Phelps and his crew of assholes has pushed the line too far. Today the Supreme Court heard the case brought by the father of a killed soldier whose funeral was disrupted by this fucked-up church group.

http://caffertyfile.blogs.cnn.com/2010/10/06/bar-people-from-protesting-at-funerals/?hpt=T2

I agree with countries like Canada that put a limit on speech. Hate speech is not permitted. Phelps could never get away with this in those countries.

I don't consider it a church, really. It's a cult of mostly family members designed to be disrespectful and insulting.

FairwoodKing;509637 wrote:I agree with countries like Canada that put a limit on speech. Hate speech is not permitted. Phelps could never get away with this in those countries.

As much as I agree with your intentions to shut Phelps up, we can't start limiting speech in any way. It is a dangerous slope. Not so much for today...but who gets to decide what is hate speech and what isn't in the future? Who gets to decide what is "fair"? Freedom of Speech is one right that sets our country apart from all of the others. As hateful as it is, it is their right. I would argue the more we pay attention to them, the more power we give to them. Silence would starve them of the audience they seek.

Let them protest all they want... 15 miles away from whatever church and/or graveyard.

Everybody's satisfied.

FairwoodKing;509637 wrote:I agree with countries like Canada that put a limit on speech. Hate speech is not permitted. Phelps could never get away with this in those countries.

Who defines hate speech? The government? Perhaps a pastor is reading out of the bible or preaching against homosexuality. Is that hate speech? Slippery slope.

I think many people get the whole freedom of speech thing wrong. Primarily it is focused on political speech against the government. Freedom of speech does not mean you can force other individuals to listen to your speech against their will. Shout downs, disturbing the peace, interfering in a private event or public event, not protected.

majorspark;510059 wrote:Who defines hate speech? The government? Perhaps a pastor is reading out of the bible or preaching against homosexuality. Is that hate speech? Slippery slope.

I think many people get the whole freedom of speech thing wrong. Primarily it is focused on political speech against the government. Freedom of speech does not mean you can force other individuals to listen to your speech against their will. Shout downs, disturbing the peace, interfering in a private event or public event, not protected.

Does the WBC get permits for protesting and picketing? Because it'd be simpler for towns to just have rules about picketing near graveyards or something. Either that or just start issueing disturbing the peace sitations to the WBC wackos.

I mean shit, why hasn't any town issued them a noise violation or something? Sure it might be thrown out in court but it would get them to shut up for the time being (because if they didn't you could charge them with more things).

I Wear Pants;510118 wrote:Does the WBC get permits for protesting and picketing? Because it'd be simpler for towns to just have rules about picketing near graveyards or something. Either that or just start issueing disturbing the peace sitations to the WBC wackos.

I mean shit, why hasn't any town issued them a noise violation or something? Sure it might be thrown out in court but it would get them to shut up for the time being (because if they didn't you could charge them with more things).

Probably for the same reasons they don't charge flag-burners with arson. The SCOTUS has said flag-burning is a protected form of speech under the 1st Amendment. If I was an attorney and was faced with a noise violation while standing on public property, then I would win 99.99% of the time as these protesters don't exceed 95 decibels for several minutes at a time and they do have a right to protest, as arguably horrible as it is. By going after the WBC, you are merely stoking their fires. They need to be ignored, not fought and they will dry up.

Their speech should be protected, as detestable as it is.

BGFalcons82;510131 wrote:Probably for the same reasons they don't charge flag-burners with arson. The SCOTUS has said flag-burning is a protected form of speech under the 1st Amendment. If I was an attorney and was faced with a noise violation while standing on public property, then I would win 99.99% of the time as these protesters don't exceed 95 decibels for several minutes at a time and they do have a right to protest, as arguably horrible as it is. By going after the WBC, you are merely stoking their fires. They need to be ignored, not fought and they will dry up.

Didn't really think about that.

I don't get why anyone puts them on television though. If I was an anchor I'd straight up refuse to talk about them.

FairwoodKing;509637 wrote:I agree with countries like Canada that put a limit on speech. Hate speech is not permitted. Phelps could never get away with this in those countries.

There are times when I find loud public protests on gay rights full of hate and vitriol against those who are opposed to homosexuality itself and who believe that gays should not be afforded any "special rights and protections." Yet I defend your right to spew your own particular form of hate speech. I simply choose to ignore it.

Limiting another person's right to free speech ultimately erodes your own freedoms and liberties. That's what makes America different and vastly superior to countries like Canada who restrict freedom of expression in the name of political correctness.

Hate speech for you might mean truth to someone else. Who are YOU to determine what's acceptable speech and what isn't? What gives YOU the freedom to voice your belief that Phelp's group is a "crew of fucked-up assholes" but then suggest that WBC should not be allowed to say - for example - "God hates queers?"

Hate is hate no matter who who spews the garbage.

fan_from_texas;510183 wrote:Their speech should be protected, as detestable as it is.

exactly

Denying anyone's right to free speech is very dangerous for all of us no matter how detestable or offensive that speech might be.

They have a right to spew their nonsense; I have a right to ignore it.

fan_from_texas;510183 wrote:Their speech should be protected, as detestable as it is.

This...no matter how hateful.

fan_from_texas;510183 wrote:Their speech should be protected, as detestable as it is.

Con_Alma;510283 wrote:This...no matter how hateful.

+2

We have the right to freedom of speech, not freedom of speech as long as we don't offend anyone.

A Motorcyle Club in Oregon revved their bike engines to full throttle to drown out the protests of this vile bunch of human turds as a veteran killed in Afghanistan's funeral procession entered the cemetery.

Patriot Guard Riders?

What about the right of individuals to bury their loved ones in peace?

CenterBHSFan;510542 wrote:Patriot Guard Riders?

Don't know...is this a MC made up of veterans?

majorspark;510583 wrote:What about the right of individuals to bury their loved ones in peace?

I would be in favor of laws limiting how close someone can protest/demonstrate at a funeral. It's the content of their speech that is protected. As long as they follow the laws and get the permits I do think we have to let them speak. I do agree with everyone that this should not even be in the news. If nobody reported it, they would try to find a different way to annoy people.

FatHobbit;510588 wrote:I would be in favor of laws limiting how close someone can protest/demonstrate at a funeral. It's the content of their speech that is protected. As long as they follow the laws and get the permits I do think we have to let them speak.

These laws exist and apply here. Content-neutral provisions have to be delicately crafted, but generally places can place reasonable, content-neutral restrictions. It's a fine line to walk.

The way I understand it they followed by all current time/place/manner restrictions and if they apply current first amendment law then the Court will side with the protesters. Some of the instances that Justice Alito was imagining that he suggests might not be protected by the first amendment don't really meet the facts of this case, it seems to me.

fan_from_texas;510608 wrote:These laws exist and apply here. Content-neutral provisions have to be delicately crafted, but generally places can place reasonable, content-neutral restrictions. It's a fine line to walk.

As I understand it now the protestors were at least 1000 feet away and the father of the deceased was not even aware they were there until he saw it on TV.

I do not support what these idiots have to say, but they have the same rights are the guy who wanted to burn the Koran or the KKK.

I still think Canada has the right idea. They limit freedoms to people who are responsible enough to use them. And yet Canadians are no less free than we are. In many respects they are freer, because they protect all their minorities from abuse. There is no room in Canada for the Westboro jerks or the KKK or Koran burners.

FairwoodKing;510868 wrote:I still think Canada has the right idea. They limit freedoms to people who are responsible enough to use them. And yet Canadians are no less free than we are. In many respects they are freer, because they protect all their minorities from abuse. There is no room in Canada for the Westboro jerks or the KKK or Koran burners.

Who gets to decide who is responsible enough to use their freedoms? There are quite a few people who don't think demonstrating for equal rights for gays is a responsible use of free speech.

FairwoodKing;510868 wrote:I still think Canada has the right idea. They limit freedoms to people who are responsible enough to use them. And yet Canadians are no less free than we are. In many respects they are freer, because they protect all their minorities from abuse. There is no room in Canada for the Westboro jerks or the KKK or Koran burners.

Define "responsible". Responsible in whose mind? If your protests to allow homosexuals to marry offend me, should I call the authorities and have you muzzled if I think you're irresponsible? What right do I have to do that to you? Is it because some bureaucrat says my rights are greater than yours? Who sets the standard?

Dangerous totalitarian thinking there Fairwood.

FairwoodKing;510868 wrote:I still think Canada has the right idea. They limit freedoms to people who are responsible enough to use them. And yet Canadians are no less free than we are. In many respects they are freer, because they protect all their minorities from abuse. There is no room in Canada for the Westboro jerks or the KKK or Koran burners.

1. If you think Canadians are "freer", you are not a very smart person (nicest I could say it).
2. These people are idiots, but have the right to be idiots.

jmog;511065 wrote:1. If you think Canadians are "freer", you are not a very smart person (nicest I could say it).
2. These people are idiots, but have the right to be idiots.

Just for ponderance....what if the SCOTUS sides with the family of the soldier and rules hate speech as illegal? I suppose it could happen as they once voted for eminent domain to confiscate property so that more tax revenue could be generated by a strip mall (that was never built by the way)...but I digress. What would be next? Would Fox News would be in the crosshairs? Or...when a Republican administration comes into power, then will they pull the plug on MSNBC? Where would it end?