I guess Rudy was right - there probably is a time and place for waterboarding.

I don't agree with what Fred Phelps is doing, but I still don't like this precedent. Will anti-war protesters start being sued by people who are "offended"? Where do you draw the line on the First Amendment? This may open up a can of worms we don't want opened.

navyswan @ 4:

I don't agree with what Fred Phelps is doing, but I still don't like this precedent. Will anti-war protesters start being sued by people who are "offended"? Where do you draw the line on the First Amendment? This may open up a can of worms we don't want opened.

Bush drew the line when the so-called "Free Speech Zones" were set up. Those are criminal.

ThunderMonkey @ 6:

navyswan @ 4:

I don't agree with what Fred Phelps is doing, but I still don't like this precedent. Will anti-war protesters start being sued by people who are "offended"? Where do you draw the line on the First Amendment? This may open up a can of worms we don't want opened.

Bush drew the line when the so-called "Free Speech Zones" were set up. Those are criminal.

Yes they are. But, add the fear of being sued to the mix and then we will have no one that will dare protest. This is worrying.

ThunderMonkey @ 5:

Mr. Phelps, you do have the right to say anything you want, but do you don't have the right to be a douchebag.

Actually, he does.

What he doesnt have the right to do is to inflict emotional stress on others. TRUE emotional stress, not the silly "I dont like what you have to say" kind of stress, but the kind Phelps and his ilk practices simply for the purpose of pissing of others. He may have the freedom of speech, but you still cant yell Fire in a crowded theater when there is none.

11 million dollars in damages? For minor torts like invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress? Where the complained-of conduct was constitutionally protected political speech?

What damages are awarded to the families of Iraqis and Afghans whose families are slaughtered by marines, such as the deceased? A couple of thousand dollars tops and usually nothing.

Afraid I have to join Reverend Bigot and cry Hogwash as well.

Jay, you are so wrong. Protesting at funerals is nothing like yelling fire. Protesting puts no lives in danger. Free speech ABSOLUTELY protects inflicting emotional stress, as long as the speech is not libelous or slanderous.

If you don't believe in free speech for the most vile among us, you really just don't believe in free speech.

Jay @ 10:

ThunderMonkey @ 5:

Mr. Phelps, you do have the right to say anything you want, but do you don't have the right to be a douchebag.

Actually, he does.

What he doesnt have the right to do is to inflict emotional stress on others. TRUE emotional stress, not the silly "I dont like what you have to say" kind of stress, but the kind Phelps and his ilk practices simply for the purpose of pissing of others. He may have the freedom of speech, but you still cant yell Fire in a crowded theater when there is none.

But, "emotional stress" is subjective. What if some people started coming out and saying that protesters who say, "End the War" is emotionally stressful because they have served in Iraq and it causes emotional damages for people to protest the war? With this precedent, could there be a judge that would uphold that claim? And then what?

Well Rick Sanchez is brainwashed, just not like Phelps seems to imply and he is certainly not stark, raving mad, like Phelps and his sycophantic troope.

The First Amendment applies to government attempts to sanction speech. A civil judgment by one private citizen against another private citizen does not equate to a First Amendment violation.

Those signs in the video were shocking. What has happened to the USA?

Wow, many of you need to learn about the 1st Amendment!! Extereme and Outrageous conduct is not given protection by the Constitution which amounts to the Tort of Intention Infliction of Emotional Distress.

"protestations"? "sir"??!!

I want those 4 minutes of my life back...

PNAAC Minister @ 2:

I guess Rudy was right - there probably is a time and place for waterboarding.

LOL.

Weaseldog @ 27:

So God killed my brother because there are gay people in the US?

According to these nujobs, yes. Or even according to some of the more mainstream nutjobs like Rush or Dobson. The only difference between these people are that the latter don't actually go to people's funerals and yell their insanity.

Weaseldog @ 7:

Phelps is lucky that his only punishment is in the form of a civil fine.

If he keeps this up, someone will make a martyr of him.

Screaming words of hate at people grieving over the loss of loved ones, can lead to unpredictable events.

I've heard that most of his children are lawyers and that the family seeks and welcomes contentious lawsuits -- that their real focus is on litigation.

I would not be at all surprised if what they ARE after is a physical confrontation where they can claim victim status. I can see that they might feel this venue is promising in that regard.

After all - their church numbers are below pathetic - they don't have a secure source of income from it. And who in their right mind would hire any of these clearly crazy people to represent them in a court of law?

No - I think they want and feel they need a lawsuit where THEY would be the victim - asking for an obscene judgment that could theoretically set them up in a lifestyle they would like to become accustomed to.

They'd probably go for expanding their miserable and useless church too.
*

Terrorists and insurgents are killing our troops, but this nutjob is claiming God is killing our troops. So, using his "logic": God = a terrorist. I'm sure God loves it when he gets blame for murder and death.

Honest to God...there needs to be a webiste where people can go to sign up to be notified when Fred Phelps finally drops dead, and then maybe that same site could organize bus and plane trips from AL over the country for anyone that wants to come and needs transportation to picket Phelp's funeral and hurl the same, hateful invective at his family and church as these lowlifes have done to so many others!

This is not a criminal case! The police didn't shut him down and shut him up. Niether did anyone else. His right to protest infringes on other peoples' right to mourn in peace the loss of a loved one. This doesn't set "precedent" in criminal law because it has nothing to do with criminal law. Good lord didn't anybody else learn this in high school government?
Now if this was the chimp's FBI and local police coming in and breaking them up, tasing and handcuffing them and hauling them away, then I'd be there defending them, (while holding my nose for dear life), because that would abridge his right to assembly and speech. If anybody believes this will somehow make it easier for the Bushies to shut down war protestors, then I would recommend remidial government classes.
Similarly this isn't about peaceful protest, this is about trampling the rights of others. When somebody stands outside the gates of the chimp's "ranch" with signs that's one thing, when people begin to trespass, stop traffic, and make threats, that's something else altogether.

Fred Phelps' church is basically a fraud. It's a ruse designed to push the limits of free speech to its extreme so they can sue people over it. He just got back some of what he's been giving all these years. Karma's a bitch.

His career as a lawyer ended in 1979, when Phelps was disbarred by the state of Kansas for allegedly being too abusive to witnesses. Phelps seems to have compensated for being forced to leave the law by grooming his children to take up the profession: Eleven of his children now have law degrees. ...
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/1999/03/lauerman.html

more here
http://www.adl.org/special_reports/wbc/default.asp

I think Fred is gay and he knows that what he's doing is so outrageous that it shocks many who were bigoted against gays into being sympathetic for gay rights causes.

I'm not the only one who thinks he's gay.

Alan Colmes thinks so.
http://www.newshounds.us/2005/06/19/does_god_hate_rev_fred_phelps.php

So does Leanord Pitts Jr
http://thepeskyfly.blogspot.com/2006/02/fred-phelps-advocate-in-training...

Marley @ 35:

navyswan @ 8:

ThunderMonkey @ 6:

navyswan @ 4:

Bush drew the line when the so-called "Free Speech Zones" were set up. Those are criminal.

Yes they are. But, add the fear of being sued to the mix and then we will have no one that will dare protest. This is worrying.

There is protesting and free speech and then there is protesting in the purest evil and bigoted way I have ever seen. This is Hate at the highest level and most callous. This was the man's funeral! The fact that this protest was based on the person's sexual orientation makes it a crime. How about showing up at hetero John Doe's funeral and branding signs with " God Hates You" on them because we don't agree with who had sex with, better yet, we just didn't like his wife. She was too fat! You would never see that! And if you did you'd most probably have those people hung for such lack of respect for a dead person. Thank GOD for human rights activists and a few good laws... They don't come often nowadays.. but this is progress in the right direction for assaulting gays, their rights and their privacy. Pay up bigots!

I agree, and I wish that they had been tried for hate speech or something other than general emotional distress. I hope that everyone is right and we don't see a rash of conservative all of a sudden claiming that anti-war protesters are causing them emotional distress. And don't get me wrong. I am not defending these psychos. I just worry about precedent.

acquittal @ 12:

11 million dollars in damages? For minor torts like invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress? Where the complained-of conduct was constitutionally protected political speech?

What damages are awarded to the families of Iraqis and Afghans whose families are slaughtered by marines, such as the deceased? A couple of thousand dollars tops and usually nothing.

Afraid I have to join Reverend Bigot and cry Hogwash as well.

Fine...then please inform me the next time one of your loved ones dies, so me an a bunch of my buddies can show up at the funeral cursing you, your family and the diseased. Then we'll see whether or not you still thinks it's hogwash! Attacking a funeral is not free...it's an inavasion of property and disturbing the peace!

navyswan @ 4:

I don't agree with what Fred Phelps is doing, but I still don't like this precedent. Will anti-war protesters start being sued by people who are "offended"? Where do you draw the line on the First Amendment? This may open up a can of worms we don't want opened.

There is a big difference between protesting in public and protesting in private. When there is a public event such as a war protest it is held on public ground. Protesting a funeral is completely different because the grounds are private. It would be no different than if they were to stand outside someones house with a megaphone protesting. A reasonable person would look at that as harassment (which is what the Jury found) as opposed to if they were doing it on the streets of Washington DC.

The first amendment says that we have the right to free speech, not the right from consequences of what we say.

navyswan @ 4:

I don't agree with what Fred Phelps is doing, but I still don't like this precedent. Will anti-war protesters start being sued by people who are "offended"? Where do you draw the line on the First Amendment? This may open up a can of worms we don't want opened.

Are you nuts? Do you have no understanding of the law and the first amendment?! What Phelps was doing was preaching hate, which is NOT covered under the constitution. Let me repeat this again to all of you wacko-s who want to go join Phelps and his hate parade:

HATE SPEECH IS NOT COVERED BY THE 1ST AMENDMENT

The only can of worms this opened is putting Mr. Phelps and his crazies in their place.

Please, evolve and use your brains!

This is the true cost of freedom of speech - that we must, by its very nature, accept nutjobs like Fred Phelps.

Still, the ruling said nothing about Phelps having made his appearance, or enjoining him from making further/similar appearances ... only that his actions caused the family of the dead soldier undue emotional distress, and invaded their privacy. It's a sound ruling.

Except the $11 million seems a bit excessive. Still, without the case particulars to hand (did the protest, for example, cause such distress that a family member suffered a heart attack or other issue that incurred medical expenses), it's hard to say much more than that.

as much as phelps angers and disgusts me, my opinion around this issue is similar to navyswan's...

i think it is analogous to allowing the KKK march in their sheets thru the streets--let the fools expose themselves for the ignorant, inbreeds they are.

as much as it sucks, sometimes you have to fight for the rights of the most despicable members of our society, in order to protect your rights.

another example: the ACLU defending rush Limbaugh when his junkies was exposed.

Many states have 'fighting words" laws on their books that will allow you to kick the living shit out of someone for doing/saying things like the Phelps clan does. Basically speaking, the words have been ruled and upheld as the first punch in the fight.

I will just sum it up with a song
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRdk_exMkY0

Fred has bullied people, raged incessantly, and been darn clever about how he does it. Free speech is great when I am protesting the war (and not allowed to do so except in special free speech zones - about as unconstitutional a concept as Bush ever created) and I have to say - as much as I despise this character and all that he stands for - even when he protests at funerals.
He's a lawyer as all almost all of his children. They are an embarrassement to all the lawyers I know, all the Baptists I know - but I'm not sure there is anything to be done about their right to free speech. If he can be silenced - so can I when I protest this war based on my religious beliefs. Too much attention has been given this man and attention is power as far as he in concerned.

Hmm... Places where God doesn't care if there are gays because their soldiers are not dying in Iraq or are not victim of terrorism or are not faced with famine or epidemics infectious disease or do not suffer from major natural disasters: All of western Europe except the UK, Italy, Spain, Germany, Denmark.
So that means the US should model itself on Sweden, Norway, Finland or the Netherlands. yeah? it would be a step up!

Samson- @ 52:

as much as phelps angers and disgusts me, my opinion around this issue is similar to navyswan's...

i think it is analogous to allowing the KKK march in their sheets thru the streets--let the fools expose themselves for the ignorant, inbreeds they are.

as much as it sucks, sometimes you have to fight for the rights of the most despicable members of our society, in order to protect your rights.

another example: the ACLU defending rush Limbaugh when his junkies was exposed.

In Texas some years back, the Police arrested a group peaceably protesting in front of the Governor's Mansion. They were protesting a move by Governor Bush to allow a South Korean corporation that couldn't meet South Korean standards to move to Texas and pollute the Brazos.

The next day, the KKK marched in the same place and was not harassed in any way.

The group protesting pollution, later won a lawsuit against the State of Texas.

acquittal @ 12:

11 million dollars in damages? For minor torts like invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress? Where the complained-of conduct was constitutionally protected political speech?

What damages are awarded to the families of Iraqis and Afghans whose families are slaughtered by marines, such as the deceased? A couple of thousand dollars tops and usually nothing.

Afraid I have to join Reverend Bigot and cry Hogwash as well.

Me too, I geuss. Does this mean then that all of the women who have had to endure the attacks of anti-abortion protestors over the years can sue for damages and break those insensitve folks too. I mean, is there anything more private than the womb?

I give up! Once more for the illiterates: The first ammendment has nothing to do with civil matters. Understand that yet? Nothing. Zero. Zip. Nada. Nunka. This case does not even in the most superficial way affect the first ammendment. As for Phelps' offspring being lawyers, well there are lots of insane lawyers and lots of lawyers who only think they know the law. That's why they aren't judges.

