• 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!

Freddy said:
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.
Click to expand...

You're right but according to Snyder he knew they would be protesting at the funeral and that caused him emotional stress at the funeral even though he didn't see them. Very understandable. This case also has to do with a vile, hateful essay that the "church" posted on their website about Snyder's son specifically. I believe the Court said that it was permissiable because it was taken in terms of religious expression.
 
shadron said:
[BTW, your argument about religion is weak, from a constitutional pov.
Click to expand...

No, it's not. In Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (Jehovah's Witness arrested for causing a commotion and calling the Sheriff a facist) the Supreme Court said:

Supreme Court said:
There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting" words those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.
Click to expand...

Bolding mine. As far as I know this case was never overturned. That case was in 1942. In 1991 when the Court struck down a cross burning ordinance (R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul) even Justice Scalia recognized the importance of the "fighting words" exception.
 
Last edited:
Alt+F4 said:
You're right but according to Snyder he knew they would be protesting at the funeral and that caused him emotional stress at the funeral even though he didn't see them. Very understandable. This case also has to do with a vile, hateful essay that the "church" posted on their website about Snyder's son specifically. I believe the Court said that it was permissiable because it was taken in terms of religious expression.
Click to expand...

I don't dispute that merely knowing they were there, even without seeing them, would be emotionally stressful. That essay they wrote could be libelous, if it contains any false claims of fact. However, Snyder didn't sue for libel, which makes me think Phelps had libel laws in mind when he wrote it, and made sure not to cross that line (it is perhaps the only line he did not cross). The whole Phelps family are lawyers, and effective lawyers at that. They are certainly perverse in many ways, but unfortunately they are also smart.
 
Alt+F4 said:
No, it's not. In Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (Jehovah's Witness arrested for causing a commotion and calling the Sheriff a facist) the Supreme Court said:



Bolding mine. As far as I know this case was never overturned. That case was in 1942. In 1991 when the Court struck down a cross burning ordinance (R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul) even Justice Scalia recognized the importance of the "fighting words" exception.
Click to expand...

Fighting words have to be spoken to someone's face, though. Written words have never been found to be fighting words, and if Phelps was never less than 1000 feet from Mr. Snyder, then the fighting words exception won't fly.

The real question will be whether words can be fully protected by the First Amendment and still open one up to liability. Generally, the first amendment protects expressions of opinion, but does not protect knowingly false claims of fact. As far as I know, Phelps made no factual claims, false or otherwise. I don't expect the Supreme Court to hold that merely expressing your opinion can open you up to emotional distress claims, because in theory that could effectively gut the First Amendment. When an issue is contentious and emotionally charged, the expression of legitimate opinions can often be very distressing to people who strongly disagree. The mere threat of a lawsuit, even if ultimately unsuccessful, could have a serious chilling effect on legitimate speech.

My guess is that as goes the harassment claim, so goes the case. I don't think the harassment claim will hold up, because while the actions were severe, I don't know that they were pervasive as well, as required. (In the workplace, harassment can be severe or pervasive words or actions. In other contexts, it generally must be both severe and pervasive - although that may vary among jurisdictions). Given the distance the Phelpses kept, and the one-time nature of picketing a funeral, I don't see it happening. I certainly have no love for the Phelpses, but I just don't think the Supreme Court is likely to overturn the Fourth Circuit here. But they did grant cert, so at least four justices are at least thinking about it.
 
Last edited:
Skeptic said:
If I saw a man taking aim at Fred Phelps, I'd be in a terrible dilemma.

Should I read a book, or take a quick nap?
Click to expand...
You should say, "Sir, I don't think you should FIREthat gun."

As for O'Reilly, he's only doing it because he's pro war and he only sees someone picking on a soldier. If I remember correctly, doesn't the WBC also picket funerals of known homosexuals? I'd like to see O'Reilly pick up the tab in a similar situation for someone like that. Never happen. No, I am unimpressed with his little PR move.
 
(Shrug)

You know something? I don't think Phelps really hates gays.

He's just doing this to get on TV, being a self-important narcissist who craves attention. The "gay" thing is just the excuse.

Suppose that tomorrow a fire from heaven consumes all gay people, just like Phelps obviously wishes. Would he hang up his signs and retire as his job is done?

No, he'd be holding signs saying "God hates puppies" next to pet shops next, basing it on 1 Samuel 17:43, 2 Kings 8:13, etc.

Anything to get attention. Ignore him.
 
Last edited:
Skeptic said:
(Shrug)

Again, he's just doing this to get on TV, being a self-important narcissist who craves attention. The "gay" thing is just the excuses.

Suppose that tomorrow a fire from heaven consumes all gay people, just like Phelps obviously wishes. Would he hang up his signs and retire as his job is done?

No, he'd be holding signs saying "God hates puppies" next to pet shops next, basing it on 1 Samuel 17:43, 2 Kings 8:13, etc.

Anything to get attention. Ignore him.
Click to expand...

I can't ignore him any more than I can the 5-car pileup on I-29! I want to, oh yes, I want to, I just can't!
Forgive me, I'm weak.
 
Skeptic said:
(Shrug)

You know something? I don't think Phelps really hates gays.

He's just doing this to get on TV, being a self-important narcissist who craves attention. The "gay" thing is just the excuse.

Suppose that tomorrow a fire from heaven consumes all gay people, just like Phelps obviously wishes. Would he hang up his signs and retire as his job is done?

No, he'd be holding signs saying "God hates puppies" next to pet shops next, basing it on 1 Samuel 17:43, 2 Kings 8:13, etc.

Anything to get attention. Ignore him.
Click to expand...

Skeptic, I would like to. The problem is, I have no right to.

Allow me to remind you, Sir, that there was a time in my life when I was not so far removed from Fred Phelps. There was a time when I, too, voiced condemnation of gays and lesbians because they were somehow "unclean" before God. As a "Christian broadcaster," I was directly responsible for airing programs that belittled and degraded gay and lesbian people, and as a result, there were those mental defectives listening to "Christian broadcasters" declaring these people "queer" and "degenerate" who then went out and physically assaulted gays and lesbians. I was not someone who stood by idle and allowed this to happen. I was an active participant.

Bear in mind, mine is not mere guilt by association. This was my choice back in the day, an active decision to participate in this form of brutality. I had NO right then to do this, and I have NO right now to stay silent now that I am fully cognizant of the evil I did.

And, yes, participation in this kind of thing is evil. It is the denial of individuals of their rights, of their responsibilities. It is wrong. That I was, in part, responsible for the denial of rights experienced by gays and lesbians for them to freely associate, for them to marry, hell, even for some of them to be able to walk down the damned street with a degree of safety, is not something that sits well with me.

Even something as relatively benign as Paul's declaration that God had turned them over to a reprobate mind has had some horrific consequences for someone who simply chooses to speak out about who they are. How can I stay silent, how can I simply IGNORE this grotesque caricature of a human being, this embarrassing wart on the human soul? That he speaks and is unchallenged by the bulk of Christianity is not just a debasement of Christianity itself, but of the communities which don't challenge him. It's inexcusable, and we cannot sit by and allow this.

In Phelps' warped mind, God hates (fill in the blanks). That's true. He hates Jews, Chevy drivers, Irish, nose-pickers, masturbators, Liberals, cat-lovers... You name it, in his rotting mind, Phelps is convinced God hates it. You can't fix stupid.

But some of us have an obligation, due to our past, to stand up and say "This cannot stand." This is no different than when Ann Coulter, EI*, or Laura Ingram, EI*, spews her nonsense. I am not in favor of censorship, but I am most definitely in favor of speaking out and challenging some of the more perverse or weird declarations made.

If they want to speak, fine and dandy. But they have no right to speak unchallenged. When your past deeds have contributed to the destruction of others, you have forfeited your right to remain silent. You are now obligated by the recognition of your past deeds to stand up and against such defilement.

I have no way of knowing the full extent of the harm that I did while I was airing radio programs which openly declared harm to people who in no way had ever done me any. That's something for Dr. Kitten and her well equipped mind to determine. Even declaring, "Repent! Repent!" to people: How do you turn away from yourself, from who you are as a man or woman? How is that even possible? Isn't there harm done in doing something like that to another?

I turned 50 today. This is not just a celebration of half a century, this is once more a time when I must examine who I am as a man, and it must take place factually. I have to examine my deeds, and the harm I've done in them. I wish I could declare my apologies to all for the harm I did in such a short time.

Considering that some of the spew I helped broadcast may well have contributed to the death of Matthew Shepard, for example, this is not something which sits well with me.

Oh, sure, I know. Someone is going to declare that I'm simply being melodramatic. Perhaps.

But go back and reread what was intended by Proposition Eight, or what the intent was in denying Constance McMillen attendance at her prom. Then come back and tell me you can sit back and stay quiet. Or better yet, tell me I have any right to kick back and allow this to go unchallenged, and to allow it anywhere.

I don't have that right. I have no right to allow the diminution of anyone as a person, or of their rights. I have already seen what role that plays in the destruction of others.

No more.

*EI: Educated Idiot
 
Roadtoad said:
Skeptic, I would like to. The problem is, I have no right to.

Allow me to remind you, Sir, that there was a time in my life when I was not so far removed from Fred Phelps. There was a time when I, too, voiced condemnation of gays and lesbians because they were somehow "unclean" before God. As a "Christian broadcaster," I was directly responsible for airing programs that belittled and degraded gay and lesbian people, and as a result, there were those mental defectives listening to "Christian broadcasters" declaring these people "queer" and "degenerate" who then went out and physically assaulted gays and lesbians. I was not someone who stood by idle and allowed this to happen. I was an active participant.
Click to expand...

Yours is a very interesting an excellent post (the whole of it, I mean). But I still think you're missing my point. I think you're wrong to think Phelps actually cares about gays at all, one way or the other, and that therefore atoning for your past hatred of gays requires you to condemn him.

You see, all that Phelps cares about is getting attention. If gays disappear tomorrow, he would scream "God hates Jews" or "God hates Blacks" or "God hates puppies". He isn't really a gay-basher any more than he would be a puppy-basher in the last case.

If he really was a gay basher, someone who hated gays and whose purpose was to hurt them, challenging him would be the correct thing to do. But since he is really only an attention-seeker, challenging him is a mistake, since that's what he wants. His real goal is not to hurt gays -- it's for people to challenge him.

So in his particular case, ignoring him is the correct thing. If everybody did, he'd stop on his own accord within a month.
 
Last edited:
Skeptic said:
Yours is a very interesting an excellent post (the whole of it, I mean). But I still think you're missing my point.

I think you're wrong to think Phelps actually cares about gays at all, one way or the other, and that therefore atoning for your past hatred of gays requires you to condemn him.

You see, all that Phelps cares about is getting attention. If gays disappear tomorrow, he would scream "God hates Jews" or "God hates Blacks" or "God hates puppies".

Even if you are a recovering antisemite or racist or someone who were cruel to dogs, you still won't have the moral duty to oppose Phelps in that case.

Phelps doesn't hate gays. He just loves himself and needs someone, anyone, to hate so he'll get attention. Some people really do hate gays; you need to oppose them. (As I'm sure you do).
Click to expand...

Point taken. Gays are simply the target du jour.

But they are, right now, the target.

I'm simply telling Phelps "No."
 
Something was done by Fred Phelps. If he knew what it was, he'd shoot himself being the gay hater that he is.

Fred Phelps is uniting people in a common cause. He is uniting people who would look rather cross eyed at each other in other circumstances. Those people are gays solders/marines, and now miners. These groups are finding their funerals harassed by this twerp 'church'.

You know what they say, offal makes great fertilizer for flowers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom