No, it isn’t.
Or, more substantially - whose morality? The purpose of the law is to allow for the function of a well-ordered society. Some laws have been passed that DO legislate morality, but that ISN’T the law’s purpose in a secular state.
Preventing people from shouting fire is not a regulation of speech based on your opinion of the content.
“The government” is merely a substitute for “everyone else.” It is to protect people from the majority using its democratic power to shut down unpopular political opinions. And that’s exactly the category that Phelps’s speech fits into.
Which essentially nullifies the First Amendment. The First Amendment is not about protecting your right to speak only where no one can hear you.
Vigilantism is not only illegal, but immoral, far more immoral than being a nutjob who offends people. The vigilantes should be locked up.
The law has a lot of purposes, but this particular claim is not one that’s going to get much support.
I cannot fathom how this nutjob justifies his actions in any moral sense. To do what he does to those already suffering in my mind is the lowest of the low and cruel.
Labeling things ‘hate’ speech is just a way to try to skirt the first amendment. I don’t like this guy or anything he does, but it is protected by the first amendment whether I like it or not.
I don’t like the KKK. I don’t like the tea party people. There are a lot of things I personally don’t like. The reality is the first amendment is so important that we screw with it for only the most drastic of reasons and I can’t think of a one that would be worth it. Get used to idiots saying idiotic things, but never let anyone mess with the bill of rights.
Do you mean the Patriot Guard Riders? From what I’ve seen they show up when invited and just stand there blocking the view of the protesters. I don’t believe there have been any lawsuits threatened. Plus, if someone criticized them, they have the same 1st Amendment rights as the WBC.
With any vigilantes or counter protesters, you have to say they both have the right to yell and scream at each other or they don’t.
Nitpick: It’s falsely shouting “fire”. There’s no law against shouting “FIRE!!!” if there really IS a fire.
It depends on what is meant by “legislate morality.” Many people used that excuse to outlaw homosexuality, biracial marriage, women suffrage, integration and religious freedom.
I find that idea to be chilling. A lot of so-called “hate speech” is simply people calling others immoral perverts. (Look at that guy who was making a big production of burning the Qu’ran! Of course he chickened out)
Again – the 1rst Amendment isn’t just for popular speech. It’s the old, “I may not like what you say, but I’ll defend your right to say it.”
Do you fear that their protests at funerals are a good recruiting tool? All they do is look like clowns. They have that right. Let then proclaim their stupidity to the world and go about your business and ignore them.
I saw Phelps daughter on a TV interview yesterday. She is a lawyer and is very careful of what she says and the church does. It may piss you off but it is not against the law.
That does not mean this Supreme Court won’t come down hard on them. This one does not like personal freedoms very much if they come in conflict with business and power.
It is not illegal to shout fire in a crowded theater. If doing so causes a panic and people are harmed, then there are civil and criminal penalties that apply, as would be the case in any circumstance where any words would lead to such a problem. Neither theater owners or the government may gag patrons to prevent them making such statements either.
I don’t know the details of the case before the SCOTUS right now. The Phelps assholes were apparently charged with some violation of the law and now argue that their rights have been violated. However, the grieving family has rights to free speech and freedom of religion as well. If the dickwads were limited in the time and place where they could protest on a reasonable basis, I don’t see why their rights were violated. If they were effectively prevented from speaking, they will probably win.
I didn’t realize that the Supremes were currently hearing this case. We’ve had threads on it before.
Fred Phelps takes it up the ass.
The Phelps Specifically/Limits of Free Speech in General
I’ll rieterate my earlier opinions on this matter: Fred Phelps and his group are a steaming pustule on the American ass, and if they all caught fire in front of me i wouldn’t piss on them. But awarding damages to the Snyders in the first place was a bad decision, overturning the award was a good decision, and if the Supremes find for the Snyders in this case i’ll be very disappointed.
The protest was in public space, and was, in fact, some distance from the actual funeral. What’s more, the person bringing the suit, Mr. Snyder, admitted that he didn’t see the protesters or the messages on their signs on the day of the funeral, only subsequently on the news.
Maybe part of it is b/c it’s religiously motivated hate speech. The same thing that covers KKK cross burning, or the right winger’s rants and ravings against Islam, protects this.
One good thing, we are reconizing that this is repungent. I know someone who’s a pretty fundie Baptist and she and her husband are Patriot Riders.
