| 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: |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Fred Phelps; why | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jan 11 2011, 04:56 AM (1,162 Views) | |
| kluurs | Jan 11 2011, 12:02 PM Post #26 |
![]()
Fulla-Carp
|
Someday, Phelps may exercise his right to the wrong person... maybe Brock Lesnar...![]() |
![]() |
|
| Klaus | Jan 11 2011, 12:09 PM Post #27 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
One of the things I truly admire about the US is that Fred Phelps is allowed to say what he says. |
| Trifonov Fleisher Klaus Sokolov Zimmerman | |
![]() |
|
| Copper | Jan 11 2011, 12:26 PM Post #28 |
|
Shortstop
|
I don't see this as something where there are no consequences for Mr. Phelps. I say let the free market take care of it. I'm sure anyone here can think of all kinds of unpleasant (legal) things that could happen to Mr. Phelps as a result of his actions. |
|
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 | |
![]() |
|
| John D'Oh | Jan 11 2011, 12:31 PM Post #29 |
|
MAMIL
|
The sad thing is that one day someone might take matters into their own hands, and end up doing jail time as a result of this piece of excrement being hurt. |
| What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket? | |
![]() |
|
| Piano*Dad | Jan 11 2011, 12:33 PM Post #30 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
Where is the line between having the right to express your views in order that a free society can exist, and directly harassing individuals going about the ordinary business of life? |
![]() |
|
| KlavierBauer | Jan 11 2011, 12:38 PM Post #31 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
PD: Similar statements have been made in defense of the "intrusive" Patriot Act, and the TSA, in the name of security (so that a free society can exist). I'm surprised Angel Wings hasn't been mentioned yet in this thread, which is fighting fire with fire. As soon as you stoop to making Phelps' brand of free speech illegal, you prove him right, and everyone else wrong. Hello Equilibrium and Fahrenheit 454 - start handing out the melatonin now, and rounding up the art dealers. Better to use the same free speech that enables Fred to do what he's doing, to shut him down, as Angel Wings will be doing. angel wings Edited by KlavierBauer, Jan 11 2011, 12:44 PM.
|
|
"I realize you want him to touch you all over and give you babies, but his handling of the PR side really did screw the pooch." - Ivory Thumper "He said sleepily: "Don't worry mom, my dick is like hot logs in the morning." - Apple | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Jan 11 2011, 12:42 PM Post #32 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
He is deliberately provocative -- so everyone who already knows that and rises to the bait by being provoked only empowers him. Maybe he is doing some careful experiment on what the limits of toleration are in a society that professes "freedom of speech", or maybe he is part of some insidious government plan to get to people say "enough is enough! please shut him up and we are all willing to give up our freedoms so we don't have to listen to him!", or maybe he is just a whack case that we have to tolerate because to systematically eradicate whack jobs is worse than tolerating them. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| Copper | Jan 11 2011, 12:42 PM Post #33 |
|
Shortstop
|
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 | |
![]() |
|
| Piano*Dad | Jan 11 2011, 12:56 PM Post #34 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
You presume a slippery slope without offering either argument or evidence for such a position. |
![]() |
|
| Piano*Dad | Jan 11 2011, 12:58 PM Post #35 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
Why must people going about the ordinary business of life have their rights reduced in order to elevate Phelps's? A funeral is part of that business of life. I'm asking if there is a line that can be drawn. I accept that some will think that no such line is possible, but I have seen no argument to that effect ... just a lot of assumptions. |
![]() |
|
| KlavierBauer | Jan 11 2011, 01:06 PM Post #36 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
I guess we both feel the same way then. I too have seen no arguments to the side claiming rights have been reduced, justifying the censorship of an extremist. What line would you like to draw that is objective and easy to quantify? When will your views be considered the ones that are objectionable by any reasonable person? What right, which trumps the freedom of assembly, is being violated here? And if the answer is "the pursuit of happiness," is that being violated, or made less convenient? At what point is hating Fred Phelps, and using the law to make his ideas illegal, become justified, and therefore qualitatively better than his brand of hate? |
|
"I realize you want him to touch you all over and give you babies, but his handling of the PR side really did screw the pooch." - Ivory Thumper "He said sleepily: "Don't worry mom, my dick is like hot logs in the morning." - Apple | |
![]() |
|
| Aqua Letifer | Jan 11 2011, 01:09 PM Post #37 |
|
ZOOOOOM!
|
What line? If you want the former, you have to accept the possibility of the latter, because it's going to happen. |
| I cite irreconcilable differences. | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Jan 11 2011, 01:14 PM Post #38 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
We don't have the right to not be troubled by jerks. I think that an argument can be made on natural law principles for why Phelps does not have a right to protest -- that people only have a natural right to act in ways that are moral or morally neutral, and to intentionally cause distress and social disturbance and the invasion of privacy of the individual grieving family is neither; but that would require a firm agreement on objective moral principles, and some mechanism to evaluate the order of the hierarchy of goods with agreement therein. Neither is possible in the American political landscape. The Left also firmly rejects NL, so that is a nonstarter. Or you can just take a legal positivist approach and circumscribe certain activities a "harmful" or "illegal" but then there is the obvious problem of laws being enacted asymmetrically that target particular individuals rather than based on broad principles. So yes lines can be drawn, but the problem is who draws them, on what rational basis, are they properly drawn to include and exclude what they are really intended to without unintended consequences, and where? |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| Piano*Dad | Jan 11 2011, 01:38 PM Post #39 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
Where did I suggest making Fred Phelps's ideas illegal? I never did. This is part of the problem. You have jumped from one position that I thought I stated clearly .... I'm troubled by the notion free speech means that people can harass (literally harass) other people with impunity .... to something completely different, that I want to legislate away Phelps's right to hold certain views. Phelps can get up in his church anytime he wants and call dead soldiers whatever he wishes. Phelps can write letters to the editor. He can publish his own newspaper or blog. Where I'm trying to seek a possible line is when he goes into the public space and harasses people who are grieving at a funeral. |
![]() |
|
| Piano*Dad | Jan 11 2011, 01:41 PM Post #40 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
This is a good start to a discussion. Invasion of privacy may be an approach. Have to think about this. |
![]() |
|
| KlavierBauer | Jan 11 2011, 01:42 PM Post #41 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
I'm sorry if I assumed you were talking about removing freedoms granted by the Constitution - seriously. The above statement of yours though, still makes it seem as though you want a line drawn legislatively, in determining that he has the right to saw something in one place, but potentially not in another. What does *not* having that right look like, other than the removal of that right? Are we discussing from a moral standpoint whether or not it simply "is" or "is not" wrong for him to say these things? We've all been extremely clear that we wish no great success on Phelps. Even our most peaceful member, Kluurs, has brought Brock Lesnar into the equation, which, if you're into MMA at all you know isn't a pleasant ending for Mr. Phelps. Perhaps I should ask you for clarification then - when we "draw a line," what sort of line are we drawing? An ideological one? Are we saying as a society that we don't support Phelps and/or his followers? I think we've done that already... Are we talking about not allowing him to do this anymore? If so, then it seems like we're talking about changing the law. If I've misunderstood I apologize - so please clarify for me, so that I know exactly what it is we're talking about. |
|
"I realize you want him to touch you all over and give you babies, but his handling of the PR side really did screw the pooch." - Ivory Thumper "He said sleepily: "Don't worry mom, my dick is like hot logs in the morning." - Apple | |
![]() |
|
| Piano*Dad | Jan 11 2011, 01:44 PM Post #42 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
Are noise laws a violation of free speech? Suppose someone in your neighborhood enjoys reading the constitution by megaphone every night at 3:00 A.M., does the community have no recourse to get some sleep? I guess not. |
![]() |
|
| KlavierBauer | Jan 11 2011, 01:50 PM Post #43 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
I asked a serious question, to clarify for myself, before continuing the discussion, just exactly what we're discussing. What is the line you want to draw? If not a legal one, what then? The megaphone analogy isn't fair, as it isn't an issue of freedom of expression, but becomes a regional legal issue, depending on the ordinances and laws of an individual city. The city where I work has an amphitheater that has been home to virtually every large act on the planet - the noise ordinances force them to stop concerts at 10:30. Lots of people won't go there anymore for this reason. It's not a constitutional issue, it's an issue of Centennial's noise ordinance. Similarly, if Tucson has traffic concerns with the Phelps folks, they can move them wherever they need to in order to not infringe on the rights of the people attending the funeral - this was already discussed earlier. At the DNC here in Denver, due to safety and other concerns, all protesters were moved to a "cage" at the far corner of a parking lot, far away from the actual politicians entering the venue. People cried foul day and night about their right to free speech being infringed, but their right to express wasn't infringe. Given that they have no right to spit on politicians, or stop traffic in the middle of the city, the city was well within its rights legally to move them to a safer place, and still allow them to do what they want. I have no problem with Phelps and his group being moved, if their presence poses problems in violation of local and regional ordinances. |
|
"I realize you want him to touch you all over and give you babies, but his handling of the PR side really did screw the pooch." - Ivory Thumper "He said sleepily: "Don't worry mom, my dick is like hot logs in the morning." - Apple | |
![]() |
|
| RosemaryTwo | Jan 11 2011, 02:49 PM Post #44 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
A better place to start is an objective review of the law. Legal scholars have spent years having this conversation.
Edited by RosemaryTwo, Jan 11 2011, 02:50 PM.
|
| "Perhaps the thing to do is just to let stupid run its course." Aqua | |
![]() |
|
| apple | Jan 11 2011, 02:53 PM Post #45 |
|
one of the angels
|
"Arizona Legislature unanimously passes bill meant to stop church from protesting at funerals of Tucson shooting victims. " yes! |
| it behooves me to behold | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Jan 11 2011, 03:56 PM Post #46 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
Smart folks those AZ legislators. They also knew what they were doing with SB1070. ;-) |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Jan 11 2011, 03:57 PM Post #47 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
BTW, I generally don't like reactive legislation, but I'll let this one slide. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| « Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2











11:24 AM Jul 11