Grieving Father Wins $11 Million Judgment Against Homophobic Church Protesters
Via The Baltimore Sun: (h/t Nate)
A Baltimore federal jury awarded nearly $11 million Wednesday to the father of a Marine killed in Iraq, deciding that the family's privacy had been invaded by a Kansas church whose members waved anti-gay signs at the funeral.
It was the first-ever verdict against Westboro Baptist Church, a fundamentalist Christian group based in Topeka that has protested military funerals across the country with placards bearing shock-value messages such as "Thank God for dead soldiers."
They contend that the deaths are punishment for America's tolerance of homosexuality and of gays in the military. Read more...
No matter what your religious views might be, this is pure hatred. I am happy for Mr. Snyder and his family and we wish him all the best, but you can rest assured, the Phelps flock will appeal this as far as they can.
No Frist.
Ignorance is bliss. And hatred is the brother of stupidity. My prayers go out to the Snyder family.
The only "god" who would laugh when people die is the "god" of evil, also known as Satan, Phelps.
I'm sure the Phelps kkklan already knows this though.
The idol that they worship cares nothing for the people of this world, and has no compassion.
Their "god" delights in suffering and according to them is the "god" of hate.
Their "god" hates this and hates that.
Phelps = Satanist.
Good that they appeal. As horrible as they are, this is clearly a case of free (yet repugnant) speech.
This is good news I remember that case. How sad that a church would act like that when they are suppose to represent God. This shows Americans just how low the Church Pastors have gone to get money from the White House. The soldier severed all Americans yet look how our Christian Church treats him. It's more like the Church did to Jesus. I guess money can even by the Pastors and the Church. Satan is running the White House.
WOOOHOOOO!
Take that Phelps!
God hates assholes!
free speech > right not to cry
Shouldn't he be able to take possession of the church building and property as part of the settlement? If he does, it would be quite right and proper for him to put up a big banner that says 'God love homosexuals', though it might cause some of the members to try and burn down their former place of worship.
I guess this puts to rest the possibility of Phelps being a brilliant satirist...
What a sick group of people pretending they "know" what their God wants.
To all who see this as a free speech issue,
I can only hope that you get to experience such wonderful free speech at each and every funeral you have to attend for the rest of your life.
My personal religious view is that all religions are equally ridiculous, but some are more equally ridiculous than others.
Religion belongs to the childhood of our species. It's time to grow up and get over it. The problem with religion is that it provides no basis for choosing among beliefs. The definition of faith is believing without evidence, or in spite of evidence. Fred Phelps is precisely as credible as the Pope, James Dobson, or, let's face it, Martin Luther King Jr. When it comes to religion, they all spout nonsense.
Agreed Craig. These views and tactics of these people are despicable to me. But free speech is free speech. Appeal the hell out of it and see what higher courts say. The amount of the verdict was likely a direct result of how most reasonable people would respond to what they say, and verdicts should not be decided on that basis (content of speech). This seems like a very troubling (and slippery) verdict to me at first sight.
Good for Snyder. Someone needed to do this. I'm not a religion scholar, come to think of it I don't believe in organized religion at all, but I know one thing. This is not a religious organization. They are pure hate and nothing more.
At the risk of minimizing this ruling, this shows you how far people will go in the name of their god and we have people running for office in the name of their god and making policies based on it. In the known history of this planet, more people have been murdered in the name of a god than in any political war. Most god's teachings are based on peace and tolerance, yet most current preachers of gods teach the exact opposite. Yet, I still can't figure out why I am so against organized religion. ( sarcasm )
Phelps: "It's going to be reversed in five minutes," he said. This case, he added, "will elevate me to something important."
A soulful statement, huh?
Craig @ 3:
I must question whether or not this is actually protected under free speech. While this group does sometimes protest in public areas, they have lately abandoned that practice. Their latest protests have been at funeral homes or in cemetaries, neither of which are technically public places. They intruded on private events. I know of no case in which free speech was held as a valid argument when someone invades a private event.
They seem to have grown bolder and are no longer standing on public streets but are actually on private property claiming that their right to free speech exists there as well.
Even if you consider this free speech, there is no guarantee that you can not be held liable for that free speech if others are affected by it. I have always wondered why none of the families sued this church for all funeral expenses since they decided to crash the funeral.
texas lady @ 9:
I agree. Christians need serious help.
I was overjoyed when I read about this yesterday. I kid you not - I did a happy dance.
Phelps is the enemy of everything - left, right, center, it doesn't matter.
Craig @ 3:
I disagree. Free speech should not include people protesting a family funeral regardless of the death. The old saying of yelling fire in a crowded theater comes to mind. Free speech does have limits. If you disagree, then you have no problem with the lies of swiftboaters. They have the right to free speech no matter the truth?
Mike @ 6:
I agree, but there is such a thing as harassment that goes beyond free speech.
It seems like a really tenuous line that I wouldn't trust any judge to define for me, but surely it can't be a black and white thing. I think there could be a way to protect a citizen from abusive and violent verbal attacks while still allowing for peaceful demonstrations and free press and the right to express oneself (in a nonviolent manner). This seems like a violent attack on another human being. The spirit of free speech is putting no restraint on one's self-expression while still protecting the rights of individuals from harm, no? Again, a slippery slope, but do I have the right to scream at another human being up close and personal forever and ever, or would another person stopping me from doing that be illegal and an affront to my rights? This gets into the notion of public space I think. It is one thing to change the channel if you don't like something or to not buy a book or game, etc. and another thing to have to wear earplugs.
Greg @ 18:
I agree with you.
A person's rights end where another person's begin.
The Phelps clan has the right of free speech - right up until they invade someone else's life with it.
Your right to swing your arm ends at my nose.
Phelps has nothing to do with any religion. His is a church of pure hatred, nothing more.
proud atheist @ 16:
This group of sicko's knows christ about as well as you do...
Pete @ 10:
Agreed. This is not a free speech issue. This is a hate issue. I suppose the people who are calling this free speech also have no problem with the Jenna 6 and a noose. A noose should be considered free speech? That was hate and not free speech.
Matt @ 21:
Yep. There is no Christ in their church - even less than in most fundie churches.
Heck, they've even admitted before if it wasn't homosexuality, they'd be doing this about *something* - they are just hateful people; out to stir up hate against *someone*.
No, this isn't a free speech issue, that ignores the rights of the grieving families.
This is a disorderly conduct issue, a public nuisance issue, and perhaps even an inciting to riot issue.
The speech is not the issue, they are free to espouse their idiocy at will.
But in doing what they do they violate the rights of others, and it would seem to be a violation of multiple right of others that is in question.
That being the case, the question is should some one be allowed to exercise a single right if it violates multiple rights of others.
cervantes @ 11:
Well said.
V V
Woohoo!!! Congratulations Mr. Snyder. You've ridded the planet of a hate-mongering Phelps family... now they'll have to work and will hopefully be too busy doing that to spew their bigotry and hate.
What the rest of the families who have been protested by the phelps clan need to do is file individual lawsuits against them. This will keep their lawyer children so busy, they won't have time to protest funerals.
Greg @ 18:
Free speech in the US has turned into the cover all shield for hate-mongering, and the people that enforce it are scared to do so.
I find the lack of respect that people have for each other there (and the world) abhorrently disgusting.
texas lady @ 9:
Wouldn't it then be equally "sick" of you to say this isn't what God wants?
They quote the Bible, chapter and verse. They are as "Christian" as anyone else who claims to be. To suggest they are somehow getting the message wrong is silly. They are getting the message just right for them. As is George Bush, the entire "Christian right" and the "Christian left". If they are wrong on the interpretation then so is everyone who professes their belief in the book. The problem is the book not the people who believe in it.
I wish more people would quote the Constitution chapter and verse. It's a far more important piece of work whose effect in 200 years outweighs that of the Bible's entire existentence.
Chip @ 22:
Get a grip Chip, that was stupid.
Most atheists, myself included, know more about your religious figures than you do.
That is WHY we are atheists.
Good for the dad.
These people are poster-child of right-wing idiots. I mean these people are same type that would burn or run over Dixie Chicks CDs. Also the same type who would get in groups and Harry Porter books.
John R. @ 30:
Who's funeral(s) did Jesus protest?
This is a tactic that has worked successfully for the Southern Poverty Law Center to sue haters out of business. The only downside is that Phelp's lawyers will get richer.
Thank god for sensible judgments
I wonder if the RNC is privately backing him!
JJohnson @ 20:
mmmmm I dunno 'bout that. It is just a few steps away from fineing anti-war protesters because they are an affront to the families who have lost soldiers in the war. While I certianly don't condone these hate-mongers (and I would loose no sleep over someone kicking their ass at the funeral) I can see how this could be used by the state as a pretext the next time 'round.
Doncha just love a Christian who has the audacity to say "God hates"? Losers don't get any more lose-y than that.
Chip @ 22:
So you feel qualified to speak for Christ? You and Rev. Phelps are in the same boat. You believe Christ would not support his actions, but the Bible is not very clear on this matter. Certain passages can be taken from the Old Testament to mean exactly what Phelps believes. Alas, for a divinely inspired book, the Bible is a confusing mess of contradictions, and historical fabrications. You can find support for polygamy, slavery, and genocide all within its solemn pages.
Dr. Matt @ 33:
Jesus didn't protest funerals, but I'm sure he approved of some!
Murphy this was big news yesterday .
Still this is good news far as I'm concerned.
I look at the pic at the top of that guy holding those signs and all I can think is: Boy, he must reeeeeeally want a dick in his mouth bad!
How sweet the irony would taste if Phelps enlisted the help of the ACLU for his appeals.
Dr. Matt @ 33:
What is an acceptable protest to you? When I sue Code Pink for "hate-speech" and win 11 million will everyone applauding the decision applaud me?
John R. @ 44:
Has code pink EVER picketed a servicemans funeral?
John R. @ 44:
That depends, will Code Pink be at your moms funeral jeering her death?
Ummmm. Quite simple,really. THE STATE NEVER denied Them their 'Rights' They said what they said and NO state stopped Them. However,once Your 'Free speech is uttered,Be prepared for the consequenses. It's like My motto ' a law- abideing citizen' applies up and until You pull the trigger.
FIRE!
The classic example of the sane limits of "free speech".
Some of you people are very cold.
proud atheist @ 16:
Wow you sound just like Michael Savage.
CD @ 49:
Well, they do.
They obviously think so themselves, after all they need a personal savior because they can't do it themselves.
CD @ 45:
So if Code Pink holds up "End the War" now signs anywhere near a soldiers's funeral then they should be sued and they should have to pay? How close is to close to a funeral? What are your rules?
Symes @ 46:
Hopefully. A little coverage for mom would be a good thing. You people have no perspective.
Joshua James @ 43:
There have been cases in the past of a Jewish lawyer from the ACLU defending neo-nazi organizations. How is that for irony? We live in a remarkable country.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Party_of_America_v._Vill...
cervantes @ 11:
Religion is the reason America is screwed up in the first place.
Hiding behind 'The Lord' lends despicable power to otherwise, insignificant idiots.
God is only a convenience for the corrupt.
proud atheist @ 52:
The ACLU defended Rush Limbaugh on privacy grounds in the FLA case. Rightfully so IMHO.
Tom @ 34:
Exactly what I was thinking.
For those not in the know, the Southern Poverty Law Centre sued the KKK for damages and were awarded millions, effectively bankrupting the Klan.
JerryM @ 29:
I agree. If this group stayed in their temple of god and spewed their hate, that's free speech. But when they show up at a persons funeral, that is beyond free speech. They are taking away the rights of a family who is grieving a loss. It is a private ceremony. Would they accept people showing up in your office and protesting the job you are doing, or in your living room calling you a bad parent? How about your diet? Should they come to your kitchen and protest the fact that you're not having 5 servings of fruits and vegetables? I think the people who are standing up for the Phelps are doing it because these people lost their lives in a war they disagree with. I disagree with this war but believe they should respect the right to a decent burial.
"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires."
[Susan B. Anthony]
CD @ 49:
Would you care to elaborate on that statement? It is not clear what you mean. Of course, not being a listener of Michael Savage, I really do not understand how that applies to what I said or how that would accurately describe me.
Do you people know how close to the funeral they actually got? The Snyder family learned about the protest from the media.
I seem to remember reading that Phelps himself is a lawyer. He's not practicing now, maybe because he's been disbarred.
Does anybody remember this?
"...the Phelps flock will appeal this as far as they can..."
Aren't they all lawyers?
Symes @ 31:
John R. @ 51:
You are such a disingenuous person.
If they were as offensive as Phelps was then you'd get me cheering as well.
And I don't mean offensive to some delicate little flower (as you are about to pass yourself off as I am sure) but truly offensive, like Phelps.
That is what is being said and your attempts to to Faux Noise drive by won't gain traction here.
You are the one with no perspective, after all you are just saying all protests are the same regardless of how nasty and vicious the protesters.
ashton @ 15:
I heard that they were 1000ft away, per state law. 1st amendment protects unpopular speech in particular. The fact that some of you people are attack those of us lamenting the erosion of free speech demonstrate the very mechanism by which we may lose it. That is, we'll cheer when it is taken away from people until it is our turn
Symes @ 50:
Because they disagree with you they have a mental disorder?
you really need to be more open minded.
proud atheist @ 58:
He describes liberals as having a mental disorder.
Sad to see so many on a progressive site applauding the loss of free speech. But it's already been said that democrecy will NOT go out with a bang.
Free speech MUST protect the most vile speech, otherwise it is worthless.
As long as these idiots are on public property, they should be allowed to protest.
And those who liken this to yelling fire in a theater are clueless. This is not a safety issue, and it's not about "the truth". After all, who knows what "God" hates? There's no way to prove he is slandering or libeling "God", so this is a very clear issue of free speech.
Loonie @ 38:
The God of the old testament is not a nice God and you could accurately describe him as hating a great many people. After all, on frequent occasions he ordered the slaughter of every man, woman, and babe of another tribe or city when they stood in the way of his chosen people. This is, after all, the God that tested Abraham's faith by ordering him to kill his own son. If not hateful, the God of the old testament is certainly pathological and NOT a great source moral teaching.
The family got nothing and will receive nothing from the Phelps. Naturally the Phelps family (where many of them are lawyers, Fred himself being a former civil rights attorney for African-Americans) will appeal. Also, Westboro Baptists assets are less than a million dollars so they don't have the money to give the family.
Symes @ 63:
So I am disingenuous yet you seem to think you can read minds. Classic. Right wingers are cheering this decision as well you silly goose. You don't get to define offensive. That is the point. Explain what the difference would be if a soldiers' family sued war protesters for holding up signs that read "no blood for oil". Offensive is personal.
McMike @ 64:
Ummm. Pardon me, but the suit was not brought on first ammendment grounds, of which the Phelps have every right to spew what ever hatred that they want to spew... just like Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh and David Duke... it was brought on the face of invasion of privacy and emotional distress...
John R. @ 59:
And that is important because......... ? IF I whisper to Yur friend at a bar that Your sister is a whore,and He tells you,that makes it less hurtfull?
just look at Phelps' wiki page for a clue as to who we're dealing with here. The guy is certifiable. He hates EVERYONE!
Men like Phelps awake within me an ancient instinct; one akin to dealing with mad dogs.
CD @ 65:
Actually, because they believe in an invisible father figure who looks over them and will make it all better AFTER they are dead without ANY critical examination of those beliefs means they have a problem.
Because they will make judgments of others based on this fantasy withou even questioning the basis of their judgments they need some help.
Because they seem not to be able to face the world and universe as it really is without a veneer of some baseless story, that they believe just because it is really really old, yeah, they need some help.
Open minded about what, that Gollum might actually exist? That Santa will be visiting my house this year?
What am I supposed to be open minded about in this case?
I think that admonishment is rightly yours to examine.
CD @ 66:
I would describe anyone who believes anything without evidence as having a mental disorder and in need of help. To base your beliefs on evidence = rational, to base your beliefs on no evidence = irrational.
Before you accuse me of believing in the non-existence of God without any evidence, let me make this analogy. I (and 99% of the sane world) do not believe that alchemy is a valid realm of science. I do not believe so because no evidence has been presented to incline me to such a belief. Yet no one would think to describe me as a non-alchemist and irrational. The onus of proof is always on those stating a belief in God, not the other way around. What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Symes, I've been studying Ancient manuscripts in original languages for over a decade..care to spar?
Besides my point was that these are not Christians.
BTW - what makes you think I am a Christian?
David Hawes @ 72:
It makes a difference because they did not disrupt the funeral. The family saw it a day later and got upset that the Phelps got more attention than their son. Listen to the father's interview. Your hypothetical is so stupid that is doesn't deserve anymore than me telling you how stupid it is.
n m
John R. @ 70:
Disingenuous crap.
There things that are offensive even to hardened attitudes, and Phelps has demonstrated he can offend nearly the entire country, right left and all in between.
Except perhaps you.
Chip @ 76:
Why don't you two get a room? the egos here almost exploded my laptop
Um, what if the theater is actually on fire when you shout?
More civil liberties being eroded away. Next will be anti-war protests or anti-religion rallies. Remember that when given an inch they will take a mile.
Chip @ 76:
Why are you the arbiter of who is and is not a Christian? Of course, inadvertently you have illustrated the problem with religion. It is divisive by nature. The source of most inter-religious wars is contained within that one seemingly innocuous statement.
Doug @ 69:
That's what they said about OJ. Now every dollar he makes is watched and if deemed by the the courts it goes to the Goldmans, Goldsteins, Goldwaters.....whatever.
Symes @ 74:
Appealing to ridicule are we?
www.godhatesshrimp.com
Symes @ 78:
I find your use of the word "crap" offensive. How much is that worth? Your mind reading earlier suggested I was a "delicate flower" now I have more than a "hardened attitude". Does that make you disingenuous?
free speech should not have $11 million dollars in punative damages levied against it.
these religious wackos are a bit lunatic, but they provide more than just nasty signs. they provide laughs, and laughter heals the soul.
i hope that the judgement is overturned on appeal.
John R. @ 77:
I am stupid. WOW! You sure told me! I guess i should just crawl away because YOU can read Minds. Impressive.
Chip @ 76:
I didn't declare you anything Chip.
What I did do was comment on your dismissal of proud atheists comment.
You asked for an expansion and I provided it.
Show me where I called YOU a Christian.
CD @ 84:
Appealing to ridicule are we?
Jesus told his followers that they should expect to be ridiculed because, well, their beliefs would seem to a great many people to be ridiculous. Just like the Mormons of today appear to have ridiculous beliefs and are the object of frequent ridicule by more mainstream Christians. Have no fear though, in a few more centuries Mormonism will be accepted as just another Christian sect and the ridiculous nature of their beginnings will have been long since forgotten.
Chip @ 76:
Actually, Fred Phelps _is_ a christian, if your definition of a christian is "someone who believes there was a jeezus christ and claims to follow him".
That's hardly an outrageous or insulting definition of christians, and it prevents people from denying that Adolf Hitler and Martin Luther King Jr. were both christians.
I don't know what your point was, but my point is that religion has nothing to do with one's morality.
proud atheist @ 75:
I am not concerned by what you believe I am concerned by your view that anyone who disagrees with you has a mental disorder. Taking such a stance is an authoritarian trait.
Sol Rosenberg has announced he is going to sue his boss for saying vicious, nasty things. And he fell down the stairs, and his shoes fell off.
CD @ 84:
Not going to work with me Chip.
You asked and I explained in quick summary why atheists think of Christians the way we do.
If you want a more elaborate explanation let me know and I'll give you some links to explore.
David Hawes @ 88:
I didn't say you were stupid but your hypothetical was. Now I am saying you don't know how to read. That may or may not make you stupid but it doesn't change the fact that your hypothetical about my sisters' whoring ways was in fact stupid.
I love that people here crack yo momma and sister jokes. Quite high society.
Symes @ 94:
Sorry, that was for CD obviously.
Symes @ 94:
Symes @ 94:
At what point on this thread did I say anything about Christians?
CD @ 92:
You accuse me of using standard right-wing tactics in this debate while employing them yourself. Now, you know very well that I never said everyone who disagrees with me has a mental disorder. I stated very clearly in my last response to you that I believe all Christians are subject to a mental disorder because they believe in something without evidence to support their position. If you want to argue that point then we can continue to have this discussion. Otherwise, go create strawmen somewhere else.
they might want to protest the catholic church, they will find more gays and molesters there.
proud atheist @ 99:
So it's just Christians who have a mental disorder then?
Hey,You admitted Your sister's whoring ways. I didn't . It was a 'stupid' hypothetical. So, I guess I can 'see' as well as you. Who knew?
For me, no one has ever stated it better than Aaron Sorkin in "The American President."
"You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil who is standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours. You want to claim this land as the 'land of the free'? Then the symbol of your country cannot just be a flag. The symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. Now show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms. Then you can stand up and sing about the 'land of the free.'"
I hate to defend free speech over the case of a worm like Phelps, but he is nearly a perfect fit for Sorkin’s example.
CD @ 98:
Why, back at @49 you did indeed go after someone over that and we got on this because I rebutted you.
Don't you remember what you wrote a mere hour ago?
proud atheist @ 82:
Well the term Chistian derives from the term "Christ man", by which obviously means to behave as Christ behaves. I myself am incapable of this, I've tried. My own personal faults get in the way. Yet in todays society this label is thrown about like one would refer to their shirt color. That (if anything) is the sad part about all of this. This group of people namely Phelps himself are just hardening the clay mold of the American Christian reputation of hate and fear. I sincerely meant no disrespect in my earlier statement. After one labels themself an athiest I would think they'd be ready to say that they have no relationship with christ. It was inconsiderate of me and I recant. I had no idea you had respect for christ. My apologies.
teach atheism, think for yourself, be free of religious dogma
CD @ 101:
Shall we list all of the worlds religions? Or perhaps we can just take it as a given that you understand atheism?
David Hawes @ 102:
When I get a sister I'll let you know.
Let's rerail this thing.
Should people be allowed to hold up signs that read "No war for oil" or "Out of Iraq now" near a soldier's funeral if they hold the signs up out of sight or hearing range? Seriously. Answer that one. Should we be allowed to do that?
John R. @ 96:
So You have MORE than one sister who is a whore?
HI-freaking-larious.
Let's hear it for that judge.
Symes @ 107:
Is that a yes or a no?
CD @ 101:
No. Not just Christians. Everyone who believes without evidence in the existence of the supernatural. If you have not figured it out by now, I am an atheist and thus do not believe in the teachings of any religion. Is that clear enough for you?
John R. @ 108:
Again You have a right To SAY anythin you wish and THE STATE cannot stop You. THAT is free speech. Once uttered other laws apply. THE STATE did NOT stop free speech. Can You finally get that? You call ME stupid.
proud atheist @ 112:
Guess ghandi was the biggest nut of the 20th century then.
Bottom Line - We all agree that this group of assholes got what they deserved...right!
David Hawes @ 109:
Why don't you take a little longer for your witty quips? Nothing says funny more than grammar jokes.
CD @ 111:
Of course not, anyone who believes without question and evidence to verify it something that has never been shown to exist except as told to them by someone with something to gain (faith) and then bases their lives and defends that belief to the very end without ever having any evidence that any of it is real at all needs some help to distinguish reality from fantasy.
Clear enough for you there Chip?
Wee Mousie @ 103:
He can have his free speech. But he doesn't need to do it in front of the grieving friends and family of a dead soldier. At his funeral.
That's not free. It costs about eleven million dollars.
I hope they get bankrupted. How's that for free speech?
This is not a case of free speech in the slightest. Phelps and his followers can say whatever they want without picketing funerals. He can preach whatever he wants in his church. He's using free speech as a human shield for his bullcrap and his pathetic tactics. As the father of the fallen soldier said, and as is obvious, their hate speech make zero sense and takes a lot of stupidity in order to put together the kind of argument and points of view they express. He's been allowed to exercise free speech for years, and everyone knows what they're about. Picketing funerals with absurd and offensive signs and slogans, for people who have no reasonable or logical tie to what's even being argued, is classless, baseless, opportunistic and vile. The only points they get from me on their "protesting" (which is nothing more than using the word 'protest' as an excuse to go on public corners and preach hate) is their level of originality in offending so many people universally.
Good on the bikers and everyone else that counters them at these funerals.
Chip @ 115:
Well, most of us.
There are a couple of free speechers running around but not as many as I expected.
David Hawes @ 113:
If the state says you have to pay 11 million for using free speech than that is in fact suppressing speech. If war protesters are successfully sued for the same reasons than you won't have a problem right?
Symes @ 117:
For CD again, damn I hate having 2 guys with such similar screen names on the same subject!
My hypothetical is one where at a priests funeral those molested by him protest. Should they pay $11,000,000 too? Where do we draw the line? I can think of a thousand examples of what folk here might consider justified nonviolent protest outside a funeral.
I usually don't go for slippery slope arguments but for this I think it's pretty clear.
CD @ 114:
Actually, there may be more truth to that than you know. Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs whether I believe them to be irrational or not. Just because I believe Christians are behaving irrationally does not mean that I want to lock them up and throw away the key. As an atheist and a humanist I value freedom above all else. Including the freedom to hold what I believe are *wrong* thoughts. To get back to my main point, this man, Rev. Phelps, is just as much Christian as the rest of the lot. His views eccentric, but not unsupported by Biblical scripture. That should tell you much about the content of the Bible and how hateful and spiteful it can be.
John R. @ 121:
I wouldn't if they were at funerals yelling nasty invective at grieving families.
You seem to have a problem with understanding that concept.
John R. @ 116:
I wouldn't want to waste your prescious time while you are reading other people's minds. You have yet to make a valid point or argument other than everyone else is an idiot except You. The 'Free Speech' argument is over. Yet YOU know better. well,bub You are wrong. So go back to mommy's basement and get some rest. You seem over-hyped. Actually,You need to get laid.
proud atheist @ 124:
To get back to my main point, this man, Rev. Phelps, is just as much Christian as the rest of the lot. His views eccentric, but not unsupported by Biblical scripture. That should tell you much about the content of the Bible and how hateful and spiteful it can be.
Exactly. He is as "Christian" as anyone else who claims to be. Other "Christians" who don't like what he has to say actually don't like the book that guides their beliefs. Rather than admit the flaws in their belief system they attack "phony" believers for doing exactly the same thing.
proud atheist @ 124:
And that really IS the point.
All sorts of nasty vile crimes against humanity behavior can be outright justified by passages SOMEWHERE in the Bible, or Koran, Or Torah, or Bhagavad Gita et al.
Phelps is a Christian, and he can show you in the Bible why.
That is far more than enough to leave him the label he claims.
CD @ 114:
Ghandi? Because he believed in rights and taught the practice of religion, what made him less of a nut than James Dobson? Did he provide physical and absolute proof of his beliefs or was he just a good guy with faith? What proof did Ghandi provide of his his god? I think he was just a great guy who had beliefs that helped a cause but brought no proof of his god.
Symes @ 125:
You don't seem to understand that they weren't at the funeral. The family learned of it from the media. So if war protesters are successfully sued for holding signs outside of sight or hearing range you would have a problem? The Phelps family knows and follows local and state laws. They might be crazy in my eyes but so are many people.
Did you listen to the dad's interview?
John R. @ 121:
hey,anyone is free to sue anybody. Right,I have NO problem with it. IF ,successful is a whole 'nother concept,eh?
I haven't made up my mind on this case yet, but I think several of you are seriously misguided. Morally, I side with the families.
For one thing, the analogy of shouting "FIRE" in a crowded theater is in no way applicable. That particular limit on free speech was intended to prevent people from abusing their rights in such a way as to place others in danger. Just because the Supreme Court has placed limits on First Amendment rights does not mean those same limits fit into every situation. That is simply not how the court works.
Another thing. There is no constitutional right to grieve or to be free from displays of hate. If that was the case, I would be able to sue about thirty people every day. I am not saying that Phelps & Co. did not infringe--or at least come dangerously close to infringing--the mourners' rights. I just think that there are actual, established rights to cite.
Also, the rights protected by the Bill of Rights are freedoms from government, not individuals. It does not matter if a fellow citizen abridges my freedom of speech; the Constitution contains nothing to prevent that. The language says "Congress shall pass no law...."
I haven't read the case yet, but I imagine the only real cause of action here is intentional infliction of emotional distress.
As for the church members, they have a very real right to free speech, regardless of what anyone of you might say. Someone made the analogy to the Swiftboaters. That is a false analogy. Most of the "facts" they asserted in the 2004 campaign were false, and there was evidence to prove that. Laws against libel have long been considered proper limits on free speech. (btw, limits and abridgments are different things. Don't want any of you nit-pickers trying to call me on that.) There is no evidence as to whether any of the things Phelps says are false. Furthermore, I'm not sure he even claims that they are anything more than opinions. Any law that precludes his ability to say them could very well abridge his freedom of speech.
This is my final point. I read all the time on C&L and other progressive/liberal blogs (which I love and thank the Internet for everyday) about how important the Constitution is. About how we have to protect it, and keep Bush et al. from trampling on it and weakening it. But the second it is not convenient, it gets thrown out the window. The Constitution is not there for people to pick and choose what they want out of it. Take the whole thing or none of it. Those are your options. It protects everyone in this country. Period. And it is not there to protect you and me from meanness and insensitivity. It's there to protect us from tyranny, and trampling on others' rights simply because they are disagreeable is nothing less than tyranny.
David Hawes @ 126:
When did I read minds? Look at all the petty comments you have made about someone you don't know. Go back and read your comments.
Craig @ 3:
Freedom of Speech...Yep we have that right.But that right also encompasses the right to say something stupid and leave yourself wide open to a lawsuit.And in this case...I would consider this to be a just lawsuit.Those people are ......psYchoooooooooooooooooo
Chip @ 105:
Most atheists are pragmatic when it comes to the teachings of Christ. That is, some of it is good, and some of it not so good. We treat him just like any other great philosophical historical figure. Of course, very little of what Christ said had not already been said by others long before he arrived on the scene. He was certainly not a revolutionary in any meaningful sense of the word.
John R. @ 130:
Matters not to me, he HAS done it MANY times at the funerals themselves.
He is getting punished because this is the family that went after him.
I would have preferred that an earlier family would have went after him, perhaps one of the ones with a direct view and within earshot of his hate (been quite a few of those) but if this is what it took to take him out of the picture then good. Apparently the Judge feels the same way, he was the one who set the fines.
And now I leave you with a list of some people whom a few present think have a mental illness because they have faith.
Walt Brown, ex-Oregon state Senator, Socialist Party USA
Jimmy Carter, humanitarian and former President
Robert Casey, former Pennsylvania governor
Bill Clinton, former President
Dorothy Day, Catholic Worker Movement cofounder, Wobbly
Diane Drufenbrock, nun, Socialist Party USA
John Edwards, Former United States Senator and current Presidential candidate
Al Gore, Former Vice President of the United States and activist
Thomas J. Hagerty, founding member of IWW
Ammon Hennacy, Wobbly
Hubert Humphrey, Former Vice President of the United States
Jesse Jackson, politician and civil rights leader
John Lewis, U.S. congressman and civil rights leader
Barack Obama, junior senator from Illinois, and current presidential candidate
Walter Mondale, Former Vice President of the United States
Franklin Delano Roosevelt, President
Norman Thomas, Socialist Party of America presidential candidate
Al Sharpton, 2004 Democratic presidential candidate and civil rights leader
Harry S Truman, President
Atlee Yarrow, Catholic, political activist, candidate (twice), union organizer, Host of Christian Socialist USA website
Frank P. Zeidler, ex-Mayor of Milwaukee, Socialist Party USA
Tony Campolo, Baptist evangelist and sociologist
Forrester Church, Unitarian Universalist minister, author
William Sloane Coffin, Jr., UCC minister and peace activist
Daniel Berrigan, Catholic priest & peace activist
Kim Bobo, founder, Interfaith Worker Justice
Stephen Colbert, host of The Colbert Report and Sunday School Teacher
John Cort, writer, editor for Commonweal, Peacework, Religious Socialism
Jerome Davis, labor organizer and sociologist
James A. Forbes, minister at Riverside Church
Tom Gabel, Anarcho-Catholic and Punk Rock Icon
Jeannine Gramick, Roman Catholic nun and founder of New Ways Ministry
Thomas Gumbleton, Roman Catholic bishop of Detroit and social activist
Coretta Scott King, civil rights activist and wife of Martin Luther King, Jr.
Martin Luther King, Jr. - Nobel Prize winning civil-rights activist.
Rev. Joseph Lowery Civil Rights Leader who humiliated GW Bush.
Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State
Pauli Murray, first female Episcopal minister and co-founder of NOW
Charles Owen Rice, Catholic priest, labor leader, and civil rights activist
Ron Sider, president of Evangelicals for Social Action.
Katherine Jefferts Schori, Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church
Jim Wallis, editor of Sojourners Magazine
Barry Welsh Congressional Candidate and Minister (United Methodist Church)
Lennox Yearwood peace activist.
Ava Lowery Up and coming Activist (United Methodist Church)
Cindy Sheehan peace activist.
Michael Moore Film maker
Rev. Lennox Yearwood Veteran and anti-Iraq War Activist
David Ray Griffin, Theology professor and 9/11 Truth author
Anne Lamott, author
Stanley Hauerwas, theologian and ethicist
Brian McLaren, Emerging Church Leader
Troy Perry, founder of Metropolitan Community Church
Walter Rauschenbusch, social gospel thinker
John Shelby Spong, retired bishop and liberal political activist
John Howard Yoder, biblical scholar and ethicist
Cornel West, theologian, academic, activist
Theres nothing like good old hatred to bring out the worst in people.....but to do it under the guise of religion.....no doubt there repugs...
John R. @ 133:
You said 'None at the funeral was bothered' Since YOU weren't AT THE FUNERAL You Must have supernatural powers. And My comments aren't petty. They are are spoken to entertain me as i would play with a puppy as that is the mental capacity of Yourself.
Greg @ 129:
There is some evidence to suggest that he was a racist... I am not very familiar with his life but others have documented cases of him saying very racist things. A search on Google will turn up a number of hits, among which you will find this:
http://www.trinicenter.com/WorldNews/ghandi4.htm
I cannot speak for its veracity but as you can see, the truth is not always black and white. Pen and Teller also profiled him in their excellent television show.
Does that mean Ghandi was a bad guy? Well, he certainly did many great things for his country and people but he is perhaps not the saint-like figures others wish him to be.
Just food for thought.
debaser71 @ 123:
I say we draw the line where someone like Phelps and his ilk go to a funeral to protest homosexuality when the soldier wasn't even gay. In fact, the subject matter before this cult group enters the picture has nothing to do with homosexuality what-so-ever. Their point is so overly convoluted that is proves that the protest is a pathetic grasp at straws. In otherwords, these crazy folks are barking up the wrong tree.
proud atheist @ 124: (for example)
Go ahead, spew the hate. Identify a couple crazies, lump in a lot of other people with them, and spew. Congratulations, you found the Skeptics Annotated Bible. You then found a very small minority who take the Bible as literal, inerrant truth. Time to spew.
Forget that the majority of Christian denominations are not fundamentalist. Forget that many Catholic schools, for example, teach the Old Testament as myth. Forget that Father Lemaitre, a priest with the Vatican proposed the Big Bang theory and later convinced Einstein of it's validity. Forget that this thread is about free speech and not your "brilliant" theological analysis.
Forget all that, because you feel like hating.
Let us not forget that the funeral was a private affair and the mourners were striken and vulnerable to Phelps hate-speech. Demonstrating at soldier's funerals was a calculation by Phelps to shock and embarrass the funeral's mourners as well as the public at large. This is not a demonstration at the funeral of a political or other public figure. Phelps may have been able to cloak himself in the First amendment under those particular circumstances, but not the facts of this case.
Just like you cannot yell fire in a crowded threater without impunity, you cannot attack a grieving family that has not thrust itself upon public awareness, without consequence. The jury's decision and verdict was appropriate.
What about that so-called interview over the telephone with what's his name on CNN, Rick Sanchez(?)....the dude was obviously nine sheets to the wind. Typical Baptist....once saved, always saved....let's get drunk cousin. I think Phelps sister is also his mother.
God says..."Knock it off down there, assholes!"
And,for what it's worth, sueing 'antiwar protesters' jest don't seem Christian to Me. I mean, WHO actually IS for war? Only people i ever saw was FOR WAR was folks who didn't have an ass to get shot off. Used to be, 'a military' was a deterent to war. So,actually,WHO who sue 'anti war' demonstators? Hmmmm?
I would be my life Phelps is gay and he may not even know it.
He needs a strong burly man BAD!
Pop quiz:
1. Who came up with the yelling-fire-in-a-crowded-theater example?
2. What was the point of that example?
If you can't answer these questions, you are no longer allowed to use the example yourself, because your argument makes no logical sense.
David Hawes @ 138:
Find the post where I said "None at the funeral was bothered". Show me where I said those words. I'll wait right here.....
Chip @ 140:
I view freedom of speech in terms of freedom of conscience. What thought is the speaker giving voice? Is it a valid thought based on observation and/or experience. Or something based on "illumination". Is it a thought being repressed by those in power. Or is it only an opinion you want to others to tolerate?
Take the "shouting fire" example. I wouldn't consider anything falsely stated as being supported by free speech.
Comments are closed on this entry