Posted on 11/24/2007 7:44:20 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
Gorzaloon wrote: “One has to look at the intent. the intent is not to express, not to preach, but to outrage.”
How are we to know their intent? Even so, where does it say the government has the right to regulate speech intended to outrage? An outrage for one group is not necessarily an outrage to another. Where do you draw the line? So long as they aren’t advocating violence or trespassing or breaking other laws unrelated to free speech, where is the legal right to stop them? When the neo-Nazis marched in Skokie, many people made arguments similar to yours, but the neo-Nazis were allowed to march.
“Public safety isn’t at risk, nor is Fred Phelps advocating (to my knowledge) illegal activities.”
Actually public safety is at risk...I can’t believe that he and/or his rubes (useful idiots to you SWW members) haven’t been shot at yet! Oh, and ‘posters’ at funerals is real tacky (but make great birdshot targets)!
well if they were ‘pro-AIDS in San Francisco’, mebbe there is room for negotiation!
Have a few pedophiles crash your young daughter's birthday party at the public park and see if you still feel this way.
Non-Sequitur wrote: “But the family of the soldier also has rights, and the Phelps mob violated them.”
Interesting. How were the family’s rights violated?
I’m not arguing for Fred Phelps BTW. I’m truly interested in this case as it relates to the 1st Amendment. I seriously don’t think this will survive on appeal.
I have long suspected (altough I will concede that I have no proof of this) that Westboro was being bankrolled by someone. The amount of $$ they made off of their lawsuits should have run out years ago. I have also been surprised that the MSM never dug into their fiances either.
I am not one to wear the tin-foil hat, but there are just too many unanswered questions about Phelps and his whelps.
Maybe this lawsuit will help to “out” anyone involved in (for whatever motive) financing these people
“...Interesting. How were the family’s rights violated?..”
Not a lawyer but I would think there right of privacy...can’t I bury my son in peace...this isn’t about preventing their ability to stand on a soap box just where they stand...
Ann Archy wrote: “VILE....EVIL people who have done WORSE than yelling FIRE in a theater!! If you think this is Free Speech where they say AWFUL things about DEAD SOLDIERS at their FUNERALS, you are pathetic. Have you NO DECENCY, SIR?”
My decency extends to even those I vehemently disagree with. I have no problem with laws against protests within so many yards/miles of a funeral so long as they are applied equally to all citizens. I wouldn’t want these jerks at a funeral for one of my family members, but also I value our constitution.
Fred Phelps and his “church” deserve all the public scorn they get BTW.
Let the world show that before I read a single comment, I will put on my fine, oh-so-fashionable tin foil hat and suggest something I said on my own Blog, link below.
http://patfish.blogspot.com/2007/11/true-crime-dog-shoots-man-man-saves-dog.html
But I figure that having a churchy-church group going around the country, going to military funerals under the guise of protesting America’s kindness to homosexuality...I figure this is how the Moonbats think.
I mean how many other homosexual venues, if you would, are far more appropriate for the protesting of the supposed crassness and evil of homosexuality? Wouldn’t this Westboro church be better served to squat down on some of those San Francisco homo events that the world could better see the homosexuality the politically correct don’t want us to see? If not San Fran aren’t there plenty of other sorts of places that could provide a better background that the funerals of American soldiers? By what logic does the Westboro church think the funerals of soldiers will enrage the American public against homosexuality of all things?
But if you wanted, by some nefarious pretense, for the world to see the many funerals of American soldiers...say...well this scam is pretty convenient. Remember, the Moonbats are no longer allowed to show the caskets of the dead as they return to mine own state of Delaware’s Dover Air Force Base. So some way is needed to put dead soldiers, in some form or fashion, in front of the American public, especially the ladies in the beauty parlor.
That bit about having a church group against homosexuals, well that helps deflect the anger to ...duh, church groups! Cause only the holier than thou church groups are so evil as to do this sort of thing.
I think, if they’re really digging for funds for this group, that somewhere, some way....there’s a Soros connection.
I will now remove the tin foil hat and return to my scheduled programming.
Ann Archy wrote: “I see on your Home Page that you call yourself a Christian......hmmmmmm.....”
Yes, I am. Are you saying I should be hateful and/or advocate violence against Fred Phelps and his so-called church?
CRBDeuce wrote: “useful idiots to you SWW members”
Forgive me, but I don’t know what SWW is. Nevertheless, I doubt I’m a member.
I’m concerned that this precedent might allow our side to be sued should we do a Freep in a place with a sufficiently hostile jury pool
I doubt so as well...Socialist Workers of the World
I’ll wade in-
So... phelps is Evil and disgusting?
How about a severly wounded soldier coming back
to an American Hospital-and being greeted by-
CODE PINK! want to see their disgusting signs-
want to listen to their Mocking chants-
This board and the freepers have been fighting
these vile people for some time- we know we cannot
sue- or should we?
Hillary,Pelosi,Dingy Harry, have all supported their
anti american-anti soldier position.
I think they are 10 times WORSE than the Phelps family.
now I’m confused...
What’s a FReep in place? my imagination is working, but not my memory!
Eaker wrote: “Have a few pedophiles crash your young daughter’s birthday party at the public park and see if you still feel this way.”
How would that relate? If pedophiles were violent or implied they were going to rape and/or attack my daughter, that’s a completely different matter. You can’t legally walk around with signs that imply you are going to attack or harm someone (I think that is called assault).
assault: an act which creates fear of an imminent battery.
battery: an unlawful touching.
I’m not going to repeat the trash Fred Phelps uses during these protests, but I don’t believe it creates fear of an imminent battery (except maybe for Fred Phelps).
Who was sued and who got the judgement agaist them.
I think the judgement was against the people. The church was included. The church has the money but since there is no judgement against the church entity it will cough up no money. Things can continue as before with the church sending its minions on missionary endeavors.
a FReep is when FReepers protest somewhere....much the same as the Phelps do, except that FReepers would NEVER disrupt a burial....for instance they FReep at Walter Reed to support the troops.....with positive signs.
“Bankrupt the scumbags” Bump.
They brought this upon themselves.
conservativehusker wrote: “Not a lawyer but I would think there right of privacy...can’t I bury my son in peace...this isn’t about preventing their ability to stand on a soap box just where they stand...”
I agree. Laws restricting protests within so many yards/miles of a funeral, so long as they are applied equally to all protests, might be OK. Hasn’t the SCOTUS already ruled on similar laws preventing protests near abortion clinics?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.