• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Phelps at it again!

Seems to me that religous observance is, like every other right, subject to some regulation concerning time and place. Free Speech does not give you the right to drive a truck with a loudspeaker blaring away a political rant at Two O Clock in the morning in a residential district.
 
Alt+F4 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Ah, come on. I have a great empathy with suffering grief; you really don't need to try to find excuses to pave my way onto the low road. So you think I ought to denigrate the law so that you can stomp on someone that you (and I) disagree with?

[BTW, your argument about religion is weak, from a constitutional pov. Do police have to avoid using sirens on Sunday mornings so that churches can sing in peace? I could come back about Westboro's claim to be allowed to practice their religion, which is part of what they do claim.]
 
Last edited:
BenBurch said:
Appeals rule on the law, not the facts. Facts do not matter.
Click to expand...

Yes and no. The lower court's rulings on law are reviewed de novo, while findings of fact are reviewed for "clear error." In other words, the court of appeals gives no deference to the lower court on matters of law, and great deference on matters of fact. But findings of fact can be reversed on appeal; it just does not happen very often.
 
dudalb said:
Seems to me that religous observance is, like every other right, subject to some regulation concerning time and place. Free Speech does not give you the right to drive a truck with a loudspeaker blaring away a political rant at Two O Clock in the morning in a residential district.
Click to expand...

Time and manner restrictions are permissible if they can withstand strict scrutiny. They must serve a compelling state interest, and they must be the least restrictive means of achieving that end. In this case, there were restrictions on place, and the Phelpses complied with them, remaining 1000 feet from the church - far enough away that the plaintiff did not see them when he entered and exited the funeral. He only saw them later, on television.
 
Last edited:
rwguinn said:
Either all are worth fighting and possibly dying for, or none are.
Click to expand...

What a cute sound bite. Eh, the *possibility* of dieing fighting for something is different than stepping in front of a gun for a scumbag. Is your life worth Fred Phelps? I hope you answer no. Besides, all this naively idealistic garbage is assuming that Fred Phelps actually has his first amendment rights being violated. Personally, I think they are being violated in the same way that someone harassing someone else in public or shouting fire in a theater is (yes, I know this court disagrees with me, there is no need to point it out). I hope the Supreme Court sees differently.
 
Roadtoad said:
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.
Click to expand...

But who actually likes this guy? The amount of people who would consider him a martyr must be extremely low, and already far-gone crazy as it is.

Roadtoad said:
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?
Click to expand...

That sounds like more fun than machine-guns! (and not illegal to boot)
 
Normal Dude said:
What a cute sound bite. Eh, the *possibility* of dieing fighting for something is different than stepping in front of a gun for a scumbag. Is your life worth Fred Phelps? I hope you answer no. Besides, all this naively idealistic garbage is assuming that Fred Phelps actually has his first amendment rights being violated. Personally, I think they are being violated in the same way that someone harassing someone else in public or shouting fire in a theater is (yes, I know this court disagrees with me, there is no need to point it out). I hope the Supreme Court sees differently.
Click to expand...
That was NOT what you said.
I agree, Fred Phelps is not worth dying for.
what you said was
Originally Posted by Normal Dude
In Phelps case, no, his free speech is not worth dying for. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
there is a difference.
 
I am taking 24 hours off from saying anything nasty about Bill O'Reilly for his helping the marine's family. That was a good thing.
 
BenBurch said:
I agree. However, if I had a gun and saw that, I would take out the shooter.
Click to expand...

I'm afraid there I would not. I would just smile at the shooter and nod politely whther or not I had a gun on me at the time. Legally, I would have no choice because I would, in that case, neither be afraid for/in fear of (the usual phrases in law) losing my life, nor would I fear "him" losing "his".
And I truly would feel wrong in killing/harming someone to save him.
 
Ladewig said:
Leaving aside the attributions, I have to bring up "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." I would hate it beyond words, but if I saw a gun pointed at Phelps pere I would hope to have the courage to step in front of it. I loathe the man, but bullets are not the solution to this problem.
Click to expand...

A plush pink phallus might do the trick better than any bullet.

:degrin:
 
lector said:
Yeah, me too.

I hadn't heard of Fred Phelps before this. This website is high in the rankings when you google him: http://www.godhatesfags.com/

Is it really his? It reads like satire, but I guess with the (c) Westboro Baptist Church, the apparently real schedule of protests, etc., it's on the level. Yikes. :eye-poppi
Click to expand...

I wonder if ever Phelps ever considered the safety of his family? These Phelps folks are kicking around a potentially very dangerous wasp nest (the U.S. Military) like a soccer ball, and one of the wasps may come out and bite them HARD in the bits! Admittedly most military people are cool customers, yes. It only takes one with a few rattled screws and training to kill...confronting idiots picketing perhaps his closest friend's funeral.:eek:
 
Nosi said:
I wonder if ever Phelps ever considered the safety of his family? These Phelps folks are kicking around a potentially very dangerous wasp nest (the U.S. Military) like a soccer ball, and one of the wasps may come out and bite them HARD in the bits! Admittedly most military people are cool customers, yes. It only takes one with a few rattled screws and training to kill...confronting idiots picketing perhaps his closest friend's funeral.:eek:
Click to expand...

Fred cares nothing about anything but himself. His children are only tools for him to use to garner more attention for himself. If anything, he would welcome one of them getting hurt or killed to get the spotlight to shine on him again.
He is truly a sociopath.
 
JimBenArm said:
Fred cares nothing about anything but himself. His children are only tools for him to use to garner more attention for himself. If anything, he would welcome one of them getting hurt or killed to get the spotlight to shine on him again.
He is truly a sociopath.
Click to expand...

Agreed. The guy is a narcissist and a sociopath.
 
Everyone, Phelps behaves like a troll on the internet. this is because they have very similar objectives: to gain attention no matter the cost. A troll's MO is not that different from the WBC in the sense that they make extremely provocative and outrageous statements in order to provoke a reaction, whether or not it is positive or negative.

In my history on the internet and dealing with trolls myself, i have learned that Trolls should be ignored because that is the only way for them not to be annoying because they realise their methods do not work, no matter how sensationalist or attention grabbing it is.

In the Great Old Days at Usenet, a particular acronym summed up their policy on the matter: DNFTT, or DoN't Feed The Trolls. Basically, reacting to a troll, no matter how outrageous or provocative their statements were was only giving him what they wanted: attention. Later on, in the dawn and evolution of the BBS, or Bulletin Board System, administrators could enforce the ultimate sanction upon any troll in order to preserve the integrity of his forum, namely banning.

In Fred Phelps case, not only does he troll online, but in real life as well. Many people have taken steps to deprive him of attention. The Patriot Guard Riders for instance, who arrive on request to soldiers' funerals, a particular target of the WBC. When they arrive, they create a barrier between the people and the WBC, kinda like using the Ignore list on this forum.

In my opinion, articles like these are only giving the Phelps clan what they want: Attention. They do not warrant attention, and only deserve obscurity.
 
Last edited:
dudalb said:
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.
Click to expand...

In this case, perhaps. But kudos to the judge for protecting freedom of speech. If Phelp's freedom to be a total jerk is not protected, nobody's is.

And Kudos to the Bill O'Reilly (hey, credit where credit is due) for stepping in and helping this guy out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom