Yes, but there ARE laws about things like treason and incitement to riot, and these ... I hesitate to call them people ... are skating perilously close to the edge. The swine have found their way up here, too. I have no time or use for their ilk.

What I don't understand is why they can't privatize the funerals to keep jerks like this from showing up. I'm not a fan of suppressing anyone's rights, regardless of how stupid, immature and whatever. There just seems like there should be other avenues of approach to dealing with this that don't involve suppressing rights.

Duane, I agree. But do people have to put up partisans around the graveyard to hold a funeral? You still see them driving in and out. There must be someway to stop this. But changing the Constitution is a major thing for me!

Maybe Westboro Baptist Church ought to be reminded that the Top Ten (Commandments) have nothing about 'be straight'.
No lying, no stealing, no coveting, love thy neighbor!, even honor thy parents....but not a thing about 'Be Heterosexual' or "Don't Be Gay'...

....(and yes, I know where they get their ammo in biblical passages)...

Scanner, I looked at this case last spring--meaning, actually read the opinions of the lower courts, etc.--so although I can't remember the details at the moment, I can tell you that I came to the conclusion that it's a fairly open and shut first amendment case.

I'd rule in favor of the jerk.

I don't even know why the SC took the case. I mean, what's new or different about it? Why do people think it's special? It's loathsome speech, period. That's what our constitution protects.

To be clear, and for those who haven't read as much: Phelps always calls the city in advance and finds out what the rules of engagement are, so to speak. He follows the law, protesting within the geographic and time constraints given him. In this particular case, the father of the soldier didn't even see him or his family. The father only went online afterward and looked it up.

That answers Duane's question. The funerals *are* private. If we know there's a funeral at St. Mary's Church on Main Street at 10 am--most of which is posted publicly somewhere--then we can stand at the street corner, in public space, and hold up signs. There's nothing about this case that deserves protection, as horrid as it is. People should just ignore Phelps and he'll go away. The media jumped on him at the first beat and they cover every protest. That's the problem.

Yes, it's a slippery slope, once you take away their right to protest(lawfully, mind you!!!) where will it stop?

But still, we can punch them in the nose right? FREEDOM OF SPEECH BABEEEEE...:D

Scanner, I have a bit of a closer insight to this problem as some may have. When I came home from Nam I was met by the protesters, spit upon, eggs thrown at me. As bad as that was, the worse part of this activity were protesters who showed up at funerals to cheer their Viet Cong brothers and give thanks for another murdering American soldier being buried. They would call the parents of dead soldiers and tell those grieving people that their son deserved the death he got.

Did they have the right to do this? Yes. Were they morally bankrupt? Yes.

Our constitution gives them the right to protest anything they feel the need to protest.

The thing is...these folks who are doing this today will have to live with their actions for the rest of their lives and sooner or later they will come to realize how horrible those actions are and the guilt and horror of their actions will break their hearts. That being the case, I hope they live to a ripe old age so they have pleanty of time to feel that guilt...and I hope....to suffer.

So is it right? No. Do they have the right? Yes. Sometimes democracy can be a drag, but it's all we got.

I do not understand why those people were never stopped. It is called respect
Rated with hugs

Free speech is free speech. That being said, someone on OS has put it like this, segregated placement, an area where protest is allowed but does not interfere with the event. I added on their post that churchs and other houses of worship should be taxed since many hate groups fly under cover of churches, like this one, and if they had to pay like the rest of us, maybe their small group would not even have the money to travel to funerals....just a thought.

Hi Scanner. Please see my post from back in March, "Distinguishing Conduct from Speech in Snyder v. Phelps." All I would add is that there is precedent for limiting the time, place and manner of speech when the chose time, place and manner targets a captive audience and/or can be interpreted as harassing/intimidating. Thus the Supreme Court has upheld no-protest buffer zones outside abortion clinics and has upheld laws banning protesters from picketing outside the homes of doctors who provide abortions. I would argue that grieving military families attending a private funeral are similarly a captive audience, and their emotional vulnerability makes the protests that much more harassing/intimidating.

And damn you shu-mu, you stop trying to build up scanner's ego, his wife says, NO MORE!!! HE'S ALREADY AN EGO MONSTER!!!!!

Gawd!! :D

shu-mu, shu-mu, come back, please. I need you. Don't you dare go to Tink's blog. I will kill myself if you cheat on me with that damn Tinkster!!

I have been watching the coverage of these people and, from a clinical standpoint, I would have to say that these people are fucked in the head.

Okay, in more clinical language, the people I have seen on television coverage are displaying clear signs of narcissism compounded by a pronounced persecution complex. More clinically, they may be described as having a narcissistic sociopathic personality disorder with marked depressive and paranoid tendencies.

Proof: Did you see the woman festooned with nasty slogan signs on sticking out from her shoulders and hips, wearing her beliefs literally on her sleeves? Aside from the obvious exhibitionistic tendencies, which go hand in hand with narcissism, the fixed facial expression and dilated irises (I have a 50 inch screen to watch these things on, with close features) all contribute to this diagnosis.

The colorful signs and even more colorful garb worn by the demonstrators, which may seem contra-indicated by the suspicion of paranoia, is actually a symptom of it. Paranoids often dress extravagantly to as to provide a logical rationale for their feelings of always being under observation.

It is possible, and it's not at all uncommon, for a group of people to join together in a group psychosis...and this is an example of that tendency.

Bottom line: they are nuts.

The best way to deal with these people is to give them absolutely no coverage whatsoever because every second of air time they get increases their desire to perpetrate more outrages against the families of the fallen.

The media, by devoting attention to this group, is aiding and abetting their efforts to distort reality.

I am beginning to believe that mass media is the disease itself rather than merely being a symptom of it.

Legally speaking, however, the right to free speech must be protected, no matter how heinous the spree (sic) speech is , because the heinousness of the speech is always subject to interpretation and, once we start down that road, we will soon get lost in the switches.

Torman's comment to the contrary, the reality is that people suffering from religious manias of this sort never recover sound thinking because they have had any to begin with. People who develop maniacal behavior patterns based on religion have a deeply flawed understanding of reality, which has been undermined by their unschooled absorption of corrupted religious tracts. They cannot recover from this without rejecting the religion itself and this, Marjoe Gortner notwithstanding, they never do.

Unfortunately, the First amendment protects even reprehensible speech. One would hope that a way can be found to protect everyone's rights, while still giving honor to the deceased.
A part of me feels that exceptions should exist for those who have made the ultimate sacrifice for the country.

Maybe it's the mood I'm in today but I'm going with Tink on this, including the part about punching them in the nose.

A thought provoking post scanner. Bottom line, it's a yelling fire in a crowded theatre issue.

Do I have a first amendment right to go into an inner city black nightclub wearing a Klan robe while shouting "I hate niggers"?

Yes. Do I have an expectation that I would not exit said nightclub alive? Yes. You play, you pay.

They can have their say from far away. Fences and partitions, and a required distance away for protesters.

Buffy

They are sick assholes, but that's not illegal. Consider their freedom of speech the price you pay for your own freedom of speech, and you'll see that it's worth it in the end.

@Torman: I just heard a show on NPR--I think it was Radio Times with Marty Moss-Coane?--a few weeks ago that said there is not a single verified case of someone being spat upon after Vietnam, legend to the contrary. So if it did indeed happen to you, you should let someone know. I'm serious.

What Lainey said.

But if they do call this illegal then there should be grounds for arresting GWB for saying "Mission Accomplished", a far, far more vile act than this.

In this case, restricting their freedom of religion is not impacted by not letting them protest and disturb others in the free exercise of their religion. There is no right to religious warfare or to yell fire in a theater, which is what they are essentially doing.

Remember, the question is whether the family has a right to sue for intention infliction of emotion distress. We aren't even talking about imposing a no-speech zone - merely holding these yahoos accountable.

Freedom of religion is no shield for emotional violence and the recovery of tort damages for it. Civil society demands that the judgement against this so called pastor be reinstated. God will deal with his lack of Christian charity later.

It is a cardinal charity to bury the dead. Disturbing people who do that is what we in the Catholic Church would call a mortal sin. I would warn the dude and his flock that he is going to Hell, but I'm not sure he deserves the warning - as such a warning must be out of love (which certainly does not seem to be the motivation for these protests). Those who cannot correct others out of love must remain silent - and I see no love in this so called preacher. I see pride. Like I said, he's going to burn.

It was protected speech under the Constitution when Nazis marched in a town populated by Holocaust survivors, as long as they had a permit and followed the law. I think this is similar.

The First Amendment protects speech that is obnoxious and horrid, as it should. When it doesn't, someone will find a reason to foolishly restrict your speech. And-the Westboro people may not be within a thousand feet, in most states, of the service.

Those people are mindless, inconsiderate and just plain mean, but rights are rights. I always remind myself of the anti-Vietnam War demonstrations back in the day. Disrespectful? Yes. Necessary? Absolutely.

Lezlie

The British journalist, Louis Theroux, did a series on these people from the inside. You can catch it on youtube. They are a doomsday cult with a charismatic leader who probably is sexually conflicted (obviously). I would like to see them ignored. The nobility of military sacrifice will far outlive the disgusting actions of this disturbed family.

As to the right of the American Nazi party to march at Skokie (Illinois) in the late '70s, the Court found that it had such a right and of course it did have such a right.
No one is safer when lunatics are forced underground.

The families still have private rights against the protestors, especially if the protestors violate the time, place and manner limits that can constitutionally be placed on their right to protest. The families can sue for intentional infliction of emotional distress--the First Amendment doesn't bar actions by private parties, just government restrictions. It's the legal equivalent of a punch in the nose.

Rated for raising the issue in a thoughtful way.

freedom of speech covers the assholes also. that they are doing this vile act sickens me. maybe someday all the families hurt by Phelps and his fellow church members will be able to assemble and disrupt his funeral, which by the looks of him, is coming soon.

I agree with what sagemerlin said and could not have put it into words so I'm glad he did. These people have read the Bible and their insanity has twisted whatever wisdom is to be found there. It's unlikely they will get well because they're too crazy as a group to realize they are completely out of touch with reality, the leaders are always madmen. Water seeks it's own level.

You can google folie à deux which is madness shared by two, also folie à plusieurs which is madness shared by many. ICD-9 (International Classification of Diseases) code is 297.3, the French identified the disorder in the 19th century.

These delusional psychotic disorders used to be pretty rare but at this rate it may soon be the latest psychiatric term bandied about. I became curious about this illness about 4 years ago as I saw it to a lesser degree at my last job where my boss was a delusional Christian and sold her delusions to employees and investors alike. She was big time nuts, luckily she was non-violent.

I'm struck most by sagemerlin's insight that mass media is the disease. It is a fearful thing as mass delusions are much more dangerous than mass hysteria, which is what we once commonly saw.

Wikipedia has a very easy to read article, I think you'll find it very informative. I see a genuine trend in this illness, if you read the article you'll see sagemerlin is frighteningly on the money. The media is very much a player in these "little" events, they sell airtime. You're very wise to question these things.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folie_%C3%A0_deux

Their right to free speech may not include private ceremonies. If you walk into a crowded church and start yelling, they have the right to remove you.

You do bring up a very important point... free speech isn't always popular.

I'm curious if the ACLU is defending Westboro?

I'm not sure I agree that freedom of speech has to be absolute ... or else that ole slippery slope thing. Doesn't my freedom stop when it impacts yours?

Here in Canada we have some restrictions on freedom of speech - some hate-speech laws. When I have some time I'll look into how those laws work and whether they would take care of the Westboro folks. But in the meantime, I feel comfortable living under some speech restrictions. Extremism on either end of the spectrum tends to be hurtful. Americans seem to have a fanatical thing about *freedom*, but in any society there have to be enforced rules against all kinds of freedoms where they damage or endanger other people. (I have freedom of movement - but not in my car down the sidewalk or with a moving van into your house...)

P.S. - In a nearby city, there is an area called Westboro, where there are a number of churches, all a bit upset by the notoriety of whozitz and his family...

Gotta let 'em stand there with their stupid signs. They marginalize themselves more and more each time they defile some solemn event, like magpies chattering in a tree. On the positive side, that they can make public blasphemous asses of themselves without being arrested or shot represents one of the few reasons I prefer to live in this country over all others.

@ Roger these guys never show up in church or at grave sites; they stay betw 500 and 1,000 feet off, depending on local laws and rulings. They are, of course, seen.

Scanner, like Myriad above, I don't get why the First Amendment is sacrosanct when subsequent to its passing, we have figured out that hate mongering was not in the plan. Just amend the amendment and throw in a codicil making "hate" the exception -- no freedom granted there. You just can't do it. No no. Keep the amendment -- stop the hate.

I like the way sagemerlin put it. I am also pleased to see that the overwhelming majority of commenters (all) see this as protected speech; however,it is truly vile and reprehensible.

With that said, if I knew they were coming to a funeral involving my family or friends here is what I would do. I would first enlist the assistance of a local volunteer fire department to be on standby. I would then join the protestors and carry a cooler loaded with highly flammable material and I would set it right in the middle of them and then call the fire department. As the fire department arrived I would light the cooler and run and then the fire department could hose everyone down while they put out the fire. I would film the whole thing and put it on YouTube just for fun.

Is this bad to have these thoughts? Can I get arrested for plotting this? Who cares? These morons needs a good dousing...or something.

Perhaps the ultimate solution should involve 1) preserving their (and everyone's) right to free expression, while 2) imposing some reasonable restrictions on *where* such expression can take place. In other words, let them express whatever dumbfuckery they desire, but prevent them from doing it at the *site* of a funeral. Seems like a reasonable compromise to me...

There is such a thing as fair play under the law, and i'l abide by it no matter what.
When someone is just ignorant, to make them overreact to the point of becoming worse, just become unnerved or nervous yourself over everything they say.

It is hard to unseat a calm rider.
Rated for being of interest

Also, isn't a funeral parlor or cemetery OWNED by those most involved, and thus PRIVATE property, protectable by law????

Those idiot picketers are treasonous. Dont they realize they owe their very existance and way of life to the soldiers who have fought for America?
It is disrepectful to act as they have at any funeral, I'm surprised there hasnt been a full scale riot because of these losers!

Why do some of the commenters talk about "fire in a crowded theater" or the "right to a private ceremony"? Neither of those apply to this case. Phelps did not walk into the church itself during the funeral and start yelling. He followed the legal boundaries of place and time of protest. He did not stand in private space; he stood in public space. Scanner's question applies to this particular case, not to a general notion of loathsome speech. Everybody agrees that Phelps's opinions are loathsome. The Bill of Rights was not set up to protect that which we as a society agree on. It was set up to protect that which we find repulsive. The point being that it's fairly uncommon to find such agreement on what *is* repulsive. This case is unusual that way, in that Phelps manages to press hot buttons for both the left and the right with his anti-gay, anti-military behavior.

Roger, yes, the ACLU is with Phelps on this one, has been from the beginning. It's a no-brainer, I think.

Because I used to live in Topeka, Kansas, I am all too familiar with the Phelps. Since the Phelps are still alive, I believe Topeka citizens have incredible tolerance and have done a damn good job of ignoring the Phelps' hateful intolerance. Although I cannot stand the Phelps, I do believe in their right to do disgusting things. I also believe we need to ignore them. They thrive on our attention.

I think that as a whole we could manage to look the other way while some lucky soul puts a couple of rounds in the back of Fred Phelps' skull. No one saw anything. No evidence was found. Most unfortunate.

Then put those kids in foster homes and begin deprogramming them.

I think if people are allowed to invade a funeral, what next? They don't like gays living together, so they can show up on their front sidewalk and protest? If these protesters wished to make a statement about something, they needed to stand in front of the White House...that they are allowed to do. These people are really small time terrorists...xox

Why does no one see that these people are bullies and just as guilty of bullying as those that we've read of in the past few weeks?

I read somewhere where a motorcycle club, (Hell's Angels?) were disrupting their protests by trying to put up some type of partisan. I don't know how successful they are, but more power to them. Sage say's the whole group is mental or delusional. Are all the members of a cult mental or does the leader hold that much power over them? Just asking...,

Freedom of speech is not the only right at issue here. In the same paragraph of the same Amendment in hte same Bill of Rights, there's also "free exercise of religion" (which includes the right to practice whatever non-harmful rituals you belief demands, including funerals, without harassment); and "right to assemble peaceably" (which includes the right to gather, in public or private, without undue interference). The Westboro haters are infringing both of those basic rights when they barge in on other people's funerals, and that is NOT protected speech. They can preach their putrid hate anywhere, anytime they want; preventing them from interfering with other people's mourning rites is no loss of liberty for them.

I have the right to trash BP in public speeches; but I don't have the right to show up at a BP employee's funeral and do it there.

Christians have every right to condemn Paganism and even lie about it (which they do); but they don't have the right to interfere in our rituals, nor do we have the right to disrupt their services.

I really hope the deceased's family are making this point in court...

The concept exists in law of "fighting words". In my humble opinion if I encounter this bunch of heartless morons I will be provoked beyond my ability to control my behavior and I will act accordingly. I may end up in jail or fined but I will be happy knowing that at least one or two of them were held accountable for their words and deeds. If enough people went after them on those terms the supreme court might find it akin to shouting fire in a theater, that is not protected. No need to rape the constitution in order to make them stop.

Does the First Amendment protect the right to scream, to be cruel, and to be disruptive? I know they don't want to set a precedent, but perhaps it is time one be set. It isn't about not agreeing with what is being said, even though their beliefs are specious at best. It is about basic decency and respect. Their words beget violence, because their stance is intolerance which rarely ends well.

Just because it is the first on the list, doesn't give it more worth than the right to privacy and the right to peace.

Firstly, I like what Raleigh Jim just said about bullying.

Secondly, I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV, but I wonder about the possibilities of legislating what's allowed at funerals. The question then becomes: What could the slippery slope look like? There are a few possibilities: Would the scattering of ashes at the beach be legally defined as a funeral? If that were the case, would anyone ever intentionally scatter ashes at a political event to make protesting it illegal? We may be able to legislate around the slope.

@Lainey....So not a single case of that sort has been verified has it, well isn't that a surprise. the majority of those animals are now middle-aged CEO's of major businesses, having long ago sold out and joined the establishment they railed against all those years ago. Some have become Democratic politicians and all are wearing thousand dollar suits and driving big cars. To own up to their youthful actions now would embarrass them too badly....make em look bad, and we can't have that can we. So we change history...hell that's done all the time.

Well it happened, take it from someone who was there. You say I should tell someone? Who the hell would I tell, who the hell cares? And, besides, what would I tell them: "Those mean old hippy freaks spit at me and threw things at me!" LOL! Nobody gives a shit...it's old history. Water under a dirty bridge.

I live with my own private shame....I will forever regret that I did not act on my first impulse and slit the motherfuckers throat with my K-bar. No, instead all of us just lowered our heads and kept walking, after all, we didn't want to do anything that would prove them right....that we were murdering animals. Now, in my old age, I wish I had of slaughtered at least one of them.

Sometimes when you debate history it is not all dry facts and figures to be proven or disproven. It sometimes deals with raw emotion...feelings that have been kept in check for decades.

Fuck all protesters who trample on the feelings of others just to prove their point. That's how I really feel.

motherwell brings up precisely the prosecution's argument: that Phelps free speech rights are balanced by the family's free exercise of religion and assembly. I don't think they have a good case b/c the protesters did not invade the family's private space and in fact the father didn't even see them in action. There was no interruption of the ceremony.

scanner: they're called the Freedom Riders, and yes, they show up to force a little distance between mourners and loonies. And the Westboro death-cult are mostly Fred Phelps' family, who are credibly rumored to have been abused and exploited by Fred.

What I don't understand is why they can't privatize the funerals to keep jerks like this from showing up.

Because funeral processions take place on public roads, and graveyards are publicly-accessible, even if they're privately-owned.

I dont think it is a slippery slope in this case at all. I dont think this is "political speech." I think the only way that this can be considered a political issue worthy of debate is from a backward, oppressive perspective. Homosexuality is a human condition no different from all other conditions which are protected by the Constitution. It is not reasonable to think that these people are merely expressing a political perspective at these funerals. They are attempting to do injury to someone. Preventing this type of protest does not restrict a particular point of view, or opportunity to have it heard. The issue is not merely relevant to funerals, and many times it is not relevant at all. This is an abuse. I oppose its continuation.

@Torman: Someone wrote a book about how that spitting thing was not only exaggerated but completely made up. I don't have the title of it, but that's what they were talking about. You raise an interesting point when you say people wouldn't own up to it now that they're running businesses and families, etc. But I got the impression that they were suggesting nobody could offer proof that it happened to them, either. I have no idea what their methods were. Obviously they looked at footage and photos, but I was surprised they didn't have eyewitness testimony, etc. Anyway, I believe you, I just think it's ironic that I only heard of this a few weeks ago and then saw your comment today.

btw, I'm glad you didn't slit someone's throat for protesting. Never a good idea in my book.

Free Speech doesn't give people the right to lie. Free Speech doesn't give people the right to be lewd or vulgar in public. Free Speech doesn't give someone the right to shout in my face in the hope of sparking a reaction from me, in which case they will be protected but I won't.

I understand people's fear that denying these publicity whores and hate mongers free speech protection might create a slippery slope that could hurt legitimate free spreech across the board, but it's common sense.

Free speech rights are supposed to protect the free marketplace of ideas, the minority opinions, the general public from political oppression.

These WBC folks are playing up to the loopholes in our free society's tolerance in order to gain publicity and forward their own fringe cause. "Ignoring" them doesn't work and mounting "counter protests" just feeds their hunger for attention and validates the power of their ridiculous and hateful slogans. so we as a society need to find a way to put an end to it legally without infringing upon the valid freedom of speech protections in our constitution. But saying "they have a right to speak, even if it's hate" just won't cut it.

@sagamerlin, I just read your comments. I love a good psychological profile, but that may not represent the whole. While the people who lead that pack may be that way, a lot of them are just followers who wouldn't be so demonstrative if it weren't for that pack mentality. Note the Stanford Prison experiment and how normally sound people could behave in cruel and even criminal ways. Still, sticks and stones and all that, I think this behavior is the gateway to more violence. Would ridding this world of this problem be akin to removing the queen from the hive so that the colony eventually dies off?

Incidentally, I've read that a part of the brain fires up during religious rapture. I wonder what a comparitive and functional CAT scan of these idiots would reveal.

I read somewhere where a motorcycle club, (Hell's Angels?) were disrupting their protests by trying to put up some type of partisan.

The group you are thinking of are called the Patriot Guard Riders.
http://www.patriotguard.org/.

They hold big American flags up between the protesters and the funeral procession.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AupyzbQMLAs&feature=related


As for me, I have mixed emotions. I know that any limitation of freedom of speech will be used against the LGBTQ community by the haters, but then again I'll gladly pay for the gas you use to run their asses over.

I'm a bit baffled both by how so many legal scholars think this is an easy case, and by how so much of the discussion centers around the notion of protecting repulsive speech. There's what you say, and then there's how you say it. Phelps can publish his beliefs about America's downfall resulting from its tolerance of homosexuality, but does that mean he has the right to express it in any manner he chooses? Maybe our political discourse is so toxic, and our institutions so dysfunctional, because we can't seem to help putting form over substance in this way.

Rights should not be supressed, that part I understand, but they were bringing about so much pain to this family..even with just the signs..had they stood and bowed their head respectfully, which they didnt, that didnt matter..they put signs basically in the face of people that had the right to NOT have to put up with someone putting signs in their face..someone has to look at THEIR rights. Maybe these folks were ok with their son's sexuality and what if they weren't, what if they were pissed and disappointed, and dealing with all that when they found out he had died. We do not know all the facts and it is just sickening that these parents had to suffer like that.

The wisest line of this post, Scanner, was the last one: "be careful what you wish for, you might just get it!" If you start making exceptions to the right of free speech because you object vehemently to what is being said, you open the door for other exceptions, like something you believe in.

Unfortunately, these vile people aren't going away. They do it for media attention, and the media loves loud and offensive.

I feel very strongly that they should be allowed to continue doing it and that we should be allowed to run them over with cars. Fair is fair.

I agree with sagemerlin that this family is nuts, in the mental health way. But I wonder if it would surprise people here to know that 11 of Reverend Phelps's 13 children are attorneys?

Scanner- you got a shit load of comments...I'm sure I would just be repeating half of them...Very nice discussion...and civil.... even tomretoon.

I didn't have time to read all of the other comments, but there are some great ones. My thoughts are as follows:
Yes, these jerks have their right to free speech. The First Amendment is in place to protect the rights of people you do not agree with. I don't think the Constitution is something that should be taken lightly.
If this had happened to my family, I can't say that my instinct wouldn't be to react violently. I'm not sure what would happen. I'd like to think I'd turn the other cheek. These "Christians" seem to forget in the Bible where Jesus said the greatest commandment is to love God and love your neighbor as yourself. They strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.
Another angle to be considered is that these very soldiers that are dying, are defending our freedom to be jerks like this (i'm not referring to the current war that we are in, but as to the function of the military in general). Just a thought. Is this dichotomous? Yes, but I also believe it's true.

Everyone should be free to say what they want. The sign wavers should be free, too. Free to get their skulls caved in by a bunch of angry Marines.

No, I don't think Westboro's activities should be curtailed. Hate speech and inciting riots already treads close enough on the 1st Amendment.
I do believe STRONGLY however, that Westboro is to bear all the consequences of exercising their right.
That has been a concept I haven't been able to get many folks to engage in - with rights comes responsibility.
This case is an appeal on an overturned civil damages judgement and I think Westboro should pay out of their ass for the added sufferring caused while exercising their 1st amendment rights.

Unfortunately, if Phelps's speech is taking place on a public street, it is protected. Someone else might find my free speech of carrying a Pro-Choice sign outside a Catholic Church equally offensive, but if I'm not blocking traffic and I have a permit, my speech is protected.

That said, my favorite counterpart to Phelps's gang is ridicule. I love the counter-protesters with signs that say "I have a sign" and "God Hates Flags" (with a circle/slash over a flag). Not that such humor belongs at a funeral, but damn someone needs to poke fun at these people.

i'm not os, but occasionally i try to tell osers that 'freedom of speech' doesn't exist, for the community can always shut up one person, or a few.

a wise community [oxymoron alert] defends 'freedom to hear.' no limits. if you hear something that makes you uncomfortable, listen closely, it's a learning experience.

at the very least, you learn there are nutters in the community, and don't have to wait until they blow up city hall. and maybe they know something you need to learn.

I consider my country (Canada) to be free but this type of hate speech is not allowed. I love my country.

@Cranky: It's the business sector fueling the madness.

Bread and circuses, anyone?

I think media makes it worst... I am a journalist and I´ve seen subjects and social issues that should not been publicly endorsed been reported by local journalists and sometimes the torrid story gets more attention than the one that really matters... Journalists should be instructed in what kind of stories are ethically viable to let people know.... certanly not this people..... they are just dumbasses
Rated and thanks for comming these things
Hugs Scanner

Funerals, other than state funerals for elected presidents and royalty, are not public events. I hope they uphold the right to privacy.

Here is the opening argument from Margie Phelps, the Reverend's daughter and one of his eleven children lawyers.

She does a good job of spelling out the particulars of the case, which answer many of the questions here on scanner's post. Her basic argument is that the Snyder Family's objections boil down to a disagreement with her message and nothing more, and that the First Amendment protects all of us on that score.

It's worth the five minutes to hear the uncontested particulars of the case. None of the facts she offers in there are contested. It's only her argument that is.

http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/Snyder-v.-Phelps-Podcast-Argument-for-Respondent.mp3

To specifically address Greg Correll's point--and this is in the Phelps's argument--it's the Snyders who made the funeral public. They used it as a protest for the wars in both Afghanistan and Iraq.

In reading about the questioning of the Court members--detail on that on SCOTUS blog-- it sounds like they are going down the path of trying to find a way to outlaw this particular thing without offering anything meaningful to the larger picture. They did that twice before--with Bush v Gore and (I think I'm thinking a circuit court here) in the Terri Schaivo cases. In both of those, the Court guiltily made up some principal and were careful to say, "Well, this isn't great law, so don't apply it anywhere else. " Obviously they did not use those words, LOL.

Anyway, that might be the course they take. I think it impugns their credibility a bit, but I suppose I can understand it.

The bottom line here Scanner is that I am unemployed

The economy is in ruins. The infra structure of this country is falling apart we spend not even 1/8th of what China spends on its upkeep and repair. Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security are now on the table so that “we” can continue to finance the American military machine. Trillions have been spent guarding the oil of Arab “Royal” family's and insuring that the people whose resources they are exploiting remain in a permanent state of feudal servitude. Across the continent in Afghanistan, American troops (which should read; mercenaries. These “patriots” are pulling down at least 40,000 a year some a lot more.) are embroiled in another war over the interests of international oil brokers this time a pipeline (Early in 1998 John Maresca, vice president for international relations of the Unocal Corporation told a congressional subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific there was anywhere between 60 and 200 billion barrels of oil in the Caspian region along with 236 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. Maresca estimated that with a pipeline through Afghanistan 870,000 barrels per day the then current production of oil could be increased to 200 million barrels a day by 2010.) while the CIA engages in its time honored method of supporting the war effort by cultivating the target regions indigenous drugs ( The conversion of opium into heroin has historically been calculated at a ratio of 10:1, for all countries. Afghanistan beginning in 2002 now takes only 8.5 kg of opium to produce 1 kg of pure heroin, a 15% increase in efficiency. None of the financial windfall in the opium business would have been possible without the removal from power of those annoying Taliban characters. Afghan production in 2001 when the Taliban decided to crack down heavily on drugs was down to a mere 74 tons. In 2003 under CIA control Afghanistan produced 2,865 tons of opium the amount rose 280% to 8,000 tons over the next four years. The country's share of world production leapt from 75% to 94% in the same period) and putting them out on the street in America where they are sold to our sons and daughters.

I am forced to ask this question: when will the herd of the northeast establishment liberals understand that everybody in America is not even close to buying the nonsense they have purchased with their future from their cherished mainstream “liberal” media? In fact the latest Gallup poll (http://www.gallup.com/poll/142133/Confidence-Newspapers-News-Remains-Rarity.aspx) indicates only 25% of Americans even take the mainstream media serious anymore. They are lying through their teeth nightly. They are Lying about 9/11 and deliberately denying Richard Gage ("9/11 Blueprint for the Truth,The Architecture of Destruction, April1,2009." Esoteric Tube. Web. 4 Sep 2010. .) a real patriot access.They lie about the oil spill, they lie how many derivatives wall street is holding, and they lie about relief efforts to Haiti and any other life or death situation you can think of (they have been directly responsible for the death of millions through their deliberate effort to misinform Americans).

And now you ask how I feel about people cheering for the death of our sainted troops who pull down 40,000 dollars a year for shooting barefoot women and children from the safety of armored columns and air conditioned offices as they manipulate their robotic toys to machine gun wedding celebrations. Let me give you an answer from one of the “crazy” right wingers who OSers love to hate. He left it as a comment in my last post and although I don’t agree with his politics I stand shoulder to shoulder with him on this:

“A couple of interesting facts. As Americans can still buy guns for the time being, since Obama took office, the annual firearms purchase volume here in the U.S. has exceeded the small arms purchases of the world's top 15 militaries combined.
Second. There is a core group of white nationalists here who now number around 2 million. Roughly 95% of them are armed. Thus, the firepower of a single core group of Americans already exists which can defeat our own military if necessary. (And when you consider our military is already stretched thin, well.......)”

That's your answer Scanner: I am angry and so are many Americans. I want to work and am willing to make concessions towards that end and so are many Americans. If the powers that be are unwilling to also make concessions and create jobs for Americans, people carrying signs will be the very least of: their worry’s, your worry’s, and our sainted troops worry’s!

"Fuck all protesters who trample on the feelings of others just to prove their point. That's how I really feel.@

Wow, what a declaration of democracy!!! Distilled; my government, right or wrong.

F*ck the first amendment:

"The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment prohibits the making of any law "respecting an establishment of religion", impeding the free exercise of religion, infringing on the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances."

Madeline Albright said the deaths of 1/2 million Iraqi children through sanctions was a legitimate price to pay.

Let's make it illegal to protest genocide.

GREAT and well-thought out idea.

I'm with Nick Leshi. The best response in the lot. Free speech is not a wide open doorway.

Jack, I agree with you on so much of what you just said. Oil was the one and only reason we went into Iraq. The media does not even report on the fucking war anymore. I've read a lot about the opium trade, and while I have no compassion for those murdering scumbag Taliban, they did reduce the amount of opium. Other countries like Peru took up the slack and the prices went up. Our original purpose was to take out Bin Laden, period. They intentionally let him go, so we would have to stay in the Middle East. Bush/Cheney wanted an American presence in the Middle East and thought Iraq would love us. After billions spent and thousands maimed and killed, it's Iran who has the influence in Iraq, We'll be lucky to even be invited to have a fucking embassy there. I read today that the Taliban and Afghanistan are having truce talks and with certain conditions, the Taliban may lay down their arms and join in a government of some kind. I could care less. Lets just get our people out of that damn place. As for the protesters, it's not the dead soldier that this is about Jack. It's the living that are being hurt by this. The conservatives of this country want an end to the Thirteenth Amendment. Now people want to change the First Amendment. We will end up with no constitution and anarchy. I for one do not want my kids or grandkids hiding behind looked doors with guns protecting what little food will be left when only the strong survive, which is what will happen. We will turn into a third world nation. Not a pretty thought to me and I think most Americans.

Not being a legal beagle, while I surely don't approve of their actions, I do support free speech.. but to me this seems to be perilously close to fitting the definition of 'hate crimes', considering they connect death as deserved for tolerance of homosexuality.

Isn't that an endorsement for killing homosexuals?

Honestly I don't think this is actually a freedom of speech issue at all, but that's just my take on it.

Rated for stacking up the Karma..

I find their actions disgusting and insulting. You DO NOT fucking protest at a damn funeral! Fuck em.

Having said that, IF they are following the law, than its within their right, as sick as it is.

-R-

Scanner I was just worried you would take that personel but you know your my man. I wish we could hang out. More latter Yankee game

This has been a very interesting read,all the way around. Thoughts:

I don't know ANYONE who takes the Westboro people seriously, or respects them in any way.

They have the right, I'm afraid. But, the family also has the right to sue. I think it will be interesting to see how this all turns out.

The free speech amendment to the constitution was added to protect those on the fringes of society, not the rank and file protester. If I hold up a sign in front of the Pentagon that says "War Is Horrible!" who's going to argue with me?

It's unfortunate, but I think the case will be decided in favor of the nut job's free speech, which begs the question, just how do we deal with these idiots? I'm not sure you're out of line with the car thing, scanner. Oops! Did I say that?

sweetfeet says:
I don't know ANYONE who takes the Westboro people seriously, or respects them in any way.

I actually think that's relevant to the case. I think their signs could be considered defamation except for the fact that nobody is likely to believe them. I read that somewhere. Their own lack of credibility is one of their defenses. Which is all manner of twisted.

It saddens me to consider the necessity of protecting the rights of those who behave in such reprehensible inhumane ways against the families of those who actually died to defend the principles that enable those rights. Hateful behavior seems and feels indefensible...whatever happened to the your rights end where mine begin? Thank you for this post scanner...I never fail to be appalled by those protesters. [R]

scanner-

I noticed that you never did respond to Nick Leshi's comment. Afraid? I expected more from you than to run away and hide.

Torman, I care and I believe you. I would wish you had slit more than one of their filthy throats except then you would be like them. I remember those people pretending to be about Peace and Love, they only wanted to be superior. They were not of the true peace movement and now their hands drip with more blood. They have sold us out to the power brokers, they will get what they deserve from their betters.

Speech must be protected but it's important to know the lies from the truth. This is not about the money, this is not about the money, this is NOT about the money. It's about power. It's about control. It's about having it all.

They will gladly turn us all against each other using the crazies and the causes. Divide and conquer never fails. Those protesters are now demented, perfect for keeping us all pissed until we are demented or distracted. Then they will find more crazies, there are millions now, people are losing their minds.

The power brokers use whatever will suck us in, they get the greedy to invest and the poor to protest, they pit the conservatives against the liberals. The media is a tool, they put vicious people on "reality" shows and people eat lowfat popcorn and become numb learning a new reality. Those who aren't numb focus on issues like this. If that isn't enough to kill the pain, there are illegal drugs for those who don't mind breaking the law, for the rest there are so many fricking psych drugs we can't keep up. Keep us numb or dumb.

Fay Paxton just did a post on the hideous monsters that "experiment" on human beings in this day and age. We eat popcorn and drug ourselves. Then Torman speaks of his shame, why the hell is he ashamed? He was duped, I have been duped. Make no mistake, their goal is power and domination.

I know what I'm speaking of with those mental illnesses, as part of one of my careers I studied these things, look it up, it's real. Now the government is trying to develop weapons using Ultra Low Frequencies. ELF's & ULF's cause schizophrenia, depression, vertigo, diarrhea, nerve & skin disorders and much more. In the 1970's in Medford Oregon the suicide rate went up 400%, they identified it as ULF's from the base nearby. Reasearchers identified the source and when the Mayor officially complained the CO wouldn't admit anything but the frequencies stopped the next day and people stopped killing themselves. Bad enough we have ELF's from power lines and appliances.

You are right to be concerned about the feelings of others, this keeps you human. Those who are sleeping won't survive, you know your fear is what will keep you alive. Jack Heart is right, we are being fed logical lies and our brains have been 'trained' to accept them. You are more than smart, you have a lot of hard earned wisdom and a heart, listen to your gut, the thing that made you write this post.

"The money power preys upon the nation in time of peace and conspires against it in times of adversity. It is more despotic than monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, more selfish than bureaucracy. I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me, and causes me to tremble for the safety of our country. Corporations have been enthroned, an era of corruption will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people, until the wealth is aggregated in a few hands, and the republic is destroyed. " Abraham Lincoln said this when he lost the fight against the Rothschilds and the National Banking Act. Look what happened to him.

"working upon the prejudices of the people" It still works as well today. The crazies are not the enemy, the madmen are.

Boko why are you trying to bait Scanner into rebutting Nick who it seems to me agrees with him. He rebutted me and I do not agree with any of you this is just the beginning. Yes they are over their defiling a mans funeral, verbally. Why? Because they are so frustrated. Frustrated at having no voice in the media while millions are murdered over a lie. Frustrated at having the wealth of this once great nation frittered away in endless wars for multinational corporations while nightly painted whores laugh in their face and make jokes with “men” who wear to much makeup. This country is teetering right on the brink of a shooting war. All of you liberals who think mere words are so heinous how much more so will you find the lead that soon will fill the air. Most of you if not all of you have service jobs or business's in other words you neither produce, nor heal, nor fix anything. We in the construction industry are all unemployed you have given our jobs to Mexican invaders, heavens, lest somebody should think you a racist. Those in the agricultural industry are unemployed you have allowed the banks and Monsanto to conglomerate all the farm land, now isn’t that what the painted whore and the “man” that wears to much makeup told you would be in your best interests. Well now guess what? We are the ones with the guns and we know how to use them. The winds of Civil War and Revolution have begun to blow in America and you find it ugly. That's because it is and its going to get a whole lot uglier. If you ask me Scanner is the only one of you that demonstrates any common sense whatsoever: “I for one do not want my kids or grandkids hiding behind looked doors with guns protecting what little food will be left when only the strong survive” Yea that's what Civil War looks like. How do you like your affirmative action president now. Ain’t he novel? Oh how terrible they interrupted our hero's funeral. Well how about they take a shit in his casket and gun down his whole family right where they stand because behavior is hereditary. Then how many of you brave liberals will use your Mercedes to run down an angry man or woman brandishing an AR15.

I support free speech. There was a point in time where the progressive movement was so strong, those people would have been outnumbered every time they appeared in public, surrounded and shouted down. Seems like nobody gives a damn any more.

Again, I noticed you never did respond to Nick Leshi's comment.

Her basic argument is that the Snyder Family's objections boil down to a disagreement with her message and nothing more, and that the First Amendment protects all of us on that score.

If that's her basic argument, then it's a flat-out lie. This is NOT about the content of their message, it's about basic civility and respect for everyone's right to assemble peacefully and perform their rituals without undue encumberance -- in this case, uninvited guttersnipes going out of their way to cause as much hurt as they possibly can.

As I said before, they have every right to broadcast and publish their message. Keeping them away from funerals does not diminish their ability to do so one bit.

In my first comment here, I mentioned free exercise of religion and right to assemble peacefully. Those two rights -- also in the Constitution -- are being completely ignored in this discussion. That's not right. If we're going to have "free speech absolutists," why can't we have "peaceable assembly absolutists?"

"Freedom of speech" was NEVER meant to include public bullying and harassment.

BOKO, for the most part, Scanner hasn't responded specifically to any of our comments, so I don't know why you're suggesting something untoward about his not responding to Nick Leshi.

But I will, if you'd like.

Nick says: Free Speech doesn't give people the right to lie. But of course it does; that is, if by free speech he means that which is guaranteed in the First Amendment. We can lie all we want without prosecution, unless we commit slander, which must produce damage either financially or to one's reputation. And if there's anything that's clear in this case it's that Westboro has zero credibility. Snyder could never make a case that Phelps has influenced even a single person to hate his son. Quite the contrary. Furthermore, the slogans Westboro uses are not provable one way or the other--that issue has directly impacted the lower courts in their decisions. Saying "God hates fags" cannot be evaluated for its veracity one way or the other.

Free Speech doesn't give people the right to be lewd or vulgar in public. Westboro's behavior was not lewd or vulgar. That is, their methodology--standing peacefully and holding picket signs--is not by anyone's definition vulgar and is in fact a time-honored traditional in the US. It's the content of his signs that we'd all consider vulgar, and that's the argument Phelps is using, that the content of his message is protected speech. My own tendency is to agree with Phelps here, but I'd bet there *are* some things that couldn't be put on signs in public, like pornography, for example, on the chance that children may view it. That has been an exception to free speech--but only regarding children--that's come down from the Court. I've seen some protest signs that push the envelope as far as kids are concerned--I'm thinking of the PETA ones, for example, and of some of the anti-abortion signs. They are both vivid in my mind b/c I saw them when I had my kids with me and felt uncomfortable about both. If they are protected, I can't imagine signs with words alone being excluded.

Free Speech doesn't give someone the right to shout in my face in the hope of sparking a reaction from me, in which case they will be protected but I won't.
The Snyders are using something like this against Phelps--the idea of his deliberately causing emotional distress--but the problem is that in fact Phelps did not shout in anyone's face. His group was never even in the presence of Phelps, and they left their public space at the start of the funeral, which was not even within sight.

I understand people's fear that denying these publicity whores and hate mongers free speech protection might create a slippery slope that could hurt legitimate free spreech across the board, but it's common sense.
I think the only common sense about this is the fact that Phelps's message is more universally loathed than most other political protests because he has found the intersection of right and left buttons to push. Is that what you/Nick mean by "common sense," that if more people hate it, then it should be banned? Because almost any other issue--abortion, PETA, environmental stuff, anti-war, tea party crap, etc.--brings out about an equal number of proponents and detractors. Do you think this particular man/church should be muzzled just because he's found a message that seemingly everybody hates?

Free speech rights are supposed to protect the free marketplace of ideas, the minority opinions, the general public from political oppression.
Agreed.

These WBC folks are playing up to the loopholes in our free society's tolerance in order to gain publicity and forward their own fringe cause.
Agreed.

"Ignoring" them doesn't work and mounting "counter protests" just feeds their hunger for attention and validates the power of their ridiculous and hateful slogans. so we as a society need to find a way to put an end to it legally without infringing upon the valid freedom of speech protections in our constitution.
How do we know that ignoring them doesn't work? We never tried it, at least not since 2005. The media pounced from the moment the man changed his methods to protest military funerals, ie when he found that provocative angle that made everybody hate him. The man has been up to no good since the early 90s but none of us knew that b/c he was ignored. Ignoring him *does* work.

But saying "they have a right to speak, even if it's hate" just won't cut it.

Where would you draw the line? Was it OK for you to protest George W. Bush for his inanity and war mongering? What if you carried grisly signs showing civilian deaths? Should we prosecute the people carrying anti-Obama signs? That's the problem, of course, where to draw the line. If the argument centers around negative harm to society, then those are certainly more harmful, in terms of broad influence, than this man's stuff, primarily because nobody, not a single person in my view, has been influenced by the Reverend Phelps. He's a one-man, or should I say one-family, nut job.

motherwell, this thread may be ignoring the rights to free exercise of religion and peaceable assembly but the Snyders certainly aren't. That is the basis for their argument. I've already commented that I think they don't hold water, primarily b/c Phelps did not interfere with either. The Snyders exercised both rights without a hitch. There was no outburst or interference of any kind at the funeral. I guess I want you to explain better how you think the Snyders' exercise of religion or assembly were infringed. I think people are forgetting that we can't just rule in a vacuum about things, we have to address the particulars of this case.

Do you know the facts of the case? I ask b/c they are important to me in coming to the conclusion I have. Snyder never saw the protests and neither (I think) did anyone attending the funeral. He went looking for them on youtube. His complaint for damages rests on things like increased mental anguish and physical pain at the thought of the protest.

As for the arguments you make about protesting funerals, cities have made all kinds of laws putting boundaries around funeral protests. I think forty states have done the same. There's nothing to preclude any of these governments from expanding them to a degree that satisfies their constituents (you). The Phelps called ahead of time to get the "rules" and abided by them.

By the way, after listening to the justices' questioning, I'm no longer convinced that Phelps will win. I think the Justices are as likely as all politicians to side with Snyder for reasons of political correctness. I think it's significant that most constitutional scholars would rule in favor of Phelps. I bet Obama would too but would never admit it. Does anyone know if he's been asked? I'd flat out disbelieve him if he said he thinks Snyder should win.

FYI to motherwell: What did you think about Cindy Sheehan's protests outside Bush's ranch and other places? Many, many people said she caused great pain to soldiers' families. I know the cases aren't the same, but I'm wondering if you see any parallels.

I should add finally that I certainly would not want this jerk and his family protesting a funeral of my dead son. I'd like to think I could demonstrate the same level of intellectual neutrality about the issue but something tells me I couldn't.

Wow. This is comment 105. Is that a record?

For me, the operative word is "peaceably assemble". There is nothing peaceable about shouting at a funeral.

Of course, unless it is me at my mother-in-law's funeral...

As a general rule, my view is that funerals are an inappropriate place for protest. Respect and privacy for the grieving family should be paramount.

Lainey has it spot on IMO " ie. the media coverage energizes these people. One sometimes hears the term "the forth estate" to refer to the media. In theory the media would act as an other guarantee of our freedoms.
Our present day media does not see this as raison d' etra. Instead our media broadcasts anything that will make them money and in doing so they do more damage to this country than any terrorist organization on the planet. Thank God for PBS!

scanner - Again, I notice you still haven't responded to Nick Leshi's excellent comment. There are all sorts of limits put on free speech. And it's quite easy to defend freedom of speech when you're not the one getting screamed at. So?

Boko, this is my playground and you don't come here and demand shit. I'll answer any question I feel like but you are such a fucking nuisance, screw you. Make up something and pretend I said it!

Just another mindless cult; wind them up with any message chosen by the appropriate cult leader and they will do what ever they're programmed to do.

Yawn