Fed Judge Orders Liens On Fred Phelps' Church, Law Office
By Logan Murphy Friday Apr 04, 2008 9:36am
Topeka Capital Journal: (h/t J & BillW)
A federal judge in Maryland on Thursday ordered liens on the Westboro Baptist Church building and the Phelps-Chartered Law office.
If the case presided over by U.S. District Court Judge Richard D. Bennett is upheld by an appeals court, the church, at 3701 S.W. 12th, and the office building, at 1414 S.W. Topeka Blvd., could be obtained by the court and sold, with the proceeds being applied toward $5 million in damages Bennett imposed on church members for picketing a military funeral.
The $5 million penalty is the result of a lawsuit filed against three of the church's principals by Albert Snyder, the father of Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew A. Snyder, whose funeral was picketed by church members. Read on...
It's too early to know how this will be resolved, but I'm hoping the appeals court upholds the ruling and the family of the fallen soldier prevails. These vile people drag their kids along to picket soldier's funerals and spread hatred around the country. For a good laugh check out this brave dude who Rick Roll'd the Phelps clan as they attempted to get their hate on.
Login or Register to post comments.
Despicable.
Hopefully it will be resolved with harsh fines and punishments against Phelps and his despicable followers. These people are the epitome of what's bad about religion - any religion .
What black souls these people must have to be so hateful. Not that I believe in souls, but you get the point. They're just rotten.
more at my blog...
He is crazy and has no taste... but free speech is free speech.... we are supposed to do that whole "i disagree but will fight for your right to speak" thing, right? If the family has legal standing then I suppose that is ok, but it bothers me that we would cheer as someone is punished for speaking out, even if what they say is horrible...
Let me guess now GOD HATES JUDGES !
While I can't think of a more deserving group of people, this is actually a really bad decision that hopefully will be reversed. There is a very good chance that this suit, if allowed to stand, will come back to haunt us in the future.
What the Phelps's did was stand on public property and hold signs communicating their genuine religious convictions. I just can't get behind the idea that the US government can enforce actions to dismantle your church because you expressed your unpopular religious beliefs in public. That don't feel right to me.
BEWARE, the check out this dude link pops up a malware adware pop-up
It's amazing how far some will go to tie unrelated events to their pet cause. I was eating at an Italian restaurant the other day and the Flying Spaghetti Monster stained my good shirt with suace splatters because I support choice. How do I get the abortionists to pay my dry cleaning bill?
Even horrible, monstrous people should be allowed to speak in the U.S., no? If they engage in other things that deny others' rights, that would be different. But peaceful demonstrations are protected by our Constitutional right to free speech. And I think it's great that public speech can inform people about one's views. I remember a full-page ad in the NYT paid for the by the Anti-Defamation League, containing the verbatim hate speech of a Nation of Islam leader, was a perfect way to inform everyone about how hateful and destructive the speaker was. And the speaker was outraged that his hate speech got a bigger audience. It was perfect to use free speech to inform people of the face of hatred.
Rhett @ 3:
I've been watching this group, and yes what they say is hateful and horrible. I don't know how they can possibly call themselves Christian - my Jesus certainly would not be welcomed in their 'church'.
This lawsuit was not so much about free speech but how this group chose to use it, which was picketing the funerals of dead soldiers. They could have spoken their viewpoint in their own church, through the media, or on the internet. They could have written books. No one has ever said they did not have the right to speak their message, hateful or not. But instead they chose to spew their hate in view of grieving families and that is the basis of this lawsuit. Free speech does not give you the right to deliver that message in a way that uses others as tools, especially when those others are the families of soldiers who are in the midst of experiencing an excruciating loss.
Fred Phelps and his Westboro "church" are the MOST dispicable people on the planet... BUT... I believe they have every right to picket any funeral they want. There are no laws against bad taste that I know of. I support their right to express their hate, whenver, wherever they want.
It appears that god hates everrything.
Why did he/she so called create us?
So he/she could bring us back by killing us? Sounds like a great god. I can't believe in this god thing. Seems a bit sick to me.
You can only support free speech by standing up for the right of speech that you don't agree with. In essence, the Phelps gang was fined millions of dollars for protesting at a public location. Why is any progressive applauding huge fines being imposed for protesting in public places? Can no one connect the dots and see how this could be used against you?
Interesting to note is that the family of the dead soldier was given millions for emotional distress. How much was George W. Bush fined?
just like the oj, peter popoff, the jimmy swaggart, crazy ol' phred will find some way to cheat the justice system outta its due.
"check out this brave dude"
An ad on this link plants a virus on any machine visiting the site. You don't have to click on the ad, it's embedded in the page. Beware.
As someone who believes deeply in freedom of speech, this is a case that really puts the fundamentals of what you believe to the test. You're either defending censorship, or you're defending Fred Phelps. Ugh.
I certainly will shed no tears if this is allowed to stand. But I will feel genuine fear of the path this leads to.
(And I'll repeat the warning from earlier to watch out for the malware pop-up that comes with the linked video clip.)
Nobody's saying they can't picket and their right to free speech is not being taken away. They're simply being held accountable for their actions. When your actions cause physical or emotional harm to others, those who have been harmed have a right to recourse in the courts, and that's what has happened here.
What happened to Freedom of Speech?
It is not a matter of free speech. They can say anything they want UNTIL they infringe on others' rights, harass or inflict harm. As they say, your rights end at your nose. Phelps could stand in the town square & preach all he wants to, and in his church, and be within his rights, but, and here is the point, he chose to harass & picket private people in their moment of grief, knowing full well how emotional they would be at the funeral of their loved one. This is where he crossed the line; no matter how far away he picketed, as long as it was within viewing distance of the funeral event (and it was), he was intentionally inflicting emotional distress.
Phelps is not a Christian. He is the textbook example of what Jesus warned about.
Did I just get rick rolled by Some Brave Dude?
Bobby McGee @ 17:
It's free if I agree with what you say.
You can't rickroll those ignorant fucks. It's like talking to insects. It's strictly for our amusement.
And as far as freedom of speech, when did inbreeding become a form of speech? When you see those "people" on street corners with signs that say "Thank god for IEDs," it says to me someone fucked her mama.
I hate Fred Phelps and his followers more than anything on this planet.
But that said, this ruling is wrong so much it looks republican. There is no way this moron and his flock did $7 milloin worth of damage to anything. They protested. They are misguided idiots, sure. But all they did was hold signs and chant ridiculous sayings.
This ruling is a huge infringement on free speech that anyone with any sense of reality should oppose. Not to mention, to give them this kind of attention is completely counterproductive.
Freedom of speech is not absolute - ie, you can't yell fire in a crowded theater. Phelps was going to private events, disturbing the peace, and intentionally causing emotional distress. I understand unpopular speech must also be protected, but Phelps has many other avenues to spew his vile.
He was also doing it at funerals of gay people years before he started with soldiers. That didn't get him enough attention though.
Bobby McGee @ 17:
Now you have your argument against it. And as was mentioned before, trespassing on a funeral and interrupting the mourning of grieving relatives isn't "free speech".
..his mama. whatever.
I not only live in Topeka, KS but have offended many commenters on this sight as well. I hate the Phelps and I don't use hate lightly. I certainly agree that 1st amendment rights should not be denied to anybody. It is however illegal to yell fire in a crowded theatre if there is no such threat, neither should parents driving their children to school would have to witness signs depicting silhouettes having sex. I have driven around town on errands and for pleasure having to endure their ridiculuos hatred. As well having to endure the ridicule of national press that would pigeon hole us into believing the same way , or being creationists, or just stupid senseless hicks. The reason we must allow these ignorance's to continue, is the absurdity of their arguments are easier understood firsthand. That does not excuse Mass Media for absurdly painting, absurd politics in generalizations.
Sorry, but as much as I despise Fred Phelps, this decision should be reversed and most likely will. I must also say that I am a little shaken by the sentiments expressed here that the Phelps clan are open to legal action if they inflict "emotional distress". Pardon my French, but that's bullshit. Nobody has a right not to be offended. If someone says something that distresses you, tough. Live with it and move on like an adult. Just imagine what this country would be like if anyone could be dragged into court for inflicting "emotional distress" on others with their speech. And remember, the "emotional distress" thing has been before the Supremes before, see Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell.
I'm reading all the folks who disagree with the decision, and they definitely have a good point there. The suit was for causing distress and invading privacy--no doubt they did cause distress, but probably everyone who boo'd George Bush the other day caused him distress; can he sue them? He'd probably like to. As for the privacy, I guess it would depend on where they picketed. Did they trespass on private property to do it? Then have them arrested for trespassing. I am not a legal scholar, but I just can't figure out how what they did isn't protected by the first amendment, as despicable as it is. I'm all for pranking them, insulting them, or just ignoring them (probably the most effective route--attention is what they're after), but I think if this decision should be overturned, and if it isn't, it could be a very bad precedent...
Could we encourage Hugo Chavez to sue Pat Robertson for advocating his murder?
Handing over Robertson's cult cash might shut him up.
EliteLemming @ 26:
hoap thas a bit butter
Religious freedom is a crock. It simply means having the right to be ignorantly superstitious. Tell me how religion in ANY FORM is good for society OVERALL? Granted this "church" is extremely backward, but in some form or another they all teach ignorance (starting with believing in god in the first place). Persecute these assholes into oblivion.
Chris @ 5:
Phelps and his congregation do not have the right to say whatever they want with impunity, even in a public area. You intentionally downplay their actual actions, which in reality were truly un-Christian, repulsive, and reprehensible, to put it mildly.
Phelps has stepped over the line by negligently using his "church" to promote a blantantly political and hateful message and philosophy. Anyone who does this in the name of "spirituality" is a fraud and must be stopped. The decision here was right and an important message to radicals like Phelps to act in a respectful and responsible manner when in the public realm.
I just would like to say that the debate that has occurred on this thread gave me more cause for pride in being an American than anything over the last 10 years.
I mean that with every fiber of my being.
The easy way out would be to say something on the lines of "they got what they had coming to them."
Instead, I've read an honest and intelligent debate over the constitutionality of this issue.
You all have given a starving man, a bite to eat. Thanks.
Watch what you wish for! There may come a time when wingnuts get the courts to inflict civil charges totaling millions against Liberal War protesters! I can see a suit being formulated against Code pink in somee wingnut antithink tank right now. Now don't get me wrong I detest the Phelps crowd as much as I detest the Bush crowd but Free speech is supposed to be Free! All I can say is Watch what you wish for!
Free speech is more important than a funeral.
We have to accept that people will conduct insane, obnoxious protests - and let them go forward - even when it's Fred Phelps interrupting a funeral.
He and his type must be endured - it's one of the prices of living in a free country.
Otherwise, our democracy is fucked.
This only proves my point that Christianity needs a new Torquemada to root out heretics and idiots masquerading as Christians.
/sarcasm.
If Fred Phelps were pulling this shit down here, in the middle of "love the sinner hate the sin"-land, he'd get murdered, and not just due to the soldier funeral protests, either. Even the would-be gay-bashers don't like him, and would kill him if he was around their gay acquaintances. So, don't stereotype the heartland, not everyone even in the anti-gay right down here is a Fred Phelps clone, even the Neopente Assemblies nuts.
However, I consider Fred Phelps as Christian as I do Christopher Hitchens an atheist.
Let's see what happens if we change a few words:
"Richard Dawkins does not have the right to say whatever he wants with impunity, even in a public area. You intentionally downplay his actions, which in reality were truly un-Christian, repulsive, and reprehensible, to put it mildly.
Dawkins has stepped over the line by negligently using science to promote a blantantly heretical and hateful message and philosophy. Anyone who does this in the name of “secularism” is a fraud and must be stopped. The decision here was right and an important message to radicals like Dawkins to act in a respectful and responsible manner when in the public realm."
I highly doubt anyone here would agree that statement in the hypothetical situation that Richard Dawkins had been sued for intentional infliction of emotional distress because of public comments denigrating Christianity and religion in general. It sure is funny, though, how things change when the person being sued is someone we despise and says things we really don't like. If you support free speech, then you must support it in all cases, especially for those viewpoints that offend you to your core.
Bravo for the judge. I find all this free speech talk, kinda funny. Free speech in america, depends on who you are talking to. Call a cop a "f****t", and see how much free speech you have. Stand in front of the whitehouse, and use the same signs, and see how much free speech you have. This man and his cult, are nothing but domestic terrorists. I remind folks, that the worst act of terrorism, before 9/11 was home grown.
Larry Lamborghini @ 31:
One of the points of this country is the ability to worship as you feel right, and not according to anybody else's beliefs or non-beliefs. Which makes you just as wrong as they are... even though I totally hate them... and am probably goin' to hell fer it... But, maybe not...
I don't know...
Coorperate welfare sucks, I know that...
Treating the aggressively bigoted "religious" like the virus that they are is not fascist.,,it's common sense. You wouldn't let other dangerous criminals parade like this freely. Put them in prison, where they belong, for encouraging their societal ignorance. At least there, they will finally get to witness (hopefully in person) they joys of forced homosexuality. LOL
Tim in Japan @ 33:
Mushi, Mushi, sushi?
king of mean @ 10:
In a way you are correct but they do not have the right to inflect more pain and suffering on the families of these solders and marines. They also insinuate that god killed them because there are gays in the military. If god did this than he's not a god that I could pray to .
One of the points of this country is the ability to worship as you feel right, and not according to anybody else's beliefs or non-beliefs. Which makes you just as wrong as they are... even though I totally hate them... and am probably goin' to hell fer it... But, maybe not...
I don't know...
WELL.... I do know. They are a cancer on the fabric of this nation. I don't mind if they worship ( I suppose), but let's treat religion like what it is, a pestilence. Being involved in this thick headed superstition that morons call FAITH is worthy of all the prestige attached to believing in UNICORNS.
And just cause this may be the only time...
Philosophy aside, Cristopher Hitchens is a dick...
"Richard Dawkins does not have the right to say whatever he wants with impunity, even in a public area. You intentionally downplay his actions, which in reality were truly un-Christian, repulsive, and reprehensible, to put it mildly.
Except for the glowingly obvious fact that Dawkins is correct, you idiot.
Check out the amazing documentary "For The Bible Tells Me So"...
turk96 @ 22:
Tell us that when somebody does something similar to you.I'm a Viet Nam vet and if they had done this to one of mine buds ,I would end up spending time in jail but it would be worth it to defend their honor.
Larry Lamborghini @ 31:
Oh, yes, because state atheism made the Soviet Union, Maoist China, Vietnam, Cambodia, North Korea, Yugoslavia, Albania, Poland, Hungary, East Germany, Romania, Mongolia, Angola, and Mexico such paragons of human kindness and sunshine and rainbows....
Please, like making any ideology or belief system sanctified by the state is going to end well....
And, no atheism is not inherently evil. In the hands of Communist governments in the Warsaw Pact and the Sinosphere, OTOH....
Bobby McGee@17
"What happened to freedom of speech?"
Where were you when Rev.Wright got destroyed?
gerlach @ 37:
Thanks for using my words, but you overlook one important fact. From a legal perspective this is a civil action for damages, not a First Amendment issue. That is what these tort protections were designed to do as nobody, even Richard Dawkins, has the right to speak their mind with impunity.
If you disagree with this premise call your congressperson and ask him/her to reform tort laws. In that respect you will have something in common with Republicans who have advocated restricting tort law for years to protect their corporate masters from being sued.
Larry Lamborghini @ 44:
Again, remind me how state atheism was somehow creating paradises in the USSR, the Warsaw Pact, and the Sinosphere?
"Except for the glowingly obvious fact that Dawkins is correct, you idiot."
Larry, I think you need to word on your reading comprehension skills. The statement that quoted about Dawkins was a parody of a different statement made earlier in thread. I used it as a hypothetical to show that those supporting the decision against the Phelps' are guilty of viewpoint discrimination. I think you might need to check out some decaf.
Again, remind me how state atheism was somehow creating paradises in the USSR, the Warsaw Pact, and the Sinosphere?
Who is advocating state atheism? You can have religion just keep it PRIVATE.
gerlach @ 51:
He needs to "word" on it, you say? So, how does one "word" on reading comprehension skills when their grammar is uncorrect? ;)
14All @ 28:
Bush is a politician ,not a good one but a politician and so being is open to public citizens . This is a win for public decency.
"Larry, I think you need to word on your reading comprehension skills"
Is this English, I'm sorry? NOT guilty on discrimination because the PHELPs "opinion" is not a valid one. It's just bigotry. I don't drink coffee, but thanks for the tip.
I think the RNC should sue left wing protestors for emotional harm done during the convention in New York City.
Logan, are you out of your mind? Do you have a tri-cornered mouth?
Do you object to the politicization of justice or just their politicization? Wait, you dont consider this politcization at all - do you.
When Ralph Nader is right - we are doomed.
Larry Lamborghini @ 52:
Your smear on religion is related to what it would, and always does no matter the creed, do as a state ideology. "Persecute these assholes into oblivion," is a startingly Soviet concept of religious freedom.
Before anyone raises Nazi Germany, yes, I consider the Nazis religious nuts and what happens when you put 2,000 years of Christian anti-semitism + undemocratic society + inability to accept defeat in a war + Lunatic with a silver tongue.
In a democracy, these voices are allowed. Or, are we going to head in the direction of increasing autocracy from our side as opposed to the Republicans?
HEY, JESUS HATED POTATOES!
"Thanks for using my words, but you overlook one important fact. From a legal perspective this is a civil action for damages, not a First Amendment issue. That is what these tort protections were designed to do as nobody, even Richard Dawkins, has the right to speak their mind with impunity."
You're right, there are limits to free speech. I agree that libelous and slanderous speech are not protected. I also agree that so-called "fighting words" are not protected. That said, I think you are treading on dangerous ground when you say that people cannot speak their mind "with impunity." What exactly does that mean? If you are suggesting that people should not say things that might offend others, then I have to strongly disagree. Even if I agree, hypothetically, and say that speech that offends others or causes "emotional distress" is not protected, how do we enforce that. Offense or distress are the easiest things to claim and the hardest to prove. Such limits on speech essentially allow any speech that someone may disagree with to be silenced on the basis that it caused offense or emotional distress.
As far as the comment about agreeing with Republicans, well I'm not sure what to say. I don't see the relevance making such a statement, other than as a red herring to tar and feather me as a sympathizer for the Republican cause.
EliteLemming @ 58:
Lol. Just when I thought my fellow religious people came up with the stupid. Jesus couldn't hate potatoes, He never saw one, as they were at that time an Andean staple. The potato didn't come over to Afreurasia until after the Europeans had started killing Indians for their land in 1492.
/incurable pedantistry.
"He needs to “word” on it, you say? So, how does one “word” on reading comprehension skills when their grammar is uncorrect? ;)"
Yes, I made a typo. Tell me, how is it living in a world where typographical errors never occur?
General_Rennenkampf @ 60:
And I accept this rose and bow to you sir... Thank you...
Terry740 @ 54:
Should be public criticizing not citizens, soory.
gerlach @ 61:
It is reilly grate! ;)
looking up pedantistry as you read...
bmw H. 528 @ 49:
The fact that this was a civil action does not preclude a First Amendment issue. A state cannot impose tort liability on people who exercise their constitutional rights, as I believe the Phelps are doing.
In fact, the general principle is that, in America, people can speak their minds with impunity. There are classes of speech that aren't protected by the First Amendment, but they're VERY narrow and I don't think the Phelps' speech fits any of them.
The fact is, the Phelps are engaging in one of the most carefully-protected classes of speech - political speech (viz., the Iraq war is God's punishment on America for tolerating homosexuals). And they're doing it in public places, as is their right.
Let me put it another way: if this somehow ISN'T constitutionally-protected speech, then there is no intelligible principle that you could use to claim that ordinary anti-war protestors - think the Quakers on the corner in most bigger cities - is either.
Your smear on religion is related to what it would, and always does no matter the creed, do as a state ideology. "Persecute these assholes into oblivion," is a startingly Soviet concept of religious freedom.
In a democracy, these voices are allowed. Or, are we going to head in the direction of increasing autocracy from our side as opposed to the Republicans?
I respect your opinion on this , but i can't say I agree. You do not let CHILD RAPISTS have a rally do you? Yet religions (ie The Catholic Church) provide support for pedophiles (priests) and fight legal action and fines (against the victims).If DEMOCRACY allows these "voices", than sadly democracy is FUCKED UP.Liberal people in general need to realize that TOLERANCE of ignorance is just giving it a pass. I still say, screw PHELPs and all his hateful superstitious morons brethren.
Larry Lamborghini @ 31:
=====
I understand your anger toward these Westboro people; they're horrible pieces of crap. However, I think the point some people are making here is that on principle it's not right to persecute others just because they protest and some other group doesn't like it. The right to protest is a fundamental and extremely important tool of The People to express their dissatisfaction without bloodshed; what we see here is the GOP's backdoor way of taking the US People's rights to protest away from them by just quoting the Westboro Baptist precedent. We have to be careful at this point not to start behaving like the Republicans who have been in charge for the past 7+ years, because we're supposedly better than that. If you want to persecute the Westboro people, do it for concrete legal reasons. I say they have the right to be horrific assholes, TO A POINT... Our job as a society at this point is to rebuild our basic rules, our busted media and military, and try our best to become a semi-civilized country once again.
Rusty 100 Years in Iraq! Shackleford @ 67:
Thank you, Rusty. Couldn't agree more.
General_Rennenkampf @ 61:
That's true but doesn't being the son of god give inside knowledge of such things as potatoes?
It's nice to see that a significant number of people see how important it is that this decision be reversed. As stupid and hateful as the Phelps clan is, they were exercising
their 1st amendment rights - they were not trespassing, they were on public property. If the people had really wanted a private funeral where they couldn't be bothered, they would
have had it in a larger private venue. People do not have a right not to be offended; in
fact, that is the speech most in need of protection. Christopher Hitchins gave a great talk
which is on YouTube that covers all manner of important points on free speech. I have to
say I was disappointed to see C&L take the anti-constitutional side on this.
Rhett @ 3:
Not so long ago you would have been correct. But Bush has stripped our Bill of Rights, the Constitution doesn't exist, so if there is no Habeus Corpus, what is the good of free speech? Olbermann argued that well. And I don't hear any of the presidential candidates complaining about our dictatorship either. Nor do I hear the MSM mention anything about that either. We have no freedoms or liberty so why should vile despicable people like the Phelps be allowed to get away with it ? I spit on them.
Larry Lamborghini @ 68:
Child rapists already have their rally: it's called NAMBLA. You fail.
And dude, hating on a minority religion in America? Not good. Catholics have had a bum rap in this country since 1604. It's unsettling to see atheists joining Jack Chick on the Anti-Catholic bandwagon, particularly since aside from the abortion issue they are one of the most liberal denominations of Americhristianity.
Get that? Most liberal?
I don't like it when atheists and bona-fide Talibaptists (yes, lots of my fellow Baptists in these parts wouldn't necessarily find Mullah Omar a bad dude) can both agree to hate someone or something.
When did things go so crazy? I remember a time when outdoor music was the thing... traveling to nearby towns and cities for annual festivals... all night movie marathons with music at the local Drive-Inn theatre... skating rinks with live bands... boat-races on the river... silly contests like who can throw a cow-chip the farthest, or who made the best chili while wearing a crazy costume... solar-powered outdoor music with free food... amusement parks, rollercoasters, carousels, trains with children waving from the windows laughing around the park in Spring...
Bring it all back, before it's too late and the only topic of conversation becomes Religious Hatred. I for one am taking the kids to the Amusement Park today. We had to relocate three hours from our hometown, but hey it's worth it especially when crazy fundamentalists are so intent on their fucking endtimer game.
I understand your anger toward these Westboro people; they're horrible pieces of crap. However, I think the point some people are making here is that on principle it's not right to persecute others just because they protest and some other group doesn't like it. The right to protest is a fundamental and extremely important tool of The People to express their dissatisfaction without bloodshed; what we see here is the GOP's backdoor way of taking the US People's rights to protest away from them by just quoting the Westboro Baptist precedent. We have to be careful at this point not to start behaving like the Republicans who have been in charge for the past 7+ years, because we're supposedly better than that. If you want to persecute the Westboro people, do it for concrete legal reasons. I say they have the right to be horrific assholes, TO A POINT... Our job as a society at this point is to rebuild our basic rules, our busted media and military, and try our best to become a semi-civilized country once again.
I do not see the value in protecting these morons, sorry. This country would be a better place without them, and their activities deserve persecution . They have NO VALUE to modern society at large and belong in another primitive era. Simply put, there is nothing mankind can gain from them.
Terry740 @ 71:
Evidently not. He didn't mention disease, either. It took none other than our supposedly backwards Islamic bugaboo of the right to come up with the germ theory and have the most sophisticated medicine of anywhere right then (until the Mongols came and made mounds of skulls, that is.)
Paraphrasing Moller, they first come for the assholes, because nobody will defend them. Then they come for the borderline cases, because it was okay to come for the assholes. Then they come for you, because the precedent has been established that they can come for whoever the fuck they want.
I detest these morons, but I don't want to see them cut down with a weapon that will be turned on me in the future. I trust the Founders on this one. Get them on something real. Sad to say, if you don't want them at a funeral, hold it where they can't legally show up and spoil it.
As it is, the tattered remnants of our Constitution are supposed to protect these cockroaches. It should also protect counter protesters, hint hint.
gerlach @ 59:
We agree that all speech is not protected, however you seem to imply that you don't consider Phelps' actions offensive enough to merit a lawsuit. Really? How much more blatant and offensive do they have to be? Like I said before, if you don't agree with the standards that exist with civil tort law call your lawmakers and demand reform. And again, this was not brought as a free speech issue, it was a CIVIL suit for damages. The criteria that exist in that paradigm are very different that those brought on First Amendment issues, it is comparing apples and oranges.
I am not suggesting restricting speech here as that is not the premise of the lawsuit. I believe the public should have every right to be protected against the flagrantly hateful and offensive actions of people like Phelps. He and his kind need to get the message loud and clear that they need to act responsibly and within the legal framework that exists today. Nobody gets carte blanche to say what they want, whenever they want with impunity.
General_Rennenkampf @ 77:
wha?
Child rapists already have their rally: it's called NAMBLA. You fail.
And dude, hating on a minority religion in America? Not good. Catholics have had a bum rap in this country since 1604. It's unsettling to see atheists joining Jack Chick on the Anti-Catholic bandwagon, particularly since aside from the abortion issue they are one of the most liberal denominations of Americhristianity.
I don't like it when atheists and bona-fide Talibaptists (yes, lots of my fellow Baptists in these parts wouldn't necessarily find Mullah Omar a bad dude) can both agree to hate someone or something.
I fail huh????? hahahahha. NAMBLA is routinely busted by law enforcement and harrassed (as they should be). Don't get your panties in a wad about "hatin'" on the Cat-Licks either, cuz all religions are equally as corrossive to reason. As I said before, I resdpect your opinion, i just disagree.
kablooie @ 75:
Larry Lamborghini @ 76:
I do not see the value in protecting these morons, sorry. This country would be a better place without them, and their activities deserve persecution . They have NO VALUE to modern society at large and belong in another primitive era. Simply put, there is nothing mankind can gain from them.
mystic @ 73:
Mystic: All politicians, regardless of age or ethnicity or gender, want power. Bush has just given the next president an imperial Presidency to make Nixon weep. You think any serious power-hungry, money-grubbing bastard in Washington from either party will give that up?
Larry: I'm sure people like Idi Amin and Saddam Hussein would agree with you (both persecuted religious whackos of the same category as Phelps.)
Kablooie: I hate to break it to you, but there's always been this strain in Christianity that thinks Christ is gonna come for them. 2,000 years ago, the Fathers of the Faith expected His Coming within their generation. When it failed to materialize, the Faith nearly shattered, and the anti-Semitic myth of the Wandering Jew came out of that time. The Fundamentalists are being used by Bush, he doesn't even attend Church! If these end-timers were so powerful, Mike Huckabee would currently be the nominee and we'd be waiting for the Suicide Pact to begin on his first day in office (shudder.) The Religious Right is not that powerful, or effective, merely noisy SOBs.
My favorite thing the fine folks at Westboro did was when the Tsunami hit Thailand in 2006, and there were a few dozen deaths of Swedish tourists in Thailand, they started GOD HATES SWEDEN, and them blamed the deaths on the Swedes in Thailand on Thailand being tolerant of GAYS. They feel god hates Thailand, cause gays and transgenders live free in tolerant Thailand, and Swedes should have KNOWN that, and shouldn't have vacationed in Thailand, cause it's too tolerant of gays. And the Westboro people were HAPPY all the Swedish tourists died in the Tsunami.
EliteLemming @ 80:
Jesus exorcised demons. Muslims invented modern medicine. That clear it up for you?
bmw H. 528 @ 79:
Yes, really. In fact, my argument is that there is no speech offensive enough to merit a lawsuit. As for the issue of free speech/tort liability, see Rusty's comment.
You do realize really the whole point they do it is so that if someone infringes on their 'free speech' they take them to court and usually win, right?
They're borrowing around the law and abusing it. It's even more sickening than the hate (which they likely still do believe in) they spew on a daily basis.
Hopefully this case is upheld for dignity.
General_Rennenkampf @ 84:
We could have used an exorcist at the White House nine years ago.
Larry Lamborghini @ 76:
I do not see the value in protecting these morons, sorry. This country would be a better place without them, and their activities deserve persecution . They have NO VALUE to modern society at large and belong in another primitive era. Simply put, there is nothing mankind can gain from them.
=================
Well, the idea of principle-based decision making is beyond you, I suppose. Their usefulness is beside the point, the principle of Free Speech isn't just for people like you or me. If they use their right to Free Speech and they spout out vile hatred then they'll have repercussions that come FROM THE PUBLIC, not the government. That's the crux of it, getting the government to squash unpopular opinions is wrong on principle; look at what BushCo has done for the past 7+ years! You say that they deserve persecution, and I agree, but there's a big difference between persecution from your peers and prosecution from your government. I say go with peer-based persecution, ignore them, make fun of them, use them as an example of what's wrong in our nation. If you look at it a certain way, the Westboro people are a "godsend" to those of us who know that religion is mostly a crock. They're a shining example of what NOT to be, and the average American can agree. Instead of trying to silence these assholes, why not let them do their thing and just show people how terrible these supposed Christians are; that's all it would take, I believe, to further marginalize them. That's the key with these religious nutjobs, let them act like nutjobs, try to get it on film and get that information out to the People!
"Larry: I’m sure people like Idi Amin and Saddam Hussein would agree with you (both persecuted religious whackos of the same category as Phelps.)"
Well, that is truly good to know. And here I thought Amin and Hussein were all bad! LOL
king of mean @ 83:
Wha? Buddhism, at least the Theravada form of it doesn't call for burning gays, but that doesn't make it tolerant! In Theravada, only monks can attain Nirvana in this life, and gays are prohibited from being monks. So, hence, gays are denied relief from the cycle of endless rebirth just for being gay, like they are denied heaven for being gay in Western society.
There's never been real acceptance of gays. Even in ancient Greece, that was bisexuality. Full-fledged homosexuals were seen as aberrant, though they existed.
Rusty 100 Years in Iraq! Shackleford @ 67:
I agree with your statement on the First Amendment issue, it is one of the most protected privileges we have. And it should stay that way. Civil actions however, are different and have different criteria as well. Obviously the jury that awarded the damages felt otherwise about your opinion about the legal application here. If you disagree with the application or premise of the tort law here, that's a matter for you to take up with your state legislators.
Well, the idea of principle-based decision making is beyond you, I suppose. Their usefulness is beside the point, the principle of Free Speech isn't just for people like you or me.
Hahahhahahaah....that is RICH. They'd have YOU, if they could have their way, in a GAS CHAMBER. Yet you defend them. Hilarious. How about this "principle based decision"??? it's called SELF PRESERVATION. Is this "beyond" you?
Larry Lamborghini @ 92:
To be fair, in the past a sect like this would have drawn the notice of the Inquisition and been eliminated as heretics against the Holy Mother Church, so Torquemada wouldn't see anything wrong with that, either....
are gay people protected under the Hate crime bill?
was there a trepassing charges for entering a funeral univited?
otherwse I think freedom of speech needs to be protected. I would consider protesting the military but not is the direction that these members went. I would protest the war. So if you prosecute these people for speech, then the reverse side would be able to prosecute those who oppose the war.
I would like to see a hate crime bill to cover religion, sexual preference, and race of all people. Pretty soon if we are not there already, to cover ones political party affiliation.
All right everybody :
Yes there is language that is illegal by nature, and should be.
That language is not religious by nature, but can be be by use.
The protection of those who differ from you is fundamentally your protection.
To be fair, in the past a sect like this would have drawn the notice of the Inquisition and been eliminated as heretics against the Holy Mother Church, so Torquemada wouldn't see anything wrong with that, either....
At last we agree. :)
paranoia @ 94:
I think to some of my wingnut acquaintances, liberalism is a religion so they'd say it's covered there. The sad thing is that in Europe I'd be fascist. In my hometown, I'm on the left wing of the political spectrum. What's that say about America?
cg @ 24:
That's right. It's harrassment.
[lollimom, a bunch of us clicked on the link and nothing happened. Between us, we have loads of filtering and a technical person who didn't find anything wrong with the link-Sitemonitor]
Rhett @ 3:
I agree with that, Felps & co are batshit insane to most people looking in from the outside, BUT THEY DO have a right to do things like protest. Insane behavior outside the mainstream, point of view thing.
And do we really know if they believe 100% what they say, or using just outrageous shock protest techniques to get publicity.
What do they say "god hates fags" a morality religious thing very un PC to most people, but believed but not said by a lot of fundies, its mainstream for the RW xtians, until one of their family members get outed then they try to rehab them.
"god hates killers" aka US soldiers, very unpalatable to anybody with a family member in the US forces, but killing is killing, which is considered wrong by most thinking people.
bmw H. 528 @ 91:
The jury would never have been called upon to consider the constitutional question. They would have been considering only the elements of the tort, which were apparently present. The constitutional issue should be aired fully on appeal. It is a mistake to suggest that the jury award somehow proves that the Phelps' speech wasn't protected. It doesn't.
I'm not sure why you keep bringing up legislators. I'm not saying there was a defect in the state's tort law, only that state tort law cannot be applied in such a way that it would trump federal constitutional law (i.e., the supreme law of the land).
ferrofluid @ 100:
ferrofluid @ 100:
I wouldn't necessarily say that, I live in a very fundamentalist city, and the people here hate Phelps just as much for the anti-gay stuff as for the solider stuff. That's more among young people, to be certain, but we youngsters are the people these RW nuts would need for their "utopia" to happen. Without young streetfighters, these older fascists can only bray their anger, with nothing to back it up.
very subjective charges, feelings and ethereal stuff, nothing material.
Allowing this to succeed opens the floodgates to protect Nixons honour, and also GHWB, GWB when they are sadly departed from us. It could be extended into an English style Libel law to cover the memories of long dead perps.
http://matthewsnyder.org/
General_Rennenkampf @ 103:
Of the fundies hate Phelps, he is the extreme public version of what they preach in semi private, he is visible on the streets giving them a bad name.
EssGee @ 16:
Your comment gave me emotional distress. Give me a million dollars.
Get it now?
flamethrower @ 7:
id say get down on your elboes and blow!
EliteLemming @ 102:
ferrofluid @ 105:
I attend one of their "private" Bible studies, primarily due to the fact that the mainline churches for some reason don't hold those, except the UMC, whose BSF is at a time I can't go due to my schedule. So, I am at one of those Bible studies, and yes, they don't like the gays. No, they do not call for their burning or look enviously at Fred Phelps. The youth pastor has multiple times condemned Phelpsism, even when a person at the study speaks it.
You are stereotyping based on the media, and I'm sure you'd object if I said all atheists are like Stalin, all Muslims like Aurangzeb, and all Christians like Charlemagne.
Somebody @ 106:
I am feeling very distressed by Bill O'Reilly, Anne Coulter, Brian etc etc, can , anybody else feel the same way, lets sue em for making us Emo.
General_Rennenkampf @ 109:
Not every Christian is hate filled and frothing at the mouth to kill all homosexuals, but theres a lot out there that would given the chance, either that or chemical surgical methods to cure them.
The fundies in Europe and America have a long history of attempting to modify non mainstream (in their eyes) human behaviour, going back to the 1850s at least.
ferrofluid @ 108:
Rusty 100 Years in Iraq! Shackleford @ 101:
The general criteria for awarding damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress in a civil action are here:
www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/intentional_infliction_of_emotional_distress
Obviously, it will be up to the legal system to decide if First Amendment protections in Federal law preclude standing to sue and award of damages for this issue at a state level. There was a precedent through Hustler v. Falwell as you will note but the context of that case was very different.
I agree with everyone here who says it's their right to say what they do. It's terrible, in bad taste, and just mean and nasty to protest at someone's funeral. But free speech is free speech. This seems pretty questionable.
"Not every Christian is hate filled and frothing at the mouth to kill all homosexuals, but theres a lot out there that would given the chance, either that or chemical surgical methods to cure them.
The fundies in Europe and America have a long history of attempting to modify non mainstream (in their eyes) human behaviour, going back to the 1850s at least."
While I would agree that "Not every Christian is hate filled and frothing at the mouth to kill all homosexuals", enough are that this shit happens. Besides, it's just degrees, most "moderate" x-tians look down upon this "sinful" behavior. This promotes an enviorment that allows this kind of hate to fester. So yes..MODERATE CHRISTIANS enable the fundies. Period. Do not try to act blameless, this is your (Christians) refuse so maybe collectively you should CLEAN IT UP?
Hypothetical: Phelps and co. protest your son's funeral. Your son has just been killed in IRAQ. You shoot MR PHELPS in his fucking grinning and idiotic head. Is this murder? Is it justifiable homocide? Or is it just FUN?
I suppose that Phelps is within his right being covered by free speech,but that doesn't make them right.And it is within the families right to sue them.
When someone is burying a family member they are in a state of shock, mourning, and emotional distress already.
So the way I see it, Phelps knew these people were hurting already. And he took the lowest road he could find.
He's getting what he deserves.I think he deserves worse.
(and I was just kidding about the FUN part)
Larry Lamborghini @ 115:
ferrofluid @ 111:
To both of you: I'm one of those Christians who wishes for a new ecumenical Inquisition to rooot out all the infinite forms of heresy, particularly that Christian Manichaeism called Neopentecostalism.
However, I think you fellas are looking too hard at the Christian side of homophobia and ignoring ya'll's side as well. Homophobia is a general Western cultural vice, and the demise of the theocracies of the High Middle Ages didn't make it magically disappear. The Soviet Union's treatment of gays was diabolical, and made Love in Action look like sunshine and rainbows, and yes, the two did co-exist in Gorbachev's time. Homophobia is even more so, in some cases, among Deep Southern atheists than it is among Christians. Whereas the Christians might just consider it sin, the atheists consider it positively "icky" and would prefer gays just not be out around them.
Yes, I know the type of Christians you speak of. But in the Deep South, the atheists are just as bad. Whereas a Christian might not like gays, they at least tolerate their presence. Atheists just want the gays to go away because it impugns their manly bona fides to hang around the gays, who for obvious reasons don't like hanging around us supposedly homophobic Christians (never mind that some supposed 'fundies', including yours truly, are as queer as a two dollar bill.)
Gays, and gay Christians such as me in an Evangelical environment, are dumped on by both sides. Look at the log in your eye before examining the equally big one in ours. (Yes, that's a paraphrase.)
I do not see the value in protecting these morons, sorry. This country would be a better place without them, and their activities deserve persecution . They have NO VALUE to modern society at large and belong in another primitive era. Simply put, there is nothing mankind can gain from them.
Thank you for your intelligent comments, Larry. None of the self- righteous
free speech people who babble the bullshit line " Free speech is important"
even;when;grief stricken people who lost a son or daughter are insulted & their
pain is discounted. Have one of these free speech defenders have a member
of their family vilified at a funeral I guarantee they would change their tune.
General_Rennenkampf @ 119:
As a "Deep Southern atheist" I'm curious about how you're arriving at these conclusions. Frankly, I'm curious how you even find a large enough sample size to make any kind of generalization about "Deep Southern atheists."
"However, I think you fellas are looking too hard at the Christian side of homophobia and ignoring ya’ll’s side as well. Homophobia is a general Western cultural vice, and the demise of the theocracies of the High Middle Ages didn’t make it magically disappear. The Soviet Union’s treatment of gays was diabolical, and made Love in Action look like sunshine and rainbows, and yes, the two did co-exist in Gorbachev’s time. Homophobia is even more so, in some cases, among Deep Southern atheists than it is among Christians. Whereas the Christians might just consider it sin, the atheists consider it positively “icky” and would prefer gays just not be out around them.
Yes, I know the type of Christians you speak of. But in the Deep South, the atheists are just as bad. Whereas a Christian might not like gays, they at least tolerate their presence. Atheists just want the gays to go away because it impugns their manly bona fides to hang around the gays, who for obvious reasons don’t like hanging around us supposedly homophobic Christians (never mind that some supposed ‘fundies’, including yours truly, are as queer as a two dollar bill.)"
Atheists are NOT an organization such as religion. There is no "official" position against gays (or for them) coming out of what you call ATHEISTS because atheists are largely independent. I grew up in the DEEP SOUTH and atheists generally outnumbered so I seriously doubt they are "just as bad" to gays as the knuckle dragging xtians. You are HILARIOUS! As a straight Atheist who could care less who fucks what, I disagree.
Ratface @ 120:
Thank you for your intelligent comments, Larry. None of the self- righteous
free speech people who babble the bullshit line " Free speech is important"
even;when;grief stricken people who lost a son or daughter are insulted & their
pain is discounted. Have one of these free speech defenders have a member
of their family vilified at a funeral I guarantee they would change their tune.
Ironic, since soldiers and their families often claim to be sacrificing themselves to protect our rights.
Regarding the issue of free speech: Was the cemetery private property? If so, wouldn't that nullify the issue of free speech, since the Phelps then wouldn't have been protesting in a public square?
DEEP SOUTHERN ATHEISTS, unite! (LOL)
Leebrals and Consoivitives alike... that page opened something nasty on my computer. I recommend running a system scan. www.lavasoft.com has a free one.
Larry Lamborghini @ 122:
Rusty 100 Years in Iraq! Shackleford @ 121:
Rusty Shackleford and Larry: I hang around with atheists and agnostics all the time. They're generally more easygoing and fun than the Christians in these parts, even the liberal ones and definitely the types at my church. Yet, if gays are brought up, no matter what ethnicity or gender, the atheists around these part are just as homophobic, in different ways than Christians are.
Then again, I'm not so sure these atheists and agnostics really understand what the term means, not when one considers evolutionary biology disgusting.....
Post 123 above, only the last line is mine
Larry Lamborghini @ 125:
Hell, yeah! They get such a bum deal from the Christians. :(
The hilarious part is listening to talk radio about how the atheists are threatening to rule the city, while in the paper every other letter to the editor is "Yahwehu Akbar!" It never ceases to amaze, that wingnut mind.
Ditto what Southern Dragon said-- Author: please remove the Rick Roll'd video link; the site automatically tries to download a virus to your computer. Readers: don't click.
"Then again, I’m not so sure these atheists and agnostics really understand what the term means, not when one considers evolutionary biology disgusting…."
Well, maybe you just hang around people so moronic they can call themselves atheists and not know what that means, as well. My question is, HOW DO YOU AS A GAY MALE reconcile SUPPORTING AN EVANGELICAL CHURCH? Isn't that like JEWS for HITLER? Just wondering?
Regarding the First Amendment and the Snyder Ruling, this is what the Citizen Media Law Project had to say:
In October 2007, the jury awarded Snyder $2.9 million in compensatory damages, $6 million in punitive damages for invasion of privacy, and $2 million in punitive damages for emotional distress. For a more thorough analysis of the trial and verdict, see our earlier blog post on the case: Jury Awards $10.9 Million Against "God Hates Fags" Church.
While there is a strong argument that intentional infliction of emotional distress and intrusion torts, the two claims the jury based liability upon, are unconstitutionally overbroad and vague when applied to speech in this context (see Eugene Volokh's excellent summary of these arguments here), the Court sidestepped this issue by concluding that the speech at issue in the case was not entitled to First Amendment protection because it was private speech about "private individuals" (a rather dubious distinction under First Amendment law).
Larry Lamborghini @ 131:
Evangelical =/= to Joel's Army. There's more than a few of those around, and even the most hardline evangelicals in the city think they're nuts. The churches won't see any need to tolerate gay members in their communities if some don't speak up. They can simply do what Northern whites did and pretend that gays don't exist, as they already kicked them out, so of course they don't hate gay people, as they don't exist. What the North did to blacks by Sundown towns, so did the Evangelicals to their gay members. It won't improve until gays in Evangelicalism speak up and demand the people in the churches see us as equals. To an evangelical, knowing a gay person is a remarkable cure of anti-gay propaganda as you realize they really aren't Satanic monsters out to kill you, they're people sitting next to you in the pews.
And dude, youdo realize there are Israeli Neo-Nazis don't you?
Leslie....
"While there is a strong argument that intentional infliction of emotional distress and intrusion torts, the two claims the jury based liability upon, are unconstitutionally overbroad and vague when applied to speech in this context"
That is just an opinion, as the damage inflicted (emotional distress and intrusional damage) are impossible to actually measure. I realize law attempts (and fails) often to do so. Pardon me if I am not crying about pastor Phelps lost "church".
"And dude, youdo realize there are Israeli Neo-Nazis don't you?
"
(Lol)
Dude, You do realize there is a condition called STOCKHOLM SYNDROME? Good luck on infiltrating the evangelical retards.
Larry Lamborghini @ 134:
Oh, I'm not crying about Phelps either. His behavior is disgusting, and I'd love to see him stopped.
But, and I'm just catching up on the ruling and as I read about it...it does bring up lots of free speech issues, which may have application beyond Phelps:
1) Snyder didn't see the Phelps assholes at the funeral. He only saw them later on the news.
2) the funeral was held indoors. The 7 protesters kept about 1,000 feet away from the church, and well beyond Maryland's state buffer zone of 300 feet. Therefore, Snyder's right to be left alone is weak.
3) Snyder's complaint alleges personal harm, but what harm was there if he didn't see the protesters?
more here about it
Leslie @ 132:
You left out the link to Volokh - here.
As much as I hate to point people to a Pajamas Media site, he does a good job with this IMO.
EliteLemming @ 112:
Larry Lamborghini @ 135:
"
(Lol)
Dude, You do realize there is a condition called STOCKHOLM SYNDROME? Good luck on infiltrating the evangelical retards.
Meh, I don't really give a damn what they think. Their whole premise of "Scripture is Clear and there is Only One (their own) Interpretation," falls apart like a house of cards when you look at Christianity, and Evangelicalism and just how much equally convinced people are convinced the same Holy Spirit guides them (and them alone, sometimes) to the truth and all others are heretics. The same Holy Spirit. That's why I started reading up on modern-day Evolutionary theory and it all became clear.....
People are bastards and believing God guides you, alone, of the more than 6 billion humans on the planet only makes you more of one. So, I'm not that good an evangelical.
Rusty 100 Years in Iraq! Shackleford @ 137:
Thanks. Yeah, I don't like Pajamas Media either. But he does state the issues in the case clearly.
mudshark @ 117:
Publicity or they really believe 100% ?
Falwell blamed the twin tower attacks on the homosexuals in NY, guaranteed any earthquake in SF will get a similar response from some xtians.
Okay..lets see..
1) Snyder didn't see the Phelps assholes at the funeral. He only saw them later on the news.
(well..he still saw them, if they were hauled off in the first place for HATE SPEECH, maybe he'd still have his church, no?)
2) the funeral was held indoors. The 7 protesters kept about 1,000 feet away from the church, and well beyond Maryland's state buffer zone of 300 feet. Therefore, Snyder's right to be left alone is weak.
(Only if you think protesting funerals is EVER worthy of protecting. When exactly SHOULD a funeral be protested? Is it RATIONAL to assume that there is a time? Ther argument that there is a time is much weaker)
3) Snyder's complaint alleges personal harm, but what harm was there if he didn't see the protesters?
(If he saw or heard about it later, and it hurt him, how would you know?)
Leslie @ 136:
Thanks for the link to Howard Wasserman at PrawfsBlog. That's an outstanding article. He does a good job addressing Michael Dorf's points, which were valid, but in my opinion ultimately unpersuasive.
I think Wasserman is correct that this was an example of constitutionally-protected speech being penalized because simply because it's unpopular.
Larry Lamborghini @ 122:
That is the problem when preachers preach hate, and politicians can be considered preachers also in a rabble rousing group think sense.
I guess I just do not see how protecting Phelps is more important than protecting his victims. this is not a "reasonable" free speech issue. These are just a bunch of assholes hiding behind religion. Seriously, Fuck em.
Leslie @ 124:
They used to preach/protest outside on the public roads, now I believe they get moved to special 'free speech' zones far away,
just like any other protester at any public event in the USA.
SouthernDragon @ 14:
I don't think there's anyway that that $5 million judgment will stand. Nor should it. Those Westboro cats are vile, but they certainly have a right to speak their minds. Hate speech (though we may dislike it) should be as protected as every other kind of speech. Failing to protect it makes every other type of speech vulnerable! Besides, it's always better to hear what people think out in the open. "Sunshine is the best disinfectant", as we all know.
Regarding the Bible...I read that book cover to cover once (boring read for the most part, but action-packed in the Book of Daniel, and Revelation!), and it seemed VERY intolerant of homosexuals. So intolerant, in fact, that God laid the smack-down on TWO entire cities over it!
It's funny how churches pick and choose what parts of the Bible they subscribe to.
I was forced to attend a Catholic Church as a child, and the services were very bland. No fire and brimstone there. The general thrust of every service was "charity", "forgiveness", and "free donuts and orange drink after the service". I certainly don't object to any of those items, but I couldn't help but notice that they cherry-picked the upbeat ideas from the Bible, while ignoring the nasty stuff.
Larry Lamborghini @ 142:
He says in the court docs that he heard about the protest later, from the news, and that that hurt him.
As sympathetic a figure as Snyder is, and as reprehensible and crazy as the Phelps are, I don't think Snyder's case against Westboro [the Phelps] can stand up on appeal. It's very weak and without a clear legal basis.
Consider the ramifications of this ruling on other free speech cases, such as: "...the principle that even the most offensive and intolerable speech on core political ideas and on matters of public concern cannot be chilled by the imposition or threat of damages."
In other words, apply the Phelps ruling to anti-war protestors, etc., and maybe you'll see what I'm talking about.
"They used to preach/protest outside on the public roads, now I believe they get moved to special ‘free speech’ zones far away,
just like C"
Are you seriously equating PHELPS with "just any other protester at any public event in the USA"?? You are saying there is no difference between voicing social opposition and hate speech. Like protesting war is the same as going to a funeral and saying "Thank GOD your son is dead over megaphones"? If YOU say so.
Login or Register to post comments.