There's so much misstating of the facts that I wonder if I'm on a right wing nut job site.

The Phelps conducted a legal and nonviolent protest. They didn't trespass or interrupt the funeral. They were 1,000 feet away and the father didn't even see the protest, rather he learned about it through the media.

It's a sad day here in America when supposed liberals and advocates for civil liberties cheer the further erosion of our liberties.

I think this case exposes the thin support for real civil liberties. And it underscores the degree to which conservatism exists in this society.

This is clearly a first amendment case and there's no way a jury should have been involved. The Phelps crew have a constitutionally protected right to express their views publicly - no matter how repugnant others regard those views. Let Phelps have his spotlight - it will expose the sick underbelly of Christian fundamentalism.

Just like Skokie did nearly 30 years ago we're going to find that real support for the first amendment is thin and sporadic.

I also think the reaction here and elsewhere is overblown and it implicitly works to the government's advantage. Funerals are solemn occasions but these dead soldiers died because of an arrogant and abusive government. There's something in the sentiment being expressed in the post and in the comments that goes toward explaining the reluctance congressional Democrats show in ending the war.

dattexas @ 57:

Mr. Phelps, go to hell.

He's in hell already.

I'm with navyswan on this.

Screaming or holding up signs while on public property is free speech. Families mourning the death of their loved ones do not have a legal right not to have to listen to bigots protest outside the funeral home (on public property) and/or within sight of the grave (again on public property).

Anything short of a direct incitement to commit a crime is permitted by the First Amendment. While I loathe Phelps and everything he stands for, he is the flip side of the coin to Larry Flint. If damages are awarded because his protests are deeply hurtful to the grieving relatives of slain soldiers, we establish a precedent that speech which deeply offends someone can be penalized by millions of dollars in damages. That will have a chilling effect of protests of every kind. Don't expect this award to make it past the court of appeal.

Marley @ 63:

Darth_Romney @ 44:

acquittal @ 12:

11 million dollars in damages? For minor torts like invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress? Where the complained-of conduct was constitutionally protected political speech?

What damages are awarded to the families of Iraqis and Afghans whose families are slaughtered by marines, such as the deceased? A couple of thousand dollars tops and usually nothing.

Afraid I have to join Reverend Bigot and cry Hogwash as well.

Fine...then please inform me the next time one of your loved ones dies, so me an a bunch of my buddies can show up at the funeral cursing you, your family and the diseased. Then we'll see whether or not you still thinks it's hogwash! Attacking a funeral is not free...it's an inavasion of property and disturbing the peace!

Marley @ 63:

Darth_Romney @ 44:

acquittal @ 12:

11 million dollars in damages? For minor torts like invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress? Where the complained-of conduct was constitutionally protected political speech?

What damages are awarded to the families of Iraqis and Afghans whose families are slaughtered by marines, such as the deceased? A couple of thousand dollars tops and usually nothing.

Afraid I have to join Reverend Bigot and cry Hogwash as well.

Fine...then please inform me the next time one of your loved ones dies, so me an a bunch of my buddies can show up at the funeral cursing you, your family and the diseased. Then we'll see whether or not you still thinks it's hogwash! Attacking a funeral is not free...it's an inavasion of property and disturbing the peace!

....your family and the diseased! Great pun! HA!

Like it or not, there is no law that prevents a private person from suing or for shutting somebody out of a privately owned forum. Fred Phelps was sued by a private individual, not Bush, not the state of Maryland, just a grieving father.

But he was sued for exercising his free specch 1000 feet away. That's totally wrong.

But as wrong as it is, maybe I should consider a civil suit next time an anti-abotionist sends me a death threat.

Fred Phelps... idiot at large! and rude sonofabitch!!!

It’s a sad day here in America when supposed liberals and advocates for civil liberties cheer the further erosion of our liberties.

*********************************************************************
Nor has he been held criminaly liable for anything. The subjects you discuss, the peaceful protest, on public property, a thousand feet away all deal with criminal statute. he hasn't been charged with a crime. The order taker at McDonald's was never arrested for that stupid woman spilling hot coffee on herself but a jury found that there was negligence in the cup design and the temperature that they serve their coffee. Personally, I never go to McDonalds, I hate coffee and I think it was bogus as hell that it wound up costing them so much money. But it didn't affect my rights in any way, shape or form.

debaser71 @ 68:

There's so much misstating of the facts that I wonder if I'm on a right wing nut job site.

The Phelps conducted a legal and nonviolent protest. They didn't trespass or interrupt the funeral. They were 1,000 feet away and the father didn't even see the protest, rather he learned about it through the media.

It's a sad day here in America when supposed liberals and advocates for civil liberties cheer the further erosion of our liberties.

That is why they weren't arrested or tasered by coips.

Dhalgren @ 78:

Like it or not, there is no law that prevents a private person from suing or for shutting somebody out of a privately owned forum. Fred Phelps was sued by a private individual, not Bush, not the state of Maryland, just a grieving father.

But he was sued for exercising his free specch 1000 feet away. That's totally wrong.

But as wrong as it is, maybe I should consider a civil suit next time an anti-abotionist sends me a death threat.

Oh, I didn't know he was sued for free speech. I was under the impression that he was sued for harassment.

Weaseldog @ 86:

Dhalgren @ 78:

Like it or not, there is no law that prevents a private person from suing or for shutting somebody out of a privately owned forum. Fred Phelps was sued by a private individual, not Bush, not the state of Maryland, just a grieving father.

But he was sued for exercising his free specch 1000 feet away. That's totally wrong.

But as wrong as it is, maybe I should consider a civil suit next time an anti-abotionist sends me a death threat.

Oh, I didn't know he was sued for free speech. I was under the impression that he was sued for harassment.

Come on, don't let those little facts stand in the way of grandstanding hissy fit.

debaser71 @ 68:

There's so much misstating of the facts that I wonder if I'm on a right wing nut job site.

The Phelps conducted a legal and nonviolent protest. They didn't trespass or interrupt the funeral. They were 1,000 feet away and the father didn't even see the protest, rather he learned about it through the media.

It's a sad day here in America when supposed liberals and advocates for civil liberties cheer the further erosion of our liberties.

In order to avoid trespass, Phelps would have to be off the cemetery grounds completely. The exact rules vary from state to state.

Humans, and probably some of Phelps' signs, would still be visible at 1,000 feet, which is reasonably close to the length of an Essex-class aircraft carrier like the USS Hornet (827 feet). Phelps' group has also been known to chant their slogans and use loudspeakers.

You propagate the standard conservative bullshit that an offense must be a personal experience, thus, a grieving father cannot possibly be offended by hearing second hand that there was some guy off down the road a bit ascribing his son's death to an angry God. If this man were a conservative and steadfastly believed that his son fought for what was right, and took pride in his son's service, your argument would mean he may not take offense in any way.

Phelps is free to speak his piece; he is not free of the consequences for having done so.

Margaret @ 82:

It’s a sad day here in America when supposed liberals and advocates for civil liberties cheer the further erosion of our liberties.

*********************************************************************
Nor has he been held criminaly liable for anything. The subjects you discuss, the peaceful protest, on public property, a thousand feet away all deal with criminal statute. he hasn't been charged with a crime. The order taker at McDonald's was never arrested for that stupid woman spilling hot coffee on herself but a jury found that there was negligence in the cup design and the temperature that they serve their coffee. Personally, I never go to McDonalds, I hate coffee and I think it was bogus as hell that it wound up costing them so much money. But it didn't affect my rights in any way, shape or form.

Erosions of our liberties? You just don't get it. Who eroded who's liberties here?
They were punished for being hateful towards a dead gay soldier at his funeral!
The judge saw this as what it was, an assault on human rights and a hate crime.
He deserves a medal of honor.

The one thing the commenter here seem to be missing is that Freddy didn't just protest at a funeral of a marine. He also posted the marine's likeness on his own website without permission and started cutting him down.

I don't like the precedent either, but the fact is this guy is putting HIS rights above everyone else's rights. We're supposed to all be equal in this country. Why should this dried up old shitbag get to put himself before a grieving father? What about the dad's right to mourn his son without having some cult of lunatics showing up to preach some nonsense about how they believe 'God' is punishing random people because of homosexuals.

He can and does preach all he wants in his home/church and in the streets. But his rights end when he starts infringing on someone else's rights. Just like my right to express myself by swinging a baseball bat around ends when it impacts his head. Then it becomes criminal. This is no different. Except he's wielding his anti-gay signs against innocent people and using the First Amendment as a shield.

If anyone aught to be ashamed it aught to be Fred and his cult.

Matthew 6:5-6
And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.

Bonkers @ 93:

The man has the brain worms. To debate this loonie's Rights is a waste of time, since I think that most people are just offended by his apparent total lack of decency or empathy for fellow human beings. He's a rude, deaf nutjob with a deteriorating brainpan and the world will be better off when he has shuffled off this mortal plane (yes, yes, through non-violent and/or natural causes).

God will eventually kill him, to punish the rest of us for not being as bigoted and hateful as him.

Does Phelps have $11 million dollars? And if so, how does a whack job like even have enough sense to make a dime? Oh I forgot, he and his family are a church so they don't have to pay taxes on any of their income. Wouldn't what Phelps and his family do be considered more the workings of a Political Action Committee and not a church? Maybe the IRS needs to look into the financial records of the Westboro Church.

Phelps is beyond dispicable. The last time I looked at his website was several years ago but he used to and still may have a little box in the corner that said "Matthew Shepherd has spent XXXX days in hell" and "Diane Whipple has spent xxxx days in hell". I can't wait until that old goat dies. I'll bet counters go up everywhere.

Weaseldog @ 86:

Dhalgren @ 78:

Like it or not, there is no law that prevents a private person from suing or for shutting somebody out of a privately owned forum. Fred Phelps was sued by a private individual, not Bush, not the state of Maryland, just a grieving father.

But he was sued for exercising his free specch 1000 feet away. That's totally wrong.

But as wrong as it is, maybe I should consider a civil suit next time an anti-abotionist sends me a death threat.

Oh, I didn't know he was sued for free speech. I was under the impression that he was sued for harassment.

No.. he was sued for: invasion of privacy and intent to inflect emotional distress.

California Dave @ 24:

Wow, many of you need to learn about the 1st Amendment!! Extreme and Outrageous conduct is not given protection by the Constitution which amounts to the Tort of Intention Infliction of Emotional Distress.

Precisely. According to the wikipedia entry on that, claims of Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress require:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intentional_infliction_of_emotional_distress
Intentional or reckless act (The intent of the act need not be to bring about emotional distress. A reckless disregard for the likelihood of causing emotional distress is sufficient.)
Extreme and outrageous conduct (The conduct must be heinous and beyond the standards of civilized decency or utterly intolerable in a civilized society)
Causation (actions of the defendant must have been the cause of the plaintiff's distress)
Plaintiff must actually suffer emotional distress (actual emotional distress must have been suffered)

Consequently, had Phelps held his protest at some courthouse or some place chosen not to target someone who had lost a loved one, his protest would have not only been protected free speech, but also not a cause for potential prosecution. For example, Phelps held a protest at a church in my city only a few weeks ago. No law suit, and rightly so. But choosing to do it targeted at people already suffering the pain of losing a son clearly meets all the elements stated above.

Pay up.

Granted, Phelps and his Phucking Phanatics makes the blood boil in nearly every single American alive.

However, Phelps does have a point. This is a First Amendment issue and whether we hate him or not (and we most certainly do), he does have the right to say what he wants and the right to choose the forum in which he presents his opinion.

This is not the same as yelling "Fire!" in a privately owned theater where the ensuing panic may lead to physical injuries. This is a bunch of assholes practicing their right to be assholes wherever they choose to. This fine is no less than what George W Bush did when he created "free speech zones" so the audience wouldn't see his protesters on live television.

Can we please waterboard Fred Phelps.

Weaseldog @ 43:

So God Killed Jerry Falwell for this reason?

No, that was the "God Hates Fat" crowd...

Zenrage @ 106:

he does have the right to ... choose the forum in which he presents his opinion.

Not quite right. He does have the right to say what he wants. He can CHOOSE any forum he wants but law doesn't give him the right to any forum he chooses. Now he's chosen a clearly inappropriate and illegal forum and thus has chosen to pay the consequences.

the libertine @ 108:

Can we please waterboard Fred Phelps.

I believe the answer is "yes". The only question is whether it would be legal or not.

Rudy says it would be.

Fred Phelps needs some mental health therapy, & needs to stop attacking the families of deceased service members. There is no excuse for his sick actions.

Here's the actual complaint:
http://www.citmedialaw.org/sites/citmedialaw.org/files/2006-06-05-Snyder's%20Complaint.pdf

Here's the Court's opinion:
http://www.mdd.uscourts.gov/Opinions152/Opinions/Snyder1030.pdf

You should read them.

To everyone talking about this as a freedom of speech issue: it's important to realize that the 1st Amendment of the Constitution prevents the GOVERNMENT, and the government alone, from infringing someone's freedom of speech. It doesn't grant a blanket freedom of speech across the board. That is why the family was able to sue Phelps and win.

sssssssssssssssssssssNAP!!!!!!

Nutty as a fruitcake, crazy as a loon, only one oar in the water, a few apples shy of a bushel,

in order words....COMPLETELY STARK RAVING MAD

why this buffoon is given any air time at all is beyond comprehension, except that networks will always pander to the lowest common denominator, and Americans will suck it up greedily

Personally I hope the usit sticks and his "church" is bankrupted for good. Then someone should just kick his ass for good measure.

With rights come responsibilities...the First Amendment prevents free speech from being legally restricted or eliminated, but it does not grant any right for people to inflict pain and distress on others by allowing them to hide behind the First Amendment. If Fred Phelps wants to be a vindictive, mean-spirited jerk, the First Amendement allows him to speak words expressing his jerk-ness, however, this part of the Constitution does not protect him from the consequences of his being vindictive. He opens his mouth, he is accountable for what he utters. Quite simple really. All of this hand-wringing about the First Amendment is not really relevant.

Freedom of speech protects what you can say, not how you can say it.

No one is arguing the Phelps doesn't have a right to express, publish and even distribute his views, no matter the emotional impact on anyone. He can thank Larry Flynt for that, by the way.

HOWEVER...

The attendees at the funeral also have a basic right to not have it disrupted. That, too, is freedom of speech and assembly.

You do not have a right to stand in the middle of a quiet street in the middle of the night and shout your views through a bullhorn.

You do not have the right to burn a cross in front of a black church.

You do not have the right to make harassing phone calls.

It's not what you say, it's what you do that's in question here. Phelps has not been ruled against for expressing the idea that this war is God's punishment for homosexuality. He has been ruled against for disrupting a funeral.

Dr. Matt @ 34:

Terrorists and insurgents are killing our troops, but this nutjob is claiming God is killing our troops. So, using his "logic": God = a terrorist. I'm sure God loves it when he gets blame for murder and death.

Unfortunately, Doc, that's precisely what this guy thinks. He believes that God unleashes havoc and vengeance upon mankind in the form of natural disasters, famine, war dead, etc. It is God who is America's biggest enemy in that he "terrorizes" us collectively for our tolerance. I'd give my next paycheck to see this mouthbreather tazered or pepper sprayed. Now, THAT would be rich.

I'd also like to hear from our Christian friends what, exactly, is wrong with what Phelps is saying, according to their beliefs.

Marley @ 92:

Margaret @ 82:

It’s a sad day here in America when supposed liberals and advocates for civil liberties cheer the further erosion of our liberties.

*********************************************************************
Nor has he been held criminaly liable for anything. The subjects you discuss, the peaceful protest, on public property, a thousand feet away all deal with criminal statute. he hasn't been charged with a crime. The order taker at McDonald's was never arrested for that stupid woman spilling hot coffee on herself but a jury found that there was negligence in the cup design and the temperature that they serve their coffee. Personally, I never go to McDonalds, I hate coffee and I think it was bogus as hell that it wound up costing them so much money. But it didn't affect my rights in any way, shape or form.

Erosions of our liberties? You just don't get it. Who eroded who's liberties here?
They were punished for being hateful towards a dead gay soldier at his funeral!
The judge saw this as what it was, an assault on human rights and a hate crime.
He deserves a medal of honor.

Was this soldier actually GAY? They protest ANY soldiers funeral gay, straight, black, white, brown or yellow.

They put themselves in sight of the soldier's motorcade holding signs that say "GOD HATES FAGS" and "YOUR SON IS BURNING IN HELL." Now, I don't know about you, but if some idiot like this showed up at a funeral for a soldier I knew, I'd go to jail after stomping some ass...I'd do the time.

What the disgusting Phelps cult is doing amounts to harrassment, not free speech.

I don't believe that prohibiting protests at funerals would endanger our Republic at all. Especially since we survived about 225 years before the first occurance of Phelp's horrid innovation.

Shame on all those whom are attacking this guy Phelps.

He is fighting for your freedom, and liberty, these attributes do not come without fighting and doggedness, these will become just meaningless words, and hot air.

Whatever his platform, and whatever his belief, whether you agree, or disagree with him, but he has every damn right to say it out loud.

By his actions, Phelps is not paying lip service to democracy, and freedom, he is keeping freedom alive.

If you disagree with him that is your right, get up and go and demonstrate in front of his house, take your banners, and signs, but be assured the day you try and gag him, that is the very day you have helped gag yourselves.

Cap Jones @ 133:

What the disgusting Phelps cult is doing amounts to harrassment, not free speech.

I don't believe that prohibiting protests at funerals would endanger our Republic at all. Especially since we survived about 225 years before the first occurance of Phelp's horrid innovation.

Correct. There was recently a hate attack against a Universal Unitarian church near me. People sprayed anti gay slogans all over the place, broke some windows and so forth because the UU's accept gays as equals ( as well they should who are they to judge ?) in their congregation.

If we allow Phelps to make this a free speech issue you might as well call the attack on the UU's a Freedom of Expression issue as well. It amounts to the same thing. One group taking liberties with the rights of another group and then crying 'My rights are being oppressed' when they get busted for it. It's nonsense.

and for the record as far as their court documents go, they do not have 11 million. In fact their total assets are less than 1 million though I have heard some talk about some shifty dealings in their documentation, something about Shirley having only $300 in her bank account but being able to travel all over to these protests. I won't state it as fact since I haven't a source for it though.

Why the fsck would anyone think that anything that comes out of that asshole's mouth is puzzling? He is insane. The fact that those twats gave the fscking lunatic any airtime says all that needs to be said. This guy is proof that there is no such thing as karma.

Ted @ 135:

Shame on all those whom are attacking this guy Phelps.

He is fighting for your freedom, and liberty, these attributes do not come without fighting and doggedness, these will become just meaningless words, and hot air.

Whatever his platform, and whatever his belief, whether you agree, or disagree with him, but he has every damn right to say it out loud.

By his actions, Phelps is not paying lip service to democracy, and freedom, he is keeping freedom alive.

If you disagree with him that is your right, get up and go and demonstrate in front of his house, take your banners, and signs, but be assured the day you try and gag him, that is the very day you have helped gag yourselves.

yeah right, and you aren't talking out of your ass.

I missed the important part:

In 1995, Mark Phelps wrote a letter to the people of Topeka to this effect; it was run in the Topeka Capital-Journal.[21] The children's claim is partially backed up by B.H. McAllister, the Baptist minister who ordained Phelps. McAllister said in a 1993 interview that Phelps developed a delusion wherein he was one of the few people on Earth worthy of God's grace and that everyone else in the world was going to Hell, and that salvation or damnation could be directly obtained by either aligning with or opposing Phelps. As of 2006, Phelps maintains this belief.

It doesn't matter how hateful, hurtful, deranged, fucked up, offensive, sick, cracked, stupid, idiotic, etc.

This fucker has the right of free speech. As soon as it goes into a court of law, it doesn't matter weather it is civil or criminal, it is our government putting limits on speech.

When the Nazi-fucks marched at Skookie, Ill. a Jewish community with many Holocaust survivors the courts ruled that their hateful, hurtful, fucked up, offensive, sick, cracked, stupid, idiotic, etc. speech was protected and they were right.

In fact, I want these hateful, hurtful, deranged, fucked up, offensive, sick, cracked, stupid, idiotic, etc. shits out in the open where I can see them rather then festering their hateful, hurtful, deranged, fucked up, offensive, sick, cracked, stupid, idiotic, etc. ideas in some dark basement planing a bombing or killing.

“If you don’t believe in freedom of speech for those you despise, you don’t believe in it at all” -- Noam Chomsky.

In my view the essential point is whether the state is entitled to determine historical truth and to punish those who contest such truth. -- Noam Chomsky - Democracy's invisible line

I found the first quote too simplistic. And often used to support the simplistic view of free speech being the right to say anything.

The essential point of free speech is whether the state determines who to punish for speaking.

E in Md @ 137:

Cap Jones @ 133:

What the disgusting Phelps cult is doing amounts to harrassment, not free speech.

I don't believe that prohibiting protests at funerals would endanger our Republic at all. Especially since we survived about 225 years before the first occurance of Phelp's horrid innovation.

Correct. There was recently a hate attack against a Universal Unitarian church near me. People sprayed anti gay slogans all over the place, broke some windows and so forth because the UU's accept gays as equals ( as well they should who are they to judge ?) in their congregation.

If we allow Phelps to make this a free speech issue you might as well call the attack on the UU's a Freedom of Expression issue as well. It amounts to the same thing. One group taking liberties with the rights of another group and then crying 'My rights are being oppressed' when they get busted for it. It's nonsense.

and for the record as far as their court documents go, they do not have 11 million. In fact their total assets are less than 1 million though I have heard some talk about some shifty dealings in their documentation, something about Shirley having only $300 in her bank account but being able to travel all over to these protests. I won't state it as fact since I haven't a source for it though.

I am so sorry to hear about the attack on your church. What that isn't is freedom of expression though, because they damaged/destroyed property. Last I checked, Fred has done neither. If I am wrong about this tho, I would love to be corrected (with citations of course. I believe in reason and experimentation, but I want to see the logic and the labwork).