Judge: anti-gay activists permitted to demonstrate at gay events

[ruggerson]

http://www.timesleader.com/mld/timesleader/10710007.htm

PHILADELPHIA - Four members of a conservative Christian group may resume picketing gay-themed events in Philadelphia after a judge lifted a restriction that kept them away.

Common Pleas Court Judge Pamela Dembe called the restriction an unreasonable restraint on free speech.

"We cannot restrict people's right to speak or to be near those who might not wish to hear them into the future," Dembe said Friday.

Dembe overturned a ruling by Municipal Court Judge William A. Meehan against the demonstrators, who are affiliated with a local group called Repent America and who say their opposition to homosexuality is based on the Bible. Meehan had ordered the group to stay at least 100 feet away from any "homosexual event."

------------------------------------------------------------

Ok, you wanna play this way? How about gays picketing every rightwing religious meeting, march, church event, baptism, school function, to let them know they are coercing their children into a superstitious, harmful "lifestyle" that uses fantasy and magic as a crutch instead of dealing with the realities of life.

Religious rightwing "lifestyles" are very harmful to children and we should stop the indoctrination of American youth, and this judge has just given us the green light to do so.

[Bluebear]

1. I like the radical religious "lifestyle" designation

Turnabout.

[Dookus]

2. It's a good decision

the first amendment should be respected.

[Calvinist Basset]

8. I agree.

I think their point of view is wrong, but in this society we (allegedly) support freedom of speech. Thus, we have to allow those with whom we disagree to express their views.

Others may be upset by this judge's decision. But the judge may have done a favor for supporters of the LGBT cause. Repressing the speech of anti-gay groups lends them a paradoxical credibility. This is because it is human nature to want to listen to voices that are forbidden. Giving them permission to spout their propaganda can actually make them less intriguing to the public, especially if LGBT folks can openly engage them with reason, intelligence and truth.

Furthermore, LGBT supporters probably should make themselves heard at right-wing events (like another poster suggested). With persistence, the truth will drown out the lies and paranoia of the obtuse conservatives.

[TahitiNut]

10. Too bad it's totally hypocritcal.

"We cannot restrict people's right to speak or to be near those who might not wish to hear them into the future," Dembe said Friday.

Unless, of course, it's the pResident. Then not only does 'freedom of speech' and 'right to assemble' go down the tubes, but so does 'right to petition'.


Those gays don't have a fucking thing to do with the private lives of the protestors. Nothing. Somebody else's 'freedom of speech' is limited by my right to be left alone without harrassment.

[Dookus]

11. well

that's a different issue. We agree it's wrong to shield the President that way, and it's wrong to shield others. This is still a good decision.

[nofurylike]

14. do you feel that way about people protesting blacks and jews and

hispanics and...
moving into 'their' neighbohoods?

is that a right under freedom of speech?

do you support it being a right?

[American Tragedy]

20. Of course, they can protest it.

The protesters obviously cannot turn violent or criminal, or block them from moving in or take any substantive action in that direction, but let them make fools of themselves and their entire movement with their bigoted propaganda, like Daniel Carver has done on the Stern show.

If they are free to express themselves in that way, we in turn should be free to counter them with suitable contempt. I welcome that kind of battle.

[nofurylike]

22. thank you for reply. food for thought. back later to reply more. n/t

[nofurylike]

49. i'm just not sure what line is criminal.

it is mental cruelty and abusive, but that is not *necessarily* criminal, i guess.
??

i'm still thinking about it.

thanks for your thoughts. i think i might "welcome that kind of battle" too.

[Rush1184]

70. Yes... It is their freedom...

Just as it is my right to call them an ignorant bigot. If you want the right to promote your side of an issue, you have to allow the same to the other side. They may be misguided, but only in protecting their freedom of speech can you protect your own.

[nofurylike]

16. would it be a good decision for a judge to say that those who

pray for the annihilation of another ethnic group have a right to terrorize them by protesting outside their night clubs? parties?

no answer?

[Dookus]

25. I have an answer...

the answer is yes, praying for the annhilation of a group should not be illegal.

The first amendment allows all sorts of speech, even (and especially) that which you or I may find abhorrent. As long as no crime is being committed, words should not be outlawed.

It's a very basic concept, and one that has served us well for 229 years.

[nofurylike]

46. i understand and agree, mostly.

here's what i want to figure out:
is it not illegal to publicly promote crimes?
for instance, is it not illegal to demonstrate seeking to cause economic discrimination?

like, say, to demonstrate to promote that one wants a particular ethnic group to not be allowed to have businesses in a certain financially advantageous area?

i'm trying to find the distinguishing lines between what is and isn't legal to publicly promote.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

48. Discrimination is legal as well

Unless it is done in some sort of protected area.

However, it is legal to organize people together and have them boycott white or black businesses. That is a personal choice. It would suck morally, but we are talking law.

[nofurylike]

51. yes, that's true. thank you. i guess it does apply to this situation.

i'm still thinking about it, though.

is it legal to picket to put an end to a business, giving the ethnicity of the owner as the reason?

[Dookus]

52. Yes

that would, and should, be legal.

The answer to offensive speech is not to end the speech - the answer is MORE speech. Anyone trying to organize a boycott based on such a reason would, and should, be met by a much louder voice denouncing such tactics.

[nofurylike]

53. yes, i see. good point about countering the speech, too.

i'm getting it, i think.

thank you for walking me through this.

[nofurylike]

54. is it legal

to picket to stop blind people or amputees from gathering or doing business?
that is, to block them from activities they have a right to do?

[nofurylike]

56. wait. correction. i know the issue wasn't "blocking" the activities.

i know that would be illegal.

i'm off for now. still perplexed about this. but you've helped clear it up some for me, thank you.

and thanks to others here too.


peace

[Dookus]

59. You're welcome

it's a troublesome issue that requires some thought.

Caroline Kennedy has a good book on the Bill of Rights, and Alan Dershowitz has written some good articles and books on the subject.

I understand the impulse to want to use the force of law to shut down speech we find abhorrent, but if we sit down and think through the consequences, any tools we want to use against others will be used against us.

As I said above, the answer to offensive speech is more speech. Any law that can shut up your opponent can be used to shut you up, too.

[nofurylike]

61. "tools we want to use against others will be used against us." yes.

i see it.

it is difficult.

thanks about the books. i'd like to see what they each have written about it.

phew. a headaching topic! but so very important, it's true.


peace

[Cats Against Frist]

69. To promote violence against homosexuals

is totally different than protesting homosexuality. If I'm not mistaken (and maybe I am) those cats in Philly were charged with inciting a riot or something -- that would be the difference.

[Rush1184]

71. I disagee with your wording...

But yes. They can pray all they want for my annihilation and protest all they want outside whatever venue I may want to goto, very well. Now, they better stay outside, and keep their hands to themselves, but as long as they remain peaceful, I support their right to be there, even if I disagree with their issues.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[leesa]

78. Hate speech directed at a specific group for something not of their

choosing is not good. I suppose you also like the idea of people chanting and holding up signs saying black people should burn in hell for being black.

[nofurylike]

84. that's what i'm wondering about too. would that be protected free

speech?

i just don't understand.

is it legal to protest against people BEING black? isn't that promoting discrimination? isn't that, therefore, promoting criminal activity?

can that be legal?

i'm so confused about this.

so confusing.


peace

[Xithras]

86. It's not illegal to promote, just to threaten.

Example: It's perfectly legal to sit in front of a synagogue, hand out copies of Mein Kamph, and publically orate on the "evils of the Jews". As unfortunate as that is, as long as the orator is on public property his speech is protected as he is only expressing his opinion.

On the other hand, if that same orator began shouting to the passing crowds that we needed to "kill the Jews", and he were actively calling on people to join his movement to exterminate Jewish people, he could be arrested and charged because now he's THREATENING the people in the synagogue.

In the first example he is stating an opinion of opposition, and no matter how distateful that opposition might be, it is protected speech under the first amendment. In the second example he is directly threatening the lives and health of a group by calling on people to harm and kill the group. He is directly provocating a criminal activity and can be arrested.

Shouting "Gays are wrong" or "Gays are sinners" is legal. Shouting "Gays must die" isn't.

[nofurylike]

87. it grows more and more clear to me, thanks to many here. a couple

more questions:

what about their shouting that BEING black is a sin? i mean, is it legal to protest to slander and libel others?

or protesting that they won't give blacks any peace until they report for skin lightening treatments?

(all this being outside of the actual criminal aspects of this case, which aparently continue in court.)

thank you, Xithras - and others - for your patient help clarifying.


peace

[SoCalDem]

3. How christian of them.. But ..The Gay peoplel can protest at their church

:)..

So when Rev JimBobBillyRay starts spraying spittle on the front pews when he beseeches Jaysus to smite the sinners in their tracks, the Gays can stand up and protest :)

Fair is fair

[AliciaKeyedUp]

5. A church is private property

So there is a difference.

And, of course, many churches are FOR gay rights.

[RPM]

76. Private Property with a Distinction

As with shopping centers, churches are private property which in invite others in to partake in what they have to offer. The USSC has stated (I think the case was Pruneyard, not sure) that the private property "right to exclude" others is not inviolable when the owner of private property invites others to enter.

[athenap]

21. Actually, instead of standing up and protesting...

Why not just quietly attend the church service, then slip a note into the collection basket that says, "a gay person was here in your church today." Maybe add, "and sitting next to you..." And then just to be ornery..."and we sat on your toilet seats, too!"

Leave them questioning why there were no spontaneous combustions at that service. :D

[Deja Q]

67. Utterly fair. Methinks I shall try goingeth to church once more...

I know a few anti-gay ones locally. O8)

[Bluzmann57]

4. Fundies have rights too

if they want to picket, they should be able to, just as any homosexual group should be able to picket any event they wish to. Just as long as nobody gets violent, then there should be no problem with people expressing their views, whether you agree with them or not.

[ohkay]

6. ahhh.. I don't think that's the right way

to get stuff done.

If the GLBT community starts showing up in church, people who don't give gays much thought are going to be violently opposed.

Let the knuckledragging fundies show up. The way to beat them is to continue to live your life. Not making more enemies.

[Occulus]

66. Sure, that's the ticket...

after all, staying quietly in the background and just trying to live our lives has worked SO well for us thus far :eyes:

[nofurylike]

88. so very well said, kgfnally. n/t

[tuvor]

7. Don't they have to do it in free speech zones, though?

:)

[RPM]

9. Cool

I wonder if disrupting a church service tomorrow AM is protected in my first amendment rights.

[Rush1184]

72. nope.

[RPM]

75. d'oh

oh well

[IndianaGreen]

12. So next time ACT UP throws condoms at Cardinal O'Conner

this would also be okay as a legitimate expression of disgust at the Church's responsibility for the spread of AIDs throughout the world.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

13. Throwing things at people is never a legit expression

But protest on public (note the word) property is perfectly fine.

[rodeodance]

15. I agree, it is a good decision

[msongs]

17. maybe they will see their children or family members while protesting? eom

that would be nice.

Msongs
www.msongs.com/liberaltshirts.htm

[sandnsea]

18. The old switcheroo

This was never about their right to protest. It was about their protests becoming aggressive and beligerent. The other charges they face haven't been dropped. I'm sure the paper would like people to believe the left is supporting infringing on people's rights though.

Also from the article:

"The activists still face a variety of charges, including felonies, in connection with their protest last fall at Outfest, a street festival for gays and lesbians in downtown Philadelphia."

[nofurylike]

47. thank you for adding this information. couldn't get to the article. n/t

[geomon666]

19. Will they be enclosed in a 10ft. fence 100 yards away like we are?

And will the entire group get pepper sprayed by the cops if one of them should throw something over said fence? Do I really have to answer this for you?

[The Backlash Cometh]

23. Then why can't anti-Bush protesters get closer to the Bush events?

[undergroundpanther]

26. than the cops shouldn't

protect the klan or any other racist christian or rightwing groups from speech they don't like either.Shrub needs to face the music too.

[distantearlywarning]

27. I think this is the correct decision as well.

However, I also want to make sure that we all have the right to picket their churches, meetings, and what not. Free speech is important for everybody.

[BakerAct895]

58. agree with you

[orthogonal]

28. It's the right decision

Segregationists didn't want to hear protest by civil rights advocates in the 1950s -- imagine if a judge had ruled civil rights advocates couldn't protest in Southern towns where the majority population didn't want to hear them.

The First Amendment applies to all speech -- especially if it's speech you don't want to hear.

[Erika]

29. Hate speech is not a part of the 1st amendment

Southern judges forbade protests by blacks against whites for decades

You're mixing apples and oranges. You appear to approve of the right of the status quo to use hate speech against minorities.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

30. Sorry, but hate is legal

You are morally wrong to do it, but it isn't against the law.

[Erika]

33. You are right to a degree

Fred Phelps has tried to install a tombstone saying "Matthew Shepard went to hell" on his death date on any public property where other religious symbols, such as the 10 Commandments are displayed.

As is the case here, we chose to move the Commandments to a private church to avoid this fight with the Phelps group and the legal costs involved.

Many are sickened by Bush's election that has empowered these hate groups to continue their discrimination against minorities. What happened to Christ's Golden Rule and love thine enemy?

[AliciaKeyedUp]

37. There are people who hate in every group

That doesn't make such hate a good thing.

[mitchtv]

39. your right to call me vile names ends

at the length of my swing. Your right to block my access ends when I reach you.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

40. Personal attacks are different from general comments

And yes, I think some states have laws that allow you to respond to personal attacks with force.

But it is still legal to sit around with a bunch of moron buddies and hate people.

[mitchtv]

41. And my duty to myself

is to stand up to people like that.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

42. Knock yourself out

Free public discussion is good for everyone.

[mitchtv]

43. I really have no objection, yet there MUST be limits clearly set

unfortunately the state, in this case, has already simplified that as feet and inches. like 'free speech zones' These individuals were busted for a lot more than freespeech. Maybe at gatherings such as that 100' is not so much to ask. It seems it would eliminate much litigation about blocking access.

[orthogonal]

63. With friends like these....

your right to call me vile names ends at the length of my swing. Your right to block my access ends when I reach you.


Let's be very very clear about what your comment means: you advocate violence against those who say things you don't agree with?

My rights "end" when you can "reach me", unless you agree with what I'm saying? I thought my rights were inalienable?

I should allow you to censor what I say in order to avoid violence at your hands?

Is this really what DU and the Democratic Party stands for?

If I call you short-sighted and paving the way for fascism because of that opinion of yours, should I worry that you'll hit me for saying so?

mitchtv, I can only hope you wrote this in the heat of passion, and in the cool light of thinking about it, you realize that you didn't mean what you said.

[Erika]

34. You are right to a degree

Fred Phelps has tried to install a tombstone saying "Matthew Shepard went to hell" on his death date on any public property where other religious symbols, such as the 10 Commandments are displayed.

As is the case here, we chose to move the Commandments to a private church to avoid this fight with the Phelps group and the legal costs involved.

Many are sickened by Bush's election that has empowered these hate groups to continue their discrimination against minorities. What happened to Christ's Golden Rule and love thine enemy?

[d.l.Green]

35. Which is yet another reason why this is a good thing.

Let them be a visible example of Christian hate and expose their hypocrisy. I can't see how this ban was allowed to happen in the first place unless of course their behavior was more than just protesting.

I also agree with the posters above, this doesn't give us more rights or incentives to picket the church on their private property. Why waste our energy on this? Exhibiting love is the strongest message against hate that can be sent.

I'll never forget how "Stop the Church" made me cringe. For a very short moment it was exhilarating(as a recovering Catholic) watching some protesters hit the church members where it hurt most, but aping the same lack of respect and eye-for-an-eye attitude killed the whole point.

[mitchtv]

44. you are right. It could be used against them

by the right people. very effectively.Public opinion. Dare I say Backlash?

[moobu2]

31. We should protect everyones speech

That's what the judge was saying.... If the government gets involved in picking and choosing what speech is offensive and what isn't then "free speech" is over. Laws have to apply to everyone equally.


Let the idiots say what they want so everyone can see how ignorant they are.

[distantearlywarning]

32. I would defend the right of the KKK to hold protest rallies

with my dying breath. It is 100% wrong to pick and choose what may be said and not said based on one's own personal opinion. That way lies a fascist state.

It always comes down to the golden rule: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". If you want the right to publicly say what you feel and to hold protests about it, you must allow others to do the same (even when you think they're wrong).

This is what the Repukes want to do - deny others the right to assemble and speak their minds. They can't conceive of anything beyond "I want my way right now". They don't have the foresight or the wisdom or the fairness to consider how they might feel at a later time when THEIR viewpoint is unpopular and THEY want to have the right to express it in a public place and can't because they destroyed the 1st Amendment in a childish fit of rage over speech that didn't match their own small viewpoints.

Let's make sure that we are defending free speech when they won't. And yes, that will be difficult sometimes because some people are going to want to say things you don't want to hear, and that aren't nice, and that are even sometimes mean and unfair and not PC. :nopity: Tough. Get over it. It's life and it's part of being a just and moral grown-up. Get a thicker skin and learn how to keep believing in what you think is right even when a bunch of other people are marching around with picket signs and shouting otherwise. THAT'S how you defend freedom.

[Erika]

38. The minorities should have special protection from

intimidation from the majority.

[orthogonal]

62. Who decides?

The minorities should have special protection from intimidation from the majority.

Who is supposed to decide what constitutes a minority?

At a rally of 100 gays, is a lone Christian a member of the majority, or a minority? What if that Christian is poor and black, and the gays are all wealthy white men?

Who is "the minority" in Harlem? In Brooklyn? In San Francisco? In Puerto Rico?

If your answer is to have the government decide who is a minority, do you really trust the Bush Administration to determine what groups get "special protection" and which don't?

And who determines what constitutes "intimidation"? Is saying "you'll roast in eternal torment in Hell" intimidation? Is saying, "come to Jesus to avoid eternal damnation" intimidation? Is saying "Rumsfeld should be tried for war crimes intimidation"? Who decides?

How could any such "special protection" take precedence over the First amendment, unless it was enacted as an amendment to the Constitution?

[JohnLocke]

60. Yes, it is (nt).

[genieroze]

36. Ok, you wanna play this way?

I was thinking the exact same thing.

[Guns Aximbo]

45. if he wants his eyes scratched out....

that's his problem. no matter how repugnant it is, It's his right I guess.

[BUSHOUT]

50. Don't play like them. Let 'em "protest". Let stupidity ring!! n/t

[98geoduck]

55. Jon Stewart will get plenty of fodder with these people!

[nofurylike]

57. thanks for this discussion, ruggerson. great, your afterword, imho. n/t

[Amigust]

64. Dembe effectively gives disrupters the right to inject themselves

directly inside gay gatherings and disrupt everything.

It's an open invitation to violent confrontation.

A 100-ft distance places no great infringement on 1st amendment rights in a lot of situations, and in cases where the disrupters use bullhorns, is damn too little distance.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

65. Private property is still an option

That would solve some of the issues. Unfortunately the 1st Amendment is messy, but essential.

[rocktivity]

68. Just picket the Christian Conservatives, then

Call yourselves Christians For Truth or something and preach Jesus' tolerance or something like that!

:headbang:
rocknation

[Jawja]

73. Good. Set up their

"first Amendment zone" a couple of miles away. Let them protest all they want.

[prodigal_green]

74. Actually, religion of any type

is a "lifestyle choice" as opposed to homosexuality, which is no more a choice than height or eye color.

I'm going to start using that expression when talking about ignorant, hateful people who use religion as a weapon.

[ruggerson]

79. We all should

heneceforth, we all should be referring to the religious rightwing as a "lifestyle" choice and use any opportunity to commence a discussion about what impact that "lifestyle" has on young, impressionable children.

[leesa]

77. This is hate speech directed at a group of people, judge. It's called

bigotry. This judge should be recalled. She doesn't understand the concept of free speech.

[Dookus]

80. Bigotry and hate speech

aren't illegal. The judge was right.

[Jack_DeLeon]

81. This is a good ruling for the 1st amendment...

ALL speech should be protected by the 1st amendment.

[donheld]

82. Gay pride is just not the same without a few

of these idiots picketing etc. It gives us something to laugh at, make out in front of, abuse.

[LiberteToujours]

83. Agreed

As a gay man, I am in full support of this ruling.

[donheld]

85. This ruling also opens gives us the OK to picket them.