Phelps at it again!

[Vic Vega]

...if I saw a gun pointed at Phelps pere I would hope to have the courage to step in front of it.

You MUST be joking! That's not courage, that's stupidity.

I agree that he has the right to do what he does and I also agree with the appeals court ruling, despite how despicable I find these people.

 

[ddt]

2) Preventing speech for 2 minutes might not be considered an onerous burden. Preventing demonstrations in the area of the funeral would certainly be a violation of 1A and such laws SHOULD be overturned.

What's the difference then? I could argue the other way. In the first instance, you prevent free speech in every public place during those 2 minutes on Remembrance day. In the second instance, you'd prevent free speech in the immediate surroundings of a cemetery during a funeral. Purely measured in quantity of space * time, the latter seems less.

Secondly, I'd like to ask: is a funeral, by law, a public function - i.e., does the law demand a funeral is held in public space? Or is it a private function that, by the practical consequences of laws surrounding funerals, is mostly held in a public area?

 

[BenBurch]

You MUST be joking! That's not courage, that's stupidity.

I agree that he has the right to do what he does and I also agree with the appeals court ruling, despite how despicable I find these people.

I agree. However, if I had a gun and saw that, I would take out the shooter.

 

[jayh]

What's the difference then? I could argue the other way. In the first instance, you prevent free speech in every public place during those 2 minutes on Remembrance day. In the second instance, you'd prevent free speech in the immediate surroundings of a cemetery during a funeral. Purely measured in quantity of space * time, the latter seems less.

Secondly, I'd like to ask: is a funeral, by law, a public function - i.e., does the law demand a funeral is held in public space? Or is it a private function that, by the practical consequences of laws surrounding funerals, is mostly held in a public area?

The protests (at lest the recent ones) were held nearby, not at the direct location. People arriving at the funeral could see the demonstration, but it did not directly affect the funeral. You CAN protest a private function as well as a public one, though you would be constrained from interfering.

My point about the 2 minutes was not to support the craziness of the UK thing, but to say that a minor limitation of time and place is different than an outright ban.

A few years back when American Atheist held a demonstration in DC, there were religious groups all around with signs declaring our destiny of hell. That was completely legal.

 

[The Mutha]

As I've stated before, I'm a fairly level-headed atheist and would definitely walk away from a fight given the chance. But I have to say that the initial gut reaction I had when I wheeled around the corner on my motorcycle (with about 100 others) and saw the WBC group of eight people holding up signs that said "Your Pastor is a Whore", "Thank God for Dead Soldiers", of course the infamous "God hates Fags" (carried by what appeared to be a seven or eight year old boy) and "Thank God for IEDs", was one of blood red hatred. The gaul of these people to picket in front of the church where the funeral of this dead Marine was being held! The family (the kid's Mom and Dad were Houston Police Officers) had to view this group going in and out of the funeral. Honestly, I'm surprised people don't attempt to run them over more often as has been done in the past.

Where the WBC group were positioned, they could be seen by the people attending the service inside the church, which is the primary reason that the PGR was there. We lined up with flags between them and the church, so they didn't have to see the flipping signs during the service.

While I believe in free speech wholeheartedly, I'm just appauled that these people would carry through with these actions and involve their minor children in it as well. Where's the human decency?

 

[Alt+F4]

As much as it pains me to say it, I have to agree that the 1st amendment overrides the ideal of a peaceful grief.

What about the first amendment right of the Snyder family to practice their religious beliefs (at the funeral)? It's more than peaceful grief, it's the right to practice the religion of one's choice.

 

[Alt+F4]

While I believe in free speech wholeheartedly, I'm just appauled that these people would carry through with these actions and involve their minor children in it as well. Where's the human decency?

In a scam to separate people from their money human decency is not required. The Phelps gang just goes about it in a more insulting way than say someone like Bernie Madoff. I think Mr. Snyder can win his case in the Supreme Court if his lawyers can prove that Phelps' activities are not in fact protected by the first amendment but rather are an elaborate scam.

 

[pgwenthold]

What about the first amendment right of the Snyder family to practice their religious beliefs (at the funeral)? It's more than peaceful grief, it's the right to practice the religion of one's choice.

Who's stopping them?

 

[Alt+F4]

Who's stopping them?

According to Snyder's lawyers, the Phelps'. Here's the three questions Snyder is asking to Supreme Court to rule on.

Question 1: Does Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell apply to a private person versus another private person concerning a private matter?

Question 2: Does the First Amendment's freedom of speech tenet trump the First Amendment's freedom of religion and peaceful assembly?

Question 3: Does an individual attending a family member's funeral constitute a captive audience who is entitled to state protection from unwanted communication?

 

[pgwenthold]

According to Snyder's lawyers, the Phelps'. Here's the three questions Snyder is asking to Supreme Court to rule on.

Question 1: Does Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell apply to a private person versus another private person concerning a private matter?

Question 2: Does the First Amendment's freedom of speech tenet trump the First Amendment's freedom of religion and peaceful assembly?

Question 3: Does an individual attending a family member's funeral constitute a captive audience who is entitled to state protection from unwanted communication?

OK, so I guess I missed the answer to my question.

Who is stopping the Snyders from practicing their religion?

 

[Roadtoad]

If they assault him and all his crew with a .50 calibre machine gun, that will go under "problem solved" in the big filing cabinet.

Actually, I don't see him as religious or a lawyer - just as a distended rectum with a law degree and a blow-up jeebus to have sex with - when he's not impregnating some family member.

This would not solve anything. Trust me.

If anything, Phelps would be hailed as a "Martyr" for "the Cause of Christ," rather than being viewed as a hateful, cowardly bigot whose venom finally caused a serious enough infection for someone to snap and nail his pathetic ass. The shooter would correctly be tried and convicted for the murder, and Phelps and pathetic lot would be memorialized forever on the web and in the hearts of hateful thugs around the country.

Skeptic might have had the right of it: Ignore him.

Frankly, one of the things I thought would be most effective would be for communities to issue a permit for him to demonstrate. After the location was established where the Phelps Phools would be allowed to stay, they would be required to remain there the entire time for the permit. During said time, there would be no reason why curtains couldn't be erected around them, preventing anyone from seeing or hearing them. They could still demonstrate, but their "demonstration" wouldn't disturb anyone.

Any thoughts?

 

[Alt+F4]

OK, so I guess I missed the answer to my question.

Who is stopping the Snyders from practicing their religion?

Ah, you are right, I stand corrected. Snyder sued Phelps for defamation, invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress. While the Phelps' did protest at his son Matthew's funeral Snyder himself did not see the protestors. Snyder's lawsuit is based in part on an essay the "church" posted on it's website, which said in part that:

...Albert and his wife “raised [Matthew] for the devil,” “RIPPED that body apart and taught Matthew to defy his Creator, to divorce, and to commit adultery,” “taught him how to support the largest pedophile machine in the history of the entire world, the Roman Catholic monstrosity,” and “taught Matthew to be an idolator.”

Court said:

These comments — as extreme as they may be — they are taken in terms of religious expression. This is not the type of language that one is going to assume is meant as a statement of fact.

 

[Alt+F4]

If anything, Phelps would be hailed as a "Martyr" for "the Cause of Christ," rather than being viewed as a hateful, cowardly bigot whose venom finally caused a serious enough infection for someone to snap and nail his pathetic ass. The shooter would correctly be tried and convicted for the murder, and Phelps and pathetic lot would be memorialized forever on the web and in the hearts of hateful thugs around the country.

I don't think so. How many people remember who Michael F. Griffin is? Anyway maybe Phelps might step in front of a runaway Toyota someday.

Frankly, one of the things I thought would be most effective would be for communities to issue a permit for him to demonstrate. After the location was established where the Phelps Phools would be allowed to stay, they would be required to remain there the entire time for the permit. During said time, there would be no reason why curtains couldn't be erected around them, preventing anyone from seeing or hearing them. They could still demonstrate, but their "demonstration" wouldn't disturb anyone.

Sounds good to me.

 

[Psi Baba]

Fight fire with fire. Have a "counter" group with signs such as:
"Phelps is a child abuser"
"Phelps rapes his daughters"
"Phelps is gay"

Before someone calls slander, it can argued that "God hates fags" is slander because he can't prove that it's true.

Either that or just put "IMO" in tiny tiny letters after each slogan. Or use the Fox News tactic and simply preface each slogan with, "People are saying . . ."

 

[Alt+F4]

Before someone calls slander, it can argued that "God hates fags" is slander because he can't prove that it's true.

Forget about slander it seems that you can say whatever vile lies you want as long as you say it's religious expression. What I don't get is why what Phelp's is doing is protected religious expression but polygamy and smoking marijuana aren't.

If I'm in prison and my religion requires me to drink a fifth of Harvey's Bristol Cream a day what right does the prison have to not allow me to drink it?

 

[Vic Vega]

I agree. However, if I had a gun and saw that, I would take out the shooter.

Well, you must be a better man than I am because I wouldn't.

 

[drkitten]

Forget about slander it seems that you can say whatever vile lies you want as long as you say it's religious expression.

No.

The reason that Phelps gets away with what he does is largely because, under US law, you can't slander "groups" (and because the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to prove that what was written was false, which means that I'd have to get God to testify that He does not, in fact, hate fags.)

Freedom of speech, not freedom of religion.

If I'm in prison and my religion requires me to drink a fifth of Harvey's Bristol Cream a day what right does the prison have to not allow me to drink it?

The prison doesn't have to take your word for it about what your "religion" does or does not require -- nor does it even have to take your word for it that your "religion" actually exists.

If the prison makes a determination that your "religion" is a sham, you'll have to prove to the satisfaction of a federal court that they're wrong.

 

[Roadtoad]

No.

The reason that Phelps gets away with what he does is largely because, under US law, you can't slander "groups" (and because the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to prove that what was written was false, which means that I'd have to get God to testify that He does not, in fact, hate fags.)

Freedom of speech, not freedom of religion.

Hence the notation by others that Phelps does not follow the Bible at all. And, no, I'm in no mood to look up the cites, save to point out that scripture is pretty clear, that the Bible's God takes no pleasure in the death of a sinner, but rather delights in the salvation of any and all.

The prison doesn't have to take your word for it about what your "religion" does or does not require -- nor does it even have to take your word for it that your "religion" actually exists.

If the prison makes a determination that your "religion" is a sham, you'll have to prove to the satisfaction of a federal court that they're wrong.

True, perhaps. I'm reminded of one "religious" group which has demanded the right to light up a fat one during their services, both within prison walls and without. I don't think that's been approved by any court, in part because of the guards' need for safety.

 

[commandlinegamer]

If I'm in prison and my religion requires me to drink a fifth of Harvey's Bristol Cream a day what right does the prison have to not allow me to drink it?

As I recall, smoking cannabis is a religious observance for Rastafarians.

 

[dudalb]

In this case, frankly, I have to a agree..about the court's decison..with Mr Bumble in Oliver Twist that The Law Is An Ass.