NationStates Jolt Archive

Looks like ol' Fred is running out of room to spew his anti-American garbage. He claims it violates his free speech...Yeah right.


Congress Votes To Bar Funeral Protests
Measure Would Restrict Demonstrations At Military Funerals

WASHINGTON, May 25, 2006
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sara Phelps holds signs during a protest by followers of the Rev. Fred Phelps, who claims soldiers have died because they fought for a country that condones homosexuality, in Shumway, Ill., Friday, May 19, 2006. (AP)






Quote

"It's a sad but necessary measure to protect what should be recognized by all reasonable people as a solemn, private and deeply sacred occasion."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn.


(AP) Demonstrators would be barred from disrupting military funerals at national cemeteries under legislation approved by Congress and sent to the White House Wednesday

The measure, passed by voice vote in the House hours after the Senate passed an amended version, specifically targets a Kansas church group that has staged protests at military funerals around the country, claiming that the deaths were a sign of God's anger at U.S. tolerance of homosexuals.

The act "will protect the sanctity of all 122 of our national cemeteries as shrines to their gallant dead," Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., said prior to the Senate vote.

"It's a sad but necessary measure to protect what should be recognized by all reasonable people as a solemn, private and deeply sacred occasion," he said.

Under the Senate bill, approved without objection by the House with no recorded vote, the "Respect for America's Fallen Heroes Act" would bar protests within 300 feet of the entrance of a cemetery and within 150 feet of a road into the cemetery from 60 minutes before to 60 minutes after a funeral. Those violating the act would face up to a $100,000 fine and up to a year in prison.

The sponsor of the House bill, Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., said he took up the issue after attending a military funeral in his home state, where mourners were greeted by "chants and taunting and some of the most vile things I have ever heard."

"Families deserve the time to bury their American heroes with dignity and in peace," Rogers said Wednesday before the Hosue vote.

The demonstrators are led by the Rev. Fred Phelps of Topeka, Kan., who has previously organized protests against those who died of AIDS and gay murder victim Matthew Shepard.

In an interview when the House bill passed, Phelps said Congress was "blatantly violating the First Amendment" rights to free speech in passing the bill. He said that if the bill becomes law he will continue to demonstrate but would abide by the restrictions.

Sen. Pat Roberts, a Republican from Kansas, said the loved ones of those who die have already sacrificed for the nation and "we must allow them the right to mourn without being thrust into a political circus."

In response to the demonstrations, the Patriot Guard Riders, a motorcyle group including many veterans, has begun appearing at military funerals to pay respects to the fallen service member and protect the family from disruptions.

More than a dozen states are considering similar laws to restrict protests at nonfederal cemeteries. The American Civil Liberties Union has filed a lawsuit against a new Kentucky law, saying it goes too far in limiting freedom of speech and expression.


©MMVI The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Well he does has a point.

The new laws sets to define "proper" speech.

Protesting military funerals is bad.

Protesting other funerals is ok.

If Phelps has the constitutional freedom of speech to say his stuff, surely America has the constitutional freedom of speech to say what it likes about Gay people?

See this:
In response to the demonstrations, the Patriot Guard Riders, a motorcyle group including many veterans, has begun appearing at military funerals to pay respects to the fallen service member and protect the family from disruptions.
This is a solution to the problem that doesn't resort to limiting peoples' speech because we find it offensive. I say the solution to a situation such as this should be more speech, not less.

Phelps who?

I say let him speak. He shouldnt complain when he gets his ass kicked though.

If Phelps has the constitutional freedom of speech to say his stuff, surely America has the constitutional freedom of speech to say what it likes about Gay people?
I had no idea a mass of land and/or a governmental structure had the ability to say anything.
Please explain what you mean by the word America.

The American people?

The American government?

The next great American novel?

Phelps who?

One of our many Religious wack nuts.

has a site godhatesfags. He had another called godhatesjews at one time I believe.

His latest bent is protesting military funerals. The repubs didn't care that he protests gay funerals but now they are up in arms since he started protesting military funerals.

I had no idea a mass of land and/or a governmental structure had the ability to say anything.
Please explain what you mean by the word America.

The American people?

The American government?

The next great American novel?

:rolleyes:

See this:

This is a solution to the problem that doesn't resort to limiting peoples' speech because we find it offensive. I say the solution to a situation such as this should be more speech, not less.

Agreed, as much as I hate Phelps and his followers/family *Same difference*, I can't say I approve of this law.

I had no idea a mass of land and/or a governmental structure had the ability to say anything.
Please explain what you mean by the word America.
Whatever it is the Westboro Baptist church is referring to.

*Shrug*

"The principle of free thought is not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought we hate."
- US Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes

"Goebbels was in favor of free speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you're in favor of free speech, then you're in favor of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise. Otherwise, you're not in favor of free speech."
- Noam Chomsky

Truthfully, nobody here is doubting that Phelps is free to say whatever the heck he wants.

All we're doubting is whether he's free to believe it.

This law is completely unnecessary. If such a law is needed, the states can and are doing it. Also, I disagree on barring protests from only military funerals. If you're going to ban protests at funerals, it needs to be all funerals, like my state did.

This law is completely unnecessary. If such a law is needed, the states can and are doing it. Also, I disagree on barring protests from only military funerals. If you're going to ban protests at funerals, it needs to be all funerals, like my state did.


While I agree that it should be extended to all funerals, this bill is specific to national (ie federal) cemetaries.

Truthfully, nobody here is doubting that Phelps is free to say whatever the heck he wants.

All we're doubting is whether he's free to believe it.

Oh oh.

Shall we charge him with a thought crime?

Whilst i certainly don't agree with the man and I certainly think that protesting at funerals is disgusting, my own view would be that this law should extend to all funerals not just military ones. It has the distinct whiff of venerating the military. I'm sure that wasn't the intention of the law, but thats how it could be viewed.

The law doesn't stop him from expressing his views, it says he can't do it in front of grieving family members for a period of one hour before and one hour after the funeral. It's pretty much the same thing as the fact that you or I aren't able to enter his house and tell him what we think of him.

stupid law in the first place. Why did no one care when he protested the funerals of gays?

either ban protests at all funerals, or none. Personally, I lean towards none.

While I'm an advocate of Freedom of Speech, Phelps is crossing the line. For English, I have to choose a monster of the 20th century: I'm douing Fred F*ckin Phelps. God Thos WBC members need to be shot.

Oh oh.

Shall we charge him with a thought crime?
Nobody ever gets charged with thought crime.

It's true, though, isn't it? It's not the proclamation of these views that we're worried about or even the people who hold them; it's the views themselves. If there wasn't anything wrong with believing homosexuals caused 9/11 then we wouldn't be as distraught as we are when people say they do.

Deep down, we all want the very mindset of the Phelps crew to be wiped from the earth. There is something deeply wrong with the thoughts these people are having and we want them to not be thought of any more. But, as is typical of our generation, we think the old saying "out of sight, out of mind" holds firm and that as long as nobody says anything to us about it then it's not a problem any more.

But should we be allowed to try to change what people think? If not, how can you justify prison rehabilitation and reform schemes? How do you justify commercial advertising? How do you justify political campaigning? How do you justify the infotainment media leanings? So much of our society exists around manipulating the thoughts of other human beings, and to call this immoral would be to acknowledge the ethical depravity at the core of the world we live in.

While I'm an advocate of Freedom of Speech, Phelps is crossing the line. For English, I have to choose a monster of the 20th century: I'm douing Fred F*ckin Phelps. God Thos WBC members need to be shot.
Then you're not an advocate of freedom of speech, if you believe it is only ok for other people to say what you agree with.

Well he does has a point.

The new laws sets to define "proper" speech.

Protesting military funerals is bad.

Protesting other funerals is ok.

why protest funerals at all? the individual has passed away, why put more burden onto their loved ones and disturb a personal/private ceremony?

I don't see this law as infringing on freedom of speech, any more than calling the cops because the house across the street from you is having a loud party at 2am and you're trying to sleep. Phelps isn't speaking as much as he is simply making a very obnoxious noise.

why protest funerals at all? the individual has passed away, why put more burden onto their loved ones and disturb a personal/private ceremony?
Obviously, this question, while logical, has a negligible effect on the opaque minds of the Phelps family. Er, church.

I don't see this law as infringing on freedom of speech, any more than calling the cops because the house across the street from you is having a loud party at 2am and you're trying to sleep. Phelps isn't speaking as much as he is simply making a very obnoxious noise.
Negative; preventing freedom of assembly violates the First Amendment. While communities may pass ordinances regulating loud noises in residential neighborhoods at 2 am, they may not prevent a peaceful protest on public property.

Phelps is a ghastly man with odious personal beliefs.

That being said, this is precisely the argument that I have heard conservative after conservative use against civil rights for gays.

"According special rights." Well if this isn't according SPECIAL protection to folks who are the relatives of military decedents, then I'm a bloody frog.

Now, I'm a military retiree and gay. I hope that people who attend funerals would express their outrage at Phelps and his gang of cretins in a violent and counter-productive manner. Beat the crap out of him and his sick little pals, in other words.

But making a law protecting one class of citizen over the other is wrong. Over the past years, Congress has felt the need to legislate and counter legislate competing social agendas. The FMA, Terry Schiavo case, the central government interfering with the states on matters like euthanasia, legal use of medicinal marijuana....the list goes on.

It is clear to me that we would be better served by extending equal rights to LGBT people and leave it at that, instead of venerating one class of individual over the other. I do not worship at the altar of the soldier, sailor, airman or Marine somehow being more special than the average, law-abiding citizen of the United States. I served for over 20 years, I'm proud of that time...but it makes me no better than anyone else and many of my colleagues and brother and sister officers would agree with me.

Fred Phelps is an asshole, if people and the press would ignore him, he would go away into blessed anonymity, his five minutes of fame expended. But as a society we must point out these things and milk them for all the drama and angst they're worth. Pathetic.

Phelps is a ghastly man with odious personal beliefs.

That being said, this is precisely the argument that I have heard conservative after conservative use against civil rights for gays.

"According special rights." Well if this isn't according SPECIAL protection to folks who are the relatives of military decedents, then I'm a bloody frog.

Now, I'm a military retiree and gay. I hope that people who attend funerals would express their outrage at Phelps and his gang of cretins in a violent and counter-productive manner. Beat the crap out of him and his sick little pals, in other words.

But making a law protecting one class of citizen over the other is wrong. Over the past years, Congress has felt the need to legislate and counter legislate competing social agendas. The FMA, Terry Schiavo case, the central government interfering with the states on matters like euthanasia, legal use of medicinal marijuana....the list goes on.

It is clear to me that we would be better served by extending equal rights to LGBT people and leave it at that, instead of venerating one class of individual over the other. I do not worship at the altar of the soldier, sailor, airman or Marine somehow being more special than the average, law-abiding citizen of the United States. I served for over 20 years, I'm proud of that time...but it makes me no better than anyone else and many of my colleagues and brother and sister officers would agree with me.

Fred Phelps is an asshole, if people and the press would ignore him, he would go away into blessed anonymity, his five minutes of fame expended. But as a society we must point out these things and milk them for all the drama and angst they're worth. Pathetic.the Government can set rules on Government Property. such as National Cemetaries. that is why it seems like the distinction is for Military personnel when the wording is for NATIONAL CEMETARIES (the place that is usually reserved for Military Personnell.)

no one is gagging Phelps. they're just saying take your shit to someone elses home, not here. they can stand outside the cemetary and protest all they like. and notice, even those who would drown out Phelps will be asked to leave.

now Phelps and crew is a good example of misuse of a right. they had a choice as to where to stand and what to say, they choose in the cemetary and to spout their retoric. people complained and instead of shutting up everyone, the Government excercised their right to make rulings for places they can control. National Cemetaries. had Phelps shown a little more restraint or even control, nothing would've happened by way of laws being passed.

Phelps is a ghastly man with odious personal beliefs.

That being said, this is precisely the argument that I have heard conservative after conservative use against civil rights for gays.

"According special rights." Well if this isn't according SPECIAL protection to folks who are the relatives of military decedents, then I'm a bloody frog.

Now, I'm a military retiree and gay. I hope that people who attend funerals would express their outrage at Phelps and his gang of cretins in a violent and counter-productive manner. Beat the crap out of him and his sick little pals, in other words.

But making a law protecting one class of citizen over the other is wrong. Over the past years, Congress has felt the need to legislate and counter legislate competing social agendas. The FMA, Terry Schiavo case, the central government interfering with the states on matters like euthanasia, legal use of medicinal marijuana....the list goes on.

It is clear to me that we would be better served by extending equal rights to LGBT people and leave it at that, instead of venerating one class of individual over the other. I do not worship at the altar of the soldier, sailor, airman or Marine somehow being more special than the average, law-abiding citizen of the United States. I served for over 20 years, I'm proud of that time...but it makes me no better than anyone else and many of my colleagues and brother and sister officers would agree with me.

Fred Phelps is an asshole, if people and the press would ignore him, he would go away into blessed anonymity, his five minutes of fame expended. But as a society we must point out these things and milk them for all the drama and angst they're worth. Pathetic.
I agree 100%.

Meh. I've no special sympathy for soldiers.
Phelps is deluded, but he has a right to voice those delusions, especially on public property.

Here in KS, the legislature to keep him quiet DID NOT pass.

Screw that.

I've met the guy....many times. He's...I don't even have a word for what he is.

the Government can set rules on Government Property. such as National Cemetaries. that is why it seems like the distinction is for Military personnel when the wording is for NATIONAL CEMETARIES (the place that is usually reserved for Military Personnell.)

no one is gagging Phelps. they're just saying take your shit to someone elses home, not here. they can stand outside the cemetary and protest all they like. and notice, even those who would drown out Phelps will be asked to leave.

now Phelps and crew is a good example of misuse of a right. they had a choice as to where to stand and what to say, they choose in the cemetary and to spout their retoric. people complained and instead of shutting up everyone, the Government excercised their right to make rulings for places they can control. National Cemetaries. had Phelps shown a little more restraint or even control, nothing would've happened by way of laws being passed.

You know, I struggle to stay civil with you at times, but I just can't help myself anymore.

You are a deluded waste of breath. The government, state or NO ONE ELSE has the right to legislate what a person may or may not say except in very special circumstances.

I draw no distinction whether the land is federal, state or private property. Let the damn fool run his festering gob. You have three choices;

1. Ignore him and his ignorant, pusillanimous followers.

2. Beat him and his sick little friends within an inch of their lives.

3. Laugh at them.

All of this would have the desired effect of making the sick bastard think twice about his sad little attention grabbing spree. Making a LAW MAKES HIM A MARTYR FOR FREE SPEECH YOU FOOL!!! It has the opposite effect and gets the government in the business of limiting Constitutional rights.

I am tired of the government and other people who have the urge to control my life through idiotic legislation that is largely symbolic or unconstitutional. I grow weary of people who do not use one cell of the gray matter they possess.

This idiotic piece of legislation is masturbation, it feels nice, but is ultimately MEANINGLESS.

Here in KS, the legislature to keep him quiet DID NOT pass.

Screw that.

I've met the guy....many times. He's...I don't even have a word for what he is.
Really? Have you told him that he looks pretty gay in his cowboy hat?

Meh. I've no special sympathy for soldiers.
Phelps is deluded, but he has a right to voice those delusions, especially on public property.
Ummmmm...Except that National Cemeteries aren't public property. They're Federal property...

You know, I struggle to stay civil with you at times, but I just can't help myself anymore.

You are a deluded waste of breath. The government, state or NO ONE ELSE has the right to legislate what a person may or may not say except in very special circumstances.
unfortunatly, Phelps forced those special circumstances. and yes, the Government can Rule on what can or cannot go on Government Land. they can set times when the public can be on Government Land or not, they can require you to have permits to enjoy activities on said land. it's government land.
I draw no distinction whether the land is federal, state or private property. Let the damn fool run his festering gob. You have three choices;and the bill only specifies NATIONAL CEMETARIES. Government land. not private cemetaries.

1. Ignore him and his ignorant, pusillanimous followers.you think people haven't tried this? he just gets louder and more obnoxious.

2. Beat him and his sick little friends within an inch of their lives.assault and battery is against the law. thus affording Phelps more protection for his hate spewing. nice going. :rolleyes:

3. Laugh at them.at a funeral. that is just as disrespectful as what Phelps is doing. also all you do is raise the volume of noise and just adding to the problem. again, nice going. :rolleyes:

All of this would have the desired effect of making the sick bastard think twice about his sad little attention grabbing spree. Making a LAW MAKES HIM A MARTYR FOR FREE SPEECH YOU FOOL!!! It has the opposite effect and gets the government in the business of limiting Constitutional rights.no it won't, beating him will only make his right to excercise his freedom to be protected with police force and even fund his little movements when he sues for damages. again, the law does not hamper free speech. it only states that protests (both good and bad ones) cannot be held during funeral services. so he can stand outside where people comeing and going can see and hear him. as well as the rest of the public seeing that now everyone can see him and not just those invited to the funeral.

I am tired of the government and other people who have the urge to control my life through idiotic legislation that is largely symbolic or unconstitutional. I grow weary of people who do not use one cell of the gray matter they possess.and I grow tired the government being forced to step in because people don't THINK about how to best excercise their rights. beating him or making more noise... that would help his cause more than this law.

This idiotic piece of legislation is masturbation, it feels nice, but is ultimately MEANINGLESS.so is ignoring him... that really helped silence him in the past. :rolleyes:

"The Constitution only guarantees you the right to say what you think. It does not guarantee you an audience." - Solomon Short.

I think that about sums it up. He can say whatever he wants... As long as he doesnt corner people where they have to listen.(funerals).

I say let him speak. He shouldnt complain when he gets his ass kicked though.
You know what Fred Phelps does in that case? He sues, and wins lots of money to support his hate-mongering campaign. He's done it several times.

I have to say, I am opposed to this law. First of all, I'm radically pro-free speech. Second of all, I think it is wrong to protect solely military funerals, especially when the very same guy has been protesting at places like Matthew Shepard's funeral, claiming that he had it coming.

Forcing someone to shut up only lends them apparent credibility in the eyes of many people. It does nothing to stifle those opinions.

I have to say, I am opposed to this law. First of all, I'm radically pro-free speech.

Free speech = good.
Forcing people to listen = not good.
One cannot simply walk away when one is at a funeral.

Aside from which, I do not see Phelps being such a fan of free speech - he doesn't allow people with different opinions to preach in his church after all. By playing the free speech card he is trying to both have his cake and eat it.

There is no speech being limited, they are just getting their asses kicked off of federal property.

unfortunatly, Phelps forced those special circumstances. and yes, the Government can Rule on what can or cannot go on Government Land. they can set times when the public can be on Government Land or not, they can require you to have permits to enjoy activities on said land. it's government land.

Phelps did no such thing. Long before you and I were born people did this sort of thing. Laws were not made to counter those reprehensible activities then, and this is no different.


and the bill only specifies NATIONAL CEMETARIES. Government land. not private cemetaries.

Sorry, it just doesn't wash. A fundamental right, no matter how offensively used is protected. Property ownership makes not one lick of difference. I detest having to defend that concept for Fred Phelps, but there it is.

Odd the whole public property concept is conveniently ignored when the President appears and people want to peacefully protest his policies. They get moved far, far away to a "Free Speech Zone" where they are not HEARD by the President. In the meantime their fundamental right to assemble and demand redress for their grievances just got deep sixed.


you think people haven't tried this? he just gets louder and more obnoxious.

Please. Every time the scumbag appears the press eats his ass up and gives him a platform to spew his hateful bile and publish his vile screed. That's NOT ignoring him, hell that's not even TRYING to ignore him.

Even if your platitude was true, it makes not one bit of difference.


assault and battery is against the law. thus affording Phelps more protection for his hate spewing. nice going. :rolleyes:

I have news for you, flash. I presented it as an option. What a person does within or against the law is their choice. I am certainly sympathetic to the idea of him getting an old-fashioned ass-whipping. But advocating it as a means of being rid of him? No.


at a funeral. that is just as disrespectful as what Phelps is doing. also all you do is raise the volume of noise and just adding to the problem. again, nice going. :rolleyes:

What? Laughing at the sheer idiocy of the man? If it were my funeral I would certainly approve. No person who wishes to be taken seriously enjoys being humiliated and laughed at. Let the punishment fit the crime. If you laugh at your tormentors you're disrespecting the funeral? Talk about fuzzy logic. I must say I find your arguments disingenuous indeed. So we've established that we don't respect each other, fine.


no it won't, beating him will only make his right to excercise his freedom to be protected with police force and even fund his little movements when he sues for damages. again, the law does not hamper free speech. it only states that protests (both good and bad ones) cannot be held during funeral services. so he can stand outside where people comeing and going can see and hear him. as well as the rest of the public seeing that now everyone can see him and not just those invited to the funeral.

Again, you are using EXCUSES to justify the limiting of a RIGHT. That's just as good as the argument that a President may unilaterally order the tapping, without a warrant, of a private citizen's phone line without probable cause. But that's another matter we came down on opposite sides on. Ironic that I'm the retired military man and you're one of the good citizens I joined up to protect.


and I grow tired the government being forced to step in because people don't THINK about how to best excercise their rights. beating him or making more noise... that would help his cause more than this law.

The government SEEKS excuses to step in. It is no better or worse than that, champ. If a politician may get away with something, they will. Beating him up might not be the right solution, but it sure would be funny as hell to hear about. But having the moral courage to laugh at the guy and mortally embarass him?

I find it grotesque that you are saying that essentially funeral attendees of a military man/woman are destined to be victims and totally unable to help themselves and that the good old government has to step in and protect those poor helpless people. That's complete nonsense and what makes it worse is that you know it's nonsense.


so is ignoring him... that really helped silence him in the past. :rolleyes:

You really think that idiotic law is going to provide any sort of disincentive? I guarantee you he will continue to go to military funerals and protest, only this time he will have the power to claim that the government is muzzling him. Good job, sparky. Nice thinking.

That is why this law is useless, it just frees him to protest more and every time he and his WBC friends get arrested he can justifiably claim his right to free speech is being muzzled.

I repeat. Pathetic.

There is no speech being limited, they are just getting their asses kicked off of federal property.

Kind of like "free speech" zones!

Agreed, as much as I hate Phelps and his followers/family *Same difference*, I can't say I approve of this law.

Yeah, it seems to me that Phelps and his family are the only members of his "parish," and are thusly the only members of his picketing group. Motorcycle guys could take 'em, and we still have our freedoms.

Wheee!

Kind of like "free speech" zones!

What exactly would be wrong with that - provided they are located in places where lots of people can come or pass through and are not tucked away in nowhereville ?

Bring the forum and soapbox back in town !

Y'know, I was thinking: Suppose you're driving along near these inbred lunatics waving about their signs, and then you "accidentally" lose control of your car, sending it careening into their fleshy bodies.

No district attorney in the USA would bother having you indicted.

They get moved far, far away to a "Free Speech Zone" where they are not HEARD by the President. In the meantime their fundamental right to assemble and demand redress for their grievances just got deep sixed.

So if Phelps decided to travel to your home town, and have himself a nice anti-gay protest on your front lawn, shouting all sorts of vile things at you, you'd be ok with it?

I think Fred Phelps and his inbred little horde of the criminally insane easily deserve to have their 'church' bombed, but no matter how I try to reason it out, I can't agree with this. Hideous and abhorrent as it is, it is protected speech and assembly. If George Bush became a military-backed tyrant, ruled for a decade, and was eventually overthrown, would there be a ban on protests at his funeral? Probably not. People would consider this 'justified'. But you can't apply a double standard - either freedom of speech and assembly are rights, or broad privileges revokable by the government when their exercise becomes unpopular. I can't see any judge worth his salt upholding this law in court, and I can't say speaking from a logical, legal, and philosophical basis that I'd even want them to.

I agree. Fred Phelps and his harpies should be allowed to run their tainted evil little mouths.

But there is one axiom that has fallen by the wayside in this age of lawsuits: "The right to free speech is no shield from incoming fists."-Lunatic Goofball.

Free speech doesn't protect you from the repercussions of running your mouth at the wrong place and time.

So if Phelps decided to travel to your home town, and have himself a nice anti-gay protest on your front lawn, shouting all sorts of vile things at you, you'd be ok with it?

<sigh>

I live in Hollywood, Ca, I doubt Mr. Phelps and his ilk would feel comfortable anywhere near my neighborhood. However, to take your question seriously for a moment, he can stand on the sidewalk and shout his gay epithets to his little black heart's content. But, I doubt he would appreciate being laughed out of the neighborhood, or the assault by the large, ill-tempered drag queen who lives next door to me.

His actions would have immediate and painful consequences, lets just say that. Furthermore, I would feel no guilt in simply watching him and his yahoos get chased out of the neighborhood by a number of angry gays and lesbians. He would remember unfondly the term, "getting run out of town on a rail."

You see, we don't need a federal law to show Phelps his way out of our neighborhood, nor do we need a blanket federal mandate to point out to him in painfully clear terms the error of his ways.

I somehow doubt the West Hollywood Sheriffs would do much of anything to us for running his ass out of town either.

I say let him speak. He shouldnt complain when he gets his ass kicked though.
I would agree. This limiting of the freedom of speech is nonsense.

Then you're not an advocate of freedom of speech, if you believe it is only ok for other people to say what you agree with.
No, There are limits to freedom of speech. For instance: You can't yell "FIRE!" in a theatre. I believe that Phelps has taken it too far. I know many a brave soldiers who died in this conflict. I think it is disgusting what he does, to claim these soldiers die because we accept homosexuality. Jesus, the same reason is used to say 9/11 happened. Anyways, he's a crook by trying to write off personal property as Church property for the IRS. I know this is a horrible thing to say but tragedy hasn't hit close enough to home for the cases. The one thing that would open their eyes would be to expierience tragedy themselves. My friends had to comfort members of their extended family who had a relative make one last call from the 90th floor of WTC 2.

No, There are limits to freedom of speech. For instance: You can't yell "FIRE!" in a theatre.
A protest at a funeral will not cause a stampede that would injure anyone.

A protest at a funeral will not cause a stampede that would injure anyone.
If Phelps ever protested at the funeral of anyone I cared about, you can bet your sweet ass there'd be lots of stampeding and injuries.

<sigh>
But, I doubt he would appreciate being laughed out of the neighborhood, or the assault by the large, ill-tempered drag queen who lives next door to me.


Now THAT would make my day.

And you do have a point. My apologies.

Now THAT would make my day.

And you do have a point. My apologies.

No apology needed and you have no idea, Miss Cocoa is...large and in charge. She played American football in college.

That skinny bastard would not like to be on the receiving end of one her tackles. ;)

for all of you saying that this law is wrong and that Fred Phelps will get his ass kicked, do you realize that a beating would help his cause, not hurt it?

Assault is against the law. so a tackle from Miss Cocoa, or any form of beatdown or ass kicking would put more power into Phelps hands. such as having you arrested for one.
2) because what he is doing is constitutionally protected, he can insist on protection because he was threatened for excercising his constitutional rights. and if it can be proven that the beating was because of what he was saying then there is a chance that it can be twisted to make him a victim of a hate crime!
3) anyone hurt can file greviences and make those that did the assaulting pay. you can fight it, but those that did the assaulting are in the wrong and Phelps would gain more media attention as well as well.
4) the LAW (police, sherrifs office etc) would be forced to support Phelps and crew else face lawsuits that can fund more of Phelps parties for much longer periods of time.
5) should he be killed or beaten, it would turn him into a Martyer. then nothing would shut him up.

If that's what you want, giving him an edge with the law, more money, power and airtime. then go ahead.

A protest at a funeral will not cause a stampede that would injure anyone.

Unless the stampede is aimed at Phelps. >.>

for all of you saying that this law is wrong and that Fred Phelps will get his ass kicked, do you realize that a beating would help his cause, not hurt it?

Assault is against the law. so a tackle from Miss Cocoa, or any form of beatdown or ass kicking would put more power into Phelps hands. such as having you arrested for one.
2) because what he is doing is constitutionally protected, he can insist on protection because he was threatened for excercising his constitutional rights. and if it can be proven that the beating was because of what he was saying then there is a chance that it can be twisted to make him a victim of a hate crime!
3) anyone hurt can file greviences and make those that did the assaulting pay. you can fight it, but those that did the assaulting are in the wrong and Phelps would gain more media attention as well as well.
4) the LAW (police, sherrifs office etc) would be forced to support Phelps and crew else face lawsuits that can fund more of Phelps parties for much longer periods of time.
5) should he be killed or beaten, it would turn him into a Martyer. then nothing would shut him up.

If that's what you want, giving him an edge with the law, more money, power and airtime. then go ahead.

First: His Constitutional rights extend only until they begin infringing on someone else's Constitutional rights. In this case, the right of the family to assemble peacefully. The family also has a right to bury the deceased with dignity (check out Amendment 10).

His Constitutional right to free speech has not been denied, simply limited in such a manner as to ensure the right of the family to properly bury their deceased.

Second: Phelps would likely be found guilty of hate-speech and inciting a riot (which negates the 'peaceful' assembly argument).

Yes, we all have Constitutional rights, but that doesnt mean those rights are ultimate and not limited.



I'd like to point out that this law does NOT apply to only Vets. It applies to all funerals at a National Cemetary (b/c Congress has no jurisdiction over any other funerals) and urges all States to pass simliar legislation.

The legislation doesnt deny anyone's right to protest at the Cemetary - rather, one must get a permit from the Cemetary director. Much the same as many cities allow peaceful assemblies, but require a permit.

First: His Constitutional rights extend only until they begin infringing on someone else's Constitutional rights. In this case, the right of the family to assemble peacefully. The family also has a right to bury the deceased with dignity (check out Amendment 10).

His Constitutional right to free speech has not been denied, simply limited in such a manner as to ensure the right of the family to properly bury their deceased.

Second: Phelps would likely be found guilty of hate-speech and inciting a riot (which negates the 'peaceful' assembly argument).

Yes, we all have Constitutional rights, but that doesnt mean those rights are ultimate and not limited.



I'd like to point out that this law does NOT apply to only Vets. It applies to all funerals at a National Cemetary (b/c Congress has no jurisdiction over any other funerals) and urges all States to pass simliar legislation.yup totall agreement here.

The legislation doesnt deny anyone's right to protest at the Cemetary - rather, one must get a permit from the Cemetary director. Much the same as many cities allow peaceful assemblies, but require a permit.that makes it tricky. on what grounds can they deny Phelps a permit without seeming to be discrimanatory? and what of those who go and Protest Phelps? would they then be denied because of "Double booking?"

...

then again... families could request for no permits to be issued when they hold their funerals. so that might work. or change the funeral time/date when Phelps and Co get their permit...

this may have posibilities...

This-- http://www.mars-hill-forum.com/graphics/FredPhelps.jpg-- is the very face of evil. Fred Phelps is a monstrous mockery of a human being; he's a walking, talking golem of hatred. He's a rabid anti-semite and racist with connections to neo-Nazi movements, a relentless homophobe and misogynist. His world is one of blind, irrational, irredeemable hatred. And I hope that he's eaten alive by badgers. Lesbian, interracial, Jewish badgers. He's barely fit to be food for beats. I hope that every decent person will take a good look at his picture and wish some terrible ill deed on him. Ideally such efforts would be synchronised somehow so that we could all summon up our collective ill-will at the same time and strike him down with the sheer force of our love for the world and our disdain for anyone who would reshape it into such a perverse and corrupt image as his. I hope that when his soul-rot takes its physical toll and kills him, I'll have the happy fortune to track down his grave and salt the earth.

Unless the stampede is aimed at Phelps. >.>
Yes, but no one would care. Ergo, it's not the same thing.

This-- http://www.mars-hill-forum.com/graphics/FredPhelps.jpg-- is the very face of evil. Fred Phelps is a monstrous mockery of a human being; he's a walking, talking golem of hatred. He's a rabid anti-semite and racist with connections to neo-Nazi movements, a relentless homophobe and misogynist. His world is one of blind, irrational, irredeemable hatred. And I hope that he's eaten alive by badgers. Lesbian, interracial, Jewish badgers. He's barely fit to be food for beats. I hope that every decent person will take a good look at his picture and wish some terrible ill deed on him. Ideally such efforts would be synchronised somehow so that we could all summon up our collective ill-will at the same time and strike him down with the sheer force of our love for the world and our disdain for anyone who would reshape it into such a perverse and corrupt image as his. I hope that when his soul-rot takes its physical toll and kills him, I'll have the happy fortune to track down his grave and salt the earth.
Plus he looks pretty GAY in that picture .... :D

I can't wait to see the protests at Phelps funeral. Hope I'm there.

You know what Fred Phelps does in that case? He sues, and wins lots of money to support his hate-mongering campaign. He's done it several times.

I have to say, I am opposed to this law. First of all, I'm radically pro-free speech. Second of all, I think it is wrong to protect solely military funerals, especially when the very same guy has been protesting at places like Matthew Shepard's funeral, claiming that he had it coming.

Forcing someone to shut up only lends them apparent credibility in the eyes of many people. It does nothing to stifle those opinions.


I prefer free speech, too. But in a society to be rational as well as just, it ought to recognise 'rights' with the provision that to enjoy the full range of rights you must be equal parts beneficiary and advocate. If you deliberatly act to undermine others' rights-- for instance, undermining others' rights to security of the person by calling for their extermination, as Phelps does-- then you are tacitly denying the value of the 'rights package,' and effectively forsaking them for yourself. If he wants his right to free speech protected, then he has a responsibility to protect the rights of others, which he clearly refuses to do. And if he chooses to exist outside the realm of society-- if he so devalues rights in principle that he denies other people their very right to exist-- then he doesn't deserve society's protection.
There are irrational extremes to the defense of free speech argument. Don't believe that rights are inalienable? Consider violent criminals. We rightly strip murderers of their freedom of movement. Defending the murderer's rights without exception is fine and good until you're the next victim. Speech-- like any other freedom-- can be perverted into a weapon and used to hurt the people people and attack the good of the society that upholds (if not confers) those freedoms. It amounts to a declaration of war against the community, and the community is then justifiable in prosecuting its attacker until they no longer represent a threat.

What exactly would be wrong with that - provided they are located in places where lots of people can come or pass through and are not tucked away in nowhereville ?

Bring the forum and soapbox back in town !

When you start defining where your message can be said, then you are defining what can be said.