Step too far for Phelps

[blutoski]

This.

In addition to the media ignoring them, everyone needs to ignore them. When you show up to counter-protest, you are just another clown in the circus.

I spent about 10 months in Topeka in the late 90's doing some work for the State of Kansas. Fred and his mutants were out several times a week, standing on some corner downtown or near their compound, 5-6 of them with their signs and everyone in Topeka....ignored them. No one counterprotested, no one honked their horns, no one stood on the sidewalk and debated them. They walked past them, they drove past them, as if they were just another light post. That's what needs to happen. Instead everyone gets reeled in like a sucker.

This is my thought, too. The fuel for their racket is attention. Without attention, they have no business model.

 

[brenn]

They are a family of lawyers, but I doubt they finance their cult from lawsuits...they supposedly spend 200k a year on their travel budget. They must have some other income or family money.

That is an interesting question. I can't believe anybody in Kansas is hiring them for actual legal work (not to mention that Fred Phelps was permanently disbarred 30+ years ago). I understand that they don't have a congregation of contributors, so I'd like to know where the money comes from. It does look like they've structured the family church thing so as to avoid paying any taxes.

 

[blutoski]

What makes you think they are not genuine in their professed beliefs? I can't think of anything I've seen or heard that causes me to doubt their sincerity?

It's just like with Sylvia Browne, Uri Geller, Kevin Trudeau...

a) The claims are so ridiculous that it's hard to imagine these educated people holding them

+

b) The operations seem to be very profitable - every time a private citizen assaults them, or a government official orders them to stop exercising their constitutional right to free speech, they sue for damages and usually win

= smells like a racket

 

[blutoski]

That is an interesting question. I can't believe anybody in Kansas is hiring them for actual legal work (not to mention that Fred Phelps was permanently disbarred 30+ years ago).

Phelps was disbarred, but he's allowed to represent himself, and other members of his family are currently allowed to practice law. They're fully functioning as a legal team.

I understand that they don't have a congregation of contributors, so I'd like to know where the money comes from.

A private citizen assaults them, vandalizes their property, or a government official (police officer) tells them to move even though they're on public property, violating their constitutional rights.

Mostly settlements out of court, so we don't have a good public record of the dollar values.

It does look like they've structured the family church thing so as to avoid paying any taxes.

Yes. One more loophole.

 

[sophia8]

Patriot Guard Riders, the Freedom Riders were a civil rights group from the 50's or 60's

The Patriot Riders always offer to attend a funeral that the Phelpses are threatening to picket, to shield the mourners from the sight of those scum. But they always ask the family first.
They're good guys.

 

[Blackadder]

I was so hoping that this thread was news about the 14 times olympic champion.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

They are a family of lawyers, but I doubt they finance their cult from lawsuits...they supposedly spend 200k a year on their travel budget. They must have some other income or family money.

Lawyers get paid a salary, do they not?

A lot of them have jobs. They don't just sit around the compound all day. I suspect they all pitch their paychecks into a common pot.

 

[blutoski]

Lawyers get paid a salary, do they not?

A lot of them have jobs. They don't just sit around the compound all day. I suspect they all pitch their paychecks into a common pot.

My impression is that they're entirely employed either provoking or litigating their own lawsuits at this point.

 

[BenBurch]

Being disbarred, BTW, in no way prevents you from filing suit on behalf of yourself.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

My impression is that they're entirely employed either provoking or litigating their own lawsuits at this point.

That is incorrect.

 

[gnome]

I have heard it speculated that they profit from lawsuits based on provoking violence.

I understand out of court settlements may not make it possible to know the amounts--but can someone link to some information confirming that these lawsuits and settlements are even occurring?

 

[slingblade]

See, I can use italics, too.

Goodie for you!

 

[Bill Thompson]

He is a religious version of a shock jock. I suspect "there is no such thing as bad press" is part of his business plan.

 

[slingblade]

I have heard it speculated that they profit from lawsuits based on provoking violence.

I understand out of court settlements may not make it possible to know the amounts--but can someone link to some information confirming that these lawsuits and settlements are even occurring?

Wikipedia's not considered the greatest source by many, but they do at least use footnotes and references. Check the Phelps/WBC entry for evidence of suits both by them and against them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Phelps

 

[Rolls]

I recently read a rather lengthy 9 part story written by a fellow named Jon Michael Bell titled "Addicted to Hate" which gives a very detailed overview of the Phelps clan and the WBC. It's an interesting read. It's also an extremely disturbing and sometimes brutally graphic story as well. The way I could best describe the picture this paints of Fred Phelps is one of a horribly abusive, violent, and sadistic man.

Here's a link-

http://blank.org/addict


Rolls

 

[Nursefoxfire]

The WBC is a miracle. It has brought together Bill O'Reilly and Michael Moore in agreement in criticizing them, probably the only time the two have been on the same side of any issue, ever!

 

[Dorian Gray]

What needs to happen is this: Fred Phelps royally screws up and protests at a Scientologist's funeral, and then we get to sit back and see which screwed up psychotic church has the best lawyers. My god, that would be the single most entertaining event that has ever happened in the history of mankind.

Disclaimer: 'Screwed' is totally a euphemism.

 

[slingblade]

That space is already defined. It's public property. You can't prevent people from assembling there based on what they say.

If the law is there to "protect the privacy of people going to funerals" then that is exactly what you are doing. You would allow people to assemble there if they weren't addressing people going to funerals, and so therefore you are limiting them based on their speech.

That something cannot involve infringing upon the rights of people who are protesting.

See, I can use italics, too.

It just feels like a violation of the rights of the grieving that protesters have rights to speak, but the grieving have no similar rights to privacy for a specific and limited event.

I don't know what to do about it. I hear you that it's a violation of the constitution, but the simplistic answer that we should all just ignore them doesn't have a basis in reality. It won't get done, so it's really not an answer.

Insisting that the media ignore this is a similar kind attempt to limit the freedom of the press, the same kind of free speech violation. They can decide to ignore it, but no one can force them to, and they simply won't do it.

There are limits on free speech. Limits that the courts have determined are appropriate limits. I know it's an old and often tired argument, but the framers of the Constitution couldn't have seen such an event happening and couldn't have limited it at the time of framing the document. The document is living, for that purpose: so that future developments could be addressed.

I do uphold citizens' rights, honestly, I do. I just don't think one should have the right to be disruptive in this manner. Something ought to be done, and other places have done something similar to what's being proposed, I've read about them.

The bereaved have rights, too. They should somehow be protected.

But I do firmly agree that you shouldn't be trying to silence speech you don't like, because you don't like it. I simply think there's a difference between silencing it and imposing certain limits on it.

 

[FattyCatty]

Yes, it is ill-suited, because it has no resemblance to Fred Phelps and his band of whackos. They do not go into the church or anything, and are very careful to make sure that they are demonstrating on public land, and any "disruption" that happens is due to people's response to their nonsense. And just using a media event to proclaim that "God hates fags" is not libel or slander. That they show up at a high-profile (media) location is no different from the idiotic groups that demonstrate their cause outside the white house - they do it there because people will notice.

Why the quotes around disruption? Don't you consider their picketing disruptive in and of itself? How bizarre to only consider the reactions disruptions. Also, since when is a private funeral a "high-profile (media) location"? There is a big difference between a funeral for a private citizen and the White House. I think you are very confused.

I have no love for Phelps or WBC, but as soon as you start making laws to try to prevent ONE group you don't like from speaking out, because you don't like what they have to say, you have absolutely crossed the line.

I think a law prohibiting demonstrations at private funerals one hour before and one hour after the funeral is not crossing the line or destroying someone's ability to speak out. It merely places a limit on the time and place (as do laws about disturbing the peace and, as someone else pointed out, interrupting Congress). I would want the law as protection against any group, not just WBC.

Ignore them. They want a response, they want confrontation because they know they are legally in the right. If the media would also ignore them, they would go elsewhere.

THAT'S how you fight unwelcome speech.

I think this is a little smug of you. Not in regard to the media, which I agree should ignore them, but in regard to those they target. Expect a grieving parent, spouse, or child not to be upset with and not to react to the kind of attack WBC makes on a recently deceased child/spouse/parent is unrealistic.

I am a strong believer in freedom of speech, but I do think there can be limits without threatening the entire concept. An example from the Freedom Forum is:

Because the First Amendment has such strong language, we begin with the presumption that speech is protected. Over the years, the courts have decided that a few other public interests — for example, national security, justice or personal safety — override freedom of speech. There are no simple rules for determining when speech should be limited, but there are some general tests that help.

Clear and Present Danger

Will this act of speech create a dangerous situation? The First Amendment does not protect statements that are uttered to provoke violence or incite illegal action.
Justice Holmes, speaking for the unanimous Supreme Court, stated, “The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.”

I would say that WBC is certainly trying to provoke violence or incite illegal action (especially the latter, they make a point of suing for it).

This.

In addition to the media ignoring them, everyone needs to ignore them. When you show up to counter-protest, you are just another clown in the circus.

Again, I think it is unrealistic to expect someone burying a loved one to exercise calm, rational judgement.

I spent about 10 months in Topeka in the late 90's doing some work for the State of Kansas. Fred and his mutants were out several times a week, standing on some corner downtown or near their compound, 5-6 of them with their signs and everyone in Topeka....ignored them. No one counterprotested, no one honked their horns, no one stood on the sidewalk and debated them. They walked past them, they drove past them, as if they were just another light post. That's what needs to happen. Instead everyone gets reeled in like a sucker.

This is a very different situation from a private funeral where someone being buried is attacked in front of the grieving people who loved them. Again, I don't think you can expect the behavior demonstrated on your street corner.

 

[Zep]

Declare Phelps and his whelps as official terrorists and enemies of the USA. They are promoting religious violence with the intent of the downfall of the nation, and are promoting violence and attacks on the US citizenry individually and en mass. Very much like Al Quaeda. Deal with them accordingly. At the very least, deport them. I hear Iraq and Afghanistan are in need of homophobic, cruel, violent, insane, money-grubbing clerics to run their places. The Phelpses should fit right in there.