the planet, is going to hell, and is a “homosexuality enabler.” (Or something with a similar term.)
These guys denounce Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson in the same breath as President Obama.
So unless Cuccinelli has a secret sympathy with “people who think he loves fags and also that he is going to hell”, I seriously doubt he sympathizes with their cause.
Have you seen Westboro’s funeral demos? Like everything they do, it’s all about “fags.” The theory is that God enjoys the deaths of U.S. soldiers (and other harm done to Americans, such as Hurricane Katrina), because God is angry about America’s tolerance of homosexuality.
Granted, the anti-soldier campaign has won them more reaction than when they were simply demonstrating against gays for being gay, but I have a hard time imagining that anyone could miss the homophobia part.
Yes, I’m very familiar with Phelps’ antics. I didn’t say that he doesn’t use anti-gay slurs anymore, I said that the reason people are outraged, and the reason this brief exists in the first place, has nothing at all to do with his virulent homophobia, and everything to do with the fact that he’s stopped protesting the funerals of AIDS activists and started protesting at the funerals of war veterans. For all practical purposes, no one gives a shit about his homophobia, and so there’s no political advantage to Cuccinelli to not sign this bill. Because even other homophobes hate Fred Phelps.
Free speech in this country isn’t what it used to be. When I was a kid and during much of my adult life you had the legal right to stand by the roadside and hold up signs and shout in protest as the President drove by. Police and courts are now routinely allowing such protesters to be rounded up and imprisoned in Orwellian “free speech zones” that are cages miles away from the Presidential motorcade. That this violates my concept of the First Amendment right to assemble, speech and petition is clear. It seems much less a stretch to bar protest at the funerals of private citizens by erecting such “free speech zones” miles away.
I’m with the OP. And thus, horrifyingly to me, with Cooch. And (sort of) on the side of WBC. Ugh, I feel like I should take a shower. (Not 'cuz of you, Mr. Excellent!)
There was a thread debating WBC boycotting a funeral awhile ago. I argued they were simply exercising their free speech (so long as they were on public ground, outside the graveyard fence, etc.). IIRC, not many agreed with me at the time…
the line between free speech and disturbing the peace is a plane ticket to fly across country to make people at a funeral angry/sad. It is pure harassment on their part.
No, the line between free speech and disturbing the peace is whose peace you’re disturbing. Which is clearly demonstrated here, when Fred Phelps gets years of free passes for making gay people angry or sad, but only gets legal attention when he makes soldiers angry or sad. This brief is plainly motivated by outrage over the contents of his speech - so long as he stuck to acceptable targets, nobody was motivated to stop him. There is no stronger proof that his actions, reprehensible as they are, should be protected by the first amendment.
I call bullhockey about targets. there is no justification for what he’s doing under the first amendment. He is deliberately harassing people.
Then why wasn’t this an issue when he was protesting the funerals of Randy Shilts and Matthew Shepherd?
who said it wasn’t?
Are you kidding me?
I think the posters’ beef is with your broad-based choice of targets. I, for one, have known about the Phelpses for decades, and my opinion didn’t change when they started picketing military funerals. My opinion of their sanity and their luck, perhaps.