NationStates Jolt Archive

Agence France-Presse | November 02, 2007

Armed with signs shouting "thank God for dead soldiers," a radical anti-gay US church plans to resume its controversial funeral protests Friday despite being ordered to pay $11 million to the family of a fallen Soldier offended by their hateful songs and slogans.

Kansas-based Westboro Baptist Church hailed the jury verdict as yet another opportunity to spread its message that God is punishing the United States for its tolerance of homosexuality.

"We will continue to warn you of your impending doom as long as our God gives us breath," church leaders said in a press release lined with biblical references and pictures of the signs its members flaunt at funerals.

"Not only did you fail to stop our preaching, but our message has gone to the entire world."

The fringe group of fire and brimstone Baptists from Topeka, Kansas has been courting controversy for more than 17 years.

The church first gained national notoriety when they picketed the funeral of Matthew Shepard, a Wyoming student who was murdered in 1998 for being gay.

They have since picketed the funerals of Frank Sinatra and Bill Clinton's mother, celebrated the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks as an act of God's wrath, and have even targeted Santa Claus and the Ku Klux Klan.

Funded in part by lawsuits against those who try to block the protests and violate a constitutional right to free speech, the church members travel the country on a near-daily basis and have held an estimated 30,000 pickets.

Their funeral protests are laced with anti-gay slurs.

At one protest attended by AFP five women sang and danced as they held up signs saying "God hates fags," "fag vets" and "America is doomed." The group also has a wide repertoire of songs like "This Land is Fag Land" and "God Hates America."

The group's presence at the funerals of dozens of troops across the country has sparked a grassroots movement of bikers determined to drown out the jeers and taunts.

While Westboro's congregation remains stable at around 70 to 100 people -- most of whom are the extended family of founder Fred Phelps -- the ranks of the Patriot Guard Riders has swelled to more than 117,000 in the past two years.

If the Westboro protestors show up as planned at the funerals of Sergeant Scott Turner in Norton, Kansas and Staff Sergeant Larry Rougle in West Jordan, Utah on Friday, their signs will be masked by an honor guard of flag-waving bikers.

But the father of a Soldier awarded $10.9 million dollars after his son Matthew's funeral was picketed last year hopes the verdict he has won will block the protest completely.

"I basically want to shut them down," said Albert Snyder. "I don't expect to collect 10 million dollars, but I do intend to collect everything they have."

Westboro insists it will win the case on appeal, but Snyder's lawyer said they have a good chance of proving that the constitutional right to free speech has limits.

"The reality is that the First Amendment has survived 200 years without anyone protesting funerals, and I think it's safe to say that if this group is shut down and cannot protest funerals, the First Amendment will survive another 200 years," said Sean Summers, Snyder's attorney.


What do you think?

Oh, he won?

Fantastic!

"If the Westboro protestors show up as planned at the funerals of Sergeant Scott Turner in Norton, Kansas and Staff Sergeant Larry Rougle in West Jordan, Utah on Friday, their signs will be masked by an honor guard of flag-waving bikers."

Where were they for all the years the Phelpses were doing this to gay people? Where was this outrage and indignation and distancing? Their families didn't need help? *pfft*

What do you think?

I think that if each and every one one of them does not agree to duel small swords (one at a time :p) with me, then they need to shut-up because they are cowards.

EN GARDE!

I think Synder was in the right here. He didn't want to stomach Westboro Batshit's BS so he sought legal recourse. It's nice to read that his motives are purely to shut down this circus and not financial gain.

While I believe in free speech, I believe it does have limits. These protests violate the right of the mourners to grieve for their lost ones. If the Westboro Batshit Church was doing its shit elsewhere, they would not have a problem. However, by picketing funerals, they are trying to disrupt mourning services for the bereaved. I'm sure if God did exist, their unholy actions would ensure his wrath be brought down upon them.

These protests violate the right of the mourners to grieve for their lost ones.

how?

"We will continue to warn you of your impending doom as long as our God gives us breath," church leaders said in a press release lined with biblical references and pictures of the signs its members flaunt at funerals.

God willing, that won't be much longer.



The church first gained national notoriety when they picketed the funeral of Matthew Shepard, a Wyoming student who was murdered in 1998 for being gay.

Bad idea.

They have since picketed the funerals of Frank Sinatra and Bill Clinton's mother, celebrated the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks as an act of God's wrath, and have even targeted Santa Claus and the Ku Klux Klan.

See above.

The group's presence at the funerals of dozens of troops across the country has sparked a grassroots movement of bikers determined to drown out the jeers and taunts.

While Westboro's congregation remains stable at around 70 to 100 people -- most of whom are the extended family of founder Fred Phelps -- the ranks of the Patriot Guard Riders has swelled to more than 117,000 in the past two years.

If the Westboro protestors show up as planned at the funerals of Sergeant Scott Turner in Norton, Kansas and Staff Sergeant Larry Rougle in West Jordan, Utah on Friday, their signs will be masked by an honor guard of flag-waving bikers.

Props to the Patriot Guard Riders.

But the father of a Soldier awarded $10.9 million dollars after his son Matthew's funeral was picketed last year hopes the verdict he has won will block the protest completely.

"I basically want to shut them down," said Albert Snyder. "I don't expect to collect 10 million dollars, but I do intend to collect everything they have."

Amen.

Westboro insists it will win the case on appeal, but Snyder's lawyer said they have a good chance of proving that the constitutional right to free speech has limits.

"The reality is that the First Amendment has survived 200 years without anyone protesting funerals, and I think it's safe to say that if this group is shut down and cannot protest funerals, the First Amendment will survive another 200 years," said Sean Summers, Snyder's attorney.

It sure will. Hopefully WBC won't be able to make the same statement.

I belive that freedom of speech IS FREEDOM OF SPEECH!But I also belive that that "church" is intolerent the exact opposite of what Jesus wants us to be

how?

Well, if I'm not mistaken, judging by the nature of the articles I've read surrounding this, it appears as though the Batshit clan wants its presence known and is interfering with services by coming in close quarters with the mourners instead of granting them the berth to mourn in peace.

I realise that if the protests weren't related, there would be no problem but given that it seems like this group deliberately seeks our soldier's funerals, I say they are seeking to breach that privacy.

"If the Westboro protestors show up as planned at the funerals of Sergeant Scott Turner in Norton, Kansas and Staff Sergeant Larry Rougle in West Jordan, Utah on Friday, their signs will be masked by an honor guard of flag-waving bikers."

Where were they for all the years the Phelpses were doing this to gay people? Where was this outrage and indignation and distancing? Their families didn't need help? *pfft*

Leave that to the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence. Assuming they can fit it into their own busy schedule of desecrating churches in San Francisco.

"If the Westboro protestors show up as planned at the funerals of Sergeant Scott Turner in Norton, Kansas and Staff Sergeant Larry Rougle in West Jordan, Utah on Friday, their signs will be masked by an honor guard of flag-waving bikers."

Where were they for all the years the Phelpses were doing this to gay people? Where was this outrage and indignation and distancing? Their families didn't need help? *pfft*

At least they're counterprotesting now. I share in your dismay but I'm going to take what I get here.

As for Phelps...frankly...I agree that he has the right to his free speech and that his organization can say what they please to the extent of releasing press releases or organizing your bog-standard protest. But picketing funerals inflicts direct emotional trauma onto their victims and as a result cannot be protected under the First Amendment, and should thusly be shut down immediately.

Leave that to the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence. Assuming they can fit it into their own busy schedule of desecrating churches in San Francisco.

The answer I expected came - the Phelpses weren't bad as long as they just bashed innocent fags. When they started bashing people who were anything but innocent, though, all of a sudden your ilk pretends to give a fuck because you sympathise with the killers.

By the by, the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence are wonderful for the reason that they ridicule the very thing the Phelpses stand for - religion. So you see, they're still better than you and these come-lately, selective riders. :)

See this is why I've come to dislike my old religion, somewhat.
Extremist Christians.
What about "God has a plan in all things"?
Like them protesting the modification of DNA or whatever, to filter out things like Trisomy 21.

Well, if I'm not mistaken, judging by the nature of the articles I've read surrounding this, it appears as though the Batshit clan wants its presence known and is interfering with services by coming in close quarters with the mourners instead of granting them the berth to mourn in peace.

I realise that if the protests weren't related, there would be no problem but given that it seems like this group deliberately seeks our soldier's funerals, I say they are seeking to breach that privacy.

well it seems to me that either their protests must already be in violation of other laws - trespassing, noise ordinances, violating a restraining order, whatever - in order to be violating anyone's rights. because it is well established that one does not have the right to not be offended, so that alone can't be punishable.

even worse, according to the baltimore sun (http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/bal-te.md.westboro01nov01,0,5435099.story)

Snyder testified that he never saw the content of the signs as he entered and left St. John's on the day of his son's funeral. He read the signs for the first time during television news reports later that day.

A Google search on the Internet weeks later led him to the church's Web site and the posting about Matthew Snyder.

also, the protest was 1000 feet from the church.

i bet they won't pay a dime on appeal.

because it is well established that one does not have the right to not be offended, so that alone can't be punishable.


True, and if it was a case of mere offense, you'd be right. However...it's not. While one does not have the right to not be offended, one DOES HAVE the right to not be subject to emotional trauma/abuse. Given the hate they inflict upon the people they protest against and the way in which they go about it, it certainly crosses the line to being emotional abuse, in my view.

But, I'm not a lawyer nor a judge. I personally wish to see what Neo Art has to say about my evaluation.

"If the Westboro protestors show up as planned at the funerals of Sergeant Scott Turner in Norton, Kansas and Staff Sergeant Larry Rougle in West Jordan, Utah on Friday, their signs will be masked by an honor guard of flag-waving bikers."

Where were they for all the years the Phelpses were doing this to gay people? Where was this outrage and indignation and distancing? Their families didn't need help? *pfft*

Of course not because they were doing god's work then.

I wonder exactly how financially damaging this will be to dearest Freddie.

They should be allowed to protest, and anyone who wants to should be allowed to violently attack them at their protests.

Everyone is free to do what they want, and the Christian extremists still are fucked in the end anyway. Seems like a great solution to me.

While the above is in extremely bad taste not to mention morally repugnant its still free speech an should be protected.

The answer I expected came - the Phelpses weren't bad as long as they just bashed innocent fags.

Just the answer I expected. Try reading my previous post. Or do they translate "bad idea" as "good job" where you come from?

When they started bashing people who were anything but innocent, though, all of a sudden your ilk pretends to give a fuck because you sympathise with the killers.

I and my "ilk" sympathize with patriotic Americans who died in the line of duty, and with their families and friends. Clearly, concepts such as "patriotism", "duty" and the like, not to mention "respect", elude your peculiar world view.

By the by, the more of our enemies those "killers" terminate with extreme prejudice, the better off the world (even you :rolleyes: ) will be.

By the by, the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence are wonderful for the reason that they ridicule the very thing the Phelpses stand for - religion.

No, they do not ridicule "religion." They attack Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular.

Of course, should they, say, invade the embassy of the UAE because Dubai refuses to recognize the rape of males by other males, or "ridicule" a Moslem service for Islamic oppression of women, then your assertion might have some merit. But they won't, and it doesn't.

well it seems to me that either their protests must already be in violation of other laws - trespassing, noise ordinances, violating a restraining order, whatever - in order to be violating anyone's rights. because it is well established that one does not have the right to not be offended, so that alone can't be punishable.

(a) One need not break an actual law to be held civilly liable.

(b) One does have a right to privacy.

(c) The law (and this case) is clear that simple offense would not be legally actionable. Intentional infliction of emotional distress, on the other hand, can be.

i bet they won't pay a dime on appeal.

I highly doubt that any appeals court will overturn the decision. They might reduce the damages, but civil suits are rarely overturned and this is one that most courts and judges will probably hope they don't even have to deal with at all.

Just the answer I expected. Try reading my previous post. Or do they translate "bad idea" as "good job" where you come from?

Where I come from we are taught to easily see through lies, and that's pretty much what I deemed you to be doing when you expressed that you disagreed with them in the case of dead faggots.

I and my "ilk" sympathize with patriotic Americans who died in the line of duty, and with their families and friends. Clearly, concepts such as "patriotism", "duty" and the like, not to mention "respect", elude your peculiar world view.

Patriotism is an ugly word here, thankfully and as a free society we are not in the business of propagandising or worshipping our military. Such things are for fascists.

By the by, the more of our enemies those "killers" terminate with extreme prejudice, the better off the world (even you :rolleyes: ) will be.

Yup, because innocent Iraqis and other assorted people victim to the USA's soldiers infamous abuses were such a threat to me and Abu Ghurayb, Gitmo and other such torture facilities sure showed us how the USA and its military protect "freedom and democracy". Really, with friends like that, who needs enemies?

No, they do not ridicule "religion." They attack Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular.

So?

Of course, should they, say, invade the embassy of the UAE because Dubai refuses to recognize the rape of males by other males, or "ridicule" a Moslem service for Islamic oppression of women, then your assertion might have some merit. But they won't, and it doesn't.

They don't live in a Muslim country and for some strange reason you seem to think I care to make a distinction between one wizard in the sky and its followers and some other such pixie and its acolytes.

True, and if it was a case of mere offense, you'd be right. However...it's not. While one does not have the right to not be offended, one DOES HAVE the right to not be subject to emotional trauma/abuse. Given the hate they inflict upon the people they protest against and the way in which they go about it, it certainly crosses the line to being emotional abuse, in my view.

But, I'm not a lawyer nor a judge. I personally wish to see what Neo Art has to say about my evaluation.

meh, close enough. The specific tort in question is "intentional infliction of emotional distress" or "IIED"

The tort has four basic elements to it:

1) that the defendant committed an act either intentionally or recklessly

2) that the act was "extreme and outragious"

3) that the plaintiff suffered emotional damages

4) that the emotional damages were caused by the defendant's actions

Too many people confuse a claim of IIED as suing because you were "offended" or "bothered" or "irritated". That's not the case at all. As noted, the second element requires that the defendant's conduct not merely be offensive, or irritating, or bothersome, but "extreme and outragious".

Courts have interpreted extreme and outragious conduct to be those things that are heinous, and beyond basic standards of decency. Acts which are "utterly intolerable" in civilized society. That which no normal person could reasonably be expected to tolerate. It is sometimes refered to as a "tort of outrage" in that it deals with conduct so disgusting, so vile, so utterly beyond basic human decency that a normal person encountering such would be moved to explain "that's outragious!"

As such, it is not mere bothersome conduct that can be punished, but conduct so horribly offensive, so grossly and callously heinous that it damages us to the very core of our emotional being.

Just the answer I expected. Try reading my previous post. Or do they translate "bad idea" as "good job" where you come from?

Where I come from we are taught to easily see through lies, and that's pretty much what I deemed you to be doing when you expressed that you disagreed with them in the case of dead faggots. So, no, I don't believe you when you say that.

I and my "ilk" sympathize with patriotic Americans who died in the line of duty, and with their families and friends. Clearly, concepts such as "patriotism", "duty" and the like, not to mention "respect", elude your peculiar world view.

Patriotism is an ugly word here, thankfully and as a free society we are not in the business of propagandising or worshipping our military. Such things are for fascists.

By the by, the more of our enemies those "killers" terminate with extreme prejudice, the better off the world (even you :rolleyes: ) will be.

Yup, because innocent Iraqis and other assorted people victim to the USA's soldiers infamous abuses were such a threat to me and Abu Ghurayb, Gitmo and other such torture facilities sure showed us how the USA and its military protect "freedom and democracy". Really, with friends like that, who needs enemies?

No, they do not ridicule "religion." They attack Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular.

So?

Of course, should they, say, invade the embassy of the UAE because Dubai refuses to recognize the rape of males by other males, or "ridicule" a Moslem service for Islamic oppression of women, then your assertion might have some merit. But they won't, and it doesn't.

They don't live in a Muslim country and for some strange reason you seem to think I care to make a distinction between one wizard in the sky and its followers and some other such pixie and its acolytes.

Can't we just round people up, go to the church with torches and pitchforks and burn the church down with the Phelps Klan inside?

Can't we just round people up, go to the church with torches and pitchforks and burn the church down with the Phelps Klan inside?

No, because we are better than the Phelpses. Well, some of us are...

No, because we are better than the Phelpses. Well, some of us are...

Well think of it this way Fass, it's a win win for the Phelps and for the rest of us. The Phelps will get to meet their maker sooner (and hopefully will be punished for their actions on here) and we'll be rid of them! :D

Where I come from we are taught to easily see through lies, and that's pretty much what I deemed you to be doing when you expressed that you disagreed with them in the case of dead faggots.

Boy, a straight line like that doesn't come along very often. :D
Nevertheless, I'll refrain. However, your opinion of my honesty is of no importance.

Patriotism is an ugly word here, thankfully and as a free society we are not in the business of propagandising or worshipping our military. Such things are for fascists.

Suit yourself. You really aren't worth defending anyway, so you deserve whatever fate befalls you.

They don't live in a Muslim country

Irrelevant.

and for some strange reason you seem to think I care to make a distinction between one wizard in the sky and its followers and some other such pixie and its acolytes.

Apparently you do. I submit that you make just such a distinction, and furthermore, that you do it because the traditional Christian faith identifies your personal lifestyle choice as sinful and you hate Christians for doing so.

Your next rant against, say, Buddhists, Hindus, Jains, Parsees, or for that matter, Satanists, Wiccans or *gasp* Moslems, will be the first one I have seen. (Not that I've see all of your posts, in this or any other incarnation--I have neither the time to waste nor the stomach to do so.)

No, because we are better than the Phelpses. Well, some of us are...Though the idea is tempting...

Well think of it this way Fass, it's a win win for the Phelps and for the rest of us. The Phelps will get to meet their maker sooner (and hopefully will be punished for their actions on here) and we'll be rid of them! :D

They won't meet their maker because their maker doesn't exist and we will have abandoned the principles that free and democratic societies stand for, namely the inalienable right to life and nulla poene sine lege under due process and fair laws. True, the Phelpses live in a country that doesn't live up to those principles, but that doesn't mean that it should be enabled further in its descent. So, you see, it is a lose-lose situation for all those capable of analysis.

meh, close enough. The specific tort in question is "intentional infliction of emotional distress" or "IIED"

The tort has four basic elements to it:

1) that the defendant committed an act either intentionally or recklessly

2) that the act was "extreme and outragious"

3) that the plaintiff suffered emotional damages

4) that the emotional damages were caused by the defendant's actions

Too many people confuse a claim of IIED as suing because you were "offended" or "bothered" or "irritated". That's not the case at all. As noted, the second element requires that the defendant's conduct not merely be offensive, or irritating, or bothersome, but "extreme and outragious".

Courts have interpreted extreme and outragious conduct to be those things that are heinous, and beyond basic standards of decency. Acts which are "utterly intolerable" in civilized society. That which no normal person could reasonably be expected to tolerate. It is sometimes refered to as a "tort of outrage" in that it deals with conduct so disgusting, so vile, so utterly beyond basic human decency that a normal person encountering such would be moved to explain "that's outragious!"

As such, it is not mere bothersome conduct that can be punished, but conduct so horribly offensive, so grossly and callously heinous that it damages us to the very core of our emotional being.
Ah. Thanks, Neo Art. As always I love hearing your knowledge about the law. I try to soak up as much as I can.

Agence France-Presse | November 02, 2007

Armed with signs shouting "thank God for dead soldiers," a radical anti-gay US church plans to resume its controversial funeral protests Friday despite being ordered to pay $11 million to the family of a fallen Soldier offended by their hateful songs and slogans.

Kansas-based Westboro Baptist Church hailed the jury verdict as yet another opportunity to spread its message that God is punishing the United States for its tolerance of homosexuality.

"We will continue to warn you of your impending doom as long as our God gives us breath," church leaders said in a press release lined with biblical references and pictures of the signs its members flaunt at funerals.

"Not only did you fail to stop our preaching, but our message has gone to the entire world."

The fringe group of fire and brimstone Baptists from Topeka, Kansas has been courting controversy for more than 17 years.

The church first gained national notoriety when they picketed the funeral of Matthew Shepard, a Wyoming student who was murdered in 1998 for being gay.

They have since picketed the funerals of Frank Sinatra and Bill Clinton's mother, celebrated the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks as an act of God's wrath, and have even targeted Santa Claus and the Ku Klux Klan.

Funded in part by lawsuits against those who try to block the protests and violate a constitutional right to free speech, the church members travel the country on a near-daily basis and have held an estimated 30,000 pickets.

Their funeral protests are laced with anti-gay slurs.

At one protest attended by AFP five women sang and danced as they held up signs saying "God hates fags," "fag vets" and "America is doomed." The group also has a wide repertoire of songs like "This Land is Fag Land" and "God Hates America."

The group's presence at the funerals of dozens of troops across the country has sparked a grassroots movement of bikers determined to drown out the jeers and taunts.

While Westboro's congregation remains stable at around 70 to 100 people -- most of whom are the extended family of founder Fred Phelps -- the ranks of the Patriot Guard Riders has swelled to more than 117,000 in the past two years.

If the Westboro protestors show up as planned at the funerals of Sergeant Scott Turner in Norton, Kansas and Staff Sergeant Larry Rougle in West Jordan, Utah on Friday, their signs will be masked by an honor guard of flag-waving bikers.

But the father of a Soldier awarded $10.9 million dollars after his son Matthew's funeral was picketed last year hopes the verdict he has won will block the protest completely.

"I basically want to shut them down," said Albert Snyder. "I don't expect to collect 10 million dollars, but I do intend to collect everything they have."

Westboro insists it will win the case on appeal, but Snyder's lawyer said they have a good chance of proving that the constitutional right to free speech has limits.

"The reality is that the First Amendment has survived 200 years without anyone protesting funerals, and I think it's safe to say that if this group is shut down and cannot protest funerals, the First Amendment will survive another 200 years," said Sean Summers, Snyder's attorney.


What do you think?

It is constitutionally protected free speech, though very inappropriate to be done at a funeral.

On the other hand, many of the posts I've seen on this thread are very bigoted, hateful, and just as uncalled-for as the Westboro Baptist (AND NO I DON'T MEAN "BATSHIT") Church protests were.

So no, Fassitude, you are NOT any better than they are.

I believe that there's freedom of speech, and then there's harassment. What these guys are doing is harassment, and it's an embarrasment that the system only comes down on them when they start harassing soldier's families.

By the by, the more of our enemies those "killers" terminate with extreme prejudice, the better off the world (even you :rolleyes: ) will be.Know what, I'll be sure to tell my wife's family that. You know, so they don't mistake you lot arming and letting lose Kurds on civilians for terrorism. Hehe. Hehehe. Bwahahahahahaha!

Seriously. Do you believe the shit you write?

They won't meet their maker because their maker doesn't exist and we will have abandoned the principles that free and democratic societies stand for, namely the inalienable right to life and nulle poene sine lege under due process and fair laws. True, the Phelpses live in a country that doesn't live up to those principles, but that doesn't mean that it should be enabled further in its descent. So, you see, it is a lose-lose situation for all those capable of analysis.

Alright, you know what? Fuck you, Fass. I'm not defending you anymore. I'm sick of your outright lies about the United States and so many other things. Whatever your qualms about certain activities, foreign policies, and behaviors conducted within the U.S., we are not some barbaric country of lawless gun-toting redneck murders bent on the annihilation of the world.

I'm sick of you. I'm sick your stupid little "I'm the centre of the world!" attitude all the time. I'm sick of how acerbic and insulting you are all the time. I'm not defending you anymore and I'm certainly not going to accept what you do anymore. I know you don't care but it has to be said.

Boy, a straight line like that doesn't come along very often. :D
Nevertheless, I'll refrain. However, your opinion of my honesty is of no importance.

Pretty much like your attempt at making it seem as if you disagreed.

Suit yourself. You really aren't worth defending anyway, so you deserve whatever fate befalls you.

We are a peace-loving people and we will hopefully not need to be defended, but you see, wouldn't it be nice if you could claim that that is what the USA's military is doing with all this abuse, torture and attacking of nations that have not posed a threat to or attacked the USA and that the USA is a peace-loving country that doesn't go around lying about WMDs and whatnots as an excuse to start wars of aggression? Yeah, nice but also impossible.

Apparently you do. I submit that you make just such a distinction, and furthermore, that you do it because the traditional Christian faith identifies your personal lifestyle choice as sinful and you hate Christians for doing so.

You can submit all sorts imaginary nonsense you want, but that won't amount much to anything...

Your next rant against, say, Buddhists, Hindus, Jains, Parsees, or for that matter, Satanists, Wiccans or *gasp* Moslems, will be the first one I have seen. (Not that I've see all of your posts, in this or any other incarnation--I have neither the time to waste nor the stomach to do so.)

... when I can supply links such as these where I have criticised Buddhists (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=486269), Hindus (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13105946&postcount=27) and Muslims (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=539949&highlight=hindu) (by the way, your spelling of that word is archaic, much like most of your ideas) and thus easily dismiss your claims (and persecution complex) that I bash only one religion - yours - not that I'd care, because even if I bashed only it that wouldn't exactly make Christianity less heinous to me or you more capable of defending it.

It is constitutionally protected free speech, though very inappropriate to be done at a funeral.

On the other hand, many of the posts I've seen on this thread are very bigoted, hateful, and just as uncalled-for as the Westboro Baptist (AND NO I DON'T MEAN "BATSHIT") Church protests were.

So no, Fassitude, you are NOT any better than they are.
He has a fair point. It was only when soldiers got involved that "God hates these people and we celebrate their death" becomes "offensive enough" for public action. Sure, being Fass, he has an obvious defensive position on this, but being on the defensive doesn't make you wrong.

Anyway, to the question at hand, I'd say this raises one important point; where does an ideology like WBC come from? Is it genuine cultural dislike? Is is disenfranchisement with society in general? Is it a complaint against some aspect of the western social system in particular? Is it just a cry for help, for attention, for some role in society? Is it really pure gullible selfishness in striving for a personal heaven?

Whatever the case, the fact that the WBC exists points to there being something seriously wrong with the way our world works. And by this, I don't mean "what they say has basis in reality", but rather that some aspect of reality has caused them to lash out. You could easily dismiss it as them having been dropped on the head as a child, you could blame it on poor parenting and on the institutional ignorance of certain varieties of organised religion, but more importantly, we should be looking at why things like this come into being and why they're not dealt with properly and strictly as soon they first show their ugly head.

I believe that there's freedom of speech, and then there's harassment. What these guys are doing is harassment, and it's an embarrasment that the system only comes down on them when they start harassing soldier's families.

"The system" cannot and should not come down on them for it. They have not committed a criminal offense. However, it is good that one of the families they were harassing finally took it to civil court, where it is appropriate.

Alright, you know what? Fuck you, Fass. I'm not defending you anymore. I'm sick of your outright lies about the United States and so many other things. Whatever your qualms about certain activities, foreign policies, and behaviors conducted within the U.S., we are not some barbaric country of lawless gun-toting redneck murders bent on the annihilation of the world.

So you don't still have the death penalty? You haven't been denying habeas corpus, due process and other such fundamental human rights to the people trapped in your secret and not-so-secret torture camps? Your government hasn't defended said torture and tried to redefine what torture is so it could claim that it isn't torture? Your military hasn't attacked smaller and much weaker nations that posed no threat to it? Your government hasn't lied up false excuses to attack those countries? Et cetera. Now, I know that you have a national mythos where you like to convince yourselves that you are good guys and whatnot, but reality doesn't support your wishful thinkings and denial.

I'm sick of you. I'm sick your stupid little "I'm the centre of the world!" attitude all the time. I'm sick of how acerbic and insulting you are all the time. I'm not defending you anymore and I'm certainly not going to accept what you do anymore. I know you don't care but it has to be said.

Defending me? Bwahaha. Thank you, I needed that laugh.

So you don't still have the death penalty? You haven't been denying habeas corpus, due process and other such fundamental human rights to the people trapped in your secret and not-so-secret torture camps? Your government hasn't defended said torture and tried to redefine what torture is so it could claim that it isn't torture? Your military hasn't attacked smaller and much weaker nations that posed no threat to it? Your government hasn't lied up false excuses to attack those countries? Et cetera. Now, I know that you have a national mythos where you like to convince yourselves that you are good guys and whatnot, but reality doesn't support your wishful thinkings and denial.
Did I justify any of that? No. I didn't. What I said is that you go far beyond those sensible criticisms and declare our entire nation barbaric and utterly abhorrant, as if every single one of our three hundred million citizens were evil murdering maniacs. That is what I am so upset about. It's ridiculous, hateful, and I'm not putting up with it.


Defending me? Bwahaha. Thank you, I needed that laugh.
Laugh all you want. I've defended you countless times offsite. Don't believe me? Check the older posts of Generalite Mafia. Many a time people have complained about you and I've defended you. But I'm not doing it anymore. I'm sick of you and your childish idiocy.

Did I justify any of that? No. I didn't. What I said is that you go far beyond those sensible criticisms and declare our entire nation barbaric and utterly abhorrant, as if every single one of our three hundred million citizens were evil murdering maniacs. That is what I am so upset about. It's ridiculous, hateful, and I'm not putting up with it.
Well, are you standing up to your government? Are you making it fear your opinion? Does it change its mind because enough of you object to what it's doing? Because from what most of us in the outside world can see, you're all just sitting there waiting for the next election. That's certainly perceivable as apathetic, if not actually complicit.

Well, are you standing up to your government? Are you making it fear your opinion? Does it change its mind because enough of you object to what it's doing? Because from what most of us in the outside world can see, you're all just sitting there waiting for the next election. That's certainly perceivable as apathetic, if not actually complicit.

Believe me, I share your irritation. Many of us are apathetic, and it disgusts me. The problem is the system of government with the way it is currently set up along with the media from which we get our news, as well as attitudes encouraged by politicians and so on and so forth.

But there are plenty of us who are trying to make our voice heard. We're doing the best we can, and we're trying, damn it. A hell of a lot of us are actually trying, and it offends me and insults all of us when people like Fass declare us to be entirely complicit and accepting of it all.

Did I justify any of that? No. I didn't. What I said is that you go far beyond those sensible criticisms and declare our entire nation barbaric and utterly abhorrant, as if every single one of our three hundred million citizens were evil murdering maniacs. That is what I am so upset about. It's ridiculous, hateful, and I'm not putting up with it.

The fact that your country does those things does make your country barbaric and utterly abhorrent. Or should we judge your country somehow differently because it's yours? We don't deem Saudi Arabia to be exactly the opposite of those things because parts of its populace might disagree with what Saudi Arabia does - lots of Soviets disagreed with what the Soviet Union did, but that didn't efface what the country did, and neither does the fact that you happen to live in the USA change that the atrocities the USA continually commits make it barbaric and utterly abhorrent.

Laugh all you want. I've defended you countless times offsite. Don't believe me? Check the older posts of Generalite Mafia. Many a time people have complained about you and I've defended you. But I'm not doing it anymore. I'm sick of you and your childish idiocy.

Wait, you've defended me "offsite"? As in, like, forums other than this one? Where you people get together to trash and "defend" people on this forum? Oh, dear, I am laughing so hard at the sadness of this that I am literally short of breath typing.

Ugh... that stupid church came to my town once. And do you know why? It's because my middle school had a rainbow flag on their wall of flags. Seriously, who the hell cares?

The fact that your country does those things does make your country barbaric and utterly abhorrent. Or should we judge your country somehow differently because it's yours? We don't deem Saudi Arabia to be exactly the opposite of those things because parts of its populace might disagree with what Saudi Arabia does - lots of Soviets disagreed with what the Soviet Union did, but that didn't efface what the country did, and neither does the fact that you happen to live in the USA change that the atrocities the USA continually commits make it barbaric and utterly abhorrent.
You should point the blame square at those responsible--the government and the ones supporting that government--and not the entire populace.


Wait, you've defended me "offsite"? As in, like, forums other than this one? Where you people get together to trash and "defend" people on this forum? Oh, dear, I am laughing so hard at the sadness of this that I am literally short of breath typing.

Yeah, yeah, whatever. You're so superior to the rest of us, yadda yadda yadda. You can see why I've stopped caring now.

Going back on topic, it sounds like it isn't a first amendment thing at all. Celebrating the death at a funeral is disturbing the peace, harassment, and may even be taken as threatening. On a less-legally-based but still important value, it's ethically wrong. I can't believe a church has distorted God so much as to celebrate things like that. Then again, yes I CAN, because that's not exactly unique to them.

I smiled when I read this on the bbc earlier in the week :) Totally deserved.

You should point the blame square at those responsible--the government and the ones supporting that government--and not the entire populace.

So, basically you're going: "Don't call my country what we call every other country that does the things my country does, because it's my country and it makes me sad to think that that is what it's become"?

Yeah, yeah, whatever. You're so superior to the rest of us, yadda yadda yadda. You can see why I've stopped caring now.

Sweety, it's the fact that you "cared" at all that I am laughing the most at right now. The circumstances of that "caring" (other forums for little cliques to bash people because they're too chicken to do so here to their face - hilarious!) are just like the sacrilege in The Life of Brian - not essential to the humour, but more an accessory to it.

So, basically you're going: "Don't call my country what we call every other country that does the things my country does, because it's my country and it makes me sad to think that that is what it's become"?

Sweety, it's the fact that you "cared" at all that I am laughing the most at right now. The circumstances of that "caring" (other forums for little cliques to bash people because they're too chicken to do so here to their face - hilarious!) are just like the sacrilege in The Life of Brian - not essential to the humour, but more an accessory to it.

*sigh*

I see Fass has managed to turn yet another thread into a discussion of his two favorite subjects: 1) the ebil of the USA and 2) Fass's own hubris.

No country is free from flaws. Sweden, for example, has been found guilty of human rights abuses by the UN and Amnesty International. (link (http://thereport.amnesty.org/eng/Regions/Europe-and-Central-Asia/Sweden)y)

Granted the flaws of the US government are far greater, but at least some of us are trying to correct that. Fass insists on pissing on all Americans, regardless.

So, basically you're going: "Don't call my country what we call every other country that does the things my country does, because it's my country and it makes me sad to think that that is what it's become"?



Sweety, it's the fact that you "cared" at all that I am laughing the most at right now. The circumstances of that "caring" (other forums for little cliques to bash people because they're too chicken to do so here to their face - hilarious!) are just like the sacrilege in The Life of Brian - not essential to the humour, but more an accessory to it.

Yes, because every single thread on GM is about you Fass. Every last one. In fact, people only go on there to bash you. Yup, that's all that goes on at GM because you are just that interesting. Get over yourself already.

So, basically you're going: "Don't call my country what we call every other country that does the things my country does, because it's my country and it makes me sad to think that that is what it's become"?

No. I'm saying you should be reasonable about it. I don't damn the entire populace of other countries for the actions of their governments, contrary to your incorrect perception.

No. I'm saying you should be reasonable about it. I don't damn the entire populace of other countries for the actions of their governments, contrary to your incorrect perception.

No, you just invent that other people damn the entire populace of your country because you like to think that somehow the people of your country are special and that calling your country what other countries that do what it does are called is more "damning" of your populace than theirs.

No, you just invent that other people damn the entire populace of your country because you like to think that somehow the people of your country are special and that calling your country what other countries that do what it does are called is more "damning" of your populace than theirs.

that sentence should be taken out back and shot.

the whole "free speech" thing in the US isnt really perfect. meaning, its not absolute freedom of speech. we cannot say things like "FIRE!" in the middle of a movie theatre, or make false accusations in court. We can say anything we want, to an extent. disturbing the peace is a restraint to speech "freedom," and it is really the only excuse we can have to put someone away for abusing their freedom of speech. we cannot shout racial slurs from the sidewalk, or for example, protest funerals.

because of our religios freedom, however, it seems that they can say what they want reguarding their god and "punishment." Although it is very insulting, we still have to respect them as a religion. but when they start to threaten the opposing party, or harrass them, they have crossed the line.

although we have extensive speech rights, as well as freedom to religion, there is a point where one can abuse those rights.

No, you just invent that other people damn the entire populace of your country because you like to think that somehow the people of your country are special and that calling your country what other countries that do what it does are called is more "damning" of your populace than theirs.
Meh. Whatever you say, Narcy.

that sentence should be taken out back and shot.
:D

*sigh*

I see Fass has managed to turn yet another thread into a discussion of his two favorite subjects: 1) the ebil of the USA and 2) Fass's own hubris.

And I see The Cat-Tribe as usually doesn't read threads to see who started the USA discussion, but it's mighty kind of him to keep dragging my person into it as he is so prone to do. Flattering, in a sense.

No country is free from flaws. Sweden, for example, has been found guilty of human rights abuses by the UN

Rightfully so in several cases (oh, you should study the ECtHR's rulings, I like the one where they ripped us a new one over smittskyddslagen) and those have lead to legislative changes because in most instances Sweden reported itself, and our government complies with the rulings and submits itself to, for instance, the ICC and such and we should continue to do so and bear any criticism we can get and constantly try to improve. Would you honestly claim that the USA does anything of the sort? Pfft! Rather it just continues its decline. Sweden isn't perfect, far from it, but we are indeed better than most (for which I am very grateful - I am very lucky to live here, especially as a gay atheist), including the USA, granted being better than that is not much of an accomplishment these days.

and Amnesty International. (link (http://thereport.amnesty.org/eng/Regions/Europe-and-Central-Asia/Sweden)y)

AI doesn't "find countries guilty" - weren't you a lawyer? It accuses. It's not an arbiter. It's an NGO.

Granted the flaws of the US government are far greater,

Far, far, far, far, far, far, far...

but at least some of us are trying to correct that. Fass insists on pissing on all Americans, regardless.

In one post I am accused of not being willing to piss on you if you were on fire, and in this one I am accused of pissing on you. Make up your minds in between taking criticism of your country personally, please, no matter how much of your self-worth you've invested in it.

the whole "free speech" thing in the US isnt really perfect. meaning, its not absolute freedom of speech. we cannot say things like "FIRE!" in the middle of a movie theatre, or make false accusations in court. We can say anything we want, to an extent. disturbing the peace is a restraint to speech "freedom," and it is really the only excuse we can have to put someone away for abusing their freedom of speech. we cannot shout racial slurs from the sidewalk, or for example, protest funerals.

because of our religios freedom, however, it seems that they can say what they want reguarding their god and "punishment." Although it is very insulting, we still have to respect them as a religion. but when they start to threaten the opposing party, or harrass them, they have crossed the line.

although we have extensive speech rights, as well as freedom to religion, there is a point where one can abuse those rights.Free speech doesn't mean you can say anything. You can express any idea you want in the right context aka not a funeral or movie. That doesn't mean it isn't absolute freedom of speech.

"The First Amendment was never meant to serve as a shield against incoming fists." -Lunatic Goofballs.

*sigh*

I see Fass has managed to turn yet another thread into a discussion of his two favorite subjects: 1) the ebil of the USA and 2) Fass's own hubris.


Actually, that was entirely my fault. I took the opportunity to rant about him and I shouldn't have. Sorry about that.

that sentence should be taken out back and shot.

Like most of the English language, but meh.

True, and if it was a case of mere offense, you'd be right. However...it's not. While one does not have the right to not be offended, one DOES HAVE the right to not be subject to emotional trauma/abuse. Given the hate they inflict upon the people they protest against and the way in which they go about it, it certainly crosses the line to being emotional abuse, in my view.

of course, the alleged emotional abuse was inflicted over the internet - the guy didn't even pay attention to the phelpses while they were there in person. man, i've been traumatized by much much worse on the ol' intertubes.

i just can't see that the phelps clan did anything worthy of paying damages. hitting asshattery like this serves mainly as a chilling effect on all other forms of speech. fuck that shit.

of course, the alleged emotional abuse was inflicted over the internet - the guy didn't even pay attention to the phelpses while they were there in person. man, i've been traumatized by much much worse on the ol' intertubes.
Yeah, because it's not possible for a form of communication to harm someone. Oh no, certainly not. Remember kids, on the internet, you can't be hurt! You don't have feelings! :rolleyes:

i just can't see that the phelps clan did anything worthy of paying damages. hitting asshattery like this serves mainly as a chilling effect on all other forms of speech. fuck that shit.
Frankly, I think you're looking at this from the wrong perspective. Try looking at it from the perspective of the victim, and consider that we're not talking about removing their right to spout their stupid shit, but merely punishing them for going too far with it.

Not that Fass needs any help whatsoever, But I can't help but agree with nearly every damn thing he said in this thread. I am pretty sick of people side-stepping his arguments by labeling them as bashing.

The fact that Phelps wasn't universally reviled until after he picketed soldier's funerals is kind of embarrassing. It sort of implies that the vile shit he did before wasn't that bad.

the whole "free speech" thing in the US isnt really perfect. meaning, its not absolute freedom of speech. we cannot say things like "FIRE!" in the middle of a movie theatre, or make false accusations in court. We can say anything we want, to an extent. disturbing the peace is a restraint to speech "freedom," and it is really the only excuse we can have to put someone away for abusing their freedom of speech. we cannot shout racial slurs from the sidewalk, or for example, protest funerals.

because of our religios freedom, however, it seems that they can say what they want reguarding their god and "punishment." Although it is very insulting, we still have to respect them as a religion. but when they start to threaten the opposing party, or harrass them, they have crossed the line.

although we have extensive speech rights, as well as freedom to religion, there is a point where one can abuse those rights.

I've always thought it would be funny to shout, in a theatre or somesuch crowded place, things like "There ISN'T a FIRE!" and "I've NOT got a BOMB!" :D

of course, the alleged emotional abuse was inflicted over the internet

You're conflating two causes of action. They sued on two grounds. Intentional infliction of emotional distress and invasion of privacy.

The invasion of privacy claim had to do with, inter alia, things posted on the website. To quote the article:

For Snyder's claim of invasion of privacy to have succeeded, the jury needed to conclude that the church's actions at the funeral - and later, in an Internet posting about Matthew Snyder on its Web site - were "highly offensive to a reasonable person," according to the jury instructions.


Now, for the claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress, that seems to me to be mostly based on the actions they committed at the funeral.

hitting asshattery like this serves mainly as a chilling effect on all other forms of speech. fuck that shit.

IIED has been a valid tortious claim for many, many years. The only "chilling effect" this will have is on speech that is classified as outragiously heinous and beyond the limits of basic civilized society. The same speech that was never permissible in the first place.

This is nothing new. This is nothing startling. This is nothing dramatic or altering of case law, or a new interpretation of the first amendment. This standard has existed for a long, long time. Whatever "chilling" effect it would have would have happened long ago. And if this gives another group pause when they consider doing things so outragiously offensive so as to be beyond the limits of civilized society, lest they have to pay for the emotional damage they cause...good. That's what the tort is there for.

You're conflating two causes of action. They sued on two grounds. Intentional infliction of emotional distress and invasion of privacy.

The invasion of privacy claim had to do with, inter alia, things posted on the website. To quote the article:



Now, for the claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress, that seems to me to be mostly based on the actions they committed at the funeral.

So the Invasion of Privacy wasn't about what they did at the graveyard, it was the personal information they posted about Matthew Snyder?

So the Invasion of Privacy wasn't about what they did at the graveyard, it was the personal information they posted about Matthew Snyder?

admittedly newspapers tend to get a lot of nuances about the law wrong, but from my understanding, the invasion of privacy claim stems from both. The intentional infliction of emotional distress claim arises from their conduct at the protest.

This is a...not very well written article.

I've always thought it would be funny to shout, in a theatre or somesuch crowded place, things like "There ISN'T a FIRE!" and "I've NOT got a BOMB!" :D
You could try, but it probably wouldn't work out too well.

Neo Art: Indeed.

Not that Fass needs any help whatsoever, But I can't help but agree with nearly every damn thing he said in this thread. I am pretty sick of people side-stepping his arguments by labeling them as bashing.

The fact that Phelps wasn't universally reviled until after he picketed soldier's funerals is kind of embarrassing. It sort of implies that the vile shit he did before wasn't that bad.I completely agree.
And it doesn't make it any less embarrassing that his criticisms got disregarded because he called a spade a spade, and a few people apparently self-identify with that particular spade, to the extent they perceived it as a personal insult.

admittedly newspapers tend to get a lot of nuances about the law wrong, but from my understanding, the invasion of privacy claim stems from both. The intentional infliction of emotional distress claim arises from their conduct at the protest.

This is a...not very well written article.

Thanks, I'm taking part of a debate on another forum about this whole mess. Tell me, as a lawyer, do you think this case will set a precedent of where the 1st amendment rights get chipped away at? Did this lawsuit even come close to threatening the 1st amendment rights?

Also, would it be legal for me to pass out rainbow flags to all of WBC neighbors to fly, for no real reason other than to annoy them and piss them off?

Thanks, I'm taking part of a debate on another forum about this whole mess. Tell me, as a lawyer, do you think this case will set a precedent of where the 1st amendment rights get chipped away at? Did this lawsuit even come close to threatening the 1st amendment rights?

Absolutly not. Remember what the first amendment says. "Congress [and by the 14th amendment, the states] shall make no law prohibiting . . . "

There is no law prohibiting it. They are free to say it. Nothing is stopping them from saying it. This does not prohibit their speech. It merely requires them to compensate those who are harmed by their speech, if that speech meets the standard of "extreme and outragious conduct".

Tort law in all its nuances and complexities can be summed up in six simple words. "You pay for what you break." That's it. You pay for what you break. If your conduct causes someone harm, you can be required to compensate them for that harm.

You can still say it, say it as much as you want. Just recognize the fact that if you DO say it in an extreme and outragious way, you can be required to compensate people for the damage you do to them.

Also, would it be legal for me to pass out rainbow flags to all of WBC neighbors to fly, for no real reason other than to annoy them and piss them off?

Of course. It's legal either way. The only question is whether it is extreme and outragious. Not merely "annoying and something that pisses them off", but extreme and outragious. Flying a rainbow flag is hardly something that is extreme and outragious.

Of course. It's legal either way. The only question is whether it is extreme and outragious. Not merely "annoying and something that pisses them off", but extreme and outragious. Flying a rainbow flag is hardly something that is extreme and outragious.

Yay!

*orders six boxes of Rainbow flags and get addresses of WBC neighbors* I know what I'll be doing this Summer! :D

It should also be noted that "extreme and outragious" is an objective standard not a subjective one. By which I mean, the quesiton of whether the conduct is extreme and outragious is judged as a matter of whether the average, reasonable person in the society at that time would judge it as extreme and outragious, not the plaintiff.

In other words, individual members of the WBC may find rainbow flags "extreme and outragious" but that doesn't matter. The question is whether the average person in the society would view it as such. There isn't a "thin skull" rule for IIED, the question is whether society would view the act as extreme and outragious, not the individual plaintiff(s)

Neo, while you're here I'd like to run an idea past you.

Suppose the Snyder award is upheld on appeal.
Suppose the WBC cannot pay the $10M or so.
Is it possible to get an injunction against the sort of 'outrageous' behaviour which got them fined?

My thinking is that, by being unable to pay the damages so far, they are clearly not going to be able to pay any future damages.

I'm probably getting civil and criminal mixed up here. Whatcha say?

It should also be noted that "extreme and outragious" is an objective standard not a subjective one. By which I mean, the quesiton of whether the conduct is extreme and outragious is judged as a matter of whether the average, reasonable person in the society at that time would judge it as extreme and outragious, not the plaintiff.

In other words, individual members of the WBC may find rainbow flags "extreme and outragious" but that doesn't matter. The question is whether the average person in the society would view it as such. There isn't a "thin skull" rule for IIED, the question is whether society would view the act as extreme and outragious, not the individual plaintiff(s)

... and I can't help thinking that a century ago, a black man deliberately going into a whites only area may well have been considered "outrageous" or "likely to offend the average person." It would of course be interpreted from the perspective of a white person, not the black guy who wants somewhere to sit.

Neo, while you're here I'd like to run an idea past you.

Suppose the Snyder award is upheld on appeal.
Suppose the WBC cannot pay the $10M or so.
Is it possible to get an injunction against the sort of 'outrageous' behaviour which got them fined?

My thinking is that, by being unable to pay the damages so far, they are clearly not going to be able to pay any future damages.

I'm probably getting civil and criminal mixed up here. Whatcha say?

Um, first off an injunction is typically sought by the party trying to prohibit the action. You can't really have an injunction of "don't do this in general", a party has to believe they're going to do it and seek an injunction. Blanket injunctions like you're talking about are more complicated and I admit to not knowing too much about them.

The big thing I see is, a court order has a force of law. It is one thing to say "if you say this and it causes harm you pay" and "don't say this". Which is what an injunction would be. It would actually be telling them they can't say it, rather than merely that they have to pay for damages if they do.

A court order preventing them from saying it would really be a prohibition on speech. That does run into some major constitutional problems.

... and I can't help thinking that a century ago, a black man deliberately going into a whites only area may well have been considered "outrageous" or "likely to offend the average person." It would of course be interpreted from the perspective of a white person, not the black guy who wants somewhere to sit.

well I should point out that it is the average, reasonable person. Even if the majority of people are racist doesn't necessarily make them reasonable. But yes, standards do evolve as time goes by.

Um, first off an injunction is typically sought by the party trying to prohibit the action. You can't really have an injunction of "don't do this in general", a party has to believe they're going to do it and seek an injunction.

Yes, I get that about injunctions. For instance, if someone threatened me I could apply for an order restraining them from approaching me, but not to restrain them from approaching anyone, which would amount to house arrest.

But I can imagine a situation where there would be a reasonable expectation that the WBC will cause well-founded distress to a particular person or group of people. The number of military funerals are limited (what, one or two a day that are Iraq related?)

I can see that a court would be dubious about granting that many injunctions against one group, the WBC. But it might be possible to show that a particular soldier's funeral was more likely than others to attract their protests ... suppose that it was a soldier's stated will that his or her homosexuality be publicly known once they were dead and thereby released from "don't ask, don't tell." Suppose that their intention in that was to protest the military's policy, not to deliberately goad the WBC.

The family and other mourners would surely be able to argue that they had a reasonable expectation that emotional harm would be done to them?

The big thing I see is, a court order has a force of law. It is one thing to say "if you say this and it causes harm you pay" and "don't say this". Which is what an injunction would be. It would actually be telling them they can't say it, rather than merely that they have to pay for damages if they do.

... and it's your opinion at this stage that demonstrating that they can't pay (which outstanding damages the 'church' is supposed to pay but can't WOULD demonstrate) doesn't over-ride that principle?

I find it disturbing. "If you say this and it causes harm you pay" seems an entirely ineffective principle if the person or group is going to continue to do harm, knowing they cannot pay compensation for it.

A court order preventing them from saying it would really be a prohibition on speech. That does run into some major constitutional problems.

Ah. But the court order could perhaps address instead the harm, not the speech? Perhaps specific prohibitions on a form of words could be tried. For instance, if holding up a sign saying "god hates fags" was found to be a harmful act, could that specific act be injuncted against?

Of course, that would have no real effect, they'd just go with "god fucks fags FOREVER" or something even less tasteful. I'm just wondering if it's possible, and the idea is out there for anyone who wants a piece of it.

... particularly since it seems Neo Art's shift here is over.

Crickey, I'll even discuss it with Fass. I've got my bike helmet, boots and boxing gloves on, I don't think anything can hurt me too much ... :p

The answer I expected came - the Phelpses weren't bad as long as they just bashed innocent fags. When they started bashing people who were anything but innocent, though, all of a sudden your ilk pretends to give a fuck because you sympathise with the killers.

By the by, the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence are wonderful for the reason that they ridicule the very thing the Phelpses stand for - religion. So you see, they're still better than you and these come-lately, selective riders. :)

And where were the rest of the innocent fags? They didn't see fit to band together against the Phelpses to counterprotest, like veteran groups decided to band together to counterprotest their shenanigans at military funerals?

well it seems to me that either their protests must already be in violation of other laws - trespassing, noise ordinances, violating a restraining order, whatever - in order to be violating anyone's rights. because it is well established that one does not have the right to not be offended, so that alone can't be punishable.

even worse, according to the baltimore sun (http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/bal-te.md.westboro01nov01,0,5435099.story)



also, the protest was 1000 feet from the church.

i bet they won't pay a dime on appeal.

There is the matter of their little essay about the life of Snyder on their site. Surely it could be seen as libelous?

Sweety, it's the fact that you "cared" at all that I am laughing the most at right now. The circumstances of that "caring" (other forums for little cliques to bash people because they're too chicken to do so here to their face - hilarious!) are just like the sacrilege in The Life of Brian - not essential to the humour, but more an accessory to it.
Ummm so where is this "other forum" that likes to bash people here?

wow i dont know alot about them before with the gay stuff (wasnt very well publiced over here (or atleast i never saw it when that happened) but with the funerals it just plain sucks and im glad they lost (and i hope dont win the appeal) .... i got no problem with them protesting but there was nothing to stop them saying exactly the same stuff on a beach or someplace else .... they did it purely to annoy people and get attention

(sucks but hey atleast they got attention and now might be banned and reduced to normal/acceptable protests and with such a small party not to detrimental.... that said you now got to hope the government dont make a new law that they can use to stop normal protests as that would proper suck .... in britian they now use ASBO's etc on everyone and everything if they are struggling to stop something it appears which it wasnt intended for as far as i know)

What Westboro Baptist Church is practicing is not free speech; it is abuse. It should not be the slightest bit difficult to legally demonstrate that their twisted protests cause harm to the families that are subjected to them, and are thus not protected by the First Amendment.

It is my understanding that freedom of speech does not protect freedom of hate speech, and this method of speech is clearly hate speech. At the same time, though, there's the issue of Nazi and KKK rallies, which I believe are protected by the First Amendment. I suppose the question is, are these rallies going around and using derogatory language as part of their demonstration? Surely, you can't march down the street declaring your hatred for n-words and k-words, right? I'm all for protecting the right to assemble and protest and express oneself (even if I do not agree with the cause), but when it comes to rallying for hatred, that's a whole other story.

And where were the rest of the innocent fags? They didn't see fit to band together against the Phelpses to counterprotest, like veteran groups decided to band together to counterprotest their shenanigans at military funerals?

You mean like those fags who during the trials of Matthew Shepard's murderers protected the Shepard family by assembling in a circle around the Phelpses wearing white robes and gigantic wings thereby blocking them? Those fags called "Angel Action" that thus preceded these bikers by more than half a decade? You mean those fags, Katganistan, that did something long before the important non-faggots were subjected to these people's hate and thus it became truly upsetting?

"If the Westboro protestors show up as planned at the funerals of Sergeant Scott Turner in Norton, Kansas and Staff Sergeant Larry Rougle in West Jordan, Utah on Friday, their signs will be masked by an honor guard of flag-waving bikers."

Where were they for all the years the Phelpses were doing this to gay people? Where was this outrage and indignation and distancing? Their families didn't need help? *pfft*

You mean like those fags who during the trials of Matthew Shepard's murderers protected the Shepard family by assembling in a circle around the Phelpses wearing white robes and gigantic wings thereby blocking them? Those fags called "Angel Action" that thus preceded these bikers by more than half a decade? You mean those fags, Katganistan, that did something long before the important non-faggots were subjected to these people's hate and thus it became truly upsetting?

Am I the only one that sees a little inconsistency here? :confused:

Am I the only one that sees a little inconsistency here? :confused:

Angel Action was a homosexual movement started by a lesbian. Where were these bikers then? Where were all the breeders clamouring for a ban on protests at funerals? Where were breeder politicians passing laws? Heck, they couldn't even pass a hate crimes law that protected gay people in Matthew's own state, let alone the country. But, nah - once Phelps started harassing heterosexual soldiers and their families, all of a sudden hundreds of thousands of voices are raised and a slew of laws passed.

Angel Action was a homosexual movement started by a lesbian. Where were these bikers then? Where were all the breeders clamouring for a ban on protests at funerals? Where were breeder politicians passing laws? Heck, they couldn't even pass a hate crimes law that protected gay people in Matthew's own state, let alone the country. But, nah - once Phelps started harassing heterosexual soldiers and their families, all of a sudden hundreds of thousands of voices are raised and a slew of laws passed.

You of all people should know human nature is such that people are spurned to action once it hits home for them.

Angel Action was a homosexual movement started by a lesbian. Where were these bikers then? Where were all the breeders clamouring for a ban on protests at funerals? Where were breeder politicians passing laws? Heck, they couldn't even pass a hate crimes law that protected gay people in Mathew's own state, let alone the country. But, nah - once Phelps started harassing heterosexual soldiers and their families, all of a sudden hundreds of thousands of voices are raised and a slew of laws passed.

Got it. You just confused me there.

Some of us have been outraged by Phelps all along, but you are right that many did not join in that outrage until Phelps began harrassing soldier's funerals. I don't find that surprising, but I do find it disappointing on several grounds.

It is also true we do not have hate crimes laws that protect sexual orientation in every state. I know about half the states had such laws as of 2004. I'm not sure what the number is now. Anything less than such laws in every state is not acceptable.

FWIW, despite publicity to the contrary, federal hate crime laws in the U.S. do protect sexual orientation and have since 1994.

Section 280003 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/laws/majorlaw/gun94.pdf) (warning, 356 page pdf):

SEC. 280003. DIRECTION TO UNITED STATES SENTENCING COMMISSION
REGARDING SENTENCING ENHANCEMENTS FOR
HATE CRIMES.
(a) DEFINITION.—In this section, ‘‘hate crime’’ means a crime
in which the defendant intentionally selects a victim, or in the
case of a property crime, the property that is the object of the
crime, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion,
national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, or sexual orientation
of any person.
(b) SENTENCING ENHANCEMENT.—Pursuant to section 994 of
title 28, United States Code, the United States Sentencing Commission
shall promulgate guidelines or amend existing guidelines to
provide sentencing enhancements of not less than 3 offense levels
for offenses that the finder of fact at trial determines beyond a
reasonable doubt are hate crimes. In carrying out this section,
the United States Sentencing Commission shall ensure that there
is reasonable consistency with other guidelines, avoid duplicative
punishments for substantially the same offense, and take into
account any mitigating circumstances that might justify exceptions.

You of all people should know human nature is such that people are spurned to action once it hits home for them.

I am familiar with the pattern, as I happen to be just old enough to recall the "gay plague" that went ignored until it was realised that straight people could get it. It isn't human nature, though - it is human indifference, and it does not afflict us all.

I am familiar with the pattern, as I happen to be just old enough to recall the "gay plague" that went ignored until it was realised that straight people could get it. It isn't human nature, though - it is human indifference, and it does not afflict us all.

Old enough to remember the "Gay" disease. People just figured it was the gays doing that's why it wasn't brought to the forefront sooner.

If you want to call it indifference then will give you that. I think we all can fall into that category at times including you, me and anyone else. No one is perfect.

I am familiar with the pattern, as I happen to be just old enough to recall the "gay plague" that went ignored until it was realised that straight people could get it. It isn't human nature, though - it is human indifference, and it does not afflict us all.

Gay plague as in aids??? as in meant to come from men (as far as i know not straight men) shagging monkeys???(Im sure there are scientists out there now looking for the original group of monkeys it came from iirc the thing on the news last year) or as in the aids spread by drugs like heroin? or as in the plauge of aids spread by stupid hetros not using protection and blaming gays?? (howd it jump from gays to straight ... now thats a puzzling question unless theres trillions of bi people out there that dont speak up

Old enough to remember the "Gay" disease. People just figured it was the gays doing that's why it wasn't brought to the forefront sooner.

Exactly, and who cared as long as it only affected fags?

If you want to call it indifference then will give you that. I think we all can fall into that category at times including you, me and anyone else. No one is perfect.

I have to call it that because for it to be anything else it would be the purest of evil and I don't believe in evil. I do believe in stupidity, fear, bigotry, selfishness which all in the end manifest in indifference.

Gay plague as in aids??? as in meant to come from men (as far as i know not straight men) shagging monkeys???(Im sure there are scientists out there now looking for the original group of monkeys it came from iirc the thing on the news last year) or as in the aids spread by drugs like heroin? or as in the plauge of aids spread by stupid hetros not using protection and blaming gays?? (howd it jump from gays to straight ... now thats a puzzling question unless theres trillions of bi people out there that dont speak up

When it was first reported in the early eighties it was coined the "Gay disease", "Gay plague". It wasn't thought to be mainstream so the attention wasn't given to it as if it were a plague spreading through the entire population. It wasn't until it started showing up in the hetero population did it really get serious attention. At that point it almost seemed like a panic. That is what Fass was saying was human indifference in which case he is absolutely correct.

Gay plague as in aids??? as in meant to come from men (as far as i know not straight men) shagging monkeys???(Im sure there are scientists out there now looking for the original group of monkeys it came from iirc the thing on the news last year) or as in the aids spread by drugs like heroin? or as in the plauge of aids spread by stupid hetros not using protection and blaming gays?? (howd it jump from gays to straight ... now thats a puzzling question unless theres trillions of bi people out there that dont speak up

:rolleyes: Where do I begin to unravel your disjointed and uneducated post?

Years before HIV's role in AIDS was ascertained - before AIDS was called AIDS or even LAV, it was called "the gay plague" or "the gay cancer" and the media spread that it affected only gay men and drug addicts. Many governments did nothing until it started affecting "innocent" people, like the straight and the rich. For you see, it mattered a lot how you got the disease - on the one side there were the fags who deserved it and on the other were the unfortunate haemophiliacs and people who had gotten blood transfusions and who had thus "done nothing wrong".

I have no idea what you are talking about fucking monkeys - yes, it is true that HIV stems from a simian virus, but why would it entail fucking monkeys? Monkeys are hunted for sport and food in several places - blood-borne cross infection is much more likely than any sort of bestiality.

And how it "crossed" to straight people? It didn't. It afflicted straight people from the beginning - it was never just a gay disease. Such a thing would be physiologically preposterous. In the West it struck gay people the most, but in other places it struck straight people just as hard, if not harder.

Ummm so where is this "other forum" that likes to bash people here?

There are actually several off-site forums that could qualify, but really, the one he was talking about--Generalite Mafia, the one I brought up--doesn't. It was created to play online Mafia games and also has a general section of its own that's much freer than here. Within it there is a Bitching thread that allows us to let out our irritations and frustrations, and occasionally just about everyone there has something to say about someone here that they wouldn't otherwise say. It's actually very therapeutic because it helps keep us from overreacting at people back here on NSG by letting our tempers out there...most of the time, anyway. This time I was just being an ass, and as I said in the thread in Moderation, I apologize for it.

I heard of Westboro Baptist Church sometime ago and popped on to their website. They are beyond belief, I'm all for Free Speech, but lets have free speech when they are all dead.

You mean like those fags who during the trials of Matthew Shepard's murderers protected the Shepard family by assembling in a circle around the Phelpses wearing white robes and gigantic wings thereby blocking them? Those fags called "Angel Action" that thus preceded these bikers by more than half a decade? You mean those fags, Katganistan, that did something long before the important non-faggots were subjected to these people's hate and thus it became truly upsetting?

The service personel whose funerals we are generally discussing may in fact have been faggots. That's the WBC's objection to the US military. It does not deliberately exclude gays from serving.

The bikers, by defending the military for whatever reason, are defending the military's (admittedly compromise) decision not to deliberately exclude gays from service.

It's not just that the WBC hates gays or hates this or that, their specific beef with the military is that it might employ gays (well, certainly does, if not openly). That makes their crazy pseudo-religious rantings "political speech."

Hate speech without that factor has more limited interest for people. I don't see anything wrong with that, frankly. Why shouldn't some people be more interested in the political question of discrimination in government service, than in the political question of laws and penalties for individual crime?


I heard of Westboro Baptist Church sometime ago and popped on to their website. They are beyond belief, I'm all for Free Speech, but *uh, no.*

Yeah, their website was made of useless when I saw it a year ago. I haven't been back because they probably count every hit on the site as a sign of support. They're self-deluded enough for that, easily.

You mean like those fags who during the trials of Matthew Shepard's murderers protected the Shepard family by assembling in a circle around the Phelpses wearing white robes and gigantic wings thereby blocking them? Those fags called "Angel Action" that thus preceded these bikers by more than half a decade? You mean those fags, Katganistan, that did something long before the important non-faggots were subjected to these people's hate and thus it became truly upsetting?

So they DID have defenders. Then why on earth are you bitching that vets banded together to defend dead vets?

Honestly, your view of the world seems to be "OMG, EVERYONE DROP EVERYTHING TO DEFEND THE POOR DEFENSELESS HOMOSEXUAL" (who are neither poor, nor defenseless, nor in such tiny numbers in the country that they can't protest -- they do, in numbers and in safety, like everyone else) and "HOW DARE THESE FORMER SOLDIERS BAND TOGETHER TO DROWN OUT THESE ASSHOLES ANNOYING THE FAMILIES OF FORMER SOLDIERS?"

If you want to whine about that, tell me: where are the homosexuals banding together to defend the war dead at the Phelpses' demonstrations? Why weren't they the first ones out saying, "Shit, we're all in the same boat?"

So they DID have defenders. Then why on earth are you bitching that vets banded together to defend dead vets?

Honestly, your view of the world seems to be "OMG, EVERYONE DROP EVERYTHING TO DEFEND THE POOR DEFENSELESS HOMOSEXUAL" (who are neither poor, nor defenseless, nor in such tiny numbers in the country that they can't protest -- they do, in numbers and in safety, like everyone else) and "HOW DARE THESE FORMER SOLDIERS BAND TOGETHER TO DROWN OUT THESE ASSHOLES ANNOYING THE FAMILIES OF FORMER SOLDIERS?"

If you want to whine about that, tell me: where are the homosexuals banding together to defend the war dead at the Phelpses' demonstrations? Why weren't they the first ones out saying, "Shit, we're all in the same boat?"

What about the laws being changed NOW, rather than BEFORE?

So they DID have defenders. Then why on earth are you bitching that vets banded together to defend dead vets?

It's probably the US flags. Angel wings are a far better symbol, and without the weirdness of flag-versus-freedom-of-speech.

Honestly, your view of the world seems to be "OMG, EVERYONE DROP EVERYTHING TO DEFEND THE POOR DEFENSELESS HOMOSEXUAL" (who are neither poor, nor defenseless, nor in such tiny numbers in the country that they can't protest -- they do, in numbers and in safety, like everyone else) and "HOW DARE THESE FORMER SOLDIERS BAND TOGETHER TO DROWN OUT THESE ASSHOLES ANNOYING THE FAMILIES OF FORMER SOLDIERS?"

You are characterising another poster's position. I will now stand a little further away from you, because Fass will kick your ass for that.

If you want to whine about that, tell me: where are the homosexuals banding together to defend the war dead at the Phelpses' demonstrations? Why weren't they the first ones out saying, "Shit, we're all in the same boat?"

I think my point that "by defending the dignity of their fallen comrades whether they are gay or not, the Patriot Riders are defending gay rights" was stronger. But yours will be fun to watch.

I assume Fass is aware of "don't ask, don't tell" and that the policy is actually progress towards gay rights.

Years before HIV’s role in AIDS was ascertained–before AIDS was called AIDS or even LAV, it was called “the gay plague” or “the gay cancer” and the media spread that it affected only gay men and drug addicts. Many governments did nothing until it started affecting “innocent” people, like the straight and the rich. For you see, it mattered a lot how you got the disease–on the one side there were the fags who deserved it and on the other were the unfortunate haemophiliacs and people who had gotten blood transfusions and who had thus “done nothing wrong”.
Dude, we don’t want to get bad AIDS (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFNs2mOkKzc).

What about the laws being changed NOW, rather than BEFORE?

Not that it has anything to do with what I posted, but what about it? Laws take time to change, if you haven't noticed -- longer when there is the possibility of a "chilling effect on the First Amendment" and when the group in question is made up of lawyers that make it their life's work to sue literally everyone who disagrees with them as a way of making income.

Why does Jack Thompson still have a license to practice law given his propensity for frivolous lawsuits and shocking tactics such as posting porn to the courts' websites?

Why is congress still fighting to pass a child health care bill the president has twice vetoed and vows to keep vetoing?

Why did it take so long for SOME STATES to come up with a "three strikes and you're out" law?

Why is it there are still some states that have the death penalty on the books?

Why is it still illegal in some places for an adult couple, in the privacy of their own home, to engage in certain types of sexual gratification?

Why are we STILL arguing in court over the matter of abortion?

You may as well ask why a "speedy trial" can take years just to get to the point of actually starting the trial.

Welcome to democracy.

Agence France-Presse | November 02, 2007

Armed with signs shouting "thank God for dead soldiers," a radical anti-gay US church plans to resume its controversial funeral protests Friday despite being ordered to pay $11 million to the family of a fallen Soldier offended by their hateful songs and slogans.

Kansas-based Westboro Baptist Church hailed the jury verdict as yet another opportunity to spread its message that God is punishing the United States for its tolerance of homosexuality.

"We will continue to warn you of your impending doom as long as our God gives us breath," church leaders said in a press release lined with biblical references and pictures of the signs its members flaunt at funerals.

"Not only did you fail to stop our preaching, but our message has gone to the entire world."

The fringe group of fire and brimstone Baptists from Topeka, Kansas has been courting controversy for more than 17 years.

The church first gained national notoriety when they picketed the funeral of Matthew Shepard, a Wyoming student who was murdered in 1998 for being gay.

They have since picketed the funerals of Frank Sinatra and Bill Clinton's mother, celebrated the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks as an act of God's wrath, and have even targeted Santa Claus and the Ku Klux Klan.

Funded in part by lawsuits against those who try to block the protests and violate a constitutional right to free speech, the church members travel the country on a near-daily basis and have held an estimated 30,000 pickets.

Their funeral protests are laced with anti-gay slurs.

At one protest attended by AFP five women sang and danced as they held up signs saying "God hates fags," "fag vets" and "America is doomed." The group also has a wide repertoire of songs like "This Land is Fag Land" and "God Hates America."

The group's presence at the funerals of dozens of troops across the country has sparked a grassroots movement of bikers determined to drown out the jeers and taunts.

While Westboro's congregation remains stable at around 70 to 100 people -- most of whom are the extended family of founder Fred Phelps -- the ranks of the Patriot Guard Riders has swelled to more than 117,000 in the past two years.

If the Westboro protestors show up as planned at the funerals of Sergeant Scott Turner in Norton, Kansas and Staff Sergeant Larry Rougle in West Jordan, Utah on Friday, their signs will be masked by an honor guard of flag-waving bikers.

But the father of a Soldier awarded $10.9 million dollars after his son Matthew's funeral was picketed last year hopes the verdict he has won will block the protest completely.

"I basically want to shut them down," said Albert Snyder. "I don't expect to collect 10 million dollars, but I do intend to collect everything they have."

Westboro insists it will win the case on appeal, but Snyder's lawyer said they have a good chance of proving that the constitutional right to free speech has limits.

"The reality is that the First Amendment has survived 200 years without anyone protesting funerals, and I think it's safe to say that if this group is shut down and cannot protest funerals, the First Amendment will survive another 200 years," said Sean Summers, Snyder's attorney.


What do you think?

Yes! He won!

Snip.

Kat, come on, now: You know as well as I do that the thing began to become an issue important enough in the eyes of politicians to change laws over when soldiers began to be targeted.

Kat, come on, now: You know as well as I do that the thing began to become an issue important enough in the eyes of politicians to change laws over when soldiers began to be targeted.

Heikoku, come on now, you know as well as I do that's nonsense. NOTHING happens in this country other than at a snail's pace. If you want to make it into a discriminatory thing, that's fine, but I'll continue to laugh at the silliness of the position. The fact is that it's taken better than ten years to deal with this because of all the suits and countersuits and not wanting to impinge of free speech.

When you can point out when a potential threat to free-speech was dealt with in a matter of days, let me know.

Heikoku, come on now, you know as well as I do that's nonsense.

:rolleyes:

Yeah, because I can really see all those politicians who won't even pass hate crime laws trying to interfere with protesters picketing the funerals of gay people.

Oh... but I'm sure that's just because they're slow there too, right?

And the fury in the media? That takes time too? Really?

I am repeatedly astonished by the lengths people will go to avoid seeing bigotry.

You are characterising another poster's position. I will now stand a little further away from you, because Fass will kick your ass for that.

Am I? I thought Fass has characterized his position quite clearly for years now. Forgive me for pointing out the patently obvious, which anyone with the knowledge of the "search" function can easily see for themselves.

And I doubt seriously Fass will "kick my ass" for that. I'm sure that he knows that abusive language will only take one so far and no further. Do you honestly think that I'm going to sit here and cry because he'll undoubtedly paint me as anti-homosexual (which is bullshit) or a "breeder"?

:rolleyes:

Yeah, because I can really see all those politicians who won't even pass hate crime laws trying to interfere with protesters picketing the funerals of gay people.

Oh... but I'm sure that's just because they're slow there too, right?

And the fury in the media? That takes time too? Really?

I am repeatedly astonished by the lengths people will go to avoid seeing bigotry.

As I am astonished by the lengths people will go to see it where ever they turn.
Do tell me about the last "challenge to free speech" that was dealt with in days. Weeks. Months even.

I'll wait.

Heikoku, come on now, you know as well as I do that's nonsense. NOTHING happens in this country other than at a snail's pace. If you want to make it into a discriminatory thing, that's fine, but I'll continue to laugh at the silliness of the position. The fact is that it's taken better than ten years to deal with this because of all the suits and countersuits and not wanting to impinge of free speech.

When you can point out when a potential threat to free-speech was dealt with in a matter of days, let me know.

Did the media react that strongly when it was "only gays" then?

Look, I'm not accusing you of any sort of bigotry here, but I do think it IS a somewhat discriminatory thing - on their part, not yours.

Kat's claws are extending and her tail is puffing...careful, lads. ;)

But seriously, Kat's right. While there might be plenty of public furor and protesting, actual legislative activity takes a lot of time. It's not exactly efficient, but the only way for it go faster would be for us to place more and more power in a smaller number of individuals, and personally, I prefer it this way. I'd rather have slow and steady with freedom than fast and speedy with nonfreedom.

As I am astonished by the lengths people will go to see it where ever they turn.

Oh, those over-sensitive queers!

Daring to recognize homophobia in a society that's made no secret of its prejudice... how astonishing.

:rolleyes:

Do tell me about the last "challenge to free speech" that was dealt with in days. Weeks. Months even.

I'll wait.

The protests at military funerals got a pretty quick response....

It seems that politicians are only "slow" sometimes... like when they don't give a shit and want an excuse.

But seriously, Kat's right. While there might be plenty of public furor and protesting, actual legislative activity takes a lot of time.

Be that as it may, it is completely irrelevant.

When Phelps started protesting military funerals, legislative responses to it happened in a matter of months.

Of course, they were doing the same to gays back in 1998 (at the latest)... and nothing happened.

Oh, those over-sensitive queers!

Daring to recognize homophobia in a society that's made no secret of its prejudice... how astonishing.

:rolleyes:
I think what Kat means is that sometimes, what might seem like prejudice isn't actually prejudice. She's right in that it's not always there, and that sometimes you're looking for nothing.

Here, however, you ARE right.



The protests at military funerals got a pretty quick response....

It seems that politicians are only "slow" sometimes... like when they don't give a shit and want an excuse.

Here, you are partially wrong. They had a quick PUBLIC response, with statements, but not with the legislature itself. That still took an appreciable amount of time. Admittedly it was made a PRIORITY, but that in and of itself does not somehow make the legislative body faster. It simply means it focused on that specific thing first.

That said, you're still right that they didn't do a damned thing until military funerals were picketed, and I think that's just plain wrong.

I'm sure the fact that so many states haven't yet passed hate crime laws is also just because legislative activity is slow.

And the reason that anti-discrimination laws still don't exist in most states, nor on the federal level, is also just because legislative activity is slow.

And the reason opposite-sex couples have marriage rights and not same-sex couples is just because legislative activity is slow too.

Oh, wait. We've been demanding all of those things for decades.

Guess they're just really slow. :rolleyes:

Be that as it may, it is completely irrelevant.

When Phelps started protesting military funerals, legislative responses to it happened in a matter of months.

Of course, they were doing the same to gays back in 1998 (at the latest)... and nothing happened.

And so you're ignoring the fact that they have the evidence of YEARS of this behavior, which is what they're working on.

Right. Carry on.

And so you're ignoring the fact that they have the evidence of YEARS of this behavior, which is what they're working on.

What's that got to do with anything?

We've known about Fred Phelps and how disgusting he is for much longer than he's been protesting military funerals... I have a good memory. I remember. (Perhaps politicians are just completely ignorant? Or maybe just when it comes to gays....)

Do you honestly think it's purely coincidental that the people in power only began doing something about it when it was the families of (seemingly) straight veterans who were being picketed?

How naive can you get?

Be that as it may, it is completely irrelevant.

When Phelps started protesting military funerals, legislative responses to it happened in a matter of months.

Of course, they were doing the same to gays back in 1998 (at the latest)... and nothing happened.

OH! Now I understand what the problem here is!

Basically, you're thinking that Kat is making excuses for hate crimes laws not being passed and so on as "slow legislatiion" when I thought Kat was just talking about the normal legislative process.

I don't think Kat is making excuses though.

The actual laws aren't even being placed on the agenda, though. IF THEY WERE, then and ONLY then could we talk about them being slowed down due to the normal legislative process. But since they're not even on the table...

I want them on the table. I keep trying to get it on the table here in Colorado, but I'm not succeeding due to where in Colorado I live. It's disgusting that such laws aren't in place yet. (It's also disgusting in its own way that such laws are necessary in the first place, but....)

That said, you’re still right that they didn’t do a damned thing until military funerals were picketed, and I think that’s just plain wrong.
Obviously the hypocrisy is wrong, but is legislation against speech the right path to go down?

Part of the deal with free speech is that we’re going to hear disgusting things that might offend us; views poles apart from ours. However, should we be attempting to stop this speech? I think not

AFAIK, legislation against the WBC has thus far been to enforce a minimum distance from the events they are picketing, but there seems to be some appetite to stop their ability to protest entirely. I say this is a very bad idea, only giving their views credence, exposure and a sense of martyrdom.

Obviously the hypocrisy is wrong, but is legislation against speech the right path to go down?
Of course not. I'm talking about hate crimes legislation, not laws against free speech.

Part of the deal with free speech is that we’re going to hear disgusting things that might offend us; views poles apart from ours. However, should we be attempting to stop this speech? I think not

Indeed. We need to let it out into the open and show it for what it really is.

AFAIK, legislation against the WBC has thus far been to enforce a minimum distance from the events they are picketing, but there seems to be some appetite to stop their ability to protest entirely. I say this is a very bad idea, only giving their views credence, exposure and a sense of martyrdom.
I don't think we should stop them from protesting entirely, no. We should, however, penalize them when they harm others, as they have done in this case.

Precisely, Kyronea. I'd like the laws to have been passed already, but the reality is that it takes forever for anything to get done. The mills of justice grind exceedingly slow.

In a very tenuously related tangent -- the laws governing the legal contract of marriage in this country are ridiculous, and should simply cover "consenting adults" and not make any specifications as to gender. It's a miracle my kitchen walls are not bloodstained over the arguments I and my very conservative parents have had on that score.

And so you're ignoring the fact that they have the evidence of YEARS of this behavior, which is what they're working on.

dude, seriously, come on...

years of nasty protests aimed at homosexuals - crickets chirping except within a tiny portion of society
one announcement of protest at a soldier's funeral - massive outcry splashed all over everywhere

Of course not. I’m talking about hate crimes legislation, not laws against free speech.
Wasn’t singling you out Kyronea.

I don’t think we should stop them from protesting entirely, no. We should, however, penalize them when they harm others, as they have done in this case.
The problem arises, as it is now here in the UK, when people argue that being offended is analogous to being harmed (and politicians go with it).

Wasn’t singling you out Kyronea.

Oh, well, okay.

The problem arises, as it is now here in the UK, when people argue that being offended is analogous to being harmed (and politicians go with it).
Then those politicians ought to be fired. Neo Art has already specified a clear legal definition of emotional harm/trauma and that is what should be followed, NOT what the average person on the street thinks.

Wasn’t singling you out Kyronea.


The problem arises, as it is now here in the UK, when people argue that being offended is analogous to being harmed (and politicians go with it).

There is the slippery slope. Where does free speech start becoming physically harmful? I always figured when someone was inciting violence on another person or group is when it stopped becoming a free speech issue. Then again that could be a gray area too.

I think what Kat means is that sometimes, what might seem like prejudice isn't actually prejudice. She's right in that it's not always there, and that sometimes you're looking for nothing.

Yeah, and obviously that's true: just because something could be prejudice doesn't mean that it must be prejudice.

The problem is that people in our racist, sexist, and homophobic society take this principle and use it as an excuse to go to extreme lengths not to see bigotry. (Of course, the moment someone like Fass uses a word like "breeder", they do the exact opposite.)

Here, you are partially wrong. They had a quick PUBLIC response, with statements,

And that's something isn't it?

but not with the legislature itself. That still took an appreciable amount of time.

Yes, a matter of months. As opposed to years in which nothing got done.

dude, seriously, come on...

years of nasty protests aimed at homosexuals - crickets chirping except within a tiny portion of society
one announcement of protest at a soldier's funeral - massive outcry splashed all over everywhere

One protest? Or is it that they've been escalating this to the point where they are now protesting EVERY DAY?

You're very willing to call bias, but not see where it's coloring your own perceptions?

You are characterising another poster's position. I will now stand a little further away from you, because Fass will kick your ass for that.
.


So what if she is doing this? I think she has a right to state her opinion of something like the rest of us. I also happen to agree with this particular part. That is a fairly accurate characterization. As far as the last part of that comment does that not sound stupid to you?

Then those politicians ought to be fired. Neo Art has already specified a clear legal definition of emotional harm/trauma and that is what should be followed, NOT what the average person on the street thinks.
I agree with your sentiment, but I still think ‘harm’ is very difficult to outline precisely in a legal manner. (Although perhaps I missed Neo Art’s definition; I can only seem to find a vague statement of harm being bad.)

There is the slippery slope. Where does free speech start becoming physically harmful? I always figured when someone was inciting violence on another person or group is when it stopped becoming a free speech issue. Then again that could be a gray area too.
It’s a very grey area, taking how difficult it is to define ‘harm’ in legal or philosophical discussion.

Everything has their limits.

There is the slippery slope. Where does free speech start becoming physically harmful? I always figured when someone was inciting violence on another person or group is when it stopped becoming a free speech issue. Then again that could be a gray area too.

Are they saying people should kill anyone? No. They are repugnant, but they are saying that natural disasters and the war are the work of God killing because he's pissed that we tolerate homosexuals in this country.

Everything has their limits.
I point you towards numbers.

Yeah, and obviously that's true: just because something could be prejudice doesn't mean that it must be prejudice.

The problem is that people in our racist, sexist, and homophobic society take this principle and use it as an excuse to go to extreme lengths not to see bigotry.
Certainly many do, though I would characterize most of those as being those who don't want to admit their own prejudices because the fact is uncomfortable.
(Of course, the moment someone like Fass uses a word like "breeder", they do the exact opposite.)

That's a little different, though. Fass is almost always intentionally antagonistic and is very hateful, not to mention self-centred.

Though you do have a point. People tend to only start reacting when the weapons are pointed at them.


And that's something isn't it?

A disturbing something.


Yes, a matter of months. As opposed to years in which nothing got done.
Years, again, in which I remind you that it wasn't even on the table. If it had been, it would have been taken care of. Probably much more slowly than most bills and what have you, but it would have. We need to get it on the table first though.

There is the slippery slope. Where does free speech start becoming physically harmful?

Never, but physical harm is not the only kind of harm.

I don't know if I accept the argument from the extreme indecency or outrageousness of the act (or whatever the exact phrasing of the standard was), but thinking it over I could see a justification for this kind of restriction on the grounds that a private, personal event like a funeral isn't really an appropriate forum for that sort of political speech.

I would probably make an exception for public figures, though... especially when their funerals are turned into public events.

I agree with your sentiment, but I still think ‘harm’ is very difficult to outline precisely in a legal manner. (Although perhaps I missed Neo Art’s definition; I can only seem to find a vague statement of harm being bad.)

The relevant information:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13183942&postcount=23

Are they saying people should kill anyone? No. They are repugnant, but they are saying that natural disasters and the war are the work of God killing because he's pissed that we tolerate homosexuals in this country.

I am a big supporter of freedom of speech. Even though these people are scum I support their right to speak. In fact I would fight for it.

I am not of the opinion we need to silence who we oppose. When that starts becoming a mindset of people that is what is truly dangerous.

Never, but physical harm is not the only kind of harm.

I don't know if I accept the argument from the extreme indecency or outrageousness of the act (or whatever the exact phrasing of the standard was), but thinking it over I could see a justification for this kind of restriction on the grounds that a private, personal event like a funeral isn't really an appropriate forum for that sort of political speech.

I would probably make an exception for public figures, though... especially when their funerals are turned into public events.

I believe private or personal events on private property are protected as they can be covered under private property laws. If one trespasses on private property then they can be arrested.

Problem is if it were deemed public property then ones personal rights are severly limited. I don't know an easy solution around this.

The relevant information:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13183942&postcount=23
Thank you.

However, I’d submit that clauses 2, 3, and 4 are hard to pin down; especially if they rely on a ‘normal’ person’s sense of moral outrage.

Though I imagine this is more a problem for philosophers than jurisprudists.

Am I? I thought Fass has characterized his position quite clearly for years now. Forgive me for pointing out the patently obvious, which anyone with the knowledge of the "search" function can easily see for themselves.

Anyone with knowledge of the search function could use actual quotes instead of SHOUTED paraphrases to describe another poster's position.

And I doubt seriously Fass will "kick my ass" for that. I'm sure that he knows that abusive language will only take one so far and no further. Do you honestly think that I'm going to sit here and cry because he'll undoubtedly paint me as anti-homosexual (which is bullshit) or a "breeder"?

Yeah, he's laughable sometimes. Suddenly breaking out the GC (Gay Correct) slang like that being an excellent example.

Presumably from the priveledged vantage of his Gayness, Fass can easily identify Catholic Heterosexuals as the real cause of all this injustice. If we aren't with the Gays, we must be with them, those whose sexuality is all about reproduction. :rolleyes:

It's a ludicrously petty bit of derogatory slang, and just by quoting the word you kick his ass.

That's what I mean by "kick ass." I mean "win." I mean "make the other person look stupid and vain, right out of their own mouth." I mean "gain general respect at the expense of."

After all this, I expect Fass will choose to address the substance rather than the protocol of your post. So I'll just say: quote the post where Fass said "OMG, EVERYONE DROP EVERYTHING TO DEFEND THE POOR DEFENSELESS HOMOSEXUAL."

You can't, can you. How's yer ass?

Certainly many do, though I would characterize most of those as being those who don't want to admit their own prejudices because the fact is uncomfortable.

Well, yes... exactly.

And the speed with which they move to insist that "Of course I'm not sexist/racist/homophobic! My best friend is female/black/gay!" only strengthens this interpretation.

That's a little different, though. Fass is almost always intentionally antagonistic and is very hateful, not to mention self-centred.

Fass is antagonistic, yes, but the people and things towards which he is hateful usually deserve it.

Regardless, though, my point wasn't about Fass... he was just a convenient example. It isn't just him, it's all the time you hear about how Blacks (and "self-hating whites") are engaging in "reverse racism", or how feminists just hate men, or how gays are trying to oppress straights and gain special privileges.

Though you do have a point. People tend to only start reacting when the weapons are pointed at them.

Except the weapons aren't being pointed at them, the "weapons" are being pointed at the families of the slain veterans.

Apparently their altruism carries them far enough to express outrage in that case... but not when the victims are gay.

Thank you.

However, I’d submit that clauses 2, 3, and 4 are hard to pin down; especially if they rely on a ‘normal’ person’s sense of moral outrage.

Though I imagine this is more a problem for philosophers than jurisprudists.

I agree with you--as does Neo Art--but unfortunately I can't see a better way to go about it. Not yet, at least.

With any luck, in time we'll either develop a fairer way or this method will become fairer in and of itself.

--snip--

Ah, I get it. You like to deny apparent bigotry as some sort of coincidences. It's just a coincidence laws get changed when this affects non-fags and nothing happens for all the years they picket gay funerals. It's just a coincidence that the media storm takes equally as long to happen. Just a coincidence these bikers start caring only once it's non-faggots and their families affected. It's all just a series of randomness for you, isn't it? No, the proper way of stating is: it's just a long stretch of denial for you.

Anyone with knowledge of the search function could use actual quotes instead of SHOUTED paraphrases to describe another poster's position.

...How's yer ass?

Why should I bother when others have posted confirming that it's patently obvious? I should waste time for you? Don't think so.

As for my ass, it is exceedingly fine, sassy, and quite favorably remarked upon by those whose opinions actually mean anything to me.

With any luck, in time we’ll either develop a fairer way or this method will become fairer in and of itself.
Indeed.

I think a big problem at the moment (on both sides of the Atlantic) is the conflation of ‘harm’ with ‘rights violation’ and vice versa. But that’s another topic for another day.

As for my ass, it is exceedingly fine, sassy, and quite favorably remarked upon by those whose opinions actually mean anything to me.
Show off. :p

Well, yes... exactly.

And the speed with which they move to insist that "Of course I'm not sexist/racist/homophobic! My best friend is female/black/gay!" only strengthens this interpretation.

Indeed. But I think part of the problem is our way of vilifying those who believe these sort of things, which is the wrong way of going about addressing them. We need to vilify the attitude, NOT the people who possess the attitude. Is that necessarily an easy thing to do? Of course not, but in my opinion it would help quite a lot because it would mean these people would be more open about how they feel and thus open to change. Right now they won't change because they won't admit how they really feel.


Fass is antagonistic, yes, but the people and things towards which he is hateful usually deserve it.

I disagree completely, but let's not go on about this...we're liable to start a flame session this way.

Regardless, though, my point wasn't about Fass... he was just a convenient example. It isn't just him, it's all the time you hear about how Blacks (and "self-hating whites") are engaging in "reverse racism", or how feminists just hate men, or how gays are trying to oppress straights and gain special privileges.

Those attitudes are a result of ignorance, on both sides.

Except the weapons aren't being pointed at them, the "weapons" are being pointed at the families of the slain veterans.
Apparently their altruism carries them far enough to express outrage in that case... but not when the victims are gay.
It hits home in this nation. Like it or not--and I don't like it in its current form--we revere our military. Should we? Certainly not, at least not with the way the military is now. If it was more like, say...as an example pulled from fiction...Starfleet from Star Trek, we might have an excuse, but right now all we do is glorify violence. Because we revere our military, it hits home. They are part of our "group" if you will, and my point was that when the "weapons" are pointed at OUR "group" is when we start to act.
]

I believe private or personal events on private property are protected as they can be covered under private property laws. If one trespasses on private property then they can be arrested.

Yeah, but this strikes me as an inappropriate standard.

If I protest the actions of a major corporation and I happen to be on their land (assuming I'm not seriously disrupting any of their economic activities), the fact that it's their private property doesn't really make my action any less legitimate... and if a funeral happens to take place on or near public property, I see no reason that our concern for personal space and privacy should be suspended solely for that reason.

\And the speed with which they move to insist that "Of course I'm not sexist/racist/homophobic! My best friend is female/black/gay!" only strengthens this interpretation.

I am not sure if that was meant to be a poke at me, but I suggest you search the myriad gay marriage threads for my consistent public viewpoint, if it is.

but I suggest you search the myriad gay marriage threads for my consistent public viewpoint, if it is.

While I have no way of being sure whether or not you are actually prejudiced, it's worth noting that supporting gay marriage hardly makes you immune.

I live in a liberal area... a very large proportion of the people I know who are prejudiced against gays nevertheless support gay marriage.

OK. I am plainly either talking complete bollocks, or using too many long words.

Bye-bye.

Ah, I get it. You like to deny apparent bigotry as some sort of coincidences. It's just a coincidence laws get changed when this affects non-fags and nothing happens for all the years they picket gay funerals. It's just a coincidence that the media storm takes equally as long to happen. Just a coincidence these bikers start caring only once it's non-faggots and their families affected. It's all just a series of randomness for you, isn't it? No, the proper way of stating is: it's just a long stretch of denial for you.

The proper way of stating is: it's a long stretch of tunnel vision for you.

Indeed. But I think part of the problem is our way of vilifying those who believe these sort of things, which is the wrong way of going about addressing them. We need to vilify the attitude, NOT the people who possess the attitude.

That's not possible. People who hold an attitude are necessarily connected with that attitude.

Right now they won't change because they won't admit how they really feel.

Yeah, but that's because they're too arrogant to recognize that they might harbor prejudiced views they recognize as wrong. The reason they aren't "open about it" (to themselves or others) is because they know it's wrong, and that's a good thing.

It's not because they're afraid of vilification... to the contrary, closet prejudiced people are vilified much more than honest prejudiced people who are willing to admit that their views are wrong and work on changing them.

Those attitudes are a result of ignorance, on both sides.

Please explain how feminists, advocates for Black equality, and advocates for LGBT equality are "ignorant" in ways that cause others to label them bigoted against men, whites, and straights.

That's not possible. People who hold an attitude are necessarily connected with that attitude.

Are they? Are they really? Or has that just been our perception?


Yeah, but that's because they're too arrogant to recognize that they might harbor prejudiced views they recognize as wrong. The reason they aren't "open about it" (to themselves or others) is because they know it's wrong, and that's a good thing.

It's not because they're afraid of vilification... to the contrary, closet prejudiced people are vilified much more than honest prejudiced people who are willing to admit that their views are wrong and work on changing them.

I think that's part of the problem though. We need to stop vilifying the people and vilify the attitude alone and let them know we're willing to help them change their attitudes if they are. It will work, trust me. You don't calm someone who is enraged by backing them further into a corner. You calm them down by being open with them. Attacking the ignorant only strengthens their belief in whatever they are ignorant of. You attack the ignorance itself and give people a chance to change.

Am I saying everyone WILL change? Of course not, but this way more people will at least be WILLING to change because it won't be such a harm to their ego or what have you.

I know it's not easy. I have a hard time READING bigoted opinions, let alone hearing them. But it will work. It's not easy, but it will work.


Please explain how feminists, advocates for Black equality, and advocates for LGBT equality are "ignorant" in ways that cause others to label them bigoted against men, whites, and straights.
I was actually referring to the ones who really do show those bigoted behaviors, using terms like "breeders" and so on. My apologies if that wasn't clear enough. I certainly wasn't calling myself ignorant.

The proper way of stating is: it's a long stretch of tunnel vision for you.

I am loving the hypocritical irony for you of that statement. *savours for a moment* But, sure honey, sure. It's all just a big coincidence and I'm just a faggot imagining all those rock-solid temporal causalities and these bikers and politicians and reporters were just busy with other things and who would have guessed all their schedules would present openings for action just as Phelps aimed the darling soldiers? Well, you wouldn't have guessed, at least, and that's all that matters, I suppose.

While I have no way of being sure whether or not you are actually prejudiced, it's worth noting that supporting gay marriage hardly makes you immune.

I live in a liberal area... a very large proportion of the people I know who are prejudiced against gays nevertheless support gay marriage.

I live in New York City. I teach, do business with, and am friends with a variety of people, some of whom happen to be just about any ethnic, socio-economic or gender variant you can think of, and all of whom would be laughing hysterically at the implication of me being prejudiced.

But then, there are those who refuse to believe that NYC is not Missouri, and Missouri is not North Dakota, and that different cities within those states are not the same as other cities within those same states and that different individual citizens may believe differently than other different individual citizens, and apparently that some people's views should not be taken at face value and others should be searched for a subcontext that isn't there.

