Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
Fred Phelps; why
Topic Started: Jan 11 2011, 04:56 AM (1,161 Views)
apple
one of the angels
Why is it ok to allow this type of freedom of speech to endure? I live about 50 miles from Fred. I have driven by his house. I played the organ at a funeral of a soldier.. a marvelous service with the whole city i live in paying respect, and then there was Fred, right across the street, shouting his hate and vile. I don't think I've ever had such a negative reaction to a human in my life.

I have seen hollow eyed children with signs spewing HATE at his protests.. i don't know who the children belong to.. they shouted with vigor and venom tho. I do know that Fred had 13 of his own children. Maybe he had them so he'd have a viable protest group.

If there is one person I dislike in this world it is Fred.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/01/11/arizona.funeral.westboro/index.html?hpt=T1
it behooves me to behold
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mark
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
The man is an idiot.

Fortunately, it is his right to be so.

Yes, fortunately.
___.___
(_]===*
o 0
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Piano*Dad
Member Avatar
Bull-Carp
To tell you the truth, I do not understand the legal theory that lumps together what his group does at funerals under that banner of free speech. There would seem to be a rather big distinction between the right to assemble in a public place to protest the actions of our government, or to express a view about policy, and the supposed "right" to belittle other people who are engaging in the normal activities of life. A funeral is a very important moment in our culture, and it is intensely emotional and private, even if it takes place in public view. That would seem to be a distinction through which a reasonable society could draw a line.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
apple
one of the angels
there is nothing fortunate about Phelps.

it behooves me to behold
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mark
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
I agree apple. I think of him as a piece of human garbage.

However, his right to do these things is a right that we as a nation have cherished since our beginning.

We should not take that away.
___.___
(_]===*
o 0
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Improviso
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Quote:
 
But a flier released by the church about the picket targets the Roman Catholic Church because Christina and her family were members.

What an absolute waste of space.
Identifying narcissists isn't difficult. Just look for the person who is constantly fishing for compliments
and admiration while breaking down over even the slightest bit of criticism.

We have the freedom to choose our actions, but we do not get to choose our consequences.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RosemaryTwo
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
The supreme court allows "reasonable restrictions" on time and place of free speech, but does not prohibit it outright.

They moved the funeral protestors away from the funeral, much in the same way abortion protestors must move out of the way of those seeking services at a clinic. They used the least restrictive means possible to respect opposing interests.

If the grieving family consents, however, the Patriot Guard Riders can get even closer to the funeral.
"Perhaps the thing to do is just to let stupid run its course." Aqua
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
Piano*Dad
Jan 11 2011, 05:45 AM
To tell you the truth, I do not understand the legal theory that lumps together what his group does at funerals under that banner of free speech. There would seem to be a rather big distinction between the right to assemble in a public place to protest the actions of our government, or to express a view about policy, and the supposed "right" to belittle other people who are engaging in the normal activities of life. A funeral is a very important moment in our culture, and it is intensely emotional and private, even if it takes place in public view. That would seem to be a distinction through which a reasonable society could draw a line.
I agree. I've never been that big on unlimited freedom of speech under any circumstances.

Presumably there isn't an American equivalent to the law prohibiting 'behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace' which is what the Brits sometimes use to arrest turbulent clerics.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mark
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Wow.

Just wow.

Speech should never be a crime except in cases of libel or slander.

Now, can you make a case for libel or slander?

How soon humans forget.
___.___
(_]===*
o 0
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Copper
Member Avatar
Shortstop
Mark
Jan 11 2011, 05:44 AM
The man is an idiot.

Fortunately, it is his right to be so.

Yes, fortunately.

Yes.
The Confederate soldier was peculiar in that he was ever ready to fight, but never ready to submit to the routine duty and discipline of the camp or the march. The soldiers were determined to be soldiers after their own notions, and do their duty, for the love of it, as they thought best. Carlton McCarthy
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
Does the same thinking apply to Julian Assange? I seem to remember a number of people here rubbing their hands together in glee at the thought of him being assassinated or murdered.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mark
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
In my world it does Mr. D'oh.

Of course, I live in a somewhat different world than most people.
___.___
(_]===*
o 0
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aqua Letifer
Member Avatar
ZOOOOOM!
John D'Oh
Jan 11 2011, 06:16 AM
Piano*Dad
Jan 11 2011, 05:45 AM
To tell you the truth, I do not understand the legal theory that lumps together what his group does at funerals under that banner of free speech. There would seem to be a rather big distinction between the right to assemble in a public place to protest the actions of our government, or to express a view about policy, and the supposed "right" to belittle other people who are engaging in the normal activities of life. A funeral is a very important moment in our culture, and it is intensely emotional and private, even if it takes place in public view. That would seem to be a distinction through which a reasonable society could draw a line.
I agree. I've never been that big on unlimited freedom of speech under any circumstances.

Presumably there isn't an American equivalent to the law prohibiting 'behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace' which is what the Brits sometimes use to arrest turbulent clerics.
Who's talking about "unlimited freedom of speech?" Speech in this country is extremely limited as it is. And "right to assemble peacefully" doesn't mean you can just show up somewhere and assemble peacefully. It is always the municipality's call as to whether or not they can tolerate it.

Our freedom of speech is narrow enough in my opinion. And I agree with Mark. Coupled with any particular freedom or liberty is the right of douchebags to abuse it. Unfortunately it just comes with the territory.
I cite irreconcilable differences.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
Aqua Letifer
Jan 11 2011, 06:57 AM
Coupled with any particular freedom or liberty is the right of douchebags to abuse it. Unfortunately it just comes with the territory.
It's not freedom of speech that is being abused, but the loved ones of the people being buried at these funerals.

Personally, I'd be pretty happy if somebody beat the sh!t out of Fred Phelps, and then introduced him to Mr. Big in the showers. Obviously, many people would consider this to be an unconstitutional breach of his rights, but to be honest I don't really care.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Piano*Dad
Member Avatar
Bull-Carp
John D'Oh
Jan 11 2011, 07:01 AM
Aqua Letifer
Jan 11 2011, 06:57 AM
Coupled with any particular freedom or liberty is the right of douchebags to abuse it. Unfortunately it just comes with the territory.
It's not freedom of speech that is being abused, but the loved ones of the people being buried at these funerals.

Personally, I'd be pretty happy if somebody beat the sh!t out of Fred Phelps, and then introduced him to Mr. Big in the showers. Obviously, many people would consider this to be an unconstitutional breach of his rights, but to be honest I don't really care.
Indeed. That is my view.

I do not understand how some of you can think that anything anyone says to anyone anywhere is "free speech," and any restriction is automatically somehow a slippery slope to hell that would make "THE FOUNDERS" turn over in their proverbial graves. Frankly, I find THAT notion silly.

In fact, I'll bet $ to doughnuts that if presented with Fred Phelps' situation, Thomas Jefferson would have thought it absurd that this was what freedom of speech meant.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
If he'd done this back in the revolutionary days, he'd have been horsewhipped, and nobody would have batted an eye.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RosemaryTwo
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Courts also strive to be content neutral. They don't rule differently based on their perceived favorability of the message being conveyed. Cases like Phelps make the blindfold that lady justice wears challenging.

Yes, D'Oh, I believe that speech likely to cause violence or uprising is more restricted and can result in arrest. You cannot stand on the corner and yell for the creation of a mob to attack, for example.
"Perhaps the thing to do is just to let stupid run its course." Aqua
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RosemaryTwo
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
I hate to suggest this, but for those of you who are interested, the Supreme Court cases are public record and make for good reading. Go to the primary source.
"Perhaps the thing to do is just to let stupid run its course." Aqua
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
I'm of the belief that for every 'right' there is a responsibility.

Yeah, yeah, I know, the first thing Hitler undoubtedly did was arrest all the people abusing soldiers funerals, but what the heck - even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aqua Letifer
Member Avatar
ZOOOOOM!
Piano*Dad
Jan 11 2011, 07:14 AM
I do not understand how some of you can think that anything anyone says to anyone anywhere is "free speech," and any restriction is automatically somehow a slippery slope to hell that would make "THE FOUNDERS" turn over in their proverbial graves. Frankly, I find THAT notion silly.

In fact, I'll bet $ to doughnuts that if presented with Fred Phelps' situation, Thomas Jefferson would have thought it absurd that this was what freedom of speech meant.

I have a feeling that Jefferson would call it silly to speculate about what a 200 year old corpse would or would not do.

That being said, yes I do believe it's a slippery slope because our freedom of speech is confined enough as it is. Our freedoms shrink in their span and application more and more each day. Yes, I think we need to slow that down.
I cite irreconcilable differences.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
Aqua Letifer
Jan 11 2011, 07:20 AM
I have a feeling that Jefferson would call it silly to speculate about what a 200 year old corpse would or would not do.
You need to tell this to the Tea Party. The way they talk about the Founders you'd think they were the freaking people out of Deep Space Nine rather than a bunch of dead blokes from the era of pre-revolutionary France. You know what? I don't care what freaking Napoleon thought about freedom of speech, either!
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Piano*Dad
Member Avatar
Bull-Carp
Conservatives are supposed to care deeply about original intent.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
Piano*Dad
Jan 11 2011, 07:27 AM
Conservatives are supposed to care deeply about original intent.
Sellers and Yeatmans translation of Magna Carta in the Best History Book Ever

1. That no one was to be put to death, save for some reason - (except the Common People).

2. That everyone should be free - (except the Common People).

3. That everything should be of the same weight and measure throughout the Realm - (except the Common People).

4. That the courts should be stationary, instead of following a very tiresome medieval official known as the King's Person all over the country.

5. That no person should be fined to his utter ruin - (Except the King's Person).

6. That the Barons should not be tried except by a special jury of other Barons who would understand.

Magna Carta was therefore the chief cause of Democracy in England, and thus A Good Thing for everyone (except the Common People).
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kincaid
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances".

I guess I'm one of those that thinks that if the framers wanted to restrict speech to political speech or something, they would have specified that.

I'm not a big fan of slippery slope arguments, but I don't trust gov't not to overreach if they have the ability. Start going down that road and I really think the mods at WTF would end up looking like a bunch of amateurs.

Pretty soon in Europe it will be accepted to jail or fine a person for getting up and saying that homosexuality is a sin. And you think the U.S. is somehow immune from that kind of stuff?
Kincaid - disgusted Republican Partisan since 2006.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
George K
Member Avatar
Finally
There are a couple of questions:

1) What is considered a "peaceable" assembly? Would Phelps qualify? If he had gunsights on the pictures of dead soldiers, would that qualify as....

2) Hate speech? There *are* restrictions on what you can say and can't say - far far away from the "fire in a theater" argument. I can't burn a cross, can I?

3) There are European nations that prohibit certain kinds of political speech, because of the temporal proximity of those words to the murder of millions. Is that wrong? Is that part of the slippery slope?
A guide to GKSR: Click

"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... "
- Mik, 6/14/08


Nothing is as effective as homeopathy.

I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles.
- Klaus, 4/29/18
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Join the millions that use us for their forum communities. Create your own forum today.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1