NationStates Jolt Archive

Perhaps some of the most despicable speech imaginable is routinely carried out by the Westboro Baptist Church, particularly when it comes to picketing funerals. Nonetheless, there is a legitimate question whether laws seeking to prevent the WBC from protesting at funerals are reconcilable with freedom of speech.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit has recently granted Phelps-Roper an injunction against a Missouri law that was enacted to stop the WBC and makes it a crime to protest or picket one hour before or one hour after a funeral and “in front of or about a funeral,” and defines funeral as “the ceremonies, processions and memorial services held in connection with the burial or cremation of the dead.” See, e.g., 12-page pdf (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/8th/071295p.pdf). The Eighth Circuit did not fully decide the case on the merits, but rather held that Phelps-Roper was entitled to an injuction because she was likely to succeed on the merits and met the other factors for an preliminary injunctions. In finding in favor of Phelps-Roper, the court wrote, “we find she will suffer irreparable injury if the preliminary injunction is not issued. The injunction will not cause substantial harm to others, and the public is served by the preservation of constitutional rights.”

On the other hand, the U.S. Court of Appeals for 6th Circuit recently ruled that a similar Ohio statute (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. Sec. 3767.30, a statute banning demonstrations within 300 feet of a funeral service or burial ceremony, from one hour before the ceremony to one hour afterwards) does not violate the First Amendment free speech rights of the members of Rev. Fred Phelps’s Kansas-based Westboro Baptist Church, who wish to conduct demonstrations during funerals of U.S. service members killed in Iraq. See, e.g., 14-page pdf (http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/08a0312p-06.pdf).

The Sixth Circuit found that the picketing ban was content-neutral, because it banned all picketing or demonstrations, regardless of their point of view. Under established First Amendment precedents, the state may impose "time, place and manner" restrictions on speech if the restrictions are content-neutral, and such restrictions are evaluated for their reasonableness. Such restrictions are upheld if they serve a significant governmental interest, are narrowly tailored to avoid going beyond what is necessary to serve that interest, and leave open "ample channels of communication" for the speaker’s message.

In this case, the Sixth Circuit found that the government has a significant interest in protecting funeral attendants from being subjected to unwanted political speech during an emotionally trying time. The court found that by adopting a reasonably specific buffer zone and keeping it in effect only from an hour before to an hour after a funeral, the state had met the narrow tailoring requirement. Because the Phelpses could picket from beyond 300 feet during a funeral, with no statutory restriction on the use of sound equipment, and because they did not have to observe any buffer zones outside of the specified time period, the court found that they had ample opportunity to disseminate their message, taking into account as well that they maintain a website with their message that receives many hits.

Personally, I have mixed feelings about these decisions. The Phelps push the envelope of free speech and picketing funerals is outrageous. On the other hand, the public sidewalks and other public areas around funerals are public forums in which speech should not be discriminated against because we disapprove of the message. Whether a law specifically enacted to stop the WBC is truly content-neutral is a difficult question.

I know few if any of you will be interested in reading the 6th Circuit and 8th Circuit opinions, but what thoughts, comments, etc. do you have anyway?

EDIT: Here are some short articles regarding the cases (one of which I used in creating the above): link (http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/gen/33239prs20071206.html), link (http://newyorklawschool.typepad.com/leonardlink/2008/08/phelps-challeng.html), link (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4181/is_20081103/ai_n30968474)

They should be charged with public nuisance laws.

Even though I find the Phelps action horrible and henious, and I believe that they will have to answer to god when they die for their actions. I don't think their 1st amendment rights should be restricted or curtailed. Just because we don't like what they're saying, doesn't give us the right to deny them the right to say it.

The moment we start picking and choosing what people should say and shouldn't say, we already lost the battle for freedom of speech, and we've started down the slippery slope.

Even though I find the Phelps action horrible and henious, and I believe that they will have to answer to god when they die for their actions. I don't think their 1st amendment rights should be restricted or curtailed. Just because we don't like what they're saying, doesn't give us the right to deny them the right to say it.

The moment we start picking and choosing what people should say and shouldn't say, we already lost the battle for freedom of speech, and we've started down the slippery slope.

By the same token, the moment we start using 'god will sort them out' as an arbiter of justice, our legal system becomes a parody.

They should be charged with public nuisance laws.

That seems to be the most apt answer to the malevolence of Phelps and the WBC.

By the same token, the moment we start using 'god will sort them out' as an arbiter of justice, our legal system becomes a parody.

Congratulations, you just won the "Most random thing ever said" award today.

What annoys me the second-most is that if they had their way, the WBC would not hesitate to control the speech of everyone else.

What annoys me the most is that there are apparently laws against expressing my opinion of them with flying dung. :(

Send them to Iran.

Send them to Iran.

and then bomb Iran?

FWIW, here is some of the relevant reasoning of the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals:

Peaceful picketing is an expressive activity protected by the First Amendment.
Olmer v. Lincoln, 192 F.3d 1176, 1179 (8th Cir. 1999). It is well-settled law that a
"loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably
constitutes irreparable injury." Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 373 (1976) (plurality).
If Phelps-Roper can establish a sufficient likelihood of success on the merits of her
First Amendment claim, she will also have established irreparable harm as the result
of the deprivation. See Marcus v. Iowa Pub. Television, 97 F.3d 1137, 1140-41 (8th
Cir. 1996); Kirkeby, 52 F.3d at 775. Likewise, the determination of where the public
interest lies also is dependent on the determination of the likelihood of success on the
merits of the First Amendment challenge because it is always in the public interest to
protect constitutional rights. Connection Distrib. Co. v. Reno, 154 F.3d 281, 288 (6th
Cir. 1998) (quotation omitted); Kirkeby, 52 F.3d at 775 (citing Frisby v. Schultz, 487
U.S. 474, 479 (1988)). The balance of equities, too, generally favors the
constitutionally-protected freedom of expression. In a First Amendment case,
therefore, the likelihood of success on the merits is often the determining factor in
whether a preliminary injunction should issue. McQueary v. Stumbo, 453 F. Supp.2d
975, 979 (E.D. Ky. 2006) (granting preliminary injunction to WBC precluding
enforcement of Kentucky statute imposing time, place and manner restrictions on
gatherings near funerals) (citing Connection Distrib. Co., 154 F.3d at 288).

...

When analyzing the merits of Phelps-Roper's claim, the district court correctly
concluded the statute's speech restrictions are content-neutral and subjected the statute
to intermediate judicial scrutiny. See Turner Broad. Sys., Inc. v. FCC, 512 U.S. 622,
642, 653 (1994). We reject Phelps-Roper's contention that section 578.501 is content-based
because it targets funeral picketing and was enacted for the purpose of silencing
her speech in particular. The plain meaning of the text controls, and the legislature's
specific motivation for passing a law is not relevant, so long as the provision is neutral
on its face. City of L.A. v. Alameda Books, Inc., 535 U.S. 425, 448 (2002) (Kennedy,
J., concurring) (stating "whether a statute is content neutral or content based is
something that can be determined on the face of it . . . ."); Hill v. Colorado, 530 U.S.
703, 724-25 (2000) (stating "the contention that a statute is 'viewpoint based' simply
because its enactment was motivated by the conduct of the partisans on one side of a
debate is without support" and finding a statute content-neutral despite being enacted
to end harassment outside clinics by abortion opponents); Frisby, 487 U.S. at 482
(1988) (finding statute content-neutral despite being enacted in response to antiabortion
protesters).

Section 578.501 regulates traditional public fora. A traditional public forum is
one traditionally used as a forum for expression, such as a public street or a sidewalk.
Boos v. Barry, 485 U.S. 312, 318 (1988); Olmer, 192 F.3d at 1179. While we
recognize a cemetery is a nonpublic forum,4 section 578.501 restricts expressive
activity not just within or on the premises of a cemetery or a church, but also on
traditional public fora such as the adjacent public streets and sidewalks. The statute
must therefore satisfy the standard of review for traditional public fora.

A content-neutral time, place and manner regulation may be imposed in a public
forum if it: (1) serves a significant government interest; (2) is narrowly tailored; and
(3) leaves open ample alternative channels of communication. Ward v. Rock Against
Racism, 491 U.S. 781, 791 (1989); Veneklase v. City of Fargo, 248 F.3d 738, 744 (8th
Cir. 2001) (en banc) (upholding the constitutionality of a Fargo ordinance prohibiting
the targeted picketing of a residence as a content neutral time, place and manner
restriction).

We note our own opinion in Olmer v. Lincoln, 192 F.3d 1176, 1178 (8th Cir.
1999), which affirmed a preliminary injunction enjoining the enforcement of an
ordinance that "restrict[ed] to certain areas the 'focused picketing' of churches and
other religious premises thirty minutes before, during, and thirty minutes after any
scheduled religious activity" because it violated the First Amendment. In Olmer, we
held the government has no compelling interest in protecting an individual from
unwanted speech outside of the residential context. Id. at 1182 (refusing to allow
other locations, even churches, to claim the same level of constitutionally protected
privacy afforded to the home by Frisby). We stated:
As the Supreme Court said in Frisby, 'the home is different,' and, in our
view, unique. Allowing other locations, even churches, to claim the
same level of constitutionally protected privacy would, we think, permit
government to prohibit too much speech and other communication. We
recognize that lines have to be drawn, and we choose to draw the line in
such a way as to give the maximum possible protection to speech, which
is protected by the express words of the Constitution.
Id. (citation omitted). Because of our holding in Olmer, we conclude Phelps-Roper
is likely to prove any interest the state has in protecting funeral mourners from
unwanted speech is outweighed by the First Amendment right to free speech.

...Section 578.501, by contrast, defines a "funeral" to
include "processions" held in connection with burial and cremation.5 Mo. Rev. Stat.
§ 578.501(3). Its "floating" buffer-zones, therefore, provide citizens with no
guidance as to what locations will be protest and picket-free zones and at what times. ...

In addition, Section 578.501 does not limit itself to activity that targets,
disrupts, or is otherwise related to the funeral, memorial service or procession. See
Olmer, 192 F.3d at 1180 (finding an ordinance overbroad because it "purports to make
the carrying of signs at the indicated times and places unlawful, no matter what the
signs say or depict, and this prohibition is much broader than necessary. . . . [T]he
ordinance bans certain forms of communication even if all of those to whom it is
directed in fact wish to hear it."). While the Sixth Circuit concluded a similar
ordinance was limited to activity that was directed at a funeral or burial service, the
statute involved in that case defined "other protest activities" to include "any action
that is disruptive or undertaken to disrupt or disturb a funeral or burial service."
Phelps-Roper, 539 F.3d at 368 (emphasis added). Because the Missouri statute does
not contain any such provisions, Phelps-Roper is likely to prove the statute does not
limit its coverage to activity that targets or disrupts a funeral or burial service.
We conclude there is enough likelihood Phelps-Roper will be able to prove
section 578.501 is not narrowly tailored or is facially overbroad to the point she is
likely to prevail on the merits of her claim.

and then bomb Iran?

Iran would bomb itself. ;)

Just as you can't shout "FIRE!" in a crowded theater, IIRC the first amendment doesn't cover inciting hatred. And seeing as Fred Phelps is fundamentally unable to speak publically without inciting hatred...

They should be charged with public nuisance laws.

That seems to be the most apt answer to the malevolence of Phelps and the WBC.

What law exactly would you charge them with violating and how do they violate it?

Assuming they arguably constitute a public nuisance, how does this avoid the free speech issue?

Just as you can't shout "FIRE!" in a crowded theater, IIRC the first amendment doesn't cover inciting hatred. And seeing as Fred Phelps is fundamentally unable to speak publically without inciting hatred...

*sigh* I am going to hate myself after this but...

Where in the 1st amendment does it say that it doesn't cover hate speech?

Iran would bomb itself. ;)

Everyone wins! Well...except for the Iranians.....

*sigh* I am going to hate myself after this but...

Where in the 1st amendment does it say that it doesn't cover hate speech?
They used a white font. You have to highlight it. :tongue:

Even though I find the Phelps action horrible and henious, and I believe that they will have to answer to god when they die for their actions. I don't think their 1st amendment rights should be restricted or curtailed. Just because we don't like what they're saying, doesn't give us the right to deny them the right to say it.

The moment we start picking and choosing what people should say and shouldn't say, we already lost the battle for freedom of speech, and we've started down the slippery slope.

Agreed. That's not to say they can't be caught violating other laws. Like trespassing, if they were stupid enough to take their protest onto private property.

What law exactly would you charge them with violating and how do they violate it?


Can't you just be charged with being a public nuisance, in and of itself?


Assuming they arguably constitute a public nuisance, how does this avoid the free speech issue?

Because, theoretically it could be content neutral, since shouting aggressively and obnoxiously, outside a funeral in a large group, should be banned whatever the message was.

Congratulations, you just won the "Most random thing ever said" award today.

Not really. If you're using (as you appear to be) the fact that 'god will judge them' to mitigate what should and shouldn't be allowed here and now, then it's a mockery.

Just as you can't shout "FIRE!" in a crowded theater, IIRC the first amendment doesn't cover inciting hatred. And seeing as Fred Phelps is fundamentally unable to speak publically without inciting hatred...

Define "inciting hatred". Depending on who you ask, "inciting hatred" could cover quite a few things you might not expect. Different things inspire hate in different people. You need to be less vauge in your definitions if you are going to restrict a fundimental right like freedom of speech.

Not really. If you're using (as you appear to be) the fact that 'god will judge them' to mitigate what should and shouldn't be allowed here and now, then it's a mockery.

I wasn't advocating killing them, I was just simply saying that when they die (whether it's be by natural cause or otherwise) they will have to answer for their life here on earth.

Define "inciting hatred".

If Fred Phelps says it, it's inciting hatred.

I wasn't advocating killing them, I was just simply saying that when they die (whether it's be by natural cause or otherwise) they will have to answer for their life here on earth.

Unless God does not exist.

If the Phelpses are such a disturbance, the government ought to do what the government does best: compartmentalize. Create a new class, which, subject to some appearance of due process of course, singles out groups like the Phelpses for some or other deprivation of rights. Olmer v. Lincoln wouldn't apply, just as it doesn't apply to groups classed as 'criminal street gangs' in California. The Phelpses, then, could be barred from congregating on public property. If I remember right (or rather, if I'm up-to-date on the topic), Chicago v. Morales found anti-congregation clauses in public order laws unconstitutionally *vague* rather than simply unconstitutional. You'd have to shine it up really nice, but you could sell it.

I wasn't advocating killing them, I was just simply saying that when they die (whether it's be by natural cause or otherwise) they will have to answer for their life here on earth.

Which is a pretty pathetic way of meting out justice, no?

Which is a pretty pathetic way of meting out justice, no?

You can't criminalize them for being hatred, closed minded idiots. The same way you can't criminalize Communist for standing on the street corner saying that capitalism will be brought down in the new Communism Revolution and passing out poorly xeroxed pamphlets.

Damn you people for making me defend the Phelps right to free speeech....

If Fred Phelps says it, it's inciting hatred.

By who's standards, yours?

According to that logic, we should also let other criminals run free. Let God take care of it in the afterlife. Somehow I think that isn't the most sound solution for this dilemma.

According to that logic, we should also let other criminals run free. Let God take care of it in the afterlife. Somehow I think that isn't the most sound solution for this dilemma.

Ok, once again name one criminal act that Phelps has done beside inciting Hatred.

Damn you people....Damn you all....

Perhaps some of the most despicable speech imaginable is routinely carried out by the Westboro Baptist Church, particularly when it comes to picketing funerals. Nonetheless, there is a legitimate question whether laws seeking to prevent the WBC from protesting at funerals are reconcilable with freedom of speech.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit has recently granted Phelps-Roper an injunction against a Missouri law that was enacted to stop the WBC and makes it a crime to protest or picket one hour before or one hour after a funeral and “in front of or about a funeral,” and defines funeral as “the ceremonies, processions and memorial services held in connection with the burial or cremation of the dead.” See, e.g., 12-page pdf (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/8th/071295p.pdf). The Eighth Circuit did not fully decide the case on the merits, but rather held that Phelps-Roper was entitled to an injuction because she was likely to succeed on the merits and met the other factors for an preliminary injunctions. In finding in favor of Phelps-Roper, the court wrote, “we find she will suffer irreparable injury if the preliminary injunction is not issued. The injunction will not cause substantial harm to others, and the public is served by the preservation of constitutional rights.”

On the other hand, the U.S. Court of Appeals for 6th Circuit recently ruled that a similar Ohio statute (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. Sec. 3767.30, a statute banning demonstrations within 300 feet of a funeral service or burial ceremony, from one hour before the ceremony to one hour afterwards) does not violate the First Amendment free speech rights of the members of Rev. Fred Phelps’s Kansas-based Westboro Baptist Church, who wish to conduct demonstrations during funerals of U.S. service members killed in Iraq. See, e.g., 14-page pdf (http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/08a0312p-06.pdf).

The Sixth Circuit found that the picketing ban was content-neutral, because it banned all picketing or demonstrations, regardless of their point of view. Under established First Amendment precedents, the state may impose "time, place and manner" restrictions on speech if the restrictions are content-neutral, and such restrictions are evaluated for their reasonableness. Such restrictions are upheld if they serve a significant governmental interest, are narrowly tailored to avoid going beyond what is necessary to serve that interest, and leave open "ample channels of communication" for the speaker’s message.

In this case, the Sixth Circuit found that the government has a significant interest in protecting funeral attendants from being subjected to unwanted political speech during an emotionally trying time. The court found that by adopting a reasonably specific buffer zone and keeping it in effect only from an hour before to an hour after a funeral, the state had met the narrow tailoring requirement. Because the Phelpses could picket from beyond 300 feet during a funeral, with no statutory restriction on the use of sound equipment, and because they did not have to observe any buffer zones outside of the specified time period, the court found that they had ample opportunity to disseminate their message, taking into account as well that they maintain a website with their message that receives many hits.

Personally, I have mixed feelings about these decisions. The Phelps push the envelope of free speech and picketing funerals is outrageous. On the other hand, the public sidewalks and other public areas around funerals are public forums in which speech should not be discriminated against because we disapprove of the message. Whether a law specifically enacted to stop the WBC is truly content-neutral is a difficult question.

I know few if any of you will be interested in reading the 6th Circuit and 8th Circuit opinions, but what thoughts, comments, etc. do you have anyway?

EDIT: Here are some short articles regarding the cases (one of which I used in creating the above): link (http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/gen/33239prs20071206.html), link (http://newyorklawschool.typepad.com/leonardlink/2008/08/phelps-challeng.html), link (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4181/is_20081103/ai_n30968474)

Well, I have an story about the WBC that really pissed me off.

I live in Nebraska. Most of you have probably heard about us recently for splitting the electoral vote for the first time in over a century and for our now fixed safe haven law.

We used to be known for something a little more different: Football, of the American variety.

Yes, the University of Nebraska Cornhuskers dominated the 90s under former coach, former House of Representatives member, and current University of Nebraska athletic director Tom Osborne. In fact, from the 1994 to 1997 season, Nebraska had a 60-2 record and 3 national championships. We were the best of the best.

Then, Osborne retired. His successor, Frank Solich, did alright as coach, but it wasn't good enough. So he got canned and Bill Callahan was hired.

Then everything went down the proverbial shitter.

2005 was the first time in over 30 years Nebraska didn't make a bowl game. They didn't make a bowl game in 2007, either. So Callahan was fired and current coach Bo Pelini was hired.

Currently, the Huskers are 7-4 under Pelini. Not amazing, but definitely a sign of improvement.

Now, I love the Huskers, absolutely love them. I am a die-hard fan. However, I had never been to a Husker home game. These home games are incredible: Nearly 300 consecutive sellouts (That goes back to the 1960s). Its loud, and the fans are incredible, they have been called the best in college football by Lee Corso.

So, my parents got tickets for the Nebraska vs. Kansas game. It turned out to be a great game, with Nebraska winning 45-35.

On the way into the stadium though, prior to the game, I was walking on the bridge across the train tracks, and what do I see?

The Westboro Baptist "Church" (I don't consider them a church. God loves everyone.) protesting.

I quickly surmised why they were there: the university was honoring U.S. veterans that day since Veterans' Day was the upcoming Tuesday.

When I saw the WBC spewing their hate, I grew pissed, but, I knew that yelling at them would only give them attention, so I spat at them.

I felt bad for the police officers who had to stand still in the freezing cold to protect them. You could tell they would rather let the crowd beat up the morons.

Fred Phelps, God loves everyone, including homosexuals. I even believe he still loves you. But I hope you just somehow see the darkness of your hatred and truly follow Christ's teachings.

the westboro baptist church is a force for GOOD in this country.

no other group succeeds like they do in bringing together disparate groups, even groups that would never otherwise associate with each other, all in order to protest the westboro baptist church.

i suspect that it even gets those who tend to agree with the WBC to rethink their position on the basis that if those horrible people believe it it has a good chance of being wrong

as long as the funerals are not actively disrupted they should be allowed to protest.

Can't you just be charged with being a public nuisance, in and of itself?

I think you can where you are. Over here, you have to be a threat to public safety in some way to be charged with criminal nuisance. Usually. I think. :tongue:

You can't criminalize them for being hatred, closed minded idiots. The same way you can't criminalize Communist for standing on the street corner saying that capitalism will be brought down in the new Communism Revolution and passing out poorly xeroxed pamphlets.

Damn you people for making me defend the Phelps right to free speeech....

My problem isn't that they are a bunch of tools. It's the fact that they incite hate, and claim that they are doing so for some higher purpose... and that they abuse the laws that allow 'free speech' to do so.

The idea that their 'god' (who - let's face it, may or may not be real) is going to be pissed about it, is kind of irrelevent - and doesn't change what they are doing here and now. And it's the 'here and now' that I care about.

I wonder if public opinion would oppose just quietly executing the lot of them.

My problem isn't that they are a bunch of tools. It's the fact that they incite hate, and claim that they are doing so for some higher purpose... and that they abuse the laws that allow 'free speech' to do so.

The idea that their 'god' (who - let's face it, may or may not be real) is going to be pissed about it, is kind of irrelevent - and doesn't change what they are doing here and now. And it's the 'here and now' that I care about.

I wonder if public opinion would oppose just quietly executing the lot of them.

Well, unbrainwash the kids first if you were to execute the adults. The kids are the only members I actually do not vehemently dislike, its not their fault they believe Phelps' crap.


Oh, funny thing, I saw this thread's title and thought it was talking about Michael Phelps, who freaking rules.

Congratulations, you just won the "Most random thing ever said" award today.

Coming from you, Willy, that leaps right over "ironic" and dives headlong into "are you fucking kidding me?"

Define "inciting hatred". Depending on who you ask, "inciting hatred" could cover quite a few things you might not expect. Different things inspire hate in different people. You need to be less vauge in your definitions if you are going to restrict a fundimental right like freedom of speech.

What about incitement to riot? A funeral is, by definition, an emotionally charged event. Picketing a funeral with messages SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED to irritate and provoke could well be seen as incitement to riot given the nature of the event and the nature of the picketers' message. Any reasonable person could be expected to react violently to the WBC message in a time of emotional crisis.

Granted, I say this without any First Amendment law experience, but it's what I might try to argue had I a case to make.

Additionally, I'm very certain that I would gladly take whatever punishment was meted out to me by the laws of the land for re-arranging the bridge-work of any WBC shithead picketing a funeral of anyone I know. I am not a violent person by any means, but having seen the WBC up close (they sent a delegation to picket my university's presentation of The Laramie Project back in 2002), my blood boiled with uncommon vigor. I don't care if it feeds their martyr complex. I doubt that would be much of a salve for the WBC fool on the receiving end of 25 years of self-restraint unleashed into the face of one of these incomparable asshats.

I'm not proud of expressing that kind of senseless vitriol, but I can't suppress it in this case.

My problem isn't that they are a bunch of tools. It's the fact that they incite hate, and claim that they are doing so for some higher purpose... and that they abuse the laws that allow 'free speech' to do so.

The idea that their 'god' (who - let's face it, may or may not be real) is going to be pissed about it, is kind of irrelevent - and doesn't change what they are doing here and now. And it's the 'here and now' that I care about.

Yeah, but really, what can you do? Other then violate the first amendment, of course.

I wonder if public opinion would oppose just quietly executing the lot of them.
Please say that was a joke...

the westboro baptist church is a force for GOOD in this country.

no other group succeeds like they do in bringing together disparate groups, even groups that would never otherwise associate with each other, all in order to protest the westboro baptist church.

i suspect that it even gets those who tend to agree with the WBC to rethink their position on the basis that if those horrible people believe it it has a good chance of being wrong

as long as the funerals are not actively disrupted they should be allowed to protest.

You actually raise a good point, which connects to a reason why I don't think we should censor hate speech in general.

If we had banned the WBC, they might have been made into martyrs for their free speech. They also would have been driven underground, to spread their poison in secret. This way, they can be publicly ridiculed and denounced. Every time they speak, they unite more people against them and cast a negative light on the ideologies they hold.

The best thing we can do is give these fools more rope to hang themselves with. Let them speak.

Well, unbrainwash the kids first if you were to execute the adults. The kids are the only members I actually do not vehemently dislike, its not their fault they believe Phelps' crap.


I agree. The kids are victims.

I'm not sure it should be considered a bad thing for the rest, though. The WBC clearly place the laws of the Kingdom of Heaven (as they see it) over the laws of the United States. Executing them would be... deportation.

Yeah, but really, what can you do? Other then violate the first amendment, of course.


I think 'free speech' is open to interpretation, don't you?

Personally, I have no problem with people protesting, but I think there's a point where it's not just protesting anymore. I think WBC crossed that line a while back.

What about incitement to riot? A funeral is, by definition, an emotionally charged event. Picketing a funeral with messages SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED to irritate and provoke could well be seen as incitement to riot given the nature of the event and the nature of the picketers' message. Any reasonable person could be expected to react violently to the WBC message in a time of emotional crisis.

Has their ever been a riot incited by their actions? Besides, just the possibility of inciting a riot is not a good reason to ban something. On those grounds, we would probably have to ban sports, politics, and religion. This changes, of course, if it is clear that the intent is to start violence.

Additionally, I'm very certain that I would gladly take whatever punishment was meted out to me by the laws of the land for re-arranging the bridge-work of any WBC shithead picketing a funeral of anyone I know. I am not a violent person by any means, but having seen the WBC up close (they sent a delegation to picket my university's presentation of The Laramie Project back in 2002), my blood boiled with uncommon vigor. I don't care if it feeds their martyr complex. I doubt that would be much of a salve for the WBC fool on the receiving end of 25 years of self-restraint unleashed into the face of one of these incomparable asshats.

I'm not proud of expressing that kind of senseless vitriol, but I can't suppress it in this case.

Or you could end up generating sympathy for them.

Anyway, I think your treading close to encouraging violence yourself. A bit hypocritical, don't you think?

To paraphrase Napolean, I don't think we should interrupt them while they make fools of themselves.

Has their ever been a riot incited by their actions? Besides, just the possibility of inciting a riot is not a good reason to ban something. On those grounds, we would probably have to ban sports, politics, and religion. This changes, of course, if it is clear that the intent is to start violence.

So your answer to my thought is that a riot needs to be started in order to make my case? Fine by me.

Or you could end up generating sympathy for them.

Anyway, I think your treading close to encouraging violence yourself. A bit hypocritical, don't you think?

Y'know, I'm getting pretty tired of the glibness here. Did I not, in the very post you quoted, say that I might indeed make a martyr out of one of them? Did I not, by that statement, acknowledge that possibility? Did I also not say that I'm not violent but this particular crew of imbeciles makes an exception out of me? Wasn't the very point of saying that acknowledging my own hypocrisy? Jesus Tapdancing Christ, thanks for pointing out what I already typed.

Now, have you anything to add, or are you just going to repeat what I said again, again?

I agree. The kids are victims.

I'm not sure it should be considered a bad thing for the rest, though. The WBC clearly place the laws of the Kingdom of Heaven (as they see it) over the laws of the United States. Executing them would be... deportation.

Democracies don't kill people for having unpopular and offensive opinions, or for being public jackasses.

Besides, keeping freedom of speech is a safeguard against people like the WBC. Their may come a day when public opinion swings in favor of people like them (God I hope not), and then you'd be glad to have freedom of speech protected by law.

You can't criminalize them for being hatred, closed minded idiots.

Why not?

Edit: I'm aware that doing so would violate the "content-neutral" requirement for speech restrictions, under the current court interpretation of the First Amendment. Is that the entirety of your point, or are you making a broader argument about free speech as such?

The same way you can't criminalize Communist for standing on the street corner saying that capitalism will be brought down in the new Communism Revolution and passing out poorly xeroxed pamphlets.

That's not hate speech.

Democracies don't kill people for having unpopular and offensive opinions, or for being public jackasses.


Uh, Athens did, or rather they'd kick them out.

I wonder if public opinion would oppose just quietly executing the lot of them.

Now that's what we do with sick animals to end their suffering, but permanently removing this dark cult from the societal equation is not a viable option. If only we could crawl into the brains of certain WBC members and rewire their thought patterns, that way you could destroy the church from within!

Now that's what we do with sick animals to end their suffering, but permanently removing this dark cult from the societal equation is not a viable option. If only we could crawl into the brains of certain WBC members and rewire their thought patterns, that way you could destroy the church from within!

Basically, we need some kind of virus that makes people less "WBC-ish". *nods*

So your answer to my thought is that a riot needs to be started in order to make my case? Fine by me.

Actually I'm pretty sure that's a straw man. Seeing as you ignored most of my point. You know, about how mearly the possibility that something will start a riot is not a good reason to ban it anyways? Instead you took one small portion of my argument, and misrepresented it as the whole. Yup, sounds like a straw man.

And by the way, you never answered my question.

Y'know, I'm getting pretty tired of the glibness here. Did I not, in the very post you quoted, say that I might indeed make a martyr out of one of them? Did I not, by that statement, acknowledge that possibility? Did I also not say that I'm not violent but this particular crew of imbeciles makes an exception out of me? Wasn't the very point of saying that acknowledging my own hypocrisy? Jesus Tapdancing Christ, thanks for pointing out what I already typed.

No, you said you might feed their martyr complex, which is not nessissarily the same as acknowledging the risk that you might make them martyrs in the eyes of society.

At any rate, while it wasn't clear to me that you were acknowledging your hypocrisy, being aware of it and saying it anyway seems even worse to me.

Now, have you anything to add, or are you just going to repeat what I said again, again?

I did. Your inability to recognize that or willingness to distort it is not my problem.

Uh, Athens did, or rather they'd kick them out.

I wouldn't really consider ancient Athens a democracy. Of course, I don't think their is such a thing as a true democracy even now, but I'm using the popular sense of the word. So maybe Athens would count.

Fred Phelps and his family(the ones who are in any position of influence in the WBC anyway) ought to be tied up, and thrown in a pit filled with burly gay men shot up with viagra and sex-starved for the last several weeks.

'Tis the only fitting punishment for their stupidity, and also has the added bonus of being somewhat poetic justice.

I wouldn't really consider ancient Athens a democracy. Of course, I don't think their is such a thing as a true democracy even now, but I'm using the popular sense of the word. So maybe Athens would count.

How in the hell-?

Athens is about the ONLY democracy humanity has ever had; Republics are NOT democracies.

Basically, we need some kind of virus that makes people less "WBC-ish". *nods*

There already is one. Contagious little bugger, too.

Education, I think they call it.

Unfortunately, I believe the WBC are immune.

Actually I'm pretty sure that's a straw man. Seeing as you ignored most of my point. You know, about how mearly the possibility that something will start a riot is not a good reason to ban it anyways? Instead you took one small portion of my argument, and misrepresented it as the whole. Yup, sounds like a straw man.

And by the way, you never answered my question.

Which question? "Has there even been a riot started?" I'll see your strawman and raise you a disingenuous question. You know the answer, and you're trying to smug me into answering it for you. Sorry.

No, you said you might feed their martyr complex, which is not nessissarily the same as acknowledging the risk that you might make them martyrs in the eyes of society.

That's different how?

At any rate, while it wasn't clear to me that you were acknowledging your hypocrisy, being aware of it and saying it anyway seems even worse to me.

Look, perhaps you've misinterpreted the tone of my original post. I was saying that even though I know it would feed the martyr complex so beloved of folks like the WBC, I would gladly go to jail to make one of them truly understand what it means to martyr oneself. After all, an act of martyrdom takes two. I have made it plain that it's irrational and that I don't care. I care even less about what you think it worse about it.

I did. Your inability to recognize that or willingness to distort it is not my problem.

No. Your inability to understand simple written English, however, is. You want so badly to put the bad, bad man in his place for thinking violent thoughts that you are utterly oblivious to the fact that I've stated that I'm not proud of the fact that I'd gladly perform a radical, blunt-trauma odontectomy on any WBC idiot dumb enough to picket a funeral of anyone I know. I just know I would do it. I'm not afraid that I'd do it, I KNOW I would. I would have to ask friends to lock arms with me and force me into the building and out of the sight and sound of the WBC clan to keep me from having my first-ever arrest.

I'm sorry if you can't understand this kind of visceral anger, and that your only response to it is glib, self-satisfied pronouncements from on high. I hope you never have to feel anger that strong -- that you never have to somehow channel away that kind of rising bile. I am thankful that this is the only issue that sets me off in such a manner.

Now how about you just acknowledge that not everyone is going to be Gandhi every day of his life and move on. You've literally got nothing constructive whatsoever to say to me, so I'm asking you to let it go.

Well, looking at the relevant part of the court decision, I would say they were fair with respect to 1st Amendment speech provisions, but I'm leery of their stepping on Assembly rights. I'm concerned about the serving of a significant government interest and other viable means of protest elements to their willingness to restrict, because it conceivably allows the government to cut off the best means of protest can be cut off.

No, you said you might feed their martyr complex, which is not nessissarily the same as acknowledging the risk that you might make them martyrs in the eyes of society.

Wrong spelling: nessissarily. Right spelling: necessarily. Now you know.

Basically, we need some kind of virus that makes people less "WBC-ish". *nods*

I was thinking more along the line of genetic modification. *nod*

Well, looking at the relevant part of the court decision, I would say they were fair with respect to 1st Amendment speech provisions, but I'm leery of their stepping on Assembly rights. I'm concerned about the serving of a significant government interest and other viable means of protest elements to their willingness to restrict, because it conceivably allows the government to cut off the best means of protest can be cut off.

It wouldn't take much, would it? We've already got "free speech zones" and the onerous permit process for public demonstrations. I can see how this ruling might lead to further restrictions on the right to peaceably assemble.

Who owns the cemetery or funeral home? Trespass laws could be used to prevent such actions on private property.

Who owns the cemetery or funeral home? Trespass laws could be used to prevent such actions on private property.

True, but how many such places are large enough that the exclusion of private property keeps the Phelpsian Horde from being seen or heard during the ceremony?

"Phelpsian Horde".... sounds like a good name for a black metal band.

Which question? "Has there even been a riot started?" I'll see your strawman and raise you a disingenuous question. You know the answer, and you're trying to smug me into answering it for you. Sorry.

Actually I don't. But if the answer is "no", or even "very few", I think its a fair point in arguing weather we should ban their speech due to the risk of rioting. Which was your original point I believe?

That's different how?

Must I actually explain this? Oh well.

They no doubt have their personal martyr complexes, and believe that they're defending God's word against the rest of the sinful society. They see themselves as martyrs. That is quite different from other members of society viewing them as martyrs. Its the latter, not he former that is my primary concern.

Look, perhaps you've misinterpreted the tone of my original post. I was saying that even though I know it would feed the martyr complex so beloved of folks like the WBC, I would gladly go to jail to make one of them truly understand what it means to martyr oneself. After all, an act of martyrdom takes two. I have made it plain that it's irrational and that I don't care. I care even less about what you think it worse about it.

No. Your inability to understand simple written English, however, is. You want so badly to put the bad, bad man in his place for thinking violent thoughts that you are utterly oblivious to the fact that I've stated that I'm not proud of the fact that I'd gladly perform a radical, blunt-trauma odontectomy on any WBC idiot dumb enough to picket a funeral of anyone I know. I just know I would do it. I'm not afraid that I'd do it, I KNOW I would. I would have to ask friends to lock arms with me and force me into the building and out of the sight and sound of the WBC clan to keep me from having my first-ever arrest.

I was at one point unsure of weather you in fact recognized your views as hypocritical. However, I am now aware of that fact (and have been since my last post), and also of your statements that you are not proud of these impulses and not a violent person in general. If I didn't make that clear before, I have now. I understand what you are saying.

No, I don't approve of your attitude. People should be able to control themselves. However, lack of approval is not the same as lack of comprehension.

I'm sorry if you can't understand this kind of visceral anger, and that your only response to it is glib, self-satisfied pronouncements from on high. I hope you never have to feel anger that strong -- that you never have to somehow channel away that kind of rising bile. I am thankful that this is the only issue that sets me off in such a manner.

I understand it. I simply don't approve of it.

Now how about you just acknowledge that not everyone is going to be Gandhi every day of his life and move on. You've literally got nothing constructive whatsoever to say to me, so I'm asking you to let it go.

Oh I acknowledge it. Nor do I expect everyone to be like Ghandi. Another straw man.

And actually I've got plenty to say. You've just been ignoring it. You never even attempted to answer why the possibility of riots should be grounds to ban something. Want to give it a try now?

Perhaps some of the most despicable speech imaginable is routinely carried out by the Westboro Baptist Church, particularly when it comes to picketing funerals. Nonetheless, there is a legitimate question whether laws seeking to prevent the WBC from protesting at funerals are reconcilable with freedom of speech.

Sure they are. There is no reason to allow free speech *everywhere*, as long as it is made possible to speak somewhere where people can listen. That does not mean you should be able to force people to listen, for instance by standing in a place where people are gathered to listen to someone else.

Of course, I personally would like to change free speech to "free speech as long as you can back it up".

Wrong spelling: nessissarily. Right spelling: necessarily. Now you know.

My spelling (while admittedly needing improvement) has no bearing on the validity of my arguments or lack their of, unless we're having a debate on weather I'm qualified to teach English.

Not sure if that's why you brought it up, so its nothing personal, but I've had incidents in the past where I suspect that people where drawing attention to my spelling as a way of attacking me in a debate. So I thought I'd clarify now that I will not overlook that particular dishonest tactic.

Actually I don't. But if the answer is "no", or even "very few", I think its a fair point in arguing weather we should ban their speech due to the risk of rioting. Which was your original point I believe?



Must I actually explain this? Oh well.

They no doubt have their personal martyr complexes, and believe that they're defending God's word against the rest of the sinful society. They see themselves as martyrs. That is quite different from other members of society viewing them as martyrs. Its the latter, not he former that is my primary concern.





I was at one point unsure of weather you in fact recognized your views as hypocritical. However, I am now aware of that fact (and have been since my last post), and also of your statements that you are not proud of these impulses and not a violent person in general. If I didn't make that clear before, I have now. I understand what you are saying.

No, I don't approve of your attitude. People should be able to control themselves. However, lack of approval is not the same as lack of comprehension.



I understand it. I simply don't approve of it.



Oh I acknowledge it. Nor do I expect everyone to be like Ghandi. Another straw man.

And actually I've got plenty to say. You've just been ignoring it. You never even attempted to answer why the possibility of riots should be grounds to ban something. Want to give it a try now?

You're not worth the effort if you can't understand what I was saying. Good day.

You're not worth the effort if you can't understand what I was saying. Good day.

I made it clear that I do understand what you are saying. I may have initially missunderstood for any number of common reasons (distraction, tiredness, simply not reading it carefully enough), but once you clarified your position in your next post I got it fine. I made that clear in my last response.

You, however, ignored that, and when challenged to actually refute my argument about weather the possibility of riots constitutes reasonable grounds for censoring something, you instead dismissed me by repeating a weak accusation to which I had already responded.

I'm sorry, but you don't get the luxury of retreating by simply saying that my arguments are not worth responding to. All that means is that you have not demonstrated yourself able to refute them. If you refuse to respond to my arguments with anything more than personal attacks and an insistence that you needn't bother, I will take that as an inability to refute them, in which case let the record show that Intangelon conceded this debate by running away like a coward with his fingers in his ears.

I made it clear that I do understand what you are saying. I may have initially missunderstood for any number of common reasons (distraction, tiredness, simply not reading it carefully enough), but once you clarified your position in your next post I got it fine. I made that clear in my last response.

You, however, ignored that, and when challenged to actually refute my argument about whether the possibility of riots constitutes reasonable grounds for censoring something, you instead dismissed me by repeating a weak accusation to which I had already responded.

I'm sorry, but you don't get the luxury of retreating by simply saying that my arguments are not worth responding to. All that means is that you have not demonstrated yourself able to refute them.

I answered your question before you asked it with my original point about riots being not even remotely about whether or not WBC SHOULD be brought up on incitement to riot, but whether that might even be possible given the circumstances.

I refuse to offer any more explanation than what I've already given. You have shown that there are many levels of "understanding". Someone puts out here that they'd suffer incarceration if given the chance to pummel someone more deserving of a pugilistic retort than most, and that they stand by that assertion, regardless of how it makes them look. There wasn't any point to debate about that. I was stating an opinion. Your approval or disapproval of how I feel about WBC means less than nothing to me.

If you refuse to respond to my arguments with anything more than personal attacks and an insistence that you needn't bother, I will take that as an inability to refute them, in which case let the record show that Intangelon conceded this debate by running away like a coward with his fingers in his ears.

If that's what you need to put a notch in your Internet debate belt and feel just that much better about yourself, you go right ahead. My decision to forgo a continuance of this little dance sits perfectly fine by me.

I think 'free speech' is open to interpretation, don't you?

Personally, I have no problem with people protesting, but I think there's a point where it's not just protesting anymore. I think WBC crossed that line a while back.
I think they crossed the line a while back too, but I also still think it's protected under the first amendment.

Can't you just be charged with being a public nuisance, in and of itself?

English law appears to include being a public nuisance as a common law criminal offense. Even in the UK, it is unclear to me whether you could apply this law to the activities of the WBC. It appears the trend is away from sweeping uses of an ill-defined concept to criminalize activity.

Regardless, in the U.S., crimes must be defined by statute. If you haven't broken a specific statute, then you haven't committed a crime.

Because, theoretically it could be content neutral, since shouting aggressively and obnoxiously, outside a funeral in a large group, should be banned whatever the message was.

Simply declaring certain activities "aggressive" and "obnoxious" and therefore criminal is rather contrary to the whole spirit (and the letter) of freedom of speech. Similarly the concepts of "large group" and "outside a funeral" are rather vague grounds to criminalize activity.

Having discussed the issue with you before, I really don't think you understand the concept of freedom of speech -- at least as it is enshrined in the U.S. Constitution.

Sure they are. There is no reason to allow free speech *everywhere*, as long as it is made possible to speak somewhere where people can listen. That does not mean you should be able to force people to listen, for instance by standing in a place where people are gathered to listen to someone else.

So someone can be forbidden from speaking in a public forum merely because other people might hear them without wanting to hear them? The government can pick and choose who gets to speak in a public place based on some notion of popularity?

Of course, I personally would like to change free speech to "free speech as long as you can back it up".

I'm afraid to ask what you mean by that.

I think they crossed the line a while back too, but I also still think it's protected under the first amendment.

Arguable. I don't know how it's seen by others, but I certainly don't hold the First Amendment to be an absolute yardstick. I'm pretty sure that the American justice system agrees with me. You have a right to free speech - within certain parameters of content, intent, and context, I think.

So - if you are exercising your 'right' in MY front room? Not protected. If you are exercising your 'right' in order to cause a riot? Not portected. If you are exercising your 'right' by telling deliberate and provable lies? Not protected.

That's how I see it.

I think that a lot of what the WBC does is designed to cause trouble... even if just to incite a violent reaction against themselves so they can play the martyr part. If they were on NSG, they'd be be being Touched by The Hand of Mod.

What about incitement to riot? A funeral is, by definition, an emotionally charged event. Picketing a funeral with messages SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED to irritate and provoke could well be seen as incitement to riot given the nature of the event and the nature of the picketers' message. Any reasonable person could be expected to react violently to the WBC message in a time of emotional crisis.

Granted, I say this without any First Amendment law experience, but it's what I might try to argue had I a case to make.

In Texas v. Johnson (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/491/397.html), 491 U.S. 397 (1989), the State of Texas made a similar argument in defense of its law against flag burning. SCOTUS rejected this argument:

The State's position, therefore, amounts to a claim that an audience that takes serious offense at particular expression is necessarily likely to disturb the peace and that the expression may be prohibited on this basis. Our precedents do not countenance such a presumption. On the contrary, they recognize that a principal "function of free speech under our system of government is to invite dispute. It may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger." Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1, 4 (1949). See also Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 536, 551 (1965); Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Dist. 393 U.S., at 508 -509; Coates v. Cincinnati, 402 U.S. 611, 615 (1971); Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46, 55 -56 (1988). It would be odd indeed to conclude both that "if it is the speaker's opinion that gives offense, that consequence is a reason for according it constitutional protection," FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S. 726, 745 (1978) (opinion of STEVENS, J.), and that the government may ban the expression of certain disagreeable ideas on the unsupported presumption that their very disagreeableness will provoke violence.

In addition to the language above, I believe in the wisdom of the following two quotes:

First, the persuasive wisdom of Oliver Wendell Holmes in his dissent in Abrams v. United States (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/250/616.html ), 250 US 616, 630 (1919):

Persecution for the expression of opinions seems to me perfectly logical. If you have no doubt of your premises or your power and want a certain result with all your heart you naturally express your wishes in law and sweep away all opposition. To allow opposition by speech seems to indicate that you think the speech impotent, as when a man says that he has squared the circle, or that you do not care whole heartedly for the result, or that you doubt either your power or your premises. But when men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to believe even more than they believe the very foundations of their own conduct that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas-that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out. That at any rate is the theory of our Constitution. It is an experiment, as all life is an experiment. Every year if not every day we have to wager our salvation upon some prophecy based upon imperfect knowledge. While that experiment is part of our system I think that we should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expression of opinions that we loathe and believe to be fraught with death, unless they so imminently threaten immediate interference with the lawful and pressing purposes of the law that an immediate check is required to save the country.

And Justice Brandeis, concurring in Whitney v. California (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=274&invol=357#377), 274 U.S. 357, 377 (1927)(emphasis added):

Fear of serious injury cannot alone justify suppression of free speech and assembly. Men feared witches and burnt women. It is the function of speech to free men from the bondage of irrational fears. To justify suppression of free speech there must be reasonable ground to fear that serious evil will result if free speech is practiced. There must be reasonable ground to believe that the danger apprehended is imminent. There must be reasonable ground to believe that the evil to be prevented is a serious one. Every denunciation of existing law tends in some measure to increase the probability that there will be violation of it. Condonation of a breach enhances the probability. Expressions of approval add to the probability. Propagation of the criminal state of mind by teaching syndicalism increases it. Advocacy of lawbreaking heightens it still further. But even advocacy of violation, however reprehensible morally, is not a justification for denying free speech where the advocacy falls short of incitement and there is nothing to indicate that the advocacy would be immediately acted on. The wide difference between advocacy and incitement, between preparation and attempt, between assembling and conspiracy, must be borne in mind. In order to support a finding of clear and present danger it must be shown either that immediate serious violence was to be expected or was advocated, or that the past conduct furnished reason to believe that such advocacy was then contemplated. Those who won our independence by revolution were not cowards. They did not fear political change. They did not exalt order at the cost of liberty. To courageous, self-reliant men, with confidence in the power of free and fearless reasoning applied through the processes of popular government, no danger flowing from speech can be deemed clear and present, unless the incidence of the evil apprehended is so imminent that it may befall before there is opportunity for full discussion. If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence. Only an emergency can justify repression. Such must be the rule if authority is to be reconciled with freedom. Such, in my opinion, is the command of the Constitution.


**I know, I know, I always use those quotes. So sue me. :p**

Also perhaps relevant is Terminiello v. Chicago (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=337&page=1), 337 U.S. 1 (1949) --a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that a "breach of peace" ordinance of the City of Chicago which banned speech which "stirs the public to anger, invites dispute, brings about a condition of unrest, or creates a disturbance" was unconstitutional under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

The Court explained:

The vitality of civil and political institutions in our society depends on free discussion. As Chief Justice Hughes wrote in De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U.S. 353, 365 , 260, it is only through free debate and free exchange of ideas that government remains responsive to the will of the people and peaceful change is effected. The right to speak freely and to promote diversity of ideas and programs is therefore one of the chief distinctions that sets us apart from totalitarian regimes.