OK. I am plainly either talking complete bollocks, or using too many long words.

I'd opine the former.

*kisses her hand and swats her own seat with it.*

Agence France-Presse | November 02, 2007

Armed with signs shouting "thank God for dead soldiers," a radical anti-gay US church plans to resume its controversial funeral protests Friday despite being ordered to pay $11 million to the family of a fallen Soldier offended by their hateful songs and slogans.

Kansas-based Westboro Baptist Church hailed the jury verdict as yet another opportunity to spread its message that God is punishing the United States for its tolerance of homosexuality.

"We will continue to warn you of your impending doom as long as our God gives us breath," church leaders said in a press release lined with biblical references and pictures of the signs its members flaunt at funerals.

"Not only did you fail to stop our preaching, but our message has gone to the entire world."

The fringe group of fire and brimstone Baptists from Topeka, Kansas has been courting controversy for more than 17 years.

The church first gained national notoriety when they picketed the funeral of Matthew Shepard, a Wyoming student who was murdered in 1998 for being gay.

They have since picketed the funerals of Frank Sinatra and Bill Clinton's mother, celebrated the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks as an act of God's wrath, and have even targeted Santa Claus and the Ku Klux Klan.

Funded in part by lawsuits against those who try to block the protests and violate a constitutional right to free speech, the church members travel the country on a near-daily basis and have held an estimated 30,000 pickets.

Their funeral protests are laced with anti-gay slurs.

At one protest attended by AFP five women sang and danced as they held up signs saying "God hates fags," "fag vets" and "America is doomed." The group also has a wide repertoire of songs like "This Land is Fag Land" and "God Hates America."

The group's presence at the funerals of dozens of troops across the country has sparked a grassroots movement of bikers determined to drown out the jeers and taunts.

While Westboro's congregation remains stable at around 70 to 100 people -- most of whom are the extended family of founder Fred Phelps -- the ranks of the Patriot Guard Riders has swelled to more than 117,000 in the past two years.

If the Westboro protestors show up as planned at the funerals of Sergeant Scott Turner in Norton, Kansas and Staff Sergeant Larry Rougle in West Jordan, Utah on Friday, their signs will be masked by an honor guard of flag-waving bikers.

But the father of a Soldier awarded $10.9 million dollars after his son Matthew's funeral was picketed last year hopes the verdict he has won will block the protest completely.

"I basically want to shut them down," said Albert Snyder. "I don't expect to collect 10 million dollars, but I do intend to collect everything they have."

Westboro insists it will win the case on appeal, but Snyder's lawyer said they have a good chance of proving that the constitutional right to free speech has limits.

"The reality is that the First Amendment has survived 200 years without anyone protesting funerals, and I think it's safe to say that if this group is shut down and cannot protest funerals, the First Amendment will survive another 200 years," said Sean Summers, Snyder's attorney.


What do you think?

I think, if God really is punishing us, it's because we pay attention to idiots like the members of the Westboro Baptist Church. I hope every one of them has a loud, proud gay child.

I think this is just annoying people to get their ire. Believe me, i've seen it.

Are they? Are they really? Or has that just been our perception?

To call a view stupid is to say that people who hold it are manifesting stupidity.

Of course, a person can act stupid sometimes while still being intelligent... but this intelligence will be despite that stupidity, not irrelevantly of it.

The same goes for calling views immoral or disgusting.

I think that's part of the problem though. We need to stop vilifying the people and vilify the attitude alone and let them know we're willing to help them change their attitudes if they are.

We do... but this tends to make them defensive, not open.

I think this is just annoying people to get their ire. Believe me, i’ve seen it.
Seen what?

I hope every one of them has a loud, proud gay child.

I don't.

I hope all the gay (and bisexual and transgendered) children are born to decent, liberal, accepting parents... so that they don't have to endure being hated and mistreated by the people they should be able to trust and rely on most.

What I hope happens to the members of Westboro Baptist Church probably shouldn't be expressed.

To call a view stupid is to say that people who hold it are manifesting stupidity.

Of course, a person can act stupid sometimes while still being intelligent... but this intelligence will be despite that stupidity, not irrelevantly of it.

The same goes for calling views immoral or disgusting.

Oh, I see what you mean. Fair enough.


We do... but this tends to make them defensive, not open.
Then obviously we're doing something wrong.

I don't.

I hope all the gay (and bisexual and transgendered) children are born to decent, liberal, accepting parents... so that they don't have to endure being hated and mistreated by the people they should be able to trust and rely on most.

What I hope happens to the members of Westboro Baptist Church probably shouldn't be expressed.

Sorry. I wasn't thinking of the effect on the kids. I was thinking of my gay brother who loves to tweak hyper-pseudo-Christian fools

Then obviously we're doing something wrong.

There is no "right" way.

People don't like hearing that they're wrong and should improve. That's the way of the world. If you want to challenge their prejudice you're going to incite their defensiveness.

I'm glad he won. They want to be picket and be a bunch of jerks, fine but not at a funeral! A funeral should be a private place for family and friends not for radical weirdos with too much time on their hands.

I am a christian who goes to church almost every week; but I think they are very wrong, I would even go as far as saying that they are not true christians; christians are meant to be compassionate and loving, these people are not. Unlike a lot of christians I think that everyone is equal in God's eyes, no matter what race, sexuality etc, and I'm sure alot of christians will agree with me. I watched a programme on BBC2 and these people were on it and I was truly disgusted. I live in the UK and here we don't really have these weird churches. I am a christian in the church of england.

There is no "right" way.

People don't like hearing that they're wrong and should improve. That's the way of the world. If you want to challenge their prejudice you're going to incite their defensiveness.
To a point, yes, but it needs to be JUST ENOUGH to get them to think. I personally think we usually push it too far and only strengthen the thoughts.

"If the Westboro protestors show up as planned at the funerals of Sergeant Scott Turner in Norton, Kansas and Staff Sergeant Larry Rougle in West Jordan, Utah on Friday, their signs will be masked by an honor guard of flag-waving bikers."

Where were they for all the years the Phelpses were doing this to gay people? Where was this outrage and indignation and distancing? Their families didn't need help? *pfft*

I agree completely. While it's nice that the Phelps are finally getting what they deserve, it would've been even nicer to see this sort of outrage when it was happening to the families of gay people that had to endure this ridiculous clan of inbred idiots.

I am loving the hypocritical irony for you of that statement. *savours for a moment* But, sure honey, sure. It's all just a big coincidence and I'm just a faggot imagining all those rock-solid temporal causalities and these bikers and politicians and reporters were just busy with other things and who would have guessed all their schedules would present openings for action just as Phelps aimed the darling soldiers? Well, you wouldn't have guessed, at least, and that's all that matters, I suppose.

Please, keep it coming, it's all very amusing.

Please, keep it coming, it's all very amusing.

Yup, I do laugh at you, that's true.

how?
How can you give an Eulogy when people are screaming "YOU ARE GOING TO HELL" in the background?

I'm still suprised some insane Vet hasn't opened up on their church with automatic rifle fire.

I agree completely. While it's nice that the Phelps are finally getting what they deserve, it would've been even nicer to see this sort of outrage when it was happening to the families of gay people that had to endure this ridiculous clan of inbred idiots.

I agree, but better late than never.

Punishing the Westboro Batshits for their actions is one piece of business. Addressing why the bikers never stood up for gays is a separate piece of business. I've decided to praise the bikers for what they are doing more than criticize them for what they have not done -- at least for now.

Look at it this way: Bikers don't like gays, either, but they do like dead soldiers, so the Westboro Batshits shot themselves in the foot by seeking to use a group bikers like as a weapon against a group bikers don't care about. Enjoy the spectacle of Fred Phelps's self-destruction through stupidity.

I am a radical supporter of free speech, but it cuts both ways. The right to speak is not the right to be listened to, nor the right to avoid negative reactions to what one says. The government may have no right to drown out the Phelps's rants, but other private citizens do, so Phelps and his zooful of nuts can suck it up and learn to cope with the inevitable results of their own actions.

Also, I am sick and tired of people conflating action with speech. What Phelps does is tantamount to harrassment of individuals (the grieving families). That does not qualify as protected speech. So that's another thing Fred Phelps can suck on.

i bet they won't pay a dime on appeal.

You may be right.

Award over funeral protest may not stand (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-protests2nov02,1,1442204.story?track=rss&ctrack=1&cset=true)

I'm going to picket biker's funerals for their non-support of gay funerals. My funeral will take place shortly thereafter. It will be black tie, picketing optional.

You may be right.

Award over funeral protest may not stand (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-protests2nov02,1,1442204.story?track=rss&ctrack=1&cset=true)

Please Register or Log In
The story you requested is available only to registered members.
:(

The best way to deal with these people seems like live ammo...

I am a big supporter of free speech. I also know that supporting liberties only for those who are on your side isn't support of free speech, it's just called "agreement."

However, there are limits on free speech that apply to all of us. You cannot scream "fire" in a crowded theater. You cannot stand before an assembled crowd and intentionally direct them to murder someone in their midst.

You also cannot make terroristic threats.

Fred Phelps and his followers routinely make open declarations that their identified leader is going to attack and torture other citizens. They openly state that other individuals will be sent to a torture dimension (Hell) where they will be brutalized for all eternity. The Phelps cult use the threat of this torture as a weapon to terrorize countless citizens.

If I repeatedly threaten another person by telling them that my boss is going to burn them alive, I have commited a crime. Even if it turns out that my boss wasn't actually going to burn them alive. Even if it turns out that I'm just a raving nutter who doesn't even have a boss at all. It's still a crime.

I don't see why the situation should be treated differently if the boss I invoke is named "God."

And, of course, even if the Phelps cult's behavior is not criminal, that still doesn't preclude law suits. Having freedom of speech doesn't mean that you can say anything you want without any consequences at all.

Yup, I do laugh at you, that's true.

And I pity you.

:(

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-protests2nov02,1,1442204.story?track=rss&ctrack=1&cset=true

I am 100% against everything they protest about. I am a bisexual atheist and a pacifist. On the other hand, I think that they have the right to say whatever they want and that anyone who argues against this doesn’t agree with free speech.
This is so tricky because it is so offensive to every sane human being, but I think that all of those sane human beings would also agree that they have the right to spread their disgusting propaganda all they want, just as we have the right to ignore it.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-protests2nov02,1,1442204.story?track=rss&ctrack=1&cset=true

Still wonky.

The story you requested is available only to registered members.

Mind you, it would be easy to register, but...

There does seem to be a legal case, indicating that they're going beyond free speech. With that said I, too, did notice how suddenly the majority of people only became up in arms about this when the WBC started picketing soldiers' funerals.

And I pity you.

Pity? I bear anything like that coming from a USA inhabitant as a badge, as it's just in the vein of ignorance I've come to expect from such. :)

Still wonky.



Mind you, it would be easy to register, but...

Try it this way: I googled to here: http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2007/11/award-over-funeral-protest-may-not.html

Once I clicked the link to the article from the blog, it went right through.

(I don't like registering either.)

This isn't anything to do with free speech. This is direct harrassment. If they were doing it on the other side of town then it would be a free speech issue.

Pity? I bear anything like that coming from a USA inhabitant as a badge, as it's just in the vein of ignorance I've come to expect from such. :)

Well, considering the bigotry and hatred you spew, I'm not surprised at your absolute rejection of reality and replacement of your own.

Sad.

Well, considering the bigotry and hatred you spew,

I only return in kind, oh, mistress holier than thou-"I can't be a bigot, uppity faggot, I'm a New Yorker!"

I'm not surprised at your absolute rejection of reality and replacement of your own.

Sad.

Do shed more of those crocodile tears for me, as I know how much you like to do so to convince your own gallery with such plays.

Well the main issue here is:

Is the right to mourn in peace a real right?

If it is, then the "your freedoms stop where other peoples freedoms begins" principle applies here, if it isn't then I don't give a fuck, deport them anyway. :p

I only return in kind, oh, mistress holier than thou-"I can't be a bigot, uppity faggot, I'm a New Yorker!"



Do shed more of those crocodile tears for me, as I know how much you like to do so to convince your own gallery with such plays.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v260/Katganistan/anditsplayingjustforyou.jpg

I thought it was you who liked to play to your sycophants. Oh, sorry, reality again.

I thought it was you who liked to play to your sycophants. Oh, sorry, reality again.

*licks those tears off your face* Mmm, bitter. And I didn't say your gallery had other people apart from you in it...

Compelling question. It would spark a bigger debate out of me if they weren't such total d*cks. I mean protesting soldiers funerals! I try to stay out of gay people affairs but when someone is killed becuase there gay that is wrong. PLain and simple and picketing his funeral is horrible.

*licks those tears off your face* Mmm, bitter. And I didn't say your gallery had other people apart from you in it...

Apparently you mistake tears of hilarity at you for bitterness. Oh! reality again.

Really, sweetie, you should have that checked.

Has the land of liberal sexuality stopped deporting LGBT asylum-seekers back to Iran and certain death yet?

This isn't anything to do with free speech. This is direct harrassment. If they were doing it on the other side of town then it would be a free speech issue.

Good explination. Its also right to privacy. Your sons funeral should be private! I mean you might see a few of his army buddys you haven't met but other than that it should really be private.

Yeah I mean the funeral is done in a church which is private property, right?

Apparently you mistake tears of hilarity at you for bitterness. Oh! reality again.

I've already told you that your bitterness is hilarious and risible, yes. Thank you for repeating it.

Has the land of liberal sexuality stopped deporting LGBT asylum-seekers back to Iran and certain death yet?

Actually it has, but don't you worry your little mind about that, seeing as your country just kills people directly. By the droves. All the time. With a little torture for good measure. So you see, we're still better than you, even though that's not much of an accomplishment for us. :)

"My country is better than yours." What a oh-so liberal thing to say.

Yeah I mean the funeral is done in a church which is private property, right?

Well I believe the idiots in question are out protesting on the "public" street.

Kat vs. Fass, Kat vs. Fass, a long held grudge comes to a head, see the match of the century, get your tickets here, tickets here!

Kat vs. Fass, Kat vs. Fass, a long held grudge comes to a head, see the match of the century, get your tickets here, tickets here!

Not much of a contest really. My money is on the New Yorker.

Not much of a contest really. My money is on the New Yorker.

Fair enough, I'm taking bets. ;)

Fair enough, I'm taking bets. ;)

But who is going to judge who the winner is?

But who is going to judge who the winner is?

...Uh, A poll?

*cheers for Brooklyn*

...Uh, A poll?

Hmm well, that may not be a great idea considering:

1) All the brown nosing the mods get and

2) The large number of people Fass has pissed off previously

But the fight seems to be over now, too bad I guess.

Hmm well, that may not be a great idea considering:

1) All the brown nosing the mods get and

2) The large number of people Fass has pissed off previously

But the fight seems to be over now, too bad I guess.

Perhaps a trick poll, wit trick option?

Hmm well, that may not be a great idea considering:

1) All the brown nosing the mods get and

2) The large number of people Fass has pissed off previously

But the fight seems to be over now, too bad I guess.

Well, criterion b was whoever gets the other to change sexual orientation first.

Hmm well, that may not be a great idea considering:

1) All the brown nosing the mods get and

2) The large number of people Fass has pissed off previously

But the fight seems to be over now, too bad I guess.

I think people can see past the fact that Kat is a mod. Plus polls are secret ballots in a sense. As far as Fass pissing people off well that is a dis-advantage for him but as the saying goes "you made your bed, now lay in it."

"My country is better than yours." What a oh-so liberal thing to say.

Well of course. And it's all good, because he's Swedish.

Well of course. And it's all good, because he's Swedish.

Naturally, since that makes it true. :)

Try it this way: I googled to here: http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2007/11/award-over-funeral-protest-may-not.html

Once I clicked the link to the article from the blog, it went right through.

(I don't like registering either.)
Thanks for the effort, it's working now :)

:fluffle:

*Flees*

Naturally, since that makes it true. :)

51% of GDP as Government Spending? No thanks, not my idea of the "best" country.

Hmmm....go slow....go slow....that reminds me of something, what could it be...


Oh, right! Let Nina (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckarOiWLLtY) tell you.

Kat vs. Fass, Kat vs. Fass, a long held grudge comes to a head, see the match of the century, get your tickets here, tickets here!

And just over here, completely for free: Don King vs. a surprisingly well-armed nameless hobo.

regarding this baptist church preacher.
Some 300 years ago a Frenchman called Voltaire said on the freedom of speech.

"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it. "

And that is all I have to say.

If i understand correctly, theres already a law about minimum distance, so all we have to do is change the law to make the distance a bit bigger. I think 20.000 miles is a nice distance, Fred and his cronies can then take their idiotic signs and their obnoxious attitude and picket a funeral in whereverville, USA from the beaches of Bora Bora.

Failing that, Fred should be convicted to 1 kick in the nuts by every single relative of a soldier who died since the start of WW2.

Failing that, Fred should be convicted to 1 kick in the nuts by every single relative of a soldier who died since the start of WW2.

As well as by every single relative of Matthew Shepard and other gays murdered in hate crimes, right?

Oh, right! Let Nina (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckarOiWLLtY) tell you.

Amazing!

regarding this baptist church preacher.
Some 300 years ago a Frenchman called Voltaire said on the freedom of speech.

"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it. "

And that is all I have to say.

NOW you're listening to the French?

Regardless, free speech doesn't give one the right to use speech as a weapon.

Regardless, free speech doesn't give one the right to use speech as a weapon.
To a certain extent, yes it does.

As well as by every single relative of Matthew Shepard and other gays murdered in hate crimes, right?

Or we should organise pickets of their own funerals by Neo-Pagan's and the like chanting about Odin's anger etc..

This is racism hidden behind religious preaching. It is abusing the freedom of speech and should be banned.

Or we should organise pickets of their own funerals by Neo-Pagan's and the like chanting about Odin's anger etc..

Good luck finding such an intollerant neo-Pagan.

To a certain extent, yes it does.

Not to THAT extent.

Good luck finding such an intollerant neo-Pagan.

Oh, I'm not so sure that it would be so hard to find some with senses of humor and an appreciation for irony.


Seriously though, how is it NOT harassment for Phelps and co. to picket funerals? I mean, I would think that they would have been busted for harassment the first time they did it almost ten years ago.

I'm normally against church burnings, but his is one that should be razed to the ground. If god exists, I hope it turns out that god is a lesbian, just to totally fuck him over in the afterlife. That would be awesome, angry lesbian god vs. helpless little bigoted Phelps.

That asshole deserves a firm kick to the groin from every single person affected by the disruption of every funeral he and his incestuous little "church" have ever protested.

Oh, I'm not so sure that it would be so hard to find some with senses of humor and an appreciation for irony.

Mmm, some chaotes, maybe?

Mmm, some chaotes, maybe?

I'm thinking that a wide variety of pagans would love to give the Westboro Baptist Church a hard time. Followers of Asatru, Wiccans, Celtic Revivalists, etc.

Pretty much as long as they have a sense of humor and like the irony. Now, all we need to do is get the word out and wait for someone in the Westboro Baptist Church to croak ;)

I'm thinking that a wide variety of pagans would love to give the Westboro Baptist Church a hard time. Followers of Asatru, Wiccans, Celtic Revivalists, etc.

Pretty much as long as they have a sense of humor and like the irony. Now, all we need to do is get the word out and wait for someone in the Westboro Baptist Church to croak ;)

I said Chaotes because they'd be likely to use even pop culture icons... Think about it:

"Magneto hates WBC"

or

"Thanks Tymora for Fred Phelps' death"

regarding this baptist church preacher.
Some 300 years ago a Frenchman called Voltaire said on the freedom of speech.

"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it. "

And that is all I have to say.



So true, with out free speech there is no free speech.

As well as by every single relative of Matthew Shepard and other gays murdered in hate crimes, right?

Oops, they can cut ahead in the looooooong line ;)

Good luck finding such an intollerant neo-Pagan.

Bwahahaah man there are loads of them, you can't go to a moot or meeting without the Asatru pissing off the fluffy Wiccan's and the Thelemamites hyping up their supposed superiority!

Bwahahaah man there are loads of them, you can't go to a moot or meeting without the Asatru pissing off the fluffy Wiccan's and the Thelemamites hyping up their supposed superiority!

Wow. In here we're quite more tolerant.

Oops, they can cut ahead in the looooooong line ;)

;)

regarding this baptist church preacher.
Some 300 years ago a Frenchman called Voltaire said on the freedom of speech.

"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it. "

And that is all I have to say.
NOW you're listening to the French?

Regardless, free speech doesn't give one the right to use speech as a weapon.

You missed the point there.

"Defend to the death" ... Voltaire was quite prepared to suffer death at the hands of another's speech.

Or perhaps it was just bravado. That fella could talk the legs off ... er, something with lots of sturdy legs. Woohoo, that fella was some yakker.

Bone him up on some modern English, give him a megaphone. Phelps would call a taxi home and never be seen in public again.

Good luck finding such an intollerant neo-Pagan.

You might enjoy this, I just found it today and by some synchronicity you start babbling about pagans:

Seapagan.org Map of Intolerance. (http://seapagan.org/pagan-hierarchy/pagan-hierarchy.gif)

Wow. In here we're quite more tolerant.

I guess we are lucky here then huh! Or may not. It is quite funny though, this idea that the many and diverse beliefs and practices of the neo-pagan, should be considered somehow free from the infighting and lack of respect that plagues any other group of people.

Free Speech is free speech. Period. As long as such speech doesn't directly endanger others, the Government must not become involved.

Having said that, Phelps and his ilk are, IMHO, analogous to Al-Qaeda in terms of religious zealotry giving others a bad name. What they do is not Christlike, and not the sort of thing Jesus taught His followers to do. People who are at a funeral for a lost loved one aren't going to suddenly come running out to Phelps asking to be baptized because this protest has shown them the light.

But that's irrelevant too. The question is, should they be allowed to get away with this?

I think in a case as extreme as this, a certain amount of vigilante-ism might be in order. I don't want the Government involved because I don't want to set a precedent where the Government gets into the business of blocking free speech, but at the same time I would be prepared to look the other way if, on the morning of the protest, the Westboro people found that they couldn't get out of their compound because all the air in their tires had been mysteriously let out, or if a large truck just happened to break down in traffic right in front of their little convoy. If the cemetary is privately owned, perhaps they shouldn't give permission to the protesters to come onto the property during the service (As I would hope is already the case.)

My point is, we shouldn't rely on the Government to fix this. Doing so would violate the Bill of Rights anyway. Instead, I suggest a more creative approach that sends the right message in a nonviolent way.

When it comes to free speech, I tend to err on the side of freedom, personally. Way I see it, just because some clown is flapping his lips doesn't mean I have to pay attention. And if he becomes too obnoxious, there a whole range of options with which to deal with him...

It's like the country song says 'Boy, the 1st Amendment protects you from the government, not from me. You keep on going, I'm going to exercise my right to give you a good old-fashioned country ass-whoopin'.'

And just over here, completely for free: Don King vs. a surprisingly well-armed nameless hobo.


Hobo with a shotgun?!?! :eek:

http://www.cbc.ca/gfx/images/arts/photos/2007/04/04/hobo-shotgun-promo.jpg

Free Speech is free speech. Period. As long as such speech doesn't directly endanger others, the Government must not become involved.

Having said that, Phelps and his ilk are, IMHO, analogous to Al-Qaeda in terms of religious zealotry giving others a bad name. What they do is not Christlike, and not the sort of thing Jesus taught His followers to do. People who are at a funeral for a lost loved one aren't going to suddenly come running out to Phelps asking to be baptized because this protest has shown them the light.

But that's irrelevant too. The question is, should they be allowed to get away with this?

I think in a case as extreme as this, a certain amount of vigilante-ism might be in order. I don't want the Government involved because I don't want to set a precedent where the Government gets into the business of blocking free speech, but at the same time I would be prepared to look the other way if, on the morning of the protest, the Westboro people found that they couldn't get out of their compound because all the air in their tires had been mysteriously let out, or if a large truck just happened to break down in traffic right in front of their little convoy. If the cemetary is privately owned, perhaps they shouldn't give permission to the protesters to come onto the property during the service (As I would hope is already the case.)

My point is, we shouldn't rely on the Government to fix this. Doing so would violate the Bill of Rights anyway. Instead, I suggest a more creative approach that sends the right message in a nonviolent way.Hooray for sabotage!

Free Speech is free speech. Period. As long as such speech doesn't directly endanger others, the Government must not become involved.

Having said that, Phelps and his ilk are, IMHO, analogous to Al-Qaeda in terms of religious zealotry giving others a bad name. What they do is not Christlike, and not the sort of thing Jesus taught His followers to do. People who are at a funeral for a lost loved one aren't going to suddenly come running out to Phelps asking to be baptized because this protest has shown them the light.

But that's irrelevant too. The question is, should they be allowed to get away with this?

I think in a case as extreme as this, a certain amount of vigilante-ism might be in order. I don't want the Government involved because I don't want to set a precedent where the Government gets into the business of blocking free speech, but at the same time I would be prepared to look the other way if, on the morning of the protest, the Westboro people found that they couldn't get out of their compound because all the air in their tires had been mysteriously let out, or if a large truck just happened to break down in traffic right in front of their little convoy. If the cemetary is privately owned, perhaps they shouldn't give permission to the protesters to come onto the property during the service (As I would hope is already the case.)

My point is, we shouldn't rely on the Government to fix this. Doing so would violate the Bill of Rights anyway. Instead, I suggest a more creative approach that sends the right message in a nonviolent way.

Well, there is this trick, you see. It only works when you're drunk.

First, you drink several pints of beer. This is the key part.

You then stumble over to a desired vehicle(Usually this means *random* vehicle, but we can make an exception).

You open up their gas tank.

And you let slip the hounds of war, to put it poetically, into their gas tank.

Then, you return to the bar, and have another round.

They'd make it about 20 miles, at most, before the... additive... starts to screw over the engine.

*edit: This only for amusement purposes only. I do not condone the slipping of said hounds for the purposes of war, nor adding any "additive" to a gas tank.

Personally, when it comes to free speech, I prefer to err on the side on letting people run their mouths how they please. Just because some assclown is flapping his lips doesn't mean I have to pay attention. Plus, if he gets too obnoxious, there's a whole range of options available to me to deal with him...

It's like the country song says 'Boy, the 1st Amendment protects you from the government, it doesn't protect you from me. You keep running your mouth, I'm going to exercise my right to give you a good old-fashioned country ass-whoopin'.'

Originally Posted by Eurozonia
regarding this baptist church preacher.
Some 300 years ago a Frenchman called Voltaire said on the freedom of speech.

"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it. "

And that is all I have to say.
So true, with out free speech there is no free speech.

Free speech =/= free ride.

In the US, the First Amendment prohibits the government from abridging citizens' right to speak/publish their opinions. So the government should do nothing at all about the content of the WBC's speeches, publications, signs, protests, etc. If the government tried to silence Fred Phelps, I would oppose that.

However, the First Amendment says nothing at all about how private citizens might react to the content of someone's free speech. The First Amendment guarantees Phelps' right to say his shit -- or at least, his right to try to say it. It does not obligate me to listen to it, nor does it tell me I may not give back to Phelps just as much shit as he dishes out to me. Nor does it obligate me to allow Phelps to use my private tragedies for his self-aggrandizement.

Fred Phelps deliberately sets out to offend and upset people in order to gain media attention for himself. If some of those offended and upset people respond with lawyers or the media or other means to make Phelps stay the fuck away from them, that's the price Phelps must pay for his freedoms. If he has the right to try to offend me, I have an equal right to stop him offending me. I do not have to relinquish the peaceful enjoyment of my life, just so he can get a sound bite on television at my expense. If my reactions to Phelps' speech have the effect of temporarily silencing Phelps, then tough shit for him -- that's the way the game is played. If people's reactions to him someday have the effect of silencing him forever -- through a combination of hostility and ridicule -- well, then I guess we could say then that he lost the game, eh? He tried something on, and he failed. No great loss.

So this lawsuit is not an abridgement of the WBC's free speech. It is merely the inevitable and foreseeable outcome of Phelps' chosen actions.

As for legal action to prevent Phelps from actually disrupting funerals -- that is a matter of whether his actions constitute harrassment against individuals. The First Amendment protects speech and the press, not actions, so whether an action is functionally equivalent to protected speech or not must be decided case by case. Harrassment is not protected speech under any circumstances, so Phelps cannot claim that the First Amendment lets him do it.

I'm personally of the opinion that his actions are harrassment, but the legal standard varies from place to place.

You might enjoy this, I just found it today and by some synchronicity you start babbling about pagans:

Seapagan.org Map of Intolerance. (http://seapagan.org/pagan-hierarchy/pagan-hierarchy.gif)

Too hilarious. Bookmarked. :D

If the government tried to silence Fred Phelps, I would oppose that.

question - what happens when they don't pay the money?

question - what happens when they don't pay the money?

The same thing that happens any time someone doesn't pay a debt. Legal action can be taken to seize the money owed.

The same thing that happens any time someone doesn't pay a debt. Legal action can be taken to seize the money owed.

and the debt in this case was incurred through how?

and the debt in this case was incurred through how?

A civil lawsuit brought by an individual citizen.

Since my time is limited I'd like to say a few quick things.

Kat- I thought mods were supposed to act like grownups? My mistake if this is incorrect.


Yeah, Phelps can be an asshole on his own time, own place. And protesting at the funeral of a WBC member is just silly. They'd eat it up. They don't care what kind of publicity they get, as long as they get it.

A civil lawsuit brought by an individual citizen.

and can one meaningfully bring such a suit for any reason whatsoever?

and can one meaningfully bring such a suit for any reason whatsoever?

Depends on what you mean by "meaningful". You can certainly start a civil lawsuit for pretty much any reason whatsoever - as long as you pay the associated court fees, but you'll be much more likely to win with some grievances than others.

question - what happens when they don't pay the money?

The same thing that happens any time someone doesn't pay a debt. Legal action can be taken to seize the money owed.

and the debt in this case was incurred through how?

A civil lawsuit brought by an individual citizen.

and can one meaningfully bring such a suit for any reason whatsoever?

Depends on what you mean by "meaningful". You can certainly start a civil lawsuit for pretty much any reason whatsoever - as long as you pay the associated court fees, but you'll be much more likely to win with some grievances than others.
I quoted all of the above because Dem answered the questions, and I just want to add comments.

FS, the bottom line is this: Anyone can bring a civil suit against anyone for any reason. Whether they will prevail in court depends entirely on the merits of their complaint, as well as the skill of their attorney versus the other party's attorney.

A case has whatever merits a judge decides it has, according to the law. In this case, the judge decided that the plaintiff's complaint against Phelps had merit, and the decision was awarded to the plaintiff. In other words, the judge decided that what Phelps was doing was not speech protected in such a way that no one would have any grounds upon which to claim harm and seek redress. There is no point in anyone claiming free speech now, because a court of competent jurisdiction has already declared that this is not a free speech matter.

The debt Dem mentioned was created by the court's order for Phelps to pay the money to the plaintiff. If this case is like most civil cases, the judge's decision included an order for Phelps to pay the money within a certain amount of time. If it is like most cases, Phelps will not pay the money on time. He may appeal the decision, or he may have his attorney negotiate delays in payment (which can go on endlessly), or he may simply default on it. No matter what, the plaintiff got his decision, won his case, and is now pretty much on his own for actually getting his money. He may bring another complaint for non-payment of the debt, but that does not guarantee delivery of payment any more than the original decision does.

A case has whatever merits a judge decides it has, according to the law.

precisely.

If the government tried to silence Fred Phelps, I would oppose that.

now explain to me the distinction you are drawing such that both of the above statements can coherently stand together.

precisely.

now explain to me the distinction you are drawing such that both of the above statements can coherently stand together.

The government isn't doing anything actually. Civil suits are a bit different from creating a law prohibiting something.

It's not against the law to leave toys scattered about your home. But if a guest sues you after breaking his back due to accidental flight caused by errant skateboard, he could technically win.