In 20 years Fred Phelps is going to be viewed as repungently as those old skool Baptists who supported segregation in the 1960’s.
Certainly theatre owners can gag patrons; the First Amendment doesn’t apply to private businesses the way it does to the government. If I operate a theatre in the US I can make it a condition of entry that everyone remain silent, or even that they wear a real, physical gag which prevents them from speaking. If the patrons don’t like the conditions they can leave, or not enter in the first place.
I would assume that is the case. But they can’t decide that you in particular would be likely to shout fire and gag you. Good luck with your new policy of gagging everyone.
Sure they can. Nothing prevents a company from applying different policies to different customers, unless such discrimination can be shown to be against a legally protected class. (For example, the theatre owner probably couldn’t have a policy requiring all those and only those customers of a particular race to wear gags.)
If a new theater opened with the policy of “IF WE THINK YOU MIGHT YELL, OR EVEN TALK, DURING THE MOVIE… WE WILL GAG YOU” I would go.
Imagine the Loud Self-Appointed Critic: “I’m sorry, is this a homage to ‘Behrrrrgmahn’ … or a cheap rip-off?” – GAGGED.
The gaggle o’ good ol’ boys: “Yeee-hah, we’s hootin’ if they show some boobies!” – GAGGED.
The girls: “Youguysyouguys! Jason just texted that since we’re at the movie they’re going to hit the Food Court without us… Oh, omigahomigahomigah, Josh is with them and he … says to… say HIII! … to MEEEE! Oh, Kellie is going to be like SO jealous…” – GAGGED.
The spoiler: “Oh, sweeeet, here comes an awesome death scene…” – GAGGED.
The elderly farm wife explaining everything to her nearly-deaf husband: “No, that’s not Opie. he’s all growned-up now. What? Oh, this is the boy… NO, this is the boy who lost his… NO!.. NOT OPIE!” – GAGGED.
I’ll take your word for it. I thought there was another issue involved there, for something like a gag, but I don’t recall anything at the moment. As I said before, good luck with your new policy. You’ll have at least one customer with digs.
What do you mean “in 20 years”? He’s a universally despised figure NOW who has absolutely NO supporters beyond his own family.
Beyond that, “hate speech” in itself is not against the law. Now, in those states that have hate crimes laws on the books, Phelps would undoubtedly get a harsher sentence if he beat up a gay man, or if he vandalized a gay man’s house. That is, “hate crime” legislation provides for additional punishments when bigotry is the motive behind a crime. But until a crime is committed, even ugly speech is Constitutionally protected.
No one is worried about Phelps’ opinion gaining widespread acceptance. We’re worried that Phelps is being an obnoxious jackass. The problem that SCOTUS will struggle with is how can you stop a jackass like Phelps without chilling free speech for other legitimate causes.
I just listened to oral arguments on the case and most of the Justices were concerned with this question. Both lawyers could not really come up with an answer for them.
Another problem is that Phelps doesn’t even have to go anywhere near a soldiers funeral in order to have an impact on the event. He just has to make some kind of statement and the media will amplify it so that it reaches the grieving family. Can someone bury his son without having to hear on the news what WBC thinks about his son?
I’d actually be PROUD if Phelps picketted my funeral. However, it would upset my family.
However the guy jumped the shark big time when he protested at Mister Rogers’s funeral. :rolleyes: (Apparently a big crowd surrounded them and sang Mister Rogers songs)
Astorian, I wouldn’t quite say that. There are some VERY screwed up very conservative Baptist /Christian Idenity sects that may agree with Phelps.
There are some strange and dangeous beliefs in the Bible belt is all I can say.
Also, Phelps has the right to say it in a PUBLIC forum…BUT he doesn’t have the right to land a direct hit…ie send a hate letter to someone.
So, if there are so many people that agree with Phelps, why is there nobody with him at these rallies besides his family?
It’s a safe bet that many (probably most) of the families of the dead soldiers he’s insulting are devout Christians of one kind or another. Conservative, religious Southern Baptists are far more likely than most Americans to have sons in the armed forces.
[quote=“GiantRat, post:17, topic:556243”]
Shakespeare didn’t say that; Hamlet did. And when Shakespeare had Hamlet say it, he wasn’t endorsing it. He was portraying Hamlet as crypically making fun of his interlocutor while also either being or pretending to be at the brink of insanity.