Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Does Fred Phelps have a First Amendment right to be a complete jerk at military funerals? http://pub.vitrue.com/eRK
just curious what dakka thinks about this. not sure what I think personally.

They have freedom of speech, they are not immune to consequences of that freedom.

Other than that, I'd file them under Idiots.

They have freedom of speech, but there should be reasonable location limits. if portestors can be forced to stay away from Presidential speeches, then there can be location limits on protests near funerals. Problem solved without destroying the First Amendment.

There's some question about whether or not its going to be protected speech though. They're commenting on an issue of importance but its meant to emotionally hurt those on the receiving end. They're not even a church so much as a litigation scheme.

Westboro are crazy, but is there any way to know what god really thinks about homosexuality?

Tyyr wrote:There's some question about whether or not its going to be protected speech though. They're commenting on an issue of importance but its meant to emotionally hurt those on the receiving end. They're not even a church so much as a litigation scheme.

True but so?

Its horrendous language. They are arguing its potentially violative becuase its specific to the dead person.
Again easily resolved with a nice placement restriction.

Having said that if I were the Dad I probably would not have sued. I'd probably would have had to plead guilty to voluntary manslaughter for what would occur.

Frazzled wrote:True but so?

Its horrendous language. They are arguing its potentially violative becuase its specific to the dead person. Again easily resolved with a nice placement restriction.

The Fighting Words Doctrine already exists and contrary to popular belief there are some things you can say that will get your ass in trouble with the law. This isn't too far off situations already covered under the FWD and ruling it to be non-protected speech isn't much of an stretch of existing constitutional doctrine. Distance can work as well but what I'm saying is this could very well be argued to be unprotected speech.

Tyyr wrote:

Frazzled wrote:True but so?

Its horrendous language. They are arguing its potentially violative becuase its specific to the dead person. Again easily resolved with a nice placement restriction.

The Fighting Words Doctrine already exists and contrary to popular belief there are some things you can say that will get your ass in trouble with the law. This isn't too far off situations already covered under the FWD and ruling it to be non-protected speech isn't much of an stretch of existing constitutional doctrine. Distance can work as well but what I'm saying is this could very well be argued to be unprotected speech.

Thats almost what hey are arguing.

It could very well, as I recall the FWD means that deliberately threatening a person with the implication of immediate violence is not allowed? Sorry, it's been a while since my last actual study of the Law back home in the US of A.

But, as far as I know, Westboro mainly exists so that is members get tax free stuff (to being a religous organization) and they get so much media attention directed at them because they're so ridiculously out there. Sometimes, I feel that Fred Phelps is nothing more than the greatest troll in the history of the universe.

In all honesty, I feel like the best way to counter Phelps is the way to treat a troll...stop feeding them. All this attention and law suits against them is what they're after, and how they make their money. If we were to just ignore them, then they'd have to do something different.

Frazzled wrote:They have freedom of speech, but there should be reasonable location limits. if portestors can be forced to stay away from Presidential speeches, then there can be location limits on protests near funerals. Problem solved without destroying the First Amendment.

how far away do they have to be? they were something like 1000 at the time. 2000? a mile? does the distance even matter when everyone is rubbing elbows next to everyone else 24/7 on the interwebz?

AbaddonFidelis wrote:

Frazzled wrote:They have freedom of speech, but there should be reasonable location limits. if portestors can be forced to stay away from Presidential speeches, then there can be location limits on protests near funerals. Problem solved without destroying the First Amendment.

how far away do they have to be? they were something like 1000 at the time. 2000? a mile? does the distance even matter when everyone is rubbing elbows next to everyone else 24/7 on the interwebz?

1,000 meters from any funeral home, mortuary, or cemetery.

So, I was at Recent US History today, and we were talking about the Espionage Act and relating it to current events. Abb, are you like, psychically in tune with my history professor

There are already limits on protesting at funerals, though I don't know when they were enacted or by whom they are enforced. As far as I know the Westboro loonies aren't allowed to actually enter the property and never have. They stand on the nearest public space (a sidewalk for example).

Ideally I find their behavior abhorrent but I'm gonna have to agree that being stupid isn't a crime, it's just a little disappointing :( Free Speech is free speech, but I believe that this isn't a criminal matter that is before the court it is a civil matter in which Phelps is being sued for reparations for his behavior. The Government can't encroach on free speech but I haven't seen anything in the Constitution that protects you from being sued for it by another citizen and I don't really oppose that.

LordofHats wrote:So, I was at Recent US History today, and we were talking about the Espionage Act and relating it to current events. Abb, are you like, psychically in tune with my history professor

There are already limits on protesting at funerals, though I don't know when they were enacted or by whom they are enforced. As far as I know the Westboro loonies aren't allowed to actually enter the property and never have. They stand on the nearest public space (a sidewalk for example).

Ideally I find their behavior abhorrent but I'm gonna have to agree that being stupid isn't a crime, it's just a little disappointing :( Free Speech is free speech, but I believe that this isn't a criminal matter that is before the court it is a civil matter in which Phelps is being sued for reparations for his behavior. The Government can't encroach on free speech but I haven't seen anything in the Constitution that protects you from being sued for it by another citizen and I don't really oppose that.

Its not being stupid. It is insulting and an intentional direct personal attack, and slanderous to the dead person, and dewsigned to cause emotional harm to the grieving family. They are generally standing at the entrance to a funeral with their signs that the bereaved are forced to cross to get to the funeral itself. Some states may limit that further, which would be appropriate.

Again one can make a strong argument that this meets the requirements for incitement to riot because of the specifics of time and place.

I'd just like to point out that the westboro guys were obeying the laws about distance from the funeral, proper licensing, etc. which is why it went alll the way up to scotus


Automatically Appended Next Post:
not that im on their side. idk what i think about this.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:I'd just like to point out that the westboro guys were obeying the laws about distance from the funeral, proper licensing, etc. which is why it went alll the way up to scotus


Automatically Appended Next Post:
not that im on their side. idk what i think about this.

Do you have a link to a summary of the event Abby?

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2024062,00.html
http://pub.vitrue.com/eRK


Automatically Appended Next Post:
sorry its not more specific.

Frazzled wrote:Its not being stupid. It is insulting and an intentional direct personal attack, and slanderous to the dead person, and dewsigned to cause emotional harm to the grieving family. They are generally standing at the entrance to a funeral with their signs that the bereaved are forced to cross to get to the funeral itself. Some states may limit that further, which would be appropriate.

Again one can make a strong argument that this meets the requirements for incitement to riot because of the specifics of time and place.

I'm thinking more of their argument that US Soldiers die because the US doesn't take a hard position on homosexuality and that somehow protesting at a soldiers funeral with signs that say Thank God For Dead Soldiers will in some way convince people that we should be more anti-gay. Seems pretty stupid to me (Also ignorant, bigotted, and offensive, but mostly stupid).

By entrance to the funeral I assume you mean the sidewalk that leads up to the property, which is normally public space. I don't know if there are other regulations about distance involved but they haven't been charged with violating any laws as far as I know. Inciting a riot? Phelps I hear is a lawyer. I'm sure he's smart enough, as most people who say crazy things like Westboro are, to avoid any language that would get him arrested for such a thing.

thanks Abby

Frazzled wrote:if portestors can be forced to stay away from Presidential speeches, then there can be location limits on protests near funerals. Problem solved without destroying the First Amendment.

The problem with that is next week it will be protests near police offices, then schools, then government buildings, etc

Slippery slope.

Not that I am saying this will happen, but just one of those crazy tin-hat things for you to think about

There are already limits for a variety of things near schools Silver...

In UK law a dead person cannot be slandered.

Is this the case under US law?

Kilkrazy wrote:In UK law a dead person cannot be slandered.

Is this the case under US law?

Not certain but I bet not.

Kilkrazy wrote:In UK law a dead person cannot be slandered.

Is this the case under US law?

He's in court right now cause the father of a dead soldier sued Phelps when Westboro held a protest during his son's funeral. I believe he initially won the civil case, but it has been appealed all the way up to the supreme court. In this case the father is seeking reparation for the offense Westboro caused him and his family and the memory of his son, not necessarily for slander.

Frazzled wrote:There are already limits for a variety of things near schools Silver...

What you get up to in your free time is none of my business

A friend of mine told me that most of that so-called church are related to each other too. Perhaps people should start giving them signs that say "GOD LOVES INCEST". I know it isn't helpful but it is a fun thought. I think the best thing to do about isolated hate groups is completely ignore them. Especially in the media. If nobody pays attention to their ranting at all they'll probably get tired enough to go and do something else like atoning for their hatefulness and handing out bread to the hungry. Every time someone lashes back at them and protests their rally they just get more sense of community with each other and turn to their faith to overcome all the unfair attacks on them by the rest of us sinners. Some problems only go away because you ignore them.

SilverMK2 wrote:

Frazzled wrote:There are already limits for a variety of things near schools Silver...

What you get up to in your free time is none of my business

Zing!

Kilkrazy wrote:In UK law a dead person cannot be slandered.

Is this the case under US law?

You'd have a hard time with Slander. None of their signs attack the dead soldier directly. None of the signs call him a baby killer or say he's evil. The sign say stuff like God is punishing the US because the US allows Gays to exist and so forth.

They are VERY careful on this account. It's the Westboro standard plan of action to go to high profile occassions (Or generate publicity), hold up nasty, ignorant signs, shout derisive vitriol, get the name of their church and/or its leader on the news, then slink away.

They know exactly what they are doing.

I guess the important issue, if the mother pulled out a pistol and emptied two clips into the Westboro "church" and you were on the jury, would you convict her, and what for?

Not doing it sooner?

Violating noise laws? Littering? (unless she picks up the
shell casings of course-be green! recycle!)