Westboro Baptist Church being sued

Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share
41

[QUOTE=Sampiro]

For a fantastic look [literally] inside the church, watch Lewis Theroux’s documentary for his BBC show. Theroux is a fantastic interviewer/documentarian- he’s completely non-judgmental with his subjects, whether they’re televangelists or Phelpses or drag queens, and so you actually learn something, unlike the screaming matches you always get when Phelpses go on any U.S. news show where Hannity and Colmes and Geraldo and Nancy Grace and all are more interested in having it clearly understood that “I THINK THESE PEOPLE ARE SCUM!” than in actual discourse (to the extent it’s possible with the Phelps family, and Lewis Theroux proves that yes, it actually is possible to an extent.
[/QUOTE]

That is always what irks me when they appear on radio/TV talk shows. The family is nothing more than a bunch of trolls, and you are giving them exactly what they want by allowing them access to a wider audience.

I believe one talk show host actually offered Phelps an hour on his show if he would agree not to picket the funerals of the Amish girls. While I understand the intent, get Batshit Crazy et al away from grieving families, why feed into his desire to broadcast his hatred coast to coast and give him some sort of twisted legitimacy?

I think the worst thing that could happen to Phelps is to be ignored, to be considered irrelevant. As I learned from my brief foray into political activism a few years back, when people write you nasty letters/e-mails, you know you are having an impact. Phelps loves the attention…he knows he’s getting to people. I long for the day when we can say “Fred who?”

42

[QUOTE=Kyla]
Because Canada doesn’t have the First Amendment, which guarantees that no matter how disgusting your opinion is, you’re still allowed to say it in public.
[/QUOTE]
We don’t have the first amendment because we are not the same country. Through our constitution we have fundamental freedoms:

**2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association. **

As far as consitutional entrenchment of freedom of expression goes, there is no significant difference between Canada and the USA. Where there is a difference is what each nation considers to be reasonable limitations on constitutionally protected freedom of expression. While both nations resaonably limit free speech concerning expressions that cause immediate serious physical harm (e.g. shouting “fire” in a theatre), or are libelous, or are not made in the appropriate venue (e.g. riots), or are immoral in certain situations (e.g. obscenity restrictions in broadcast media), Canada has found a reasonable limit on free speech to be the prohibition of willful incitement of hatred against an identifiable group.

43

I don’t know how much money the Phelps clan has, but I regularly drive by their “compound” on 12th Street here in Topeka. It comprises almost an entire block of homes. Some years ago the houses were smaller, then they remodeled and enlarged several of the homes. A very tall privacy fence encloses and connects the homes.

One funny thing is that there is one home on the block they don’t own. That fence has to make a big jog around it. I have no idea who lives there, but it must be strange to be nearly surrounded by the WBC.

As to taxes, I once heard(no cite) that the swimming pool in their compound is designated the “baptismal pool”, a religious artifact. The WBC once went to court to try and get one of their family pickup trucks off the tax rolls, as it was used “for religious purposes”. Meaning it carries their signs from picket to picket.

I’ve had no social contact with the Phelps family except for when I was in junior high. Fred’s oldest daughter Kathy was in my grade. I knew her only to talk to, and she seemed nice enough, wanting only to fit in. She wanted to cut her hair and get a permanent, but daddy wouldn’t let the girls do that. Said it was unBiblical. That was way before the picketing days though.

But I have done a lot of counter picketing, several years ago. I’ve stood close enough to Fred to touch him when he walked by, and, although I’m a rather prosaic person, the experience was scary. Something about him just makes me shiver.

One funny incident, when we were counter demonstaring, was when he tried to make the police officer observing us have several of us women arrested for disturbing the peace. We were laughing loudly at some insults he’d been hurling at us, calling us “crop-headed whores.”

The WBC are dangerous. They once assaulted the pastor of the church I was a member of at the time. They came to stand on the sidewalk by the church lawn, singing their songs, yelling their ugliness. After the service our pastor, Rev. Weeks, went near the sidewalk to pound in a lawn sign popular at the time, saying “God’s LOVE speaks loudest!” As he was working the head of the hammer fell off. The Phelps men surged onto the lawn and took Rev. Weeks down, sitting on him, claiming he’d thrown the hammerhead at them. Then they charge him with assault in court. The church was forced to countercharge, but I have the feeling a lot of congregants just wanted the whole mess to go away, and he didn’t get the moral support he deserved. Rev. Weeks took a call to another church about a year and a half after the incident.

44

http://cjonline.com/webindepth/phelps/musser.shtml

The above link is to a wealth of articles and info about Phelps and the WBC. It includes mention of the incident with Rev. Weeks in my previous post.

45

I still can’t quite get this straight in my head, and I’d appreciate if someone could help me sort it out, but first:

-I don’t live in the USA, so it’s meaningless to talk about the first amendment as it if pertains to me - human rights (which I believe may be exactly functionally equivalent), yes, and it might seem needlessly pissy to be mentioning this up front - maybe so, but I just wanted to clarify that, because there are certain directions of response that I simply cannot address meaningfully.

-Also, I really, really mean this to be an earnest question - this is not some silly game or taunt - I just want to see if I can get my head around this properly.

So…

Phred has freedom of speech and we can’t limit what he does with that. Why?

Phred also has freedom of movement and if he exploted that freedom of movement to walk across the backs of sunbathers on the beach, wearing spiked running shoes, we’d expect him stopped.

OK, but that would be because he’s inflicting tangible plysical harm upon people.

So what? Are there not other crimes where there is considered to be a non-physical component of harm - for example, emotional distress or torment?

So why is Phred allowed to exercise his freedom of speech to emotionally distress or torment people, when he wouldn’t be allowed to exercise his freedom of movement to physically injure them? If it’s just a matter of physical injury being more serious than mental distress, then it’s not a solid immutable principle, but rather an question of degree, so why not draw the line elsewhere?

Can someone please help clear up my obvious confusion on this matter?

46

Up here in the Great White, a nut has been trying to get the crown to charge me with committing hate crimes, among a long list of other things. He’s so batty that yesterday the police kept him closely escorted while at court (I was examining him for a costs award I have against him that resulted from him trying to sue me for hate crimes et alia). Fortunately, private prosecutions are not allowed for this sort of crime, so at least he can’t go after me in the criminal court the way he has in the civil court.

I wish he would move to the other side of the border, not that I’d wish him on anyone, but rather just to get him out of my hair.
Anyway, here’s a link to a nice short summary of Canada’s hate crime law: http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/resources/legislation/canadian_law/federal/criminal_code/criminal_code_hate.cfm

47

Once Fred dies, what are the odds of his family/church continuing on the way it has?

48

[QUOTE=Mangetout]
If it’s just a matter of physical injury being more serious than mental distress, then it’s not a solid immutable principle, but rather an question of degree, so why not draw the line elsewhere?
[/QUOTE]
You have hit the nail on the head. It is just a matter of degree. The line could be drawn elsewhere.

49

It would depend on just how contagious his particular brand of crazy is. I don’t know how indoctrinated his children are (I know at least one has left the fold) or if they’re putting up a front so their father won’t suspect they wish Brokeback Mountain had won a Best Picture Oscar.

50

[QUOTE=Miller]
I hope that the Phelps’s win, because I do think their actions are Constitutional, but I also hope it takes a protracted and extremely expensive trial to prove it. Because as much as I feel Phelps’s actions deserve to be protected, I still want that fucker to bleed for it, first.
[/QUOTE]

Agreed, agreed, agreed.

[QUOTE=DiosaBellissima]

Some of you may disagree with the above, but I’m speaking as someone whose best friend was harassed by these people. They called up a woman (she was 19, so still young) whose husband had literally just been blown to pieces in Iraq and told her he was burning in hell for being a faggot. They told her during this phone call, that the baby that she was six months pregnant with at the time was also going to Hell because its father was a fag.

[/QUOTE]

In that case, it had nothing to do with freedom of speech, but that was harassment, and THAT was illegal.

However, sick as it is, when they’re on public property, they can do what they want. I think it helps that NO ONE takes these people seriously, and that they’re fucking insane. And picketing funerals is NOTHING compared to how Fred treated his own family.

Besides, they pretty much jumped the shark when they picketed Fred Roger’s funeral. (Yep, Mister Rogers. How much more absurd can you get?)

51

[QUOTE=Muffin]
Once Fred dies, what are the odds of his family/church continuing on the way it has?
[/QUOTE]

I think there will be a power struggle, but that they will(sort of) stay together, because their affairs are so tangle up together, and nobody will want to associate with them.

Likely winners to be in charge? Margie Phelps, his second oldest daughter, or Charles Hockenbarger, Fred’s son-in-law, married to his daughter Rachel.

Margie has the brains, but is handicapped by being a woman, and Phred doesn’t believe in female leaders. Charles is younger, more physically attractive, and thoroughly vicious. Despite her gender, I think Margie will win out. On their website she was once given a title as her byline for a report she wrote on one of their picketing shindigs. She was called “Most Favored Prophetess of the Lord High God, in these Last of the Last Days.”

52

[QUOTE=Sampiro]
Mon Dieu, but can you imagine two French gay guys getting married? The disagreements over the wine list alone would result in bloodshed.
[/QUOTE]

No, no. They’d both surrender.

53

Actually, the 1st Amendment says they don’t.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The state absolutely does NOT have a right to legislate when and where people can have free speech. If you’re going to call yourself a proponent of the 1st amendment, at least take the time to read what it says.

People do not have a right to not be offended. As long as Phelps is not interfering with anyone else’s civil rights, he is perfectly within his own rights to express any opinion he wants on public property. I think it’s asinine for anyone else to try to claim they can be damaged by someone else’s opinion and so will the courts. Guys like Phelps are the price we pay for free speech.

To quote former coach, Denny Green, “The great thing about America is that everybody has a right to an opinion. The other great thing is you don’t have to listen to it.”

54

The 1st Amendment sets a standard, but that standard has been interpreted by the courts ever since. That’s what our system of law does – it bases decisions on precedents. Look around – how many states, cities, etc. have laws about when and where free speech can be properly exercised? Virtually all of them. Don’t be such a literalist that you ignore the entire precedential sistem.

IANAL, but I suspect that if I had access to a legal database it would only be a matter of minutes to find Supreme Court decisions that do permit the proper restriction of speech under certain circumstances. This is where shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theater comes in – not permitting speech in a time and place that causes panic and riot is certainly something that can and has been done. There are other concerns, such as public safety, the protection of children, etc., that weigh in on the exercise of free speech. Or are you saying, for example, that a pedophile has an absolute right to stand by a schoolyard and tell a child what he wants to do with them?

The 1st Amendment is only the starting point. Look to the 200+ years of legal precedent that has interpreted and delineated it, too, or you’re just fooling yourself.

55

[QUOTE=Mama Tiger]
The 1st Amendment sets a standard, but that standard has been interpreted by the courts ever since. That’s what our system of law does – it bases decisions on precedents. Look around – how many states, cities, etc. have laws about when and where free speech can be properly exercised?
[/quote]

None.

Name one.

56

Well, check out the case of Cantwell v. Connecticut, a 1940 Supreme Court case that held:

Or how about Cox v. Louisiana, a 1965 Supreme Court case that held that:

I found that from a quick googling that turned up an interesting historical synopsis of free speech; it focuses primarily on the online arena, where it is upheld for the most part.

However, looking to my own state of Maryland, how about the Maryland Transit Administration which regulates free speech on any MTA property without a permit?

Look for yourself. There’s endless discussion about the government’s right to regulate content-neutral time and place of free expression, that restriction to serve some greater interest (such as maintaining public order). Virtually every locality requires groups to obtain a permit in order to stage a public protest on public property (including streets, sidewalks, etc.), and has the right to deny that permit based on a whole assortment of what are considered legitimate reasons. Don’t believe me? Go put on a white hood and try protesting publicly without a permit. See how long you last.

And certainly private property owners have the right to limit free speech on their own property. The Phelps picketing at a funeral falls under a whole host of possible restrictions.

You can do more research yourself. I found a number of tantalizing articles that required membership in various legal databases or subscription to legal publications to read in their entirety; but there’s also a lot of information out there about where and when and how free speech can be properly restricted.

There’s more to our system of law than just the words in the constitution.

57

If you haven’t seen it, this youtube video is quite funny. It’s Michael Moore taking on the Phelpses in his own special way.

58

[QUOTE=Mangetout]
Can someone please help clear up my obvious confusion on this matter?
[/QUOTE]

Probably not, but I’ll give you my take on the matter. IANAL, yadda, yadda.

First, a practical aspect: there is a clear line that determines physical abuse. One can say “your freedom of expression stops when your fist hits my nose” and objectively determine when that line has been crossed. While I hope that we can agree that injurious physical contact deserves prohibition, it’s not clear at all what standard to apply in determining distress. I think that comparisons like this (physical contact vs. emotional distress) can only serve to confuse the issue and suggest abandoning them.

Second, the theoretical aspect: the free exchange of ideas is “the indispensable condition of nearly every other freedom” (Cardozo). It is precisely the ideas that are most offensive that cause the highest degree of emotional distress. And, I personally believe, it’s only the most deeply held values and beliefs that garner that level of offense. Similarly, I personally believe that it is those values and beliefs that require dispute – an unchallenged belief is naught but dogma (“tradition”, to a lesser extent). And being forced to mindlessly follow dogma is not only diametrically opposed to freedom, but it is stagnation in my mind.

Yes, there are different types of speech; it is political free speech that deserves the highest protection. In my mind, what the Phelps’ are doing qualifies – they have a fundamental belief and are making it known. I despise both their message and their means / methods of expressing it, and yet celebrate the fact that they won’t be thrown in the clink for doing so (with the caveats about harassment, private property, physical assault, etc.). Furthermore, a condition of “rule of law” is the equal application of law – I have a fundamental belief that the Phelps’ beliefs qualify as evil and would rail at not being able to declare that view. The fact that most agree is only a consolation in that I hold an accepted viewpoint; I gain no solace in the idea that I’d get a pass from the tyranny of majority in this particular case, for there might be other issues in which I’m a minority of one.

Finally, I quote a man far more eloquent than I to hammer the point home (bolding mine):

It’s discussions like this that make me cherish my country and that “for which it stands”. And I thank you for that.

59

[QUOTE=Mama Tiger]
And certainly private property owners have the right to limit free speech on their own property. The Phelps picketing at a funeral falls under a whole host of possible restrictions.
[/quote]

And what might those be? From my understanding, they were on public property. They had a permit. They did not directly interfere with the funeral (1000 feet away, out of sight and hearing). They did not physically assualt anyone (at least, not in this case).

ISTM that your interpretation of “orderly society” is overly broad. My current understanding is that the “imminent danger” standard is the determining rule in what qualifies as free speech. That is, “yelling fire in a crowded theater” can be expected to result in physical danger to others. MTA permits exist to facilitate safe operation of a common transport. I also note that almost every restriction to free speech cited in the link you gave was overturned (limitations on political contributions, for instance, was upheld).

In short, “orderly” does not mean “without strife”, but “reasonably safe”.

60

Considering the anger raised by the Phelps’ demonstrations, I think a reasonable person could also conclude that public safety standards might safely be applied to their demonstrations, however.

As I said initially, however, I’m a strong proponent of the First Amendment. I just wonder if there’s a level of abusive behavior shielded by it that perhaps bears exposing to the light and questioning and limiting when it tramples on the rights of others. The Phelps are a prime example of this. IMO, they’re abusing free speech and exercise of religion in order to cause severe emotional pain and exacerbate the grief of already devastated people – witness Diosa Bellissima’s friend’s experience. At what point does their right to do so conflict with the general public’s right not to be so exposed, and particularly the families of dead soldiers?

I think this is a murky area of the law because there is no clear right or wrong that applies under all circumstances, and it’s extremely naive to say that a literal reading of the First Amendment should be all that’s needed. There are a lot of other considerations to take into account, as courts have been doing for many, many years now. No one is suggesting the Phelps can’t believe what they want to, especially me. I just wonder where their right to inflict pain on others is overridden by the needs of the community.

Which is why I’m not a judge or a First Amendment scholar. I have a personal opinion, and I recognize that not everyone agrees with me. That’s fine. But I don’t want the fact that legislative bodies and courts can and do impose limits on First Amendment behavior under certain circumstances – not beliefs, behavior – and my personal wish would be that someone could find a way to use such limits to stop the Phelps from the public exercise of their own personal brand of emotional torture of innocents.