Accordingly a function of free speech under our system of government is to invite dispute. It may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger. Speech is often provocative and challenging. It may strike at prejudices and preconceptions and have profound unsettling effects as it presses for acceptance of an idea. That is why freedom of speech, though not absolute, Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, supra, 315 U.S. at pages 571-572, 62 S.Ct. at page 769, is nevertheless protected against censorship or punishment, unless shown likely to produce a clear and present danger of a serious substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience, annoyance, or unrest. See Bridges v. California, 314 U.S. 252, 262 , 193, 159 A.L.R. 1346; Craig v. Harney, 331 U.S. 367, 373 , 1253. There is no room under our Constitution for a more restrictive view. For the alternative would lead to standardization of ideas either by legislatures, courts, or dominant political or community groups.

The ordinance as construed by the trial court seriously invaded this province. It permitted conviction of petitioner if his speech stirred people to anger, invited public dispute, or brought about a condition of unrest. A conviction resting on any of those grounds may not stand.

isnt it reasonable to have a rule that your protest not be allowed to disrupt MY event? isnt that how the protestors at the last few national political conventions were pushed out to some protest zone?

Simply declaring certain activities "aggressive" and "obnoxious" and therefore criminal is rather contrary to the whole spirit (and the letter) of freedom of speech.

Why, just because they also happen to be talking a load of nonsense? We're not actively trying to suppress their opinions here, just the way they express it.


Similarly the concepts of "large group" and "outside a funeral" are rather vague grounds to criminalize activity.


I didn't need to specific. I mean, they are quite clearly and non ambiguously being a nuisance, do you really want me to prove this? I'm sure it would be easy for the court to explain more specifically.


Having discussed the issue with you before, I really don't think you understand the concept of freedom of speech -- at least as it is enshrined in the U.S. Constitution.

What I do know is that the alleged absolutism and universalism of freedom of speech enshrined in the constitution is a subject that is debated by many, even lawyers.

Why, just because they also happen to be talking a load of nonsense? We're not actively trying to suppress their opinions here, just the way they express it.

I didn't need to specific. I mean, they are quite clearly and non ambiguously being a nuisance, do you really want me to prove this? I'm sure it would be easy for the court to explain more specifically.

What I do know is that the alleged absolutism and universalism of freedom of speech enshrined in the constitution is a subject that is debated by many, even lawyers.

Meh. I'm not talking about absolute or universal freedom of speech. Nor am I denying there is room to debate here -- the OP features federal appellate court decisions on both sides of this particular issue!

What I am saying is your casual suggestion that "they're a nuisance, lock 'em up" is not a very substantive or well-thought-out answer.

But feel free to be specific as what constitutes a public nuisance, how the WBC "are quite clearly and non-ambiguously being a nuisance," and how this avoids the question of freedom of speech.

But feel free to be specific as what constitutes a public nuisance

http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=nuisance

# S: (n) nuisance ((law) a broad legal concept including anything that disturbs the reasonable use of your property or endangers life and health or is offensive)
# S: (n) pain, pain in the neck, nuisance (a bothersome annoying person) "that kid is a terrible pain"

The WBC seem to be a nuisance both legally and plainly.


, how the WBC "are quite clearly and non-ambiguously being a nuisance,"

See above (although it really can't be that hard to imagine how you could describe them as a public nuisance), what they do is offensive because it causes great distress and discomfort of the individuals involved in the funeral, as well as insight high levels of tension and potential of rioting.


and how this avoids the question of freedom of speech.

And which question is this?

Edit: Also, I'm not saying they should be locked up.

http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=nuisance

# S: (n) nuisance ((law) a broad legal concept including anything that disturbs the reasonable use of your property or endangers life and health or is offensive)
# S: (n) pain, pain in the neck, nuisance (a bothersome annoying person) "that kid is a terrible pain"

The WBC seem to be a nuisance both legally and plainly.

See above (although it really can't be that hard to imagine how you could describe them as a public nuisance), what they do is offensive because it causes great distress and discomfort of the individuals involved in the funeral, as well as insight high levels of tension and potential of rioting.

And which question is this?

Edit: Also, I'm not saying they should be locked up.

Let's see, you are saying that anyone that does anything that someone else finds offensive or bothersome can be charged with a criminal offense and silenced and you don't see how that raises any freedom of speech question?

Then there is no point discussing the issue with you.

isnt it reasonable to have a rule that your protest not be allowed to disrupt MY event? isnt that how the protestors at the last few national political conventions were pushed out to some protest zone?
That's my thinking as well.

As much as we may detest them, the WBC have a right to speak their minds in public. However, other people also have a right to conduct their lawful business in public, too, including such things as practice their religion, as many funeral rites are considered to be religious practices. I fail to see why their right to free speech should be allowed to intefere so directly with my right to peaceful use and enjoyment of the public ways as well as my right to practice my religion in regards to my dead friends and relatives, especially if I and my family cannot in any way be said to be directly involved in whatever it is they are protesting -- because then they are not protesting against me, but rather just piggybacking on my life, without my permission, to pursue an agenda that has nothing to do with me.

I am against silencing the WBC, but I am in favor of the extension of "buffer zones" around cemeteries that restrict such things as protests to silent and undisruptive actions. The government is not and should not able to stop them expressing their views, but that does not mean they should have free reign to express those views however and wherever they like without any restriction whatsoever. The government may not obstruct them getting their message out, but I do not think the government is obligated to help them get it out to the detriment of other citizens' activities.

And away from cemeteries, well... everyone has the same right of free speech, so I say let the WBC express themselves freely, and let everyone else expressly themselves freely in response. And if it turns out that isn't fun for the WBC, tough shit.

Let's see, you are saying that anyone that does anything that someone else finds offensive or bothersome can be charged with a criminal offense and silenced and you don't see how that raises any freedom of speech question?

Then there is no point discussing the issue with you.

I think the problem is you tend to take what I say too literally (well, that's not really the word I'm looking for, can't think of the right word right now) and then make it sound as extreme as you can possibly make it. Obviously, as with any law, there will be thresholds and the law should only apply when the activity is being a nuisance to a very large scale causing very high amounts distress as with WBC. Anyway, there could be multiple questions raised regarding freedom of speech in relation to what I've said, what specifically is your problem?

Edit: Also, I never ever said they should be silenced (I would just want them removed form the immediate area). Thats another annoying thing, you constantly assume positions for me and then attack them, as if they were implicit in my actual position.

Dear Romulan Republic, THIS is a reasonable response to my earlier query about the POSSIBILITY of incitement to riot. You could learn a lot from C-T.

In Texas v. Johnson (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/491/397.html), 491 U.S. 397 (1989), the State of Texas made a similar argument in defense of its law against flag burning. SCOTUS rejected this argument:

The State's position, therefore, amounts to a claim that an audience that takes serious offense at particular expression is necessarily likely to disturb the peace and that the expression may be prohibited on this basis. Our precedents do not countenance such a presumption. On the contrary, they recognize that a principal "function of free speech under our system of government is to invite dispute. It may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger." Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1, 4 (1949). See also Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 536, 551 (1965); Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Dist. 393 U.S., at 508 -509; Coates v. Cincinnati, 402 U.S. 611, 615 (1971); Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46, 55 -56 (1988). It would be odd indeed to conclude both that "if it is the speaker's opinion that gives offense, that consequence is a reason for according it constitutional protection," FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S. 726, 745 (1978) (opinion of STEVENS, J.), and that the government may ban the expression of certain disagreeable ideas on the unsupported presumption that their very disagreeableness will provoke violence.

In addition to the language above, I believe in the wisdom of the following two quotes:

First, the persuasive wisdom of Oliver Wendell Holmes in his dissent in Abrams v. United States (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/250/616.html ), 250 US 616, 630 (1919):

Persecution for the expression of opinions seems to me perfectly logical. If you have no doubt of your premises or your power and want a certain result with all your heart you naturally express your wishes in law and sweep away all opposition. To allow opposition by speech seems to indicate that you think the speech impotent, as when a man says that he has squared the circle, or that you do not care whole heartedly for the result, or that you doubt either your power or your premises. But when men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to believe even more than they believe the very foundations of their own conduct that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas-that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out. That at any rate is the theory of our Constitution. It is an experiment, as all life is an experiment. Every year if not every day we have to wager our salvation upon some prophecy based upon imperfect knowledge. While that experiment is part of our system I think that we should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expression of opinions that we loathe and believe to be fraught with death, unless they so imminently threaten immediate interference with the lawful and pressing purposes of the law that an immediate check is required to save the country.

And Justice Brandeis, concurring in Whitney v. California (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=274&invol=357#377), 274 U.S. 357, 377 (1927)(emphasis added):

Fear of serious injury cannot alone justify suppression of free speech and assembly. Men feared witches and burnt women. It is the function of speech to free men from the bondage of irrational fears. To justify suppression of free speech there must be reasonable ground to fear that serious evil will result if free speech is practiced. There must be reasonable ground to believe that the danger apprehended is imminent. There must be reasonable ground to believe that the evil to be prevented is a serious one. Every denunciation of existing law tends in some measure to increase the probability that there will be violation of it. Condonation of a breach enhances the probability. Expressions of approval add to the probability. Propagation of the criminal state of mind by teaching syndicalism increases it. Advocacy of lawbreaking heightens it still further. But even advocacy of violation, however reprehensible morally, is not a justification for denying free speech where the advocacy falls short of incitement and there is nothing to indicate that the advocacy would be immediately acted on. The wide difference between advocacy and incitement, between preparation and attempt, between assembling and conspiracy, must be borne in mind. In order to support a finding of clear and present danger it must be shown either that immediate serious violence was to be expected or was advocated, or that the past conduct furnished reason to believe that such advocacy was then contemplated. Those who won our independence by revolution were not cowards. They did not fear political change. They did not exalt order at the cost of liberty. To courageous, self-reliant men, with confidence in the power of free and fearless reasoning applied through the processes of popular government, no danger flowing from speech can be deemed clear and present, unless the incidence of the evil apprehended is so imminent that it may befall before there is opportunity for full discussion. If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence. Only an emergency can justify repression. Such must be the rule if authority is to be reconciled with freedom. Such, in my opinion, is the command of the Constitution.


**I know, I know, I always use those quotes. So sue me. :p**

Also perhaps relevant is Terminiello v. Chicago (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=337&page=1), 337 U.S. 1 (1949) --a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that a "breach of peace" ordinance of the City of Chicago which banned speech which "stirs the public to anger, invites dispute, brings about a condition of unrest, or creates a disturbance" was unconstitutional under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

The Court explained:

The vitality of civil and political institutions in our society depends on free discussion. As Chief Justice Hughes wrote in De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U.S. 353, 365 , 260, it is only through free debate and free exchange of ideas that government remains responsive to the will of the people and peaceful change is effected. The right to speak freely and to promote diversity of ideas and programs is therefore one of the chief distinctions that sets us apart from totalitarian regimes.

Accordingly a function of free speech under our system of government is to invite dispute. It may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger. Speech is often provocative and challenging. It may strike at prejudices and preconceptions and have profound unsettling effects as it presses for acceptance of an idea. That is why freedom of speech, though not absolute, Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, supra, 315 U.S. at pages 571-572, 62 S.Ct. at page 769, is nevertheless protected against censorship or punishment, unless shown likely to produce a clear and present danger of a serious substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience, annoyance, or unrest. See Bridges v. California, 314 U.S. 252, 262 , 193, 159 A.L.R. 1346; Craig v. Harney, 331 U.S. 367, 373 , 1253. There is no room under our Constitution for a more restrictive view. For the alternative would lead to standardization of ideas either by legislatures, courts, or dominant political or community groups.

The ordinance as construed by the trial court seriously invaded this province. It permitted conviction of petitioner if his speech stirred people to anger, invited public dispute, or brought about a condition of unrest. A conviction resting on any of those grounds may not stand.

Thank you, good sir. As always, a font of information, whether supporting or damning my arguments. In this case, the latter, and I'm far better and more enlightened for the experience.

Uh, Athens did, or rather they'd kick them out.

They also thought that young men should give their older male mentors sexual favors.

Not a society I wish to emulate.

Oh, good news from my home town of Omaha.

Omaha World Herald:

Members of a Kansas church that protests at the funerals of slain service members fled the right-of-way near Omaha Central High School on Friday because police said they could not protect them from hundreds of student counterprotesters.

Students threw hamburgers and bottles of lemonade and milk at several members of the Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kan., students said after the protest. A video of the protest — recorded by 16-year-old student Mason Hartwell — showed one counterprotester on the ground, seated with his hands behind his back and flanked by two law enforcement officers.

Students chanted "Diversity," "Obama" and "Gay is OK." At one point, they broke into a chant of the Pledge of Allegiance, yelling, "Liberty and justice for all," according to the footage. After students dispersed, a flier remained on the ground reading "Zona libre de odio" — Spanish for "Hate-free zone."

Police said no one was injured and they made no arrests. However, a school resource officer at one point sprayed a chemical deterrent into the air.

Westboro protesters had demonstrated at two other locations in Omaha before heading to Central High. Six or seven were standing outside the school, near the corner of 20th and Dodge Streets, when school was dismissed at 2:50 p.m. and students began leaving.

Witnesses said the protesters held up signs that criticized homosexuality and characterized President-elect Barack Obama as the antichrist.

"Unfortunately, it got out of hand, with students throwing objects at the protesters and at police," Police Sgt. Cathy Martinec said as students walked off.

Police had arrived before the trouble began, but once the confrontation started, Martinec said she advised the church protesters that the situation had grown unsafe and that they should leave. They did.

Dodge Street was shut down about 3 p.m. as police calmed the disturbance. Students said they were expecting the demonstration: They found out online and through word of mouth.

Ari Brodkey, 16, held a sign reading "This Jew is not afraid of you." He called the demonstrators from the church "disgusting."

Counterprotesters included students from Omaha Central and Omaha North High Schools.

The church demonstrators "are wasting their time," said 16-year-old Patricia Gomez. "They're not gonna break us down."

KaTasha Cohen, 17, said church demonstrators would not change the way she thinks. She supports Obama.

Luanne Nelson, spokeswoman for the Omaha Public Schools, said no students were disciplined but that the school will review the situation on Monday.

"This hate group came to Central High at dismissal to provoke students," Nelson said. "The school's focus today was everyone's safety. . . . To some extent, we need to understand that these are young people, and we have to take into consideration this kind of extreme provocation."

Here's the link, but I warn you, the page comes up really slowly, because the Omaha World Herald doesn't know how to make an efficient web page, they just cram a chock full of shit like ads and links.

http://www.omaha.com/index.php?u_page=2798&u_sid=10494164

Oh, good news from my home town of Omaha.



Here's the link, but I warn you, the page comes up really slowly, because the Omaha World Herald doesn't know how to make an efficient web page, they just cram a chock full of shit like ads and links.

http://www.omaha.com/index.php?u_page=2798&u_sid=10494164
there must be times when this real life flamebaiting rises to the level of a crime. it doesnt seem right to be able to travel the country inciting violence against yourself.

im glad it turned out well but it could just as easily have ended up with some of those kids in jail.

there must be times when this real life flamebaiting rises to the level of a crime. it doesnt seem right to be able to travel the country inciting violence against yourself.

im glad it turned out well but it could just as easily have ended up with some of those kids in jail.

Yeah, I only wish I was there.

I still hate Omaha Central though. I played for Millard North's football team last year and we lost to them in the state championship.

Still, I'll be nice to them today.

What law exactly would you charge them with violating and how do they violate it?

Assuming they arguably constitute a public nuisance, how does this avoid the free speech issue?

Depends. If they use sound equipment, doesn't that cover excessive noise ordinances or represent disturbing the peace?

Depends. If they use sound equipment, doesn't that cover excessive noise ordinances or represent disturbing the peace?

When I saw the bastards protesting at the Nebraska v. Kansas football game, they didn't have any sound equipment.

They were just standing there with their signs of hate.

One was so dumb it was funny: It said "Gayhawk" (Kansas' mascot is the Jayhawk)

It's like something you would have heard from a drunk Nebraska student.

Perhaps some of the most despicable speech imaginable is routinely carried out by the Westboro Baptist Church, particularly when it comes to picketing funerals. Nonetheless, there is a legitimate question whether laws seeking to prevent the WBC from protesting at funerals are reconcilable with freedom of speech.

One could argue that their picketing funerals amounts to the equivalent of "fighting words" against the friends and family of the deceased. It has already been ruled IIRC that fighting words are not protected speech.

there must be times when this real life flamebaiting rises to the level of a crime. it doesnt seem right to be able to travel the country inciting violence against yourself.

im glad it turned out well but it could just as easily have ended up with some of those kids in jail.
Flamebaiting is a good word for what they do. They seem determined to disturb the peace -- I guess they think they can get away with it, if they make themselves the "victims."

Flamebaiting is a good word for what they do. They seem determined to disturb the peace -- I guess they think they can get away with it, if they make themselves the "victims."
it disturbs me that one of these days someone is going to kill one of this vile people. then he'll have to go to prison because they are free to agitate people until they respond with violence.

Its not so much that we should use law to attack or silence the WBC but rather, poke holes in laws to remove some of their rights for police protection. If the police weren't there during a protest and a riot started. Then not only would the WBC folks get the living hell beat out of them but they would also be prosecuted for inciting a riot. 2 birds with one stone.

Its not so much that we should use law to attack or silence the WBC but rather, poke holes in laws to remove some of their rights for police protection. If the police weren't there during a protest and a riot started. Then not only would the WBC folks get the living hell beat out of them but they would also be prosecuted for inciting a riot. 2 birds with one stone.

Ah, yes, but said two birds are also two wrongs, and two wrongs don't make a right.

I'm a Satanist. What the Hell do I care?

Turning the other cheek never solved anything. Well it gives you a sick pleasure if you're a masochist but that's beside the point. Right and wrong, morality, etc. Is purely subjective. I see absolutely nothing wrong with my proposition.

The same way you can't criminalize Communist for standing on the street corner saying that capitalism will be brought down in the new Communism Revolution and passing out poorly xeroxed pamphlets.That's not hate speech.
Many people very much would and do see it as such. Anarchists and the like, along with them.

It's interesting that many people started screaming Phelps and his people are repulsive and should be punished when they started their garbage at soldiers funerals.

I wonder if these people were offended when they did this garbage at funerals for homosexuals?

Phelps is repulsive. I detest the swine.

However, what is far more repulsive is defining acceptable speech.

To have freedom of speech means having to be offending.

I fear that day when I am not offended by something.

Jumping into the fray, I think I've got the appropriate statute.

Quoting from the WBC's home state "Crimes Against The Public Peace" code:
21-4101: Disorderly conduct. Disorderly conduct is, with knowledge or probable cause to believe that such acts will alarm, anger or disturb others or provoke an assault or other breach of the peace:

(a) Engaging in brawling or fighting; or

(b) Disturbing an assembly, meeting, or procession, not unlawful in its character; or

(c) Using offensive, obscene, or abusive language or engaging in noisy conduct tending reasonably to arouse alarm, anger or resentment in others.

History: L. 1969, ch. 180, § 21-4101; July 1, 1970.

21-4102: Unlawful assembly. (a) Unlawful assembly is the meeting or coming together of not less than five persons for the purpose of engaging in conduct constituting either disorderly conduct, as defined by K.S.A. 21-4101 and amendments thereto, or a riot, as defined by K.S.A. 21-4104 and amendments thereto, or when in a lawful assembly of not less than five persons, agreeing to engage in such conduct.

(b) Unlawful assembly is a class B nonperson misdemeanor.

History: L. 1969, ch. 180, § 21-4102; L. 1971, ch. 107, § 3; L. 1992, ch. 239, § 190; L. 1993, ch. 291, § 139; July 1.
http://kansasstatutes.lesterama.org/Chapter_21/Article_41/#21-4101

Using offensive language to disrupt a funeral seems like a case of this.

Can't you just be charged with being a public nuisance, in and of itself?

Yes, but as i understand it, it's not the statute that cover's this activity.

21-4106: Maintaining a public nuisance. Maintaining a public nuisance is by act, or by failure to perform a legal duty, intentionally causing or permitting a condition to exist which injures or endangers the public health, safety or welfare.

Maintaining a public nuisance is a class C misdemeanor.

History: L. 1969, ch. 180, § 21-4106; July 1, 1970.

This (http://www.nuisancelaw.com/learn/tort) should go further into it.


the westboro baptist church is a force for GOOD in this country.

no other group succeeds like they do in bringing together disparate groups, even groups that would never otherwise associate with each other, all in order to protest the westboro baptist church.

i suspect that it even gets those who tend to agree with the WBC to rethink their position on the basis that if those horrible people believe it it has a good chance of being wrong

as long as the funerals are not actively disrupted they should be allowed to protest.

Indeed to all of that.

English law appears to include being a public nuisance as a common law criminal offense. Even in the UK, it is unclear to me whether you could apply this law to the activities of the WBC. It appears the trend is away from sweeping uses of an ill-defined concept to criminalize activity.

Regardless, in the U.S., crimes must be defined by statute. If you haven't broken a specific statute, then you haven't committed a crime.

Simply declaring certain activities "aggressive" and "obnoxious" and therefore criminal is rather contrary to the whole spirit (and the letter) of freedom of speech. Similarly the concepts of "large group" and "outside a funeral" are rather vague grounds to criminalize activity.

So, how about the disorderly conduct rap.

(Creating a nuisance must come in handy on the bech over there. eh? :wink:)

Students threw hamburgers and bottles of lemonade and milk at several members of the Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kan., students said after the protest.
http://www.omaha.com/index.php?u_page=2798&u_sid=10494164

I'm all for the counterprotesting of these folks, but throwing bottles at them is crossing the line from speech to unacceptable violence. Answering hate with greater hate is no answer at all.

One could argue that their picketing funerals amounts to the equivalent of "fighting words" against the friends and family of the deceased. It has already been ruled IIRC that fighting words are not protected speech.

The fighting words doctrine was overly broad, and the Supreme Court has been narrowing it's scope.

Tellingly, despite continued reaffirmation of the fighting-words doctrine, the Supreme Court has declined to uphold any convictions for fighting words since Chaplinsky.

In fact, in Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1 (1949), the Court immediately began a long process of narrowing and reshaping the broad scope of the original fighting-words doctrine. Terminiello was charged with breaching the peace after publicly insulting a group of adversaries. While not addressing whether Terminiello's speech constituted fighting words, the Court found that the breach of the peace statute in question was overbroad because it permitted convictions for both fighting words and constitutionally protected expression. Concluding that speech that merely causes anger or outrage does not amount to fighting words, the Court opined that speech is protected unless the expression is "likely to produce a clear and present danger of a serious intolerable evil that rises above mere inconvenience or annoyance." The Court explicitly stated that it would not assume that certain words inevitably provoke violent reactions by individuals. Rather, the Court's analysis focuses on the context in which the words were uttered, not merely the content of the words themselves.
http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=13718

I'm a Satanist. What the Hell do I care?

Turning the other cheek never solved anything. Well it gives you a sick pleasure if you're a masochist but that's beside the point. Right and wrong, morality, etc. Is purely subjective. I see absolutely nothing wrong with my proposition.

However, more often than not, violence merely begets more violence, and the publicity that the Westboro Baptist "Church" would receive makes any attack actually more beneficial to them, as other ultra-right-wingers would flock to their cause because they are being attacked by the "ultra-liberal homosexual conspiracy" or some other load of bullshit.

Let them say as they wish. I applaud the Omaha Central kids for counter-protesting, as it shows they do not tolerate hate, but the throwing of objects was not called for (Albeit I find the image of Shirley Phelps-Roper getting creamed by a pastrami quite amusing). However, the best thing to do about the WBC is to ignore them. Let them spew their hate until they grow tired. Eventually, once Fred Phelps dies, some of their members will realize their folly and leave, and the group will fade into the annals of history.

It's interesting that many people started screaming Phelps and his people are repulsive and should be punished when they started their garbage at soldiers funerals.

I wonder if these people were offended when they did this garbage at funerals for homosexuals?

Phelps is repulsive. I detest the swine.

However, what is far more repulsive is defining acceptable speech.

To have freedom of speech means having to be offending.

I fear that day when I am not offended by something.

I agree with you.

It's interesting that many people started screaming Phelps and his people are repulsive and should be punished when they started their garbage at soldiers funerals.

I did not know of their activities until they began protesting at soldiers' funerals. For that I am ashamed that I couldn't speak against the WBC at that time. Although, as a Catholic conservative, I am not really big on gay rights (I think its a state-by-state issue and would not support the marriage of gays in churches, especially my own, but civil unions are fine.), I still think that homosexuals are loved by God as much as God loves me, and deserve the utmost respect. Any protesting at any funeral is despicable.

it disturbs me that one of these days someone is going to kill one of this vile people. then he'll have to go to prison because they are free to agitate people until they respond with violence.

Or, we see a case of Jury nullification.

I'm not sure it should be considered a bad thing for the rest, though. The WBC clearly place the laws of the Kingdom of Heaven (as they see it) over the laws of the United States. Executing them would be... deportation.

There's some difference between deportation and repatriation.

The more they talk the less I think they should have the freedom of speech.

It's interesting that many people started screaming Phelps and his people are repulsive and should be punished when they started their garbage at soldiers funerals.

I wonder if these people were offended when they did this garbage at funerals for homosexuals?

Absolutely.

SPLC (http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=231) certainly had them rightfully on the hate group list well before that started.

Phelps is repulsive. I detest the swine.

However, what is far more repulsive is defining acceptable speech.

To have freedom of speech means having to be offending.

I fear that day when I am not offended by something.

There does come a point where freedoms conflict... If Mr. Phelpes' excercise of freedom of speech and assembly are interfering with the funeral party's freedom of speech and assembly, who has right of way?

However, more often than not, violence merely begets more violence, and the publicity that the Westboro Baptist "Church" would receive makes any attack actually more beneficial to them, as other ultra-right-wingers would flock to their cause because they are being attacked by the "ultra-liberal homosexual conspiracy" or some other load of bullshit.

Let them say as they wish. I applaud the Omaha Central kids for counter-protesting, as it shows they do not tolerate hate, but the throwing of objects was not called for (Albeit I find the image of Shirley Phelps-Roper getting creamed by a pastrami quite amusing). However, the best thing to do about the WBC is to ignore them. Let them spew their hate until they grow tired. Eventually, once Fred Phelps dies, some of their members will realize their folly and leave, and the group will fade into the annals of history.

A violent response doesn't strike me as not tolerating hate, but rather the opposite - tolerating one's own hatred.

Hatred is not necessarily a bad thing. Is it wrong to hate serial killers? Rapists? Fundamentalist nut jobs like the WBC? I don't think so. I encourage such hatred.

They are entitled to their beliefs. Personally, I think Reverend Phelps, for abusing (and probably molesting) his children, should be boiled in beezlenut oil.

Going back onto legal ground, though, if they did manage to get the ban lifted, and protested whatever they heard about and could get to, they are quite, quite open to civil suits for emotional damages. Then the onus is on them to prove that they didn't enhance the mental and emotional suffering of funeral attendees, via their actions.

The WBC would get very quiet in that scenario, or suffer litigious Karmic Hell on Earth.

Hatred is not necessarily a bad thing.

Untrue. Hate damages you as a person and it damages society as a whole.

[QUOTE=Atreath]Is it wrong to hate serial killers?

Yes.

Rapists?

Yes.

Fundamentalist nut jobs like the WBC?

Yes.

I don't think so. I encourage such hatred.

"Hatred is never ended by hatred but by love."
Gautama Siddharta

Going back onto legal ground, though, if they did manage to get the ban lifted, and protested whatever they heard about and could get to, they are quite, quite open to civil suits for emotional damages. Then the onus is on them to prove that they didn't enhance the mental and emotional suffering of funeral attendees, via their actions.

The WBC would get very quiet in that scenario, or suffer litigious Karmic Hell on Earth.

Actually no, they didn't. They lost the lawsuit last year (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21566280/), and there are leins on their property, yet there they are...

One could argue that their picketing funerals amounts to the equivalent of "fighting words" against the friends and family of the deceased. It has already been ruled IIRC that fighting words are not protected speech.

See the legal decisions posted by The Cat-Tribe on previous pages. SCOTUS disagrees, in precedent, at least.

I did not know of their activities until they began protesting at soldiers' funerals. For that I am ashamed that I couldn't speak against the WBC at that time. Although, as a Catholic conservative, I am not really big on gay rights (I think its a state-by-state issue and would not support the marriage of gays in churches, especially my own, but civil unions are fine.), I still think that homosexuals are loved by God as much as God loves me, and deserve the utmost respect. Any protesting at any funeral is despicable.

There is not a piece of legislation anywhere, nor has there been, that demands that churches marry any couple that they don't want to marry. Marriage licenses are what's being discussed as equal consideration under law, and those are issued by states. So half of your bolded sentence is largely fine. The rest is kinda close to the propaganda of the type used by the proponents of Proposition 8, and it's blatantly false.

So someone can be forbidden from speaking in a public forum merely because other people might hear them without wanting to hear them? The government can pick and choose who gets to speak in a public place based on some notion of popularity?

Nope - the only requirement would be that you choose a place where people are not forced to listen to you. At a funeral one cannot simply walk away if the free speechers annoy them.

I'm afraid to ask what you mean by that.

Exactly what it says. If you make a claim in public you can be asked to back it up.
Not that that would stop the WBC - they after all enjoy pointing at the Bible and explaining why their view is the correct one while all the tolerant Christians are filth that will forever burn in hell for not joining in their "glorious" fight against "the ebil gayz".

Just as you can't shout "FIRE!" in a crowded theater, IIRC the first amendment doesn't cover inciting hatred. And seeing as Fred Phelps is fundamentally unable to speak publically without inciting hatred...
As Penn Jillette once put it, "The first amendment was designed specifically to protect even the most heinous Neo-Nazi speech and the painful blather of idiotic treehuggers..."

Who gets to say what gets labelled "inciting" hatred and what isn't? Why should people be held back from expressing their beliefs (though granted, in this case they might not be the sincerely held beliefs) because of how others might react? It's because of our arguably arbitrary social norms that people will hate those who picket funerals, but at least picketing funerals isn't what killled the soldiers in the first place; the false claim that Hussein was tied with Al-Queda had more to do with that, so wouldn't it make more sense to censor that claim? Don't get me wrong, I don't believe in censoring that either, but the point I'm making is that censoring something for "inciting" hate is questionable at best, because aside from the question of who's really more so to blame, offensiveness is kinda subjective to begin with...

Who gets to say what gets labelled "inciting" hatred and what isn't?

Courts. Duh.


Why should people be held back from expressing their beliefs (though granted, in this case they might not be the sincerely held beliefs) because of how others might react?

Because there is a specific and inherent difference between "hate speech" and "inciting violence". One may cause a reaction, the other is specifically designed and intended to incite one.

Because there is a specific and inherent difference between "hate speech" and "inciting violence". One may cause a reaction, the other is specifically designed and intended to incite one.
How can you be so sure?

Untrue. Hate damages you as a person and it damages society as a whole.I'd hazard to guess that over the course of evolution it had more positive effects for society then negative effects. If it seriously damages society, it'd have died out long ago.
However, it can be (which isn't to say 'is always') functional; as it can commit people to punishing people that commit injustices. Something which isn't at all rational to do, since giving someone a deserved beating puts you as much at risk as the transgressor. So without hatred and vengeance, people would be more likely to get away with breaching the rules of society, leading to its breakdown.
Or so a theory goes.
But fear not, with a criminal justice system in place, those considerations become obsolete; since it solves much the same problem without the bad side effects. So in today's (western) society, I suppose your statement may very well apply.

How can you be so sure?

how can I be so sure the two things exist? Because they're obvious and distinctive ideas, expressed in different terms, and having different intents.

how can I be so sure the two things exist? Because they're obvious and distinctive ideas, expressed in different terms, and having different intents.
No no, I was asking, how can you be so sure what the intents are? If we compromise freedom of speech based on what we presume the intentions to be, who gets to say how much further it becomes compromised?

No no, I was asking, how can you be so sure what the intents are? I

There's a reason they're given the benefit of the doubt.

There's a reason they're given the benefit of the doubt.
And assuming as to what their intents are is continuing to give them the benefit of a doubt?

I think the problem is you tend to take what I say too literally (well, that's not really the word I'm looking for, can't think of the right word right now) and then make it sound as extreme as you can possibly make it. Obviously, as with any law, there will be thresholds and the law should only apply when the activity is being a nuisance to a very large scale causing very high amounts distress as with WBC. Anyway, there could be multiple questions raised regarding freedom of speech in relation to what I've said, what specifically is your problem?

Edit: Also, I never ever said they should be silenced (I would just want them removed form the immediate area). Thats another annoying thing, you constantly assume positions for me and then attack them, as if they were implicit in my actual position.

So, I am being unfair because I take what you say seriously and confront you with the logical consequences thereof? :rolleyes:

You tend to rather flippantly state that there are easy answers to difficult questions and get upset when you are called on it. That isn't my problem. Similarly, when you say you can provide a detailed analysis of a question like how the WBC is a public nuisance and you challenged to do so, don't get bent out of shape when your loose usage of a dictionary definition isn't accepted without some skepticism. As for your "I don't want the locked up or silenced," WTF else do you call saying someone engaging in speech is guilty of a criminal act?

Regardless, I actually leans towards the Sixth Circuit's holding discussed in the OP that Ohio's law protecting funerals is correct. See, e.g., 14-page pdf (http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/08a0312p-06.pdf). The fact is, however, that I recognize this is a difficult issue on which the U.S. Courts of Appeal have split.

While Phelps's denunciations of certain vices is laudable, his advocacy of execution of those who commit those vices is not.

While Phelps's denunciations of certain vices is laudable, his advocacy of execution of those who commit those vices is not.

Mmmm, tasty trollhouse cookies on a big fish hook. OK, I'll bite.


How exactly is it laudable?

Condemning sinful behaviors is laudable. Killing those who commit those behaviors, or even advocating killing them, is NOT laudable.

So, I am being unfair because I take what you say seriously and confront you with the logical consequences thereof? :rolleyes:


No, because you're not doing this in the slightest. You're attempting to universalise everything I'm saying and remove all context. You also make extrapolations as to what I really mean, which are completely untrue.


You tend to rather flippantly state that there are easy answers to difficult questions and get upset when you are called on it.

When did I say that?


Similarly, when you say you can provide a detailed analysis of a question like how the WBC is a public nuisance and you challenged to do so

When did I say that also? I said it would be fairly easy for the courts to provide detailed legal analysis as to how you could call their activities outside a funeral a public nuisance, not me myself since I'm not a lawyer and unfamiliar with legal jargon.


As for your "I don't want the locked up or silenced," WTF else do you call saying someone engaging in speech is guilty of a criminal act?


I cannot believe you can so easily, astronomically simplify what they are doing into 'engaging in speech', they are doing so much more then that. The reason I think they should stop has nothing to do with their speech, but the way they communicate it. I don't think their speech should be banned, I just think that they shouldn't be allowed to obnoxiously picket and verbally abuse the people attending the funeral. I think they should be barred from the area outside the funeral, this doesn't mean that I think they should be jailed or silenced wherever they are. Seriously, for someone who claims to be open to debate towards this, you sure seem set on making a very uncontroversial approach towards the issue seem as evil as possible.

I don't see a problem with the Sixth Circuit ruling.

IIRC, something similar was decided about a KKK meeting that was scheduled to be held on a parade route to celebrate Civil Rights. It was determined that the rally was likely to incite a riot, and so the "time, place and manner" bit was invoked--the Klan had to either move their meeting to another spot, or hold it at that spot at a different time.

Agreed. That's not to say they can't be caught violating other laws. Like trespassing, if they were stupid enough to take their protest onto private property.

The WBC people picketed across the street from my high school once! This was after Gwen Araujo was murdered and Phelps came to the Bay to picket her funeral (she didn't even go to my high school, but maybe Newark High kicked them out). Very classy.

I dont see why sayin they cant say something at a certian time or certian place is violating their freedom of speech. We arent saying they cant say it.

*snip*
Well of course, the Sixth Circuit would say that. Everyday I give a silent prayer of thanks I don't live under the jurisdiction of those vultures.
Yep, my attention wandered halfway through the OP but I still felt a need to post something. Sorry about that.

Condemning sinful behaviors is laudable. Killing those who commit those behaviors, or even advocating killing them, is NOT laudable.
condemning sinful behavior IN CHURCH where like minded people assemble in order to hear sin being condemned, is .... OK.

trying to shove one's bigotted beliefs down the throats of the unwilling...not so much.

One could argue that their picketing funerals amounts to the equivalent of "fighting words" against the friends and family of the deceased. It has already been ruled IIRC that fighting words are not protected speech.

See the legal decisions posted by The Cat-Tribe on previous pages. SCOTUS disagrees, in precedent, at least.

The fighting words doctrine was overly broad, and the Supreme Court has been narrowing it's scope.

http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=13718

As Daistallia and Intangelon indicate, Terminiello v. Chicago (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/337/1.html), 337 U.S. 1 (1949) and subsequent cases (see generally findlaw (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/18.html#3)), have narrowed the application of the fighting words doctrine. Although the Phelps are pushing it, I think claiming they are engaged in "fighting words" would be little more than a content-based limitation on their freedom of speech. See also R. A. V. v. City of St. Paul (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=505&invol=377), 505 U.S. 377 (1992) (in a case where teens burned a cross on a black families' lawn, overturning local bias-motivated criminal ordinance which prohibits the display of a symbol which "arouses anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender" because "it prohibits otherwise permitted speech solely on the basis of the subjects the speech addresses.") have

Jumping into the fray, I think I've got the appropriate statute.

Quoting from the WBC's home state "Crimes Against The Public Peace" code:

http://kansasstatutes.lesterama.org/Chapter_21/Article_41/#21-4101

Using offensive language to disrupt a funeral seems like a case of this.

So, how about the disorderly conduct rap.

(Creating a nuisance must come in handy on the bech over there. eh? :wink:)

Well, I think you answered that question yourself. Terminiello v. Chicago (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/337/1.html), 337 U.S. 1 (1949), suggests you can't use a "disturbing the peace" or "disorderly conduct" statute to censor speech on the grounds that others find it offensive or disruptive.

I think the approach at issue in the Sixth and Eighth Circuit cases of setting up time, place, and manner restrictions on protests of any kind around funerals is the right way to go. It just makes me a bit leary. In part, because even though the Sixth and Eight Circuits both agreed the law was content-neutral, we all know the law was enacted specifically to silence the WBC.

Well of course, the Sixth Circuit would say that. Everyday I give a silent prayer of thanks I don't live under the jurisdiction of those vultures.
Yep, my attention wandered halfway through the OP but I still felt a need to post something. Sorry about that.

:eek::wink::D

When did I say that also? I said it would be fairly easy for the courts to provide detailed legal analysis as to how you could call their activities outside a funeral a public nuisance, not me myself since I'm not a lawyer and unfamiliar with legal jargon.

So your argument is that you are unable to make a coherent argument that the WBC poses a public nuisance, but that some court to doe so "fairly eas"? And you don't see how that fails to be a substantive contribution on your part? Nor do you see the chutzpah in telling [I]me that it is "obvious" that the WBC is a public nuisance, and then claiming you lack the legal knowledge to back that up?

I cannot believe you can so easily, astronomically simplify what they are doing into 'engaging in speech', they are doing so much more then that. The reason I think they should stop has nothing to do with their speech, but the way they communicate it. I don't think their speech should be banned, I just think that they shouldn't be allowed to obnoxiously picket and verbally abuse the people attending the funeral. I think they should be barred from the area outside the funeral, this doesn't mean that I think they should be jailed or silenced wherever they are. Seriously, for someone who claims to be open to debate towards this, you sure seem set on making a very uncontroversial approach towards the issue seem as evil as possible.

Your inability to understand why your approach is very controversial (as opposed to a "very uncontroversial approach" is perhaps a failure to communicate on my part, but I think you bear some responsibility for not understanding what you are talking about.

Of course what the WBC is doing counts as "engaging in speech." None of the courts discussing the issue have said otherwise and I doubt even you can make a coherent argument that picketing and speaking aren't the very epitome of speech.

Now, whether the speech engaged in by the WBC should be protected is arguable -- you just haven't done a good job in doing that.

Similarly, as I have now said more than once, I think the best approach is a content-neutral time, place, and manner ban on protests within a certain time and place near a funeral. The only real question I have with such an approach is I am not entirely convinced that such a regulation is really content-neutral. Presumably those attending the funeral can still speak and those supporting the funeral could speak, so the regulation shades on discriminating on the basis of content.

[QUOTE=Atreath]Hatred is not necessarily a bad thing.

Untrue. Hate damages you as a person and it damages society as a whole.
Its only damaging if you don't let it out. Hate is a natural emotion all humans feel. Bottling it up is unhealthy. Inciting hatred towards harmful and unjust behavior has actually caused a lot of good things for society. Every major civil rights movement started because of some level of hatred for an injustice towards fellow man. Those who believe hatred is a purely "harmful" or "evil" emotion are delusional.

"Hatred is never ended by hatred but by love."

I never said I wanted the hatred to end. It is appropriate to hate that which is harmful to society. The Phelps hate out of brainwashing. People hate them because they are mindless drones who cause pain wherever they go and cannot be dealt with like reasonable human beings. It is folly to believe both sides are wrong. To believe one side is wrong is to condone the actions of the other. To believe both are wrong is to believe in apathy. Or worse, the delusional concept that if you love something it will just go away.

And to think its wrong to hate serial killers or rapists is psychotic, and shows a lack of empathy towards the victims.

I dont see why sayin they cant say something at a certian time or certian place is violating their freedom of speech. We arent saying they cant say it.

Although I think the Sixth Circuit has the better end of the argument, the Eighth Circuit made a fairly persuasive case, which I linked to in the OP and I quoted in part here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14236671&postcount=10).

So your argument is that you are unable to make a coherent argument that the WBC poses a public nuisance, but that some court to doe so "fairly eas"? And you don't see how that fails to be a substantive contribution on your part? Nor do you see the chutzpah in telling [I]me that it is "obvious" that the WBC is a public nuisance, and then claiming you lack the legal knowledge to back that up?


I can easily make an argument as to why, just not in a legal framework using specific legal precedences. But, assuming your law system is not retarded, I'm sure it can be easily done. If there are no legal definitions or precedences of being a nuisance, then create a new law, using the definitions and thresholds I've already provided. What is the problem?


Your inability to understand why your approach is very controversial (as opposed to a "very uncontroversial approach" is perhaps a failure to communicate on my part, but I think you bear some responsibility for not understanding what you are talking about.

Seriously, this is nothing compared to what a fucking huge portion of Americans are saying, who think that their speech should be banned from all forums, and they should be put in jail. I don't think they should be arrested or put in jail or anything extreme like that, just removed from the area.


Of course what the WBC is doing counts as "engaging in speech." None of the courts discussing the issue have said otherwise and I doubt even you can make a coherent argument that picketing and speaking aren't the very epitome of speech.

I didn't say it wasn't engaging in speech. I'm saying that that's an insane simplification, almost dangerously negligent if you had any power on deciding what you should base your laws on. You talking on a public forum about political topics is equally engaging in speech. Yet there is massive, substantial differences between what you're doing and what the WBC are doing.


Similarly, as I have now said more than once, I think the best approach is a content-neutral time, place, and manner ban on protests within a certain time and place near a funeral.

Are you kidding me!? That was my fucking argument, that was EXACTLY my position. I specifically mentioned how it would be content neutral as well. Do you read what I write? Or do you also think that your position is extremely controversial.

looks here is how it should work. The family having a funeral should be considered to have reserved the rights to speech in that space at that time.

condemning sinful behavior IN CHURCH where like minded people assemble in order to hear sin being condemned, is .... OK.

trying to shove one's bigotted beliefs down the throats of the unwilling...not so much.

Ignore the troll. His name is "I love Pinochet" for cryin' out loud, how much more blatantly obvious can you get?

Well of course, the Sixth Circuit would say that. Everyday I give a silent prayer of thanks I don't live under the jurisdiction of those vultures.
Yep, my attention wandered halfway through the OP but I still felt a need to post something. Sorry about that.

LOL. What if you had to live under the Ninth Circuit? :eek:

LOL. What if you had to live under the Ninth Circuit? :eek:

ritual suicide *nods*

Condemning sinful behaviors is laudable. Killing those who commit those behaviors, or even advocating killing them, is NOT laudable.

Thanks for letting us know you consider condemnation of Phelps and Co laudable.

funeral processions are the worst. it's like, hey bub, when I'm dead I don't care about anything, so why does someone who has no awareness get to inconvenience my day? the dead are so inconsiderate.

Well, I think you answered that question yourself. Terminiello v. Chicago (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/337/1.html), 337 U.S. 1 (1949), suggests you can't use a "disturbing the peace" or "disorderly conduct" statute to censor speech on the grounds that others find it offensive or disruptive.

I was thinking of two separate things there.

Yes, the speech shouldn't be censored simply becvause it provokes a disruptive response. But, is a funeral not also a form of protected speech/assembly that WBC is interferring in?

LOL. What if you had to live under the Ninth Circuit? :eek:

I have for the vast majority of my life. Suits me fine.

Freedom of speech is a toughy, especially concerning this principle. I know a lot of people don't even believe in burials.

I do honestly think though, regardless of whether or not the person has been in the service or not, a time of mourning and loss is not the time or place to be a negative influence on others.

Sure, I can't say what the ins and outs are for certain, but there are cerfew (sp?) laws all accross the country - nobody outside, nobody speaking after such and such hours... there are some speech restrictions as the OP showed, and a myriad of other small little loopholes where you're not allowed to voice your opinions because of disturbing the peace, breaking the peace, trespass, what have you.

Obviously, I am biased and I think that just out of common decency and respect for people undergoing a traumatic time in their lives... protestors could at least hold off until the families have had a chance to pay their respects for goodness sake. But, I digress.

Perhaps some of the most despicable speech imaginable is routinely carried out by the Westboro Baptist Church, particularly when it comes to picketing funerals. Nonetheless, there is a legitimate question whether laws seeking to prevent the WBC from protesting at funerals are reconcilable with freedom of speech.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit has recently granted Phelps-Roper an injunction against a Missouri law that was enacted to stop the WBC and makes it a crime to protest or picket one hour before or one hour after a funeral and “in front of or about a funeral,” and defines funeral as “the ceremonies, processions and memorial services held in connection with the burial or cremation of the dead.” See, e.g., 12-page pdf (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/8th/071295p.pdf). The Eighth Circuit did not fully decide the case on the merits, but rather held that Phelps-Roper was entitled to an injuction because she was likely to succeed on the merits and met the other factors for an preliminary injunctions. In finding in favor of Phelps-Roper, the court wrote, “we find she will suffer irreparable injury if the preliminary injunction is not issued. The injunction will not cause substantial harm to others, and the public is served by the preservation of constitutional rights.”

On the other hand, the U.S. Court of Appeals for 6th Circuit recently ruled that a similar Ohio statute (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. Sec. 3767.30, a statute banning demonstrations within 300 feet of a funeral service or burial ceremony, from one hour before the ceremony to one hour afterwards) does not violate the First Amendment free speech rights of the members of Rev. Fred Phelps’s Kansas-based Westboro Baptist Church, who wish to conduct demonstrations during funerals of U.S. service members killed in Iraq. See, e.g., 14-page pdf (http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/08a0312p-06.pdf).

The Sixth Circuit found that the picketing ban was content-neutral, because it banned all picketing or demonstrations, regardless of their point of view. Under established First Amendment precedents, the state may impose "time, place and manner" restrictions on speech if the restrictions are content-neutral, and such restrictions are evaluated for their reasonableness. Such restrictions are upheld if they serve a significant governmental interest, are narrowly tailored to avoid going beyond what is necessary to serve that interest, and leave open "ample channels of communication" for the speaker’s message.

In this case, the Sixth Circuit found that the government has a significant interest in protecting funeral attendants from being subjected to unwanted political speech during an emotionally trying time. The court found that by adopting a reasonably specific buffer zone and keeping it in effect only from an hour before to an hour after a funeral, the state had met the narrow tailoring requirement. Because the Phelpses could picket from beyond 300 feet during a funeral, with no statutory restriction on the use of sound equipment, and because they did not have to observe any buffer zones outside of the specified time period, the court found that they had ample opportunity to disseminate their message, taking into account as well that they maintain a website with their message that receives many hits.

Personally, I have mixed feelings about these decisions. The Phelps push the envelope of free speech and picketing funerals is outrageous. On the other hand, the public sidewalks and other public areas around funerals are public forums in which speech should not be discriminated against because we disapprove of the message. Whether a law specifically enacted to stop the WBC is truly content-neutral is a difficult question.

I know few if any of you will be interested in reading the 6th Circuit and 8th Circuit opinions, but what thoughts, comments, etc. do you have anyway?

EDIT: Here are some short articles regarding the cases (one of which I used in creating the above): link (http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/gen/33239prs20071206.html), link (http://newyorklawschool.typepad.com/leonardlink/2008/08/phelps-challeng.html), link (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4181/is_20081103/ai_n30968474)

Ms. Cat Tribes, in my country, things like freedom of speech can be rescinded if there's a good enough reason. Thank God for Canadian sanity regarding freedom of speech, and I hope Phelps burns for his hate.