Skip to comments.Anti-gay minister shouldn't be able to intrude on soldiers'
Posted on 10/06/2010 11:29:16 AM PDT by Kaslin
Today the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in Snyder v. Phelps, a case about the nature and scope of basic rights -- those of free speech vs. those of privacy. But this case is fundamentally about wrongs and the law's imperfect ability to redress them.
The facts of the case are well known. Matthew Snyder, a Marine lance corporal from Westminster, Md., was killed in the line of duty in Iraq in 2006. The Rev. Fred Phelps and members of his Kansas-based Westboro Baptist Church traveled more than 1,000 miles to Maryland to picket his funeral and draw attention to their view that society and the military are too tolerant of homosexuality. They stood at the entrance of the church where the funeral was held, waving signs that said "Thank God for Dead Soldiers," "God Hates Fags" and "God Hates You."
hey followed their protest by publishing a poem on the Internet entitled "The Burden of Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder," which stated that Matthew's parents "taught Matthew to defy his creator" and "raised him for the devil." The connection between the Phelpses' faith and their political views may be difficult to understand, but it is not difficult to see how this targeted expression of their views would be particularly hurtful to Matthew's father on the occasion of his son's funeral.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Intruding on the grief of others is just plain wrong especially when that intrusion is politically motivated.
I guess this minister does not believe in love the sinner and hate the sin. Not very Christ-like is he? In any event he should intrude and worsen the grief of others.
I wouldn’t want to be Fred Phelps on his judgement day.
This is not protected speech. It is naked treason and was prosecuted as such during WWII.
Treason, perjury, libel, slander, and inciting a riot are not protected speech. Laws against sedition go in and out of fashion but treason is defined as a crime in our Constitution and it is providing aid and comfort to the enemy in wartime.
No one cares enough about the Phelps clan to counter protest where they live. We should just stop giving Phelps free publicity.
This case is not about what is right or wrong or even moral. This case is only about our 1st amendment right to free speech.
I find the protesting at soldiers funeral to be morally wrong and in extreme bad taste but will fight for the right of these disgusting pigs to exercise their freedom of speech.
As repugnant, repulsive and reprehensible as I find the Phelps clan, I have to agree with you. The first amendment was clearly not intended to protect popular, generally accepted, polite, unobjectionable speech; such speech needs no protection. It was intended precisely to protect controversial, impolite, tasteless, contentious and disagreeable speech. As much as I would like to think that we conservatives would never use a funeral to promote a political agenda, surrendering that right altogether may turn out, in the long run, to be the more morally outrageous act.
Fred Phelps is the "go to guy" for their stereotype of all Christian opposition to homosexuality. It is based upon a lie. Fred Phelps' church has a membership consisting of SOME of his extended family, who also serve as litigators for the "church". He's been active as a candidate in Democrat politics. Who knows if he even believes the crap he spouts. He knows he serves to taint all Christians.
We do not have freedom of ALL speech.
It is against the law to yell fire in a theatre and cause a panic.
Free speech does have limitations.
Only anti-religious gays can intrude on our military and our religon.
The Phelps aren’t protesting the government.
They are protesting against private citizens.
The First Amendment does not give anyone the right to libel or slander a private citizen, and it’s protections, under the Constitution, are a buffer against GOVERNMENT intrusion into our lives.
The Phelps have no ‘freedom of speech’ protections when they protest and slander a private citizen.
I agree with you as I believe this could be a trap to shut up people like Rush, Levin, Beck, Hannity etc. Then you and I.
All true. So why are we talking about what THEY want us to talk about? We’re not going to do anything about it, like counter protest where Phelps live.
Anyone using God as a reason to insult or harass another person will have a particularly difficult judgment.
Would you say they had no right to do so, provided they were not on private property, were not obstructing traffic, etc.?
Out him as a Democrat and anti-American activist first. Stop letting the media describe him as a “minister”. He’s as big a fraud as the Reverend Al Sharpton.
If we have to endure hearing that every jihadist is “NOT a follower of Islam” then I can denounce these hucksters as something other than Christian (and that goes for Barack Obama as well).