• 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.

Step too far for Phelps

Darat said:
I have to disagree with you - they do have an ideology and I think they sincerely believe in it and what they are doing. What we see as distasteful and opportunist they see as necessarily opportunist. They sincerely believe that these events are signs of the evil in the world today, the evil that will prevent people reaching the enlightenment that they believe in. In their minds what they are doing is an act of Christian charity in its most basic form.
Click to expand...

I don't buy it myself. I think Phelps knows full well he is seeking his own narcissistic reward.
 
It'd be nice if he did take a step too far, off a short pier. I have to admit, it'd be nice to be a fly on the wall when he gets to meet God, I'm rather doubtful that the conversation is going to go the way he expects it too.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
It's a shame we need this legislation because of one irrelevant group of misfits.
Click to expand...

I know, and I agree. It really is a shame we find the need to put a spatial barrier between expressions of hatred and expressions of grief.

But lest anyone think I am advocating a legal denial of Phelps' freedom of speech, consider this analogy, or example:

I am freely allowed to criticize my government, but I am not allowed to go into the chambers of the House or Senate and start yelling my opinions, disrupting the assembly. If I do so, I will be removed. This is not a denial of my right to criticize, but a limit on the method of my criticism. There are other, more appropriate venues in which I may speak and be heard.

I have the right to voice my opinions, within certain limits. Free speech is limited. Slander and libel laws prove that, amply. One can't just say any old thing they care to say, and face no consequences for it.

Phelps has an equal right to spew the venomous speech he and his "church" daily vomit up. He does not, in my opinion, have the right to disrupt the funeral of my dead child to do so, any more than he would have the right to do this in the chambers of the House or Senate.

This example may be ill-suited to make my point. I'm sure I'll be quickly informed, if it is. ;)
 
slingblade said:
I know, and I agree. It really is a shame we find the need to put a spatial barrier between expressions of hatred and expressions of grief.

But lest anyone think I am advocating a legal denial of Phelps' freedom of speech, consider this analogy, or example:

I am freely allowed to criticize my government, but I am not allowed to go into the chambers of the House or Senate and start yelling my opinions, disrupting the assembly. If I do so, I will be removed. This is not a denial of my right to criticize, but a limit on the method of my criticism. There are other, more appropriate venues in which I may speak and be heard.

I have the right to voice my opinions, within certain limits. Free speech is limited. Slander and libel laws prove that, amply. One can't just say any old thing they care to say, and face no consequences for it.

Phelps has an equal right to spew the venomous speech he and his "church" daily vomit up. He does not, in my opinion, have the right to disrupt the funeral of my dead child to do so, any more than he would have the right to do this in the chambers of the House or Senate.

This example may be ill-suited to make my point. I'm sure I'll be quickly informed, if it is. ;)
Click to expand...

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.

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.

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.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
I don't buy it myself. I think Phelps knows full well he is seeking his own narcissistic reward.
Click to expand...

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?
 
BenBurch said:
I hope nobody gives Phelps what he wants.

What he wants is violence.
Click to expand...

You are correct. The logic side of me cannot argue one bit. The fallacy side of me, on the other hand, wonders why there are never lunatics ready to go on a shooting spree where Phelps is the target.
 
pgwenthold said:
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.
Click to expand...

The state of Arizona is not trying to prevent Phelps from speaking out. They are trying to establish a 300 foot protection zone around the funeral location. The article I cited claimed Ohio has done so.

IANAL, but I suspect the ACLU would support the WBC if their rights were being violated.

Other states have enacted these protections, according to Wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_Baptist_Church#Responses
 
Emet said:
The state of Arizona is not trying to prevent Phelps from speaking out. They are trying to establish a 300 foot protection zone around the funeral location. The article I cited claimed Ohio has done so.
Click to expand...

...to prevent Phelps and his group from protesting near funerals.

If you think these laws are anything but an attempt to silence Phelps, then you are crazy.
 
pgwenthold said:
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.
Click to expand...

That didn't take long at all. :D

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.
Click to expand...

Nope, no one's even suggesting preventing them from speaking. They can speak, or yell, or throw themselves on the ground and drum their heels in a tantrum, all they like. Just not at or right next to a funeral. It's the space that's being defined, not the words.

This limit is already imposed in other venues. Adding another isn't suppressing speech, any more than it suppresses speech in the other venues.

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.
Click to expand...

Of course, but that's not likely to ever happen. It's media fodder. And suggesting the media ought not cover it is suggesting a suppression of free speech.

It's generally agreed that they can do this at funerals because a cemetery is a public place. Fine. Redefine cemeteries as private places, exactly like a business. A restaurant is not a public place, it's a private business. So do that for cemeteries. Problem solved.

ETA: well, no, not really. See following post regarding city streets. But something has to be done to protect the privacy of people attending funerals, somehow.
 
Last edited:
Spindrift said:
Aren't cemeteries private property? Why can't the owners just bar them from the property?
Click to expand...


Apparently not. That's the argument I've always heard: they're public places, or the grounds around them, like a city street next to the cemetery, are public lands.

eta: So if the public street they choose to stand on happens to be 20 feet away from a funeral in progress, they're not breaking any laws, because anyone can be on any public street.

It'd be unworkable to rezone every cemetery so that it has a natural buffer zone around it. Many cemeteries are closely bordered by streets on all sides.
 
Last edited:
sgtbaker said:
You are correct. The logic side of me cannot argue one bit. The fallacy side of me, on the other hand, wonders why there are never lunatics ready to go on a shooting spree where Phelps is the target.
Click to expand...

Because the lunatics know that shooting Phelps would cause them to lose their lunatic status.
 
Why not publicize a false site for the funeral, and have the real one elsewhere?
 
pgwenthold said:
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.

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.

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
slingblade said:
That didn't take long at all. :D



Nope, no one's even suggesting preventing them from speaking. They can speak, or yell, or throw themselves on the ground and drum their heels in a tantrum, all they like. Just not at or right next to a funeral. It's the space that's being defined, not the words.
Click to expand...

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.



This limit is already imposed in other venues. Adding another isn't suppressing speech, any more than it suppresses speech in the other venues.



Of course, but that's not likely to ever happen. It's media fodder. And suggesting the media ought not cover it is suggesting a suppression of free speech.

It's generally agreed that they can do this at funerals because a cemetery is a public place. Fine. Redefine cemeteries as private places, exactly like a business. A restaurant is not a public place, it's a private business. So do that for cemeteries. Problem solved.

ETA: well, no, not really. See following post regarding city streets. But something has to be done to protect the privacy of people attending funerals, somehow.
Click to expand...

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

See, I can use italics, too.
 
case#46cw39 said:
How can a nine year old, not yet of the age of majority, not able to vote, never voted on anything, have any reason to be picketed. It makes zero sense. It's obviously irrational.

The American education system has just fallen over and smashed into a million pieces, proving it's uselessness for logic and critical thinking. It's time to teach them in elementary school so that in 15 years this kind of derelict, irrational, low IQ "thinking" will be a part of the dark age past.

I believe we should not ignore this and someone should start a debunking site on him. This is just too sad and pathetic.
Click to expand...

I think it's the opposite: the Phelpses are clearly intelligent, educated, and thinking very rationally (if unethically).

This is a very profitable family business.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom