• 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!

BenBurch said:
Simple; He's a lawyer. I think he wants somebody with real money to assault him so he can sue them for their fortune.
Click to expand...

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.:rolleyes::rolleyes::D:D:D

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.
 
Tamarillicent said:
Was Fred actually there? I had heard that Fred himself hadn't been seen in quite a while and that there were rumors that he had, in fact, died.

I can see why the Phepls Phamily would want to keep it quiet. They can't take like they give. I think a Big Pink protest at his funeral would be (would have been) perfect.
Click to expand...

As Ben notes, if true I want a chance to leave a big symbol of my respect for Fred on his headstone. Extra beans with those tacos prior!:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp:rolleyes:
 
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...
Unfortunately, for some things they are. Or blades, or pellets at high speed, or cyanide or heavy metal finely ground. Also, you are forgetting that no one argues (I don't anyway) Phelp's or any other rectum breather's right to say whatever he/she wants. That in no way precludes punishment for it after it is said.
 
It is interesting for me to see biblical fundamentalists -- whom I once debated -- move on to infamy.

If I cannot convince them that the biblie is not the literal word of God, look where the end up.
 
Bill Thompson said:
It is interesting for me to see biblical fundamentalists -- whom I once debated -- move on to infamy.

If I cannot convince them that the biblie is not the literal word of God, look where the end up.
Click to expand...

Phelps & Company are not biblical fundamentalist. They don't care what the Bible says, and they make the fundies look fun. They are their own kind of nutbars.
 
Ladewig said:
... 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...

That isn't courage, that's just stupid. :confused:
 
Normal Dude said:
That isn't courage, that's just stupid. :confused:
Click to expand...


I see the First Amendment as important enough to fight for and important enough to die for. Unpopular and even detestable speech must be protected if free speech is going to be truly guaranteed by the Constitution.

Phelps has never advocated violence against anyone. Using violence to silence him is therefore unconscionable.
 
Last edited:
IIRC, there have been a couple of cases in recent years where the two minutes' silence on Remembrance Day in the UK has been disturbed by people shouting abusive comments. Where the perpetrators have been caught, they've been charged with Breach of the Peace, which is often used when with public order offences in Scotland. It's not about preventing people from speaking their mind, but recognising there's a time and a place for such things, and it's not appropriate when people are mourning the dead.

I understand a number of states have now enacted funeral protest bans, but they're being challenged by some again under the First Amendment. I'm trying to recall the opinion I read which held that not all abusive speech was protected in all circumstances, as I think that would then allow such bans.
 
commandlinegamer said:
IIRC, there have been a couple of cases in recent years where the two minutes' silence on Remembrance Day in the UK has been disturbed by people shouting abusive comments. Where the perpetrators have been caught, they've been charged with Breach of the Peace, which is often used when with public order offences in Scotland. It's not about preventing people from speaking their mind, but recognising there's a time and a place for such things, and it's not appropriate when people are mourning the dead.

I understand a number of states have now enacted funeral protest bans, but they're being challenged by some again under the First Amendment. I'm trying to recall the opinion I read which held that not all abusive speech was protected in all circumstances, as I think that would then allow such bans.
Click to expand...


1) UK does not have a 1A

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.
 
Let's put the shoe on a hypothetical other foot.

Imagine a group of people protesting at a funeral of, say, one of the offenders of the Iraq prisoner abuse and torture, perhaps someone implicated in the death of a prisoner.

Suppose that person's family successfully sued, and the anti war protesters had to spend thousands of dollars in defense, and eventually got that ruling overturned (rightly so).

What would your position be then?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom