Longhornmaniac
Topic Author
Posts: 2972
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 2:33 pm

"Thank God For Dead Soldiers" Supreme Court Case

Wed Oct 06, 2010 4:33 pm

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39531700/ns/politics/

This is absolutely disgusting. These people wouldn't know Christianity if it kicked them in the nuts.

Is it a Constitutional right? Probably.

Is it classless, tasteless, and completely abhorrent. Without a doubt.

I just get so mad about things like this. It's one thing to do it on the steps of the Capitol, or something like that (not that I agree with it). But to single out individuals' funerals, and protest? These people are going to be in for a rude surprise when they get to the Pearly Gates.

  

Cheers,
Cameron
Cheers,
Cameron
 
User avatar
mbmbos
Posts: 2581
Joined: Sat May 27, 2000 4:16 am

RE: "Thank God For Dead Soldiers" Supreme Court Case

Wed Oct 06, 2010 4:40 pm

I find Phelps and his church repugnant, but I value the first amendment and wouldn't want it weakened in any way.
"If I don't manage to fly, someone else will. The spirit wants only for there to be flying. As for who happens to do it, in that he has only a passing interest."
- R.M. Rilke
 
AGM100
Posts: 5077
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2003 2:16 am

RE: "Thank God For Dead Soldiers" Supreme Court Case

Wed Oct 06, 2010 4:55 pm

Quoting mbmbos (Reply 1):
but I value the first amendment and wouldn't want it weakened in any way.



  
The first amendment is to protect speech we do not like ...
You dig the hole .. I fill the hole . 100% employment !
 
Ken777
Posts: 9103
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: "Thank God For Dead Soldiers" Supreme Court Case

Wed Oct 06, 2010 5:04 pm

I also value the First Amendment.

Which is why I support the Hells Angles getting in these a$$holes faces.

Maybe there can be some very noisy crowds outside their little church every time they have a service - let both sides exercise their free speech at the same time then and see how they like it.

In general there will always be problems with religious nuts, be they terrorists or uncontrolled holy rollers who believe they are doing God's Work.
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 8560
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

RE: "Thank God For Dead Soldiers" Supreme Court Case

Wed Oct 06, 2010 6:12 pm

The First Amendment protects the right to be repugnant, whether it's Fred Phelps and his sordid brethren or anyone else. This case reminds me of the suit between Jerry Falwell and Larry Flynt - a ruling that forever got it in people's heads that you can't forbid poor taste. What Phelps and his gang are doing goes well beyond poor taste so suffice to say if a serviceperson's family member were to do something, extreme, shall we say, I will certainly not be surprised nor saddened. Such are the risks inherent to unpopular speech.
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
 
Longhornmaniac
Topic Author
Posts: 2972
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 2:33 pm

RE: "Thank God For Dead Soldiers" Supreme Court Case

Wed Oct 06, 2010 6:24 pm

I dunno, the more I think about it, the more I wish the First Amendment excepted speech like this. Logistically, I understand it would be impossible to implement, since it would introduce an element of subjectivity, and that would be bad.

I just don't feel like this is really the Freedom of Speech that our Forefathers had in mind. This is hate speech, plain and simple.

Cheers,
Cameron
Cheers,
Cameron
 
AGM100
Posts: 5077
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2003 2:16 am

RE: "Thank God For Dead Soldiers" Supreme Court Case

Wed Oct 06, 2010 6:33 pm

Quoting Longhornmaniac (Reply 5):
This is hate speech, plain and simple.


True , but some of the things we all say on here could be classified as hate speech as well. We don't need government telling us what we can and can not say ... period.
You dig the hole .. I fill the hole . 100% employment !
 
Longhornmaniac
Topic Author
Posts: 2972
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 2:33 pm

RE: "Thank God For Dead Soldiers" Supreme Court Case

Wed Oct 06, 2010 6:40 pm

Quoting AGM100 (Reply 6):
True , but some of the things we all say on here could be classified as hate speech as well. We don't need government telling us what we can and can not say ... period.

Indeed, but to then act on it requires another step. I don't, fundamentally, disagree with you, though.

Could it be argued that this type of speech has the potential to incite imminent lawless action by reasonable people (Brandenburg v Ohio)? It might be a stretch, but I could see it.

Cheers,
Cameron
Cheers,
Cameron
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 8560
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

RE: "Thank God For Dead Soldiers" Supreme Court Case

Wed Oct 06, 2010 6:47 pm

Quoting Longhornmaniac (Reply 5):
I dunno, the more I think about it, the more I wish the First Amendment excepted speech like this.

How would that look - a list of things you can't say enshrined on paper?? Impossible.

Quoting Longhornmaniac (Reply 7):
Could it be argued that this type of speech has the potential to incite imminent lawless action by reasonable people (Brandenburg v Ohio)? It might be a stretch, but I could see it.

Possibly, but that's largely a jurisdictional issue I would think. IIRC some of Westboro's "protests" have been asked to stay x-number of feet away from a funeral in progress.
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
 
AGM100
Posts: 5077
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2003 2:16 am

RE: "Thank God For Dead Soldiers" Supreme Court Case

Wed Oct 06, 2010 6:52 pm

Quoting Longhornmaniac (Reply 7):
Could it be argued that this type of speech has the potential to incite imminent lawless action by reasonable people (Brandenburg v Ohio)? It might be a stretch, but I could see it.



It is certainly a fine line ... and it works both ways. I myself have thought of some ideas of what I would like to do to this Phelps crowd .. and it is not in keeping with good citizenry if you know what I mean.

This is going to be a battle indeed ... for now it is this "christian" church who do not IMO make overt threats. But soon it will be Muslim radicals standing up screaming death to America on some street corner that will grab our attention. This may be even a larger test for our first amendment ...especially if they end up carrying out a attack. It is going to happen ... and how we handle that is going to be interesting.
You dig the hole .. I fill the hole . 100% employment !
 
Longhornmaniac
Topic Author
Posts: 2972
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 2:33 pm

RE: "Thank God For Dead Soldiers" Supreme Court Case

Wed Oct 06, 2010 6:55 pm

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 8):
How would that look - a list of things you can't say enshrined on paper?? Impossible.

Exactly my point. I know it's not actually feasible, I just hate it when people can "get away" with doing something that all but about 100 in this country of 310,000,000 people agree is "wrong," or at least completely lacking decency.

Plenty of subjectivity, and I know it's not realistic, nor inherently desired due to its subjectivity, it just makes me so angry that it happens in the first place.

Cheers,
Cameron
Cheers,
Cameron
 
Longhornmaniac
Topic Author
Posts: 2972
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 2:33 pm

RE: "Thank God For Dead Soldiers" Supreme Court Case

Wed Oct 06, 2010 6:59 pm

Quoting AGM100 (Reply 9):
I myself have thought of some ideas of what I would like to do to this Phelps crowd .. and it is not in keeping with good citizenry if you know what I mean.

  

I know exactly what you mean.

Cheers,
Cameron
Cheers,
Cameron
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 20154
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: "Thank God For Dead Soldiers" Supreme Court Case

Wed Oct 06, 2010 7:14 pm

Quoting Longhornmaniac (Reply 5):

I just don't feel like this is really the Freedom of Speech that our Forefathers had in mind. This is hate speech, plain and simple.

There is no law nor is there a constitutional basis for the restriction of hate speech.

In Germany, there is. But their laws and constitution are different from ours.

As a gay Jew, I don't think I need to expressly state my views on Mr. Phelps and his ilk. Besides, there are not words (vulgar or otherwise) to describe my feelings toward these people.

But I will not stand to see their right to freedom of speech eroded. I feel very sorry for the family of this soldier and I am sorry that they were targets, but unless they committed libel or slander (and they didn't even mention the soldier's name, I don't think) then the SC should side with Phelps.

Neither you nor I can know what the Founding Fathers "had in mind." That died with them. We, their successors, must make that decision for ourselves.

Quoting AGM100 (Reply 9):


This is going to be a battle indeed ... for now it is this "christian" church who do not IMO make overt threats. But soon it will be Muslim radicals standing up screaming death to America on some street corner that will grab our attention. This may be even a larger test for our first amendment ...especially if they end up carrying out a attack. It is going to happen ... and how we handle that is going to be interesting.

It is true, and so I am anxious to see how this case turns out. Like it or not, religious extremists and hatemongers have a right to say what they want.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
Airstud
Posts: 3128
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2000 11:57 am

RE: "Thank God For Dead Soldiers" Supreme Court Case

Wed Oct 06, 2010 7:24 pm

I thought one of the pillars of the civil case against the Phelpsoids was that they were committing "intentional infliction of emotional distress." I also can't see a single shred of an argument that that's not what they were doing. There was an a.net thread about this when the federal appellate court threw out the $5 million verdict against WBC. I noted my astonishment that said court didn't agree that inflictus distressicus intentionalis had obtained, and that frankly I suspected something else was going on behind the scenes; something that might in fact qualify as abuse of judicial discretion.

I state the most obvious thing I'm likely ever to state in my life, but I somehow just have to say it: I hope Phelps loses this one.
Pancakes are delicious.
 
AGM100
Posts: 5077
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2003 2:16 am

RE: "Thank God For Dead Soldiers" Supreme Court Case

Wed Oct 06, 2010 7:41 pm

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 12):
Neither you nor I can know what the Founding Fathers "had in mind."



Well there was plenty of heated protesting back in the day's of the founders. They called each other all kinds of names and used the "press" to print some pretty vile accusations against political opponents. I believe that the founders had a pretty good idea of hatred...and the depths people could sink too.

I believe the first amendments primary function is to support speech against tyranny ... I believe that the founders feared the growth and power of the central government so much that they gave us citizens the right to object openly and loudly. And they did well ...
You dig the hole .. I fill the hole . 100% employment !
 
connies4ever
Posts: 3393
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 10:54 pm

RE: "Thank God For Dead Soldiers" Supreme Court Case

Wed Oct 06, 2010 7:56 pm

Quoting Longhornmaniac (Thread starter):
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39531700/ns/politics/

This is absolutely disgusting. These people wouldn't know Christianity if it kicked them in the nuts.

Is it a Constitutional right? Probably.

Is it classless, tasteless, and completely abhorrent. Without a doubt.

I just get so mad about things like this. It's one thing to do it on the steps of the Capitol, or something like that (not that I agree with it). But to single out individuals' funerals, and protest? These people are going to be in for a rude surprise when they get to the Pearly Gates.

I find them disgusting as well. We had them try to come up to Winnipeg in 2008 to picket the funeral of Tim MacLean, who was decapitated on a Greyhound bus west of Winnipeg. AFAIK not gay, so the motivation escapes me on this one. Some were stopped at the Emerson/Pembina ND border crossing, but some went west and got across. However, no actual picketing happened. Still, given the trauma the MacLean family went through, this was a truly despicable thing to do.
Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 20154
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: "Thank God For Dead Soldiers" Supreme Court Case

Wed Oct 06, 2010 10:14 pm

Quoting AGM100 (Reply 14):

I believe the first amendments primary function is to support speech against tyranny ... I believe that the founders feared the growth and power of the central government so much that they gave us citizens the right to object openly and loudly. And they did well ...

Tyranny is what they had in mind, but I think that they also knew that giving the government the power to suppress ANY kind of speech would lead to a slippery slope of any sort of unpopular speech being labeled as "unsuitable" (except for clearly criminal speech, such as shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater, or slander/libel).
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
iairallie
Posts: 2326
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 5:42 am

RE: "Thank God For Dead Soldiers" Supreme Court Case

Wed Oct 06, 2010 10:36 pm

Freedom of speech is precious. I loathe the Phelpes and what they've done but any attempt to stop the funeral protests needs to be legitimate & constitutionally compatible . I certainly hope that the counsel opposing them will find a way to do that but I'm not super confident it can be done. I understand they are taking the angle that a funeral is a private venue and you only have a right to freedom of speech in public venues. It will be really interesting to see if this holds up to scrutiney.

[Edited 2010-10-06 15:38:36]
Enough about flying lets talk about me!
 
DeltaMD11
Posts: 1678
Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2002 4:56 am

RE: "Thank God For Dead Soldiers" Supreme Court Case

Wed Oct 06, 2010 10:39 pm

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 16):
ANY kind of speech would lead to a slippery slope of any sort of unpopular speech being labeled as "unsuitable" (except for clearly criminal speech, such as shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater, or slander/libel).

Doc, I can see what you're getting at but I also think that this sort of speech is analagous to shouting fire in a theater and is slanderous/libelous. You're taking dead soldiers and slandering them by saying that they died because "God hates fags". How do they know that these soldiers died and are going to hell specifically because "God hates fags"? They can't prove that outright, the Bible that I reads says that judgement will be made by God only, and hence the speech becomes slanderous and their written diatribes on the subject libelous. Not only that, their speech and actions are beyond just offensive and I would argue injurious to the families and loved ones of the deceased. They will remember that WBC showed up at their dead son/daughter/loved ones funeral for the rest of their lives and it will of course weigh on their minds. It would be one thing if there were mixed reviews on the subject from the families of the dead, however I'll eat my hat if a SINGLE ONE of those families would say that they didn't want WBC members at their funeral. WBC can continue on with their drivel, but at a minimum the government should put a solid foot down on where and when they can do those sorts of things. Leave those families and loved ones alone, they're already suffering enough.
Too often we ... enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought. - John Fitzgerald Kennedy
 
NoUFO
Posts: 7397
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2001 7:40 am

RE: "Thank God For Dead Soldiers" Supreme Court Case

Wed Oct 06, 2010 10:55 pm

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 12):
There is no law nor is there a constitutional basis for the restriction of hate speech.

In Germany, there is. But their laws and constitution are different from ours.

True, but I'm almost certain Phelps could not be brought to justice in Germany as well. I wrote "almost" because I do not know in detail what he is saying besides his "Thank God for dead soldiers" ramblings.
I know he's anti-gay and thinks they will "burn in hell", but this would not be illegal as long as he and his family don't urge others to kill or harm gay people.
I support the right to arm bears
 
comorin
Posts: 3860
Joined: Sun May 29, 2005 5:52 am

RE: "Thank God For Dead Soldiers" Supreme Court Case

Wed Oct 06, 2010 11:17 pm

There is a fine line between free speech and verbal assault. Given the emotional distress and damage caused, this is a case of the latter.

So you have a right to express yourself, and I have the right to punch you in the nose.
 
fr8mech
Posts: 6719
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 9:00 am

RE: "Thank God For Dead Soldiers" Supreme Court Case

Wed Oct 06, 2010 11:25 pm

Damn, I'm so torn here. Like the others, I find Phelps and gang repugnant. But, their right to protest is a fundamental right, so long as the proper permits, blah, blah, blah are obtained for the locality.

But, we do limit free speech in areas. As I recall, the State has to show a compelling interest in limiting speech. Is the prevention of emotional harm on the family of a slain soldier (the target of the protest) a sufficiently compelling reason to limit Phelps's (or anyone else's) speech?

I don't think it meets the test.

But, now, as I understand it, this lawsuit isn't so much about curbing speech, but whether a victim can bring a private suit against the protesters for the alleged harm caused by the speech.

This of course, presents another slippery slope.
When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
 
UAL747
Posts: 6725
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 1999 5:42 am

RE: "Thank God For Dead Soldiers" Supreme Court Case

Wed Oct 06, 2010 11:43 pm

They are disgusting people. They have to be making money off of what they do, otherwise, they would not be able to do it. None of them, AFAIK, work for anyone else. While there are some attorneys among them, I highly doubt they are "hireable."

The problem I have is with the other side, us. Every time we devote media attention or our own attention to these fools, they get rich, mainly off of the taxpayers dime and from donors who privately fund their satanic escapades. This is one problem that will go away if we completely ignore it, but as long as we put our time and energy into them, they will continue to thrive.

I'm a big believer in freedom of speech too. Which is why I say that I doubt these people would be missed, should some nut who doesn't agree with them decides to get irritated.

UAl
"Bangkok Tower, United 890 Heavy. Bangkok Tower, United 890 Heavy.....Okay, fine, we'll just turn 190 and Visual Our Way
 
PSA53
Posts: 2933
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2003 1:54 pm

RE: "Thank God For Dead Soldiers" Supreme Court Case

Wed Oct 06, 2010 11:43 pm

Quoting AGM100 (Reply 2):
Quoting mbmbos (Reply 1):
but I value the first amendment and wouldn't want it weakened in any way.

The first amendment is to protect speech we do not like ...

No matter how ugly this display was, I agree the Ist must be protected,like it or not.

Quoting comorin (Reply 20):
There is a fine line between free speech and verbal assault.

Only if the demonstrators were obstructing or within a matter of feet ,that it might be construed as an assault.
However.a civil case might weight in as distress emotional pain,as you pointed out,and might win.

Quoting comorin (Reply 20):


So you have a right to express yourself, and I have the right to punch you in the nose.


(lol) Don't even consider it.

[Edited 2010-10-06 16:53:19]
Tuesday's Off! Do not disturb.
 
Maverick623
Posts: 4651
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 9:13 am

RE: "Thank God For Dead Soldiers" Supreme Court Case

Thu Oct 07, 2010 12:45 am

Quoting DeltaMD11 (Reply 18):
They can't prove that outright, the Bible that I reads says that judgement will be made by God only, and hence the speech becomes slanderous and their written diatribes on the subject libelous.

Irrelevant. Freedom of religion will come into play there. They don't have to prove anything.

Quoting iairallie (Reply 17):
I understand they are taking the angle that a funeral is a private venue and you only have a right to freedom of speech in public venues.

AFAIK, there have been no "protests" on actual cemetery grounds (private property). They stand on the sidewalk next to or nearest the ceremony and picket there.
"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
 
User avatar
Dreadnought
Posts: 9941
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:31 pm

RE: "Thank God For Dead Soldiers" Supreme Court Case

Thu Oct 07, 2010 12:57 am

Quoting mbmbos (Reply 1):
I find Phelps and his church repugnant, but I value the first amendment and wouldn't want it weakened in any way.

These guys are not being prevented from exercising their first amendment rights. They are free to say their piece in 99.9% of all situations. But just as you can't yell 'fire' in a crowded theater, there are places and occasions where it is not appropriate to do so. The burial of an honored soldier is among the most reverent and sacred occasions in our society. Is nothing to be sacred at all?
You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life. - W. Churchill
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 20154
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: "Thank God For Dead Soldiers" Supreme Court Case

Thu Oct 07, 2010 1:06 am

Quoting NoUFO (Reply 19):

True, but I'm almost certain Phelps could not be brought to justice in Germany as well. I wrote "almost" because I do not know in detail what he is saying besides his "Thank God for dead soldiers" ramblings.
I know he's anti-gay and thinks they will "burn in hell", but this would not be illegal as long as he and his family don't urge others to kill or harm gay people.

Isn't it illegal to use anti-semitic language there? You'd know better than I would.

Quoting DeltaMD11 (Reply 18):

Doc, I can see what you're getting at but I also think that this sort of speech is analagous to shouting fire in a theater and is slanderous/libelous. You're taking dead soldiers and slandering them by saying that they died because "God hates fags".

No, because you aren't saying anything that can proven or disproven. So maybe that Humvee accident happened because God Hates Fags. That's not anything that I can disprove or that Phelps can prove. Now, if Phelps said that the soldier had died because HE was a fag, then that would be different.

It is also not the job of the Supreme court to interpret the Bible. It's their job to interpret the Constitution which is pretty firm (particularly in the context of subsequent legal precedent) about freedom of speech and religion.

Quoting comorin (Reply 20):

So you have a right to express yourself, and I have the right to punch you in the nose.

No. You have the right to swing your fist. That right ends at my nose.

Quoting UAL747 (Reply 22):

The problem I have is with the other side, us. Every time we devote media attention or our own attention to these fools, they get rich, mainly off of the taxpayers dime and from donors who privately fund their satanic escapades. This is one problem that will go away if we completely ignore it, but as long as we put our time and energy into them, they will continue to thrive.

You forgot something: they also get rich off the people who sue them. Phelps is an asshat, but he's no idiot. He's very careful to make sure that what he does is within the letter of the law to the last punctuation point. And then, when he gets sued, he can counter-sue.

Moral: ignore Phelps. DO NOT SUE HIM.

What I would love to see is a counter-protest of people standing around the WBC group tens of people thick, all holding blank signs to make it impossible to see the WBC protesters.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
NorthstarBoy
Posts: 1416
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2005 12:53 pm

RE: "Thank God For Dead Soldiers" Supreme Court Case

Thu Oct 07, 2010 1:12 am

As much is i disagree with what Phelps is doing, you can't place the right to privacy above freedom of speech....ever.

IMO, any kind of ruling which supports the family's right to privacy over Phelps' right to express himself will have repercussions beyond just the issue of protesting at military funerals. For instance, what would stop a celebrity from suing a paparazzo who took an unscripted photograph of them leaving a restaurant? Theoretically, if the family wins, nothing. Right now the paparazzo's right to take the picture is protected by the constitution, if we consider that the purpose of taking the picture is to sell it to the media, therefore, the act of stopping the paparazzo from taking the photograph violates the photographer's right to free speech, but if the supreme court suddenly declares that privacy trumps free speech then the celebrity can sue under the claim that even though they were out in public the photograph violated their right to privacy, this in turn sets a bad precedent.

I for one don't want to live in a country where one person's right to privacy trumps someone else's right to express themselves, that where we're headed if the family wins.
Yes, I'd like to see airbus go under so Boeing can have their customers!
 
NoUFO
Posts: 7397
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2001 7:40 am

RE: "Thank God For Dead Soldiers" Supreme Court Case

Thu Oct 07, 2010 1:55 am

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 26):
Isn't it illegal to use anti-semitic language there? You'd know better than I would.

Not really as I never used anti-semitic language.  
As far as I know, there are three main differences between the right to free speech in Germany vs. the USA.

1) It is prohibited to display Nazi-Symbols unless it is in an article, photograph, film or exhibition covering the Nazi era.
2) Likewise, it is prohibited to claim a genocide that is considered historically proven never happened. This does not only go for the Shoa/Holocaust but for other genocides as well, although this specific law was clearly written with the Shoa and Germany's confession of guilt in mind.
3) German courts tend to move the line that separates freedom of speech from insult closer and quicker towards "insult" than American courts. In Germany "dignity" is seen as being more important than "freedom of speech".

1) and especially 2) are often debated. Critics, and you can count myself in when it comes to 2), say these prohibitions harm our democracy more than a few idiots who don't believe the Shoa really happened. 3) is undisputed as far as I can tell, although we had a public discussion on this issue very recently.
I support the right to arm bears
 
ltbewr
Posts: 12502
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2004 1:24 pm

RE: "Thank God For Dead Soldiers" Supreme Court Case

Thu Oct 07, 2010 2:55 am

Basically, the US Supreme Court has to consider if a lower court's money judgment against Phelps group on the grounds of intentional distress is or is not against the First Amendment Free Speech protections. I suspect that the Court will make clear majority decision to overturn the judgement based on very clear precedent.

In the late 1970's, a Nazi group wanted to march in a mainly Jewish neighborhood in a suburban community of Chicago. After several denials to be permitted to march, they appealed to higher courts and eventually, their right to march so long as didn't threaten violence had to be upheld. Protesters also could not interfere with their 'march' either. I suspect this precedent will be upheld in this case as to allow the Judgment to stand in the Phelps case would open up many more lawsuits to silence those in opposition like environmental groups protesting polluting corporations for example.

Yes, the 'protests' of the Westboro Baptist 'Church' group and the Phelps family are offensive, but as they are peaceful, they are not violent, there is no other choice but to vacate the Judgment. The best answer to deal with the Phelps protests is to bring in 'more' free speech, put up a larger number of people to drown them out with sheer numbers of supporters.
 
Mudboy
Posts: 962
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 6:51 am

RE: "Thank God For Dead Soldiers" Supreme Court Case

Thu Oct 07, 2010 3:28 am

The one time that I would inflict physical harm, regardless of the consequences, on a person expressing their freedom of speech would be if an American President were assasinated and someone was cheering it on, and I just found the second reason!

These people have no morals what so ever. To go to a soldiers funeral and cheer on the death to family members, is a dispicable act. Soldiers do not determine where and when they go fight, they are a piece of an Army that may one day lay down their lives, to protect your rights. Whether you believe in a war or not, it is not the soldier's fault, they are just doing what they were trained to do. I would like to know how many of these cowards would give their life for the soldier next to them, while wearing their country's uniform? So what is next, urunating on graves at Arlington?

[Edited 2010-10-06 21:00:51]
 
Quokka
Posts: 1315
Joined: Fri Sep 03, 2010 12:26 pm

RE: "Thank God For Dead Soldiers" Supreme Court Case

Thu Oct 07, 2010 3:55 am

Freedom of Speech is a precious thing: without it we would be slaves. But freedom without responsibility is another form of tyranny.

Why should anyone be expected to put up with outpourings of hatred just because somebody has so-called "freedom of speech". To subject a grieving family to this vile treatment is unconscionable.

I don't agree with Australia's role in Afghanistan and Iraq, but I'll direct my views to the Government and the Parliament, not to the families of a fallen soldier. The soldier doesn't make policy and doesn't choose where troops will be deployed. Those decisions are made higher up the chain of command and by Cabinet.

The irony is that these people profess to be Christians. Didn't Christ himself state, in Matthew 7,
"7:1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
"7:2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
"7:3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
"7:4 4Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
"7:5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye." (King James Authorised Version)

If people spent less time moralising and more time acting in a caring and considerate way, the world would be a much better place.
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 20154
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: "Thank God For Dead Soldiers" Supreme Court Case

Thu Oct 07, 2010 4:54 am

Quoting Quokka (Reply 31):

The irony is that these people profess to be Christians. Didn't Christ himself state, in Matthew 7,

And who are you to tell them they aren't Christians? If you go to www.godhatesfags.com (which seems to be down right now) he gives a set of Bible verses that support his position.

This is the problem with religion, period. You can make it say anything you want it to. Q'uran has many commandments against violence and against forcing religion. In fact: "there is no compulsion in religion" is a direct quote from Q'uran. And you see how well that works out.

This is why the Catholic Church justified armies and dungeons, ran brothels (to work in one, you had to be 14 and your name could not be Maria), and out-and-out genocide.

When you claim that there is an absolute moral authority, then that authority must speak for itself on each and every case. Once you leave the work of interpretation to humans, then two men can read the same book and come to completely opposite conclusions.

And so who are YOU to tell Fred Phelps that he's wrong?

Here is Rev. Phelps's answer:

Quote:
Leviticus 20:23 - "And ye shall not walk in the manners of the nation, which I cast out before you: for they committed all these things, and therefore I abhorred them."

Leviticus 26:30 - "And I will destroy your high places, and cut down your images, and cast your carcases upon the carcases of your idols, and my soul shall abhor you."

Deuteronomy 32:19 - "And when the LORD saw it, he abhorred them, because of the provoking of his sons, and of his daughters."

Psalm 5:5 - "The foolish shall not stand in thy sight: thou hatest all workers of iniquity."

Psalm 5:6 - "Thou shalt destroy them that speak leasing: the LORD will abhor the bloody and deceitful man."

Psalm 10:3 - "For the wicked boasteth of his heart's desire, and blesseth the covetous, whom the LORD abhorreth."

Psalm 11:5 - "The LORD trieth the righteous: but the wicked and him that loveth violence his soul hateth."

Psalm 53:5 - "There were they in great fear, where no fear was: for God hath scattered the bones of him that encampeth against thee: thou hast put them to shame, because God hath despised them."

Psalm 73:20 - "As a dream when one awaketh; so, O Lord, when thou awakest, thou shalt despise their image."

Psalm 78:59 - "When God heard this, he was wroth, and greatly abhorred Israel:"

Psalm 106:40 - "Therefore was the wrath of the LORD kindled against his people, insomuch that he abhorred his own inheritance."

Proverbs 6:16-19 - "These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren."

Proverbs 22:14 - "The mouth of strange women is a deep pit: he that is abhorred of the LORD shall fall therein."

Lamentations 2:6 - "And he hath violently taken away his tabernacle, as if it were of a garden: he hath destroyed his places of the assembly: the LORD hath caused the solemn feasts and sabbaths to be forgotten in Zion, and hath despised in the indignation of his anger the king and the priest."

Hosea 9:15 - "All their wickedness is in Gilgal: for there I hated them: for the wickedness of their doings I will drive them out of mine house, I will love them no more: all their princes are revolters."

Zechariah 11:8 - "Three shepherds also I cut off in one month; and my soul lothed them, and their soul also abhorred me."

Malachi 1:3 - "And I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness."

Romans 9:13 - "As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated."

Go ahead, get into a Bible-quotin' contest with him.

Quoting Mudboy (Reply 30):

These people have no morals what so ever.

I disagree. They most certainly have a very strong moral code. That's the problem with "morals." They're arbitrary. Their moral code is that homosexuality is the ultimate evil and sin and that the only moral thing to do is to preach to the world that homosexuality is the cause of all evil.

As for me, I subscribe to the Golden Rule. That's the only moral code I need.

I'm quite thankful for Fred Phelps. Maybe he will serve as an example of how blind faith in a religion is one of many causes of evil in this world. Maybe he will get people to examine their own religious systems carefully and ask why theirs is any better.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
Quokka
Posts: 1315
Joined: Fri Sep 03, 2010 12:26 pm

RE: "Thank God For Dead Soldiers" Supreme Court Case

Thu Oct 07, 2010 5:08 am

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 32):
Go ahead, get into a Bible-quotin' contest with him.



My point exactly, Doc. It seems that sects generally are very choosy about which bits of the scriptures they emphasize and ignore the bits that don't suit their particular agenda.
If people hate gays, unmarried women, immigrants, so be it. Hatred is often irrational and there is not much point arguing with irrational people. But some people try to make their hatred respectable by quoting "holy" texts. It justifies their hatred, it makes them feel superior and it appears to empower them.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 32):
I'm quite thankful for Fred Phelps. Maybe he will serve as an example of how blind faith in a religion is one of many causes of evil in this world. Maybe he will get people to examine their own religious systems carefully and ask why theirs is any better.


One can but live in hope.

[Edited 2010-10-06 22:39:41]
 
Mudboy
Posts: 962
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 6:51 am

RE: "Thank God For Dead Soldiers" Supreme Court Case

Thu Oct 07, 2010 5:32 am

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 32):
I disagree. They most certainly have a very strong moral code. That's the problem with "morals." They're arbitrary. Their moral code is that homosexuality is the ultimate evil and sin and that the only moral thing to do is to preach to the world that homosexuality is the cause of all evil.

As for me, I subscribe to the Golden Rule. That's the only moral code I need.

I'm quite thankful for Fred Phelps. Maybe he will serve as an example of how blind faith in a religion is one of many causes of evil in this world. Maybe he will get people to examine their own religious systems carefully and ask why theirs is any better.

That is an excellent way to look at it Doc, thanks for opening my eyes, as they were blinded by anger!
 
Mir
Posts: 19108
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:55 am

RE: "Thank God For Dead Soldiers" Supreme Court Case

Thu Oct 07, 2010 6:08 am

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 25):
But just as you can't yell 'fire' in a crowded theater, there are places and occasions where it is not appropriate to do so. The burial of an honored soldier is among the most reverent and sacred occasions in our society. Is nothing to be sacred at all?

You can't yell "fire" in a theater because it poses a danger to the other occupants. Any law we have restricting freedom of speech is based around securing people's safety. You can't really say that a WBC protest poses such a danger, and thus it's a lot harder to justify preventing them from doing what they do, objectionable as it is.

Once you start drawing lines for what is sacred and what isn't, when do you stop?

-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
 
User avatar
cpd
Posts: 4639
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2008 4:46 am

RE: "Thank God For Dead Soldiers" Supreme Court Case

Thu Oct 07, 2010 9:43 am

I saw these protestors on the news tonight.

And I honestly started to feel sick, and pretty angry as well.

A hell of a lot of people (many of them not particularly old) are putting everything on the line for their country (and the rest of us too in the other countries who've been affected by terrorism), and I can't quite believe how vile and disgusting the actions of these protestors are. The troops in Afghanistan deserve our support, and they don't deserve being put down by these people sitting back having a nice life back home, far away from the fighting.

There must be something done about what they are doing, constitution or otherwise. Now I'm not even American - and I care about what they are saying about the US troops. It's disgusting.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 32):
I'm quite thankful for Fred Phelps. Maybe he will serve as an example of how blind faith in a religion is one of many causes of evil in this world. Maybe he will get people to examine their own religious systems carefully and ask why theirs is any better.

Reading that puts it in a different light and I can see your point, but I'm still pretty cross. And it's equally refreshing to see your views on it, since you'd have every right to be very annoyed by the vile hatred they preach.

[Edited 2010-10-07 02:47:04]
 
NIKV69
Posts: 10910
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2004 4:27 am

RE: "Thank God For Dead Soldiers" Supreme Court Case

Thu Oct 07, 2010 10:04 am

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 12):
But I will not stand to see their right to freedom of speech eroded. I feel very sorry for the family of this soldier and I am sorry that they were targets, but unless they committed libel or slander (and they didn't even mention the soldier's name, I don't think) then the SC should side with Phelps.

I agree. Even though I am agreeing way too much with the mad doctor I value the right to say what you want. Including the people who start picketing this church. I hope someone does it with a big group day and night at Phelps house too until he stops this.
Hey that guy with the private jet can bail us out! Why? HE CAN AFFORD IT!
 
oly720man
Posts: 5761
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 7:13 am

RE: "Thank God For Dead Soldiers" Supreme Court Case

Thu Oct 07, 2010 10:16 am

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 37):
I hope someone does it with a big group day and night at Phelps house too until he stops this.

I think he is of the mindset that the more people protest against him the stronger his beliefs become.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 32):

A lot of hating, abhorring, despising and loathing from upstairs in there. And I thought God was some kind, compassionate individual. Maybe he was a bit rougher in his younger days.
wheat and dairy can screw up your brain
 
gosimeon
Posts: 232
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 12:45 am

RE: "Thank God For Dead Soldiers" Supreme Court Case

Thu Oct 07, 2010 11:32 am

I find this whole thing interesting. I mean, do you guys think that the right of a few people to shout hateful stuff at parents as they bury their sons has more weight than the right to a dignified burial, for example, or even to privacy. I'm all for free speech, but people can abuse it. I understand people being wary of tampering with the first amendment at all, but I am sure you would feel differently if it was your loved one's funeral being shouted down by these religious nuts.

In this case, my sympathy is certainly with the father of the felled soldier. He has every right to win this case, as he was harassed in a planned way and did not provoke any other party.
 
MD11Engineer
Posts: 13916
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2003 5:25 am

RE: "Thank God For Dead Soldiers" Supreme Court Case

Thu Oct 07, 2010 11:50 am

Quoting oly720man (Reply 38):
Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 37):
I hope someone does it with a big group day and night at Phelps house too until he stops this.

I think he is of the mindset that the more people protest against him the stronger his beliefs become.

Don´t forget that Phelps and his daughter are experienced lawyers. They watch for any small infraction of laws in the response of their pickets and then sue for money. This is how they finance their church.

Jan
Je Suis Charlie et je suis Ahmet aussi
 
NoUFO
Posts: 7397
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2001 7:40 am

RE: "Thank God For Dead Soldiers" Supreme Court Case

Thu Oct 07, 2010 12:09 pm

Quoting gosimeon (Reply 39):
In this case, my sympathy is certainly with the father of the felled soldier.

I think the father has everyone's sympathy here, that's not the point. But it remains questionable if somerone is right just because he is more likable (from the little we know about him).

Quoting gosimeon (Reply 39):
He has every right to win this case, as he was harassed in a planned way and did not provoke any other party.

Is it harassment or is it expression of their opinion? You say, from a distance of a couple of thousand miles, it is harassment, but judges may think otherwise. If it is harassment: How close do you think can the Phelps family get to the actual funeral? 100 yards? 200 yards or 500? What if they are still visible at a distance of 500 yards?
In part, the father based his claim of suffering from emotional distress on a publication the Phelps family published about a month after the funeral. But the case is supposed to be about the funeral itself.

I dislike the Phelps family with a passion, but amendment rights are more precious than my feelings against this "church".

[Edited 2010-10-07 05:09:57]
I support the right to arm bears
 
AGM100
Posts: 5077
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2003 2:16 am

RE: "Thank God For Dead Soldiers" Supreme Court Case

Thu Oct 07, 2010 1:17 pm

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 25):
Is nothing to be sacred at all?



IMO ...no. I see and hear many things in this society that make my conscious tremble. But I understand it , good or bad that is our system . I also believe that our society eventually ends in chaos , so much openness and "freedom" without the rule of law can not last. Man kind given total freedom will push beyond the boundaries of "sanity" until cohesion and purpose in the society are lost.

But that is the system we enjoy now , the alternative is no better .
You dig the hole .. I fill the hole . 100% employment !
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 20154
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: "Thank God For Dead Soldiers" Supreme Court Case

Thu Oct 07, 2010 2:44 pm

Quoting cpd (Reply 36):
And it's equally refreshing to see your views on it, since you'd have every right to be very annoyed by the vile hatred they preach.

Oh, if I ever met the man it would take every ounce of self-control to not cheerfully pummel him until he was a thin puddle of green mung. But I'd know better because they gots lawyers. And those lawyers would throw my ass in jail for as long as possible.

Honestly, what we need is a very good sniper who knows how to not get caught.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 25):
Is nothing to be sacred at all?

Human life and the rights of others are sacred. We do not have a right to be safe from being made angry. Unfortunately, Phelps has not violated anyone's rights and he has not killed anyone.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
Stealthz
Posts: 5549
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 11:43 am

RE: "Thank God For Dead Soldiers" Supreme Court Case

Thu Oct 07, 2010 3:14 pm

Firstly a disclaimer, I,as you may notice from the flag by name am an Australian so do not have any real vested interests here apart from my outrage at Phelps and his demented followers!

From my reading of the few words(less than 50) of the 1st amendment of the US Constitution, I find little support for Phelps.
Sure there is the freedom of religion & speech thing but his ranting how (insert rank & name) died becuase the Lord hates fags etc is bordering on personal slander or libel!
As such I as an SCOTUS judge(which I am not) would have a difficult decision to make!
Regards
If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 20154
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: "Thank God For Dead Soldiers" Supreme Court Case

Thu Oct 07, 2010 3:48 pm

Quoting stealthz (Reply 44):
Sure there is the freedom of religion & speech thing but his ranting how (insert rank & name) died becuase the Lord hates fags etc is bordering on personal slander or libel!

Nope. He doesn't use "name and rank" I don't think. And even if he does, he's not saying anything that can proven to be untrue. If "name and rank" died, then saying he died is not libel or slander. And saying that he died because God Hates Fags cannot be proven or disproven.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
AGM100
Posts: 5077
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2003 2:16 am

RE: "Thank God For Dead Soldiers" Supreme Court Case

Thu Oct 07, 2010 3:56 pm

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 45):
And saying that he died because God Hates Fags cannot be proven or disproven.



This is the theory of collective punishment on a society ,mostly a Old Testament idea ...I have seen it first hand. Rev. Wright and the liberation doctrine teaches collective salvation and Phelps teaches collective punishment ... both are wrong . IMO... you as a individual must know your god and "salvation" is up to you and how you live your life. I agree with you Doc ... the "golden rule" is the best one.
You dig the hole .. I fill the hole . 100% employment !
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 20154
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: "Thank God For Dead Soldiers" Supreme Court Case

Thu Oct 07, 2010 4:14 pm

Quoting AGM100 (Reply 46):

This is the theory of collective punishment on a society ,mostly a Old Testament idea ...I have seen it first hand. Rev. Wright and the liberation doctrine teaches collective salvation and Phelps teaches collective punishment ... both are wrong . IMO... you as a individual must know your god and "salvation" is up to you and how you live your life. I agree with you Doc ... the "golden rule" is the best one.

There's a lot of "agreeing" going in here. NIKV, now you, Dreaddy... Jeez, guys, what have we come to?

Actually, Phelps is a Calvinist. He believes that certain people are pre-saved (i.e. better than others). And he'll tell you all about it.  
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
User avatar
Dreadnought
Posts: 9941
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:31 pm

RE: "Thank God For Dead Soldiers" Supreme Court Case

Thu Oct 07, 2010 6:41 pm

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 43):
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 25):
Is nothing to be sacred at all?

Human life and the rights of others are sacred. We do not have a right to be safe from being made angry. Unfortunately, Phelps has not violated anyone's rights and he has not killed anyone.

The right to privacy was instilled in our legal system via Roe v Wade and other rulings. Being able to bury a loved one without deliberate disturbance would arguably run under that same right.

I'm not sure where I stand on this, but I don't like the idea that "rights" are unlimited or worthless. I think there is a place in society for common sense law - unfortunately our screwed up legal system does not tolerate common sense very well, as it's too centered on "precedent".

Even if they are prevented from protesting at funerals, nothing prevents Phelps and his inbred clan from marching, from printing articles, from generally making their feelings and political opinions known. The purpose of the first amendment was not to allow people to say whatever they want wherever and whenever they want. The 1st amendment says "the right to PEACEABLY assemble", indicating that they did think of that. Protesting at a funeral is assembly as much as speech, and hurling epithets at the family and friends of the deceased, is not peaceful, and thus may not qualify as protected.
You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life. - W. Churchill
 
NIKV69
Posts: 10910
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2004 4:27 am

RE: "Thank God For Dead Soldiers" Supreme Court Case

Thu Oct 07, 2010 7:13 pm

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 47):
There's a lot of "agreeing" going in here. NIKV, now you, Dreaddy... Jeez, guys, what have we come to?

I am lot closer to the middle line than you ya know. LOL. In this instance it's a no brainer. Can't silence people. I love free speech as long as it isn't illegal or infringes on others rights but if you are pubicly protesting within the law you can't silence it. I like that sniper idea though.
Hey that guy with the private jet can bail us out! Why? HE CAN AFFORD IT!

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: qfflyer and 26 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos