Our free speech dilemma in the heartland

[proud2BlibKansan]

Yesterday, at our weekly peace vigil, a lawyer came to talk to us. He said the state of Missouri has just passed a bill aimed at preventing Fred Phelps from protesting at funerals. The bill says there can be no protests within 1000 feet of a church on the day of a funeral.

Here's the problem - our peace vigils are within 1000 feet of a church. This lawyer measured it.

So - do we applaud the MO legislature for doing something to put a lid on Fred Phelps and his obnoxious family? And for those of you who don't know Phelps well, he and his family of followers are all lawyers and there is no doubt they will challenge this law. So our celebration will most likely be short lived.

Or - do we join this attorney's lawsuit challenging the law to protect our own right to protest? This attorney is well known locally and statewide and I would rather see him challenge this law and win than Fred Phelps. (KC folks, it is Arthur Benson - and you know he is a more credible attorney than any Phelps family member)

This attorney is asking our group to sign on to his lawsuit. Here is another dilemma - some of the members of our group have gone to Topeka several times to counter protest against Fred Phelps.

One more bit of info - we protest on Sundays and I have never heard of a funeral held on a Sunday. But with this law, a door has opened. Do we leave it open or shut it now?

[acmavm]

1. Fred gave the bush** administration a handy dandy little tool to stifle

dissent in our country. And being the non-Constitutional morans that they are, they used it. There is no common sense in government anymore, nothing but draconian measures to shut down our democratic (for lack of a better word) process.

The answer is: How much is it worth to you?

[proud2BlibKansan]

2. I want to continue to speak out

We are just now getting the support we have been praying for. Several people came yesterday who had not been at our vigils for awhile and they commented about the size of our group and the increasing number of honks for peace we are getting, compared to when these vigils were first started 3 years ago.

I also would hate to think we had to quit because of Fred Phelps.

[eallen]

3. The defense of civil liberty doesn't await a pure victim.

If you wait for the good victim, you'll see our civil liberties chipped away. The ACLU has already challenged the overly broad wording of this statute. They deserve our support. Join them. Contribute to them. Voice your support of what they do. Yeah, in the name of civil liberty, they often end up in legal battles for the like of Fred Phelps, neo-Nazis, Rush Limbaugh, and Oliver North. Stand up on the side of civil liberty anyway and always.

:hippie:

[proud2BlibKansan]

4. I am definitely leaning in that direction

But what a deal, eh? Several of the members of our group immediately told this attorney 'no way'. But I wonder how they feel today, after sleeping on it?

[EFerrari]

5. This must be the exception to the "any club that would have Fred

Phelps as a member" rule. I voted for signing on.

Too bad the legislature couldn't just make him illegal, anywhere, any time. :silly:

[proud2BlibKansan]

8. Has he ever been to San Francisco?

It seems like he is never here anymore, he is always somewhere else in the country tarnishing the good name of Kansas (well, what's left of it anyway).

[EFerrari]

10. He can't possibly be from Kansas. I think the Mothership

must have dumped him off there by mistake.

Can't recall if he's been here. I expect he'd probably go either up north of us or down to San Diego where there are more military families.

[proud2BlibKansan]

11. Actually he grew up somewhere in the south

I think Mississippi?

And I wish he would go back.

[EFerrari]

13. HIs unintended consequence is that he's an ambulatory

anti-enlistment ad. If I were a recruiter, I sure wouldn't want him showing up in my town.

[txwhitedove]

83. Mississippi has suffered enough...

Looked it up and, yes, Rev Phelps born in Meridian, MS. 
Please don't judge MS by him, though.  Most Mississipians
loving and compassionate.  Don't send him back there cause
they're going through enough after Hurricane Katrina.  

[MuseRider]

26. They are here in Topeka every single day

no matter where you go there they are.

I am against this. Our board voted to support something similar here in Kansas but I am still against it. Free Speech is for everyone as much as you or I want it to be otherwise. That would be my vote.

One reason I am really reactive to this is partly because nobody gave a shit when it was just gay funerals. NOBODY DID ANYTHING. Sorry, I just can't get behind this for the other reason I stated above as much as I would love to. I do not want to be silenced just because I want them silenced. Not exactly a popular choice these days but there it is.

[proud2BlibKansan]

38. I hear you Muse

It is repulsive that so little was said or done when he was at the funerals of gay people 24/7. But several of the people in our KC peace group have been counter protesting against Phelps for quite some time now. And I feel guilty that I chose not to join them. I have always favored ignoring Rev Fred. Now I am thinking I am wrong about that.

[MuseRider]

52. It is hard to know.

I prefer to ignore him most of the time. I walk through them every time I perform while they scream through their loud speakers at us and our audience. He is not going away, even if you ignore him and I fear that our ignoring him is what escalated him back into the spotlight. However, he can only escalate so far and stay within the law so I still say he should be ignored because that is what hurts him the most. I do understand those who feel differently, I figure I have been put through his stuff every single day for at least 10 years not counting all his mischief before that so it is easy for me to discount him as an every day nuisance.

[Swamp Rat]

54. I wish Jeebus would reach down from the sky and pinch off his head!

x(

[MuseRider]

57. Oooh thank you!

You just made me laugh, that is such funny visual. Made me think of Monty Python's Flying Circus.

[proud2BlibKansan]

70. As usual, that is awesome!

Thanks for a great one - once again.

[Mz Pip]

60. A few years ago

a very high profile gay guy died of AIDS. I can't remember his name - Randy Shites maybe? sp? There was a memorial outside City Hall that was attended by thousands. Phelps' merry band of homophobic cretins showed up with their sighs and chants. They were shouted down and slunk off into the night.

Mz Pip
:dem:

[xmas74]

65. We should play "Where's Fred?"

Kinda like where's Waldo.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2312202

And here he is!

[Name removed]

6. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ready4Change]

7. Personally, I'd check with the church.

Find out, as far in advance as you can, when they are going to have a funeral. On those days, don't protest out of respect.

That respect, or lack of it, is really the crux of the problem. Phelps displays his ignorance and arrogance in his lack of respect for the dead and their survivors. Don't copy his example.

Now, if the church has funerals every Sunday, this gets tougher. Might need to seek out another protest spot.

Just my .02

[proud2BlibKansan]

9. I had thought about that

but I really hate to open this door. This year, 1000 feet on the day of a funeral; next year, 1000 feet anytime?

I think I can speak for our group and say we would not protest on the day of a funeral anyway out of respect for the family of the soldier.

But do we let this door open?

[Ready4Change]

18. I hear you.

And it's a tough call. I personally despise the term "free speach zone" as I feel that's what ALL of the USA is supposed to be, not just little, chain link surrounded sections of it.

On the trusting side of my brain, I'd like to think enforcement officials would see this law in context, and use it to remove people whose intent is clearly to disrespect the dead and their survivors. That they would see your protest as something not aimed at and unlikely to adversely effect the funerals.

However, the paranoid side of my brain can see that more small minded enforcement officials could see this as an opportunity to finally remove those dirty, protesting hippies. :)

A lot of it depends on your relations with the people operating the church, the people in the community and potential enforcement officials. If all those relations are good, it should be no problem. Unfortunately, just a couple sour apples in the wrong spots can make a real mess of things. Hard for me to say what your situation would be.

I can wish you well, though!

[nsd]

32. Slippery slope arguments should always be used with care.

It's not right to do actual wrong out of fear that at some point in the indeterminate future a new law will be passed. People should be left alone on the day of a funeral. I'd say that right is more important than your right to protest at a particular spot on that day.

[proud2BlibKansan]

37. But do we give up our rights to protest permanantly

because Fred Phelps is an ass?

[nsd]

56. It's not about the general right to protest.

I don't buy the slippery slope argument because I think there's a real and obvious difference between protesting in a public space and potentially disrupting a private funeral. They're not the same thing. It's not just a small leap from banning protests near funerals to banning protests altogether. It's an enormous (and, IMO, insurmountable) leap -- and I think that people will understand the difference.

When people of different viewpoints live together in society, there have to be compromises, trade-offs. Free speech is not the one and only value we hold dear, to the exclusion of all else. Allowing families and friends to mourn their loved ones in peace is also an important value. This bill seems to me to be a reasonable compromise, perhaps not in the eyes of a free speech absolutist, but in the eyes of people who do care about free speech but also care about privacy.

[proud2BlibKansan]

63. The problem we have though is the way the new law is worded

It doesn't address the difference between disrupting a funeral and protesting in a public space. It just says you can't protest within 1000 feet of a church on the day of a funeral. Doesn't say WHAT you can't protest.

[ManiacJoe]

90. If it said WHAT you can/cannot protest then

the law would be unconstitutional because it discriminates on content.

The idea is to prevent the practice of freedom of speech from interfering with the practice of freedom of religion when both want to use the same time and location. Whether the law is worded well is another story....

[MindPilot]

12. High moral ground here

Even the most righty freakazoid I know doesn't approve of Phelps tactics. We on the left have a great opportunity to walk the walk on this issue. Most of us have proudly announced to that we "may hate them for what they say..." and now we have a perfect opportunity to prove it.

[proud2BlibKansan]

15. I like that - nice encouraging words

Thanks!

[janx]

14. Just move a foot or two back from the church!

;-)

[proud2BlibKansan]

16. I hadn't thought of that

I guess we could measure the actual distance.

[janx]

21. Sure! Tape a line, and then stay behind it.

At that point you're perfectly legal.

[Asgaya Dihi]

17. Right is right, and wrong is wrong.

It doesn't matter if we are sympathetic to the people involved or not, what matters is would we like to have to live under those rules ourselves. We excused all kinds of things for the drug war, that gave us our current prison system and the militarization of our police. We excused drastic measures for it, it's only druggies after all, so they chipped at our Constitutional rights and now we've all lost some of them. We wanted the middle class to do well through Clinton, didn't look much at what was really happening to the poor though. That lead us right into a nice little mindset where the bottom was already beside the point and it wasn't so hard to drop the middle as well. Our racial balance, record of abuse, and treatment of the poor in our own prison systems made the way we deal with foreign inmates so much more reasonable seeming. We can do it to them because we've become so comfortable doing it to our own.

It all starts with small steps, but an excess or abuse by either side will just excuse further abuse by both. Unless that's the road we want to be on when it comes to the time to apply it to us don't go down it to start with.

[kiteinthewind]

19. As much as I am sickened by this pervert, Phelps, we must protect the

rights that the First Amendment gives us, even tho it gives the same rights to people like him. I remember, years ago, the KKK wanted to do a radio show, I think in Dodge City, KS, can't remember all the details, but I remember thinking as much as it sickened me for them to have a show, if their rights are taken away, only a matter of time before mine are too. Proud, I liked the suggestion of measuring to see exactly where the 1000 feet is. Maybe we could manage to stay close to the corner of Nichols and 47th. I am not a good estimator of distance, but let's check it out. As far as the ACLU, I think we need to support them in their challenge of the wording. Just my thoughts!
:dilemma:

[JHH]

23. The rights of families

What of the rights of mothers, fathers, brothers and sisters to say good by to their loved ones in peace.

Protesting war at a someone Else's funeral is not a the best way to grow the cause.

[proud2BlibKansan]

28. Phelps does not protest the war

His fight is against homosexuality and in his sick perverted mind the US is complicit in promoting homosexuality and so he protests at soldier's funerals, as he says they are respresenting the US.

I think I can speak for our group and say we would never protest on the day of a soldier's funeral anyway - certainly not anywhere near the funeral.

The dilemma is that free speech is being infringed upon by this law. Do we allow it as it is meant to shut Phelps up? Or do we fight for everyone's right to free speech? And keep in mind that the entire Phelps family is made up of attorneys and they will definitely fight this law themselves.

[mike_c]

30. there are no such rights, I'm afraid-- nor should there be....

What you're proposing-- the "right" to conduct some activity without being impinged upon by someone else's expression-- is the "right" to stifle dissent when you want dissenting voices silenced. When dissenting views are "inappropriate." That is precisely when they should NOT be silenced-- even the voices of shit-for-brains hate mongers like Fred Phelps.

on edit-- just to make myself clear, it makes ZERO difference that the activity in question is someone's funeral. That might be tacky as all get out, but it's protected by the Constitution. The aggrieved relatives also have the right to express their dismay in front of Phelp's church services.

[xmas74]

48. Bingo!

And concerned citizens have the right to counter-protest Phelps whenever they feel like it.

[xmas74]

34. Phelps is a homophobic SOB.

He not protesting the war-he's actually protesting against the soldiers who died. He's using the law to his advantage. It's never supposed to be in our best interest-he's not on our side. But what he's done is to make sure that MO can break up a protest at any time.

And the area she is referring to is an area that has a decent amount of traffic. The protests are held at the same spot on the same day at the same time every week. In some towns you would be hard-pressed to find a spot that would be allowed.

[Rabrrrrrr]

47. There is no inherit right for them to be "in peace"

Part of living in a free society is the risk that we will hear or see something that is offensive to us.

Too goddamned bad for those "who feel bad" because someone else has a contrary opinion.

That said, my visceral gut choice would be to make it legal to fire upon Phelps and his protestors; and while I don't believe the family's have a LEGAL right to be free of things that make them bad, I do think they have a moral right to it, and Phelps is clearly violating that.

But, while it might *seem* to make sense to limit Phelps since he's such a hatefilled windbag fuck, if we allow his speech to be restricted, then we have allowed the speech of ALL OF US to be restricted.

[proud2BlibKansan]

24. I don't think Benson is working on behalf of the ACLU on this one

I talked to him yesterday and he didn't mention the ACLU being involved. I think it is just his firm.

I have know Arthur Benson for many years and he is good people.

He is also a progressive. He told me he did belong to DFA, BTW. (Yes, of course I asked!)

Anyway, we can trust him to do top drawer legal work on this. I would sure rather be represented by him than by Phelps.

I am in favor of at least meeting with him to discuss details. My concerns are if we will be harrassed by agent mike over this. I am thinking tax audits, etc. I will straight out ask him about that before I sign on.

I have sent an email to the 63 Street Patriot group. Let's see what Bob and Terry and them think. Bob has gone to Topeka so many times to protest against Phelps, I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't want to sign on to this.

What a dilemma, eh?

See what you missed yesterday?? :)

[mike_c]

20. I'd recommend challenging the law even if only to benefit Phelps....

Limiting free speech is wrong, and I believe it's unconstitutional-- even limiting the hate speech of shit mongers like Phelps.

[treestar]

This is like the Nazis marching in Peoria

Let them march. Fight their ideas with ideas.

All of this kind of thing can be traced to the idea that some speech is dangerous because it could convince other people to go along. It is based on basic distrust of fellow man - he hears a Nazi talk he'll become a Nazi - well, I wouldn't.

And we just have to risk it and hope the bad ideas fall because they are bad ideas, not because anyone was prohibited from hearing them.

Protesting at a funeral sure is rude, but we have to ignore it and make it go away that way, even though that's hard. It's called being a grown up. We keep running to the legislature every time there's any type of problem. Now the freepers are doing it.

[Rabrrrrrr]

22. Free speech should never be limited. Fight the law.

Even though Phelps is a sick, disgusting twisted asshole, he has the right to protest all he wants, even around funerals.

[JHH]

27. If you think speech should not be limited

then try saying bomb the next time you fly or yell out fire at a movie theater

[proud2BlibKansan]

29. Study the constitution

Hate speech is not the same thing as yelling fire in a crowded theater.

[Rabrrrrrr]

45. If you think that's free speech, then you need to read the Constitution

and read the law.

[create.peace]

25. Fred Red Herring- Must Support Free Speech

Fred Phelps is a red herring in this. is my opinion. Knowing that we progressives find him vile and repugnant, the politicians who want to curb speech against their own stances seem to have written this law to blur the line between protesting the activities at a church, and protesting something else, simply in the vicinity of a church.

I would think that there will be more strange bedfellows in this. Our peace center in Wichita is across the street from a church, and as sometimes a funeral could be arranged in a few days, the activities at the center are usually planned way in advance. So what would happen to us when we already would have an event planned and we find out a funeral has been scheduled for that time....

When the Bring Them Home Now tour came through after Camp Casey ended last summer, there was a man with an anti-choice cube-truck with an aborted fetus, full color, on the side panel. We were not having a protest, just a press conference; he, however, was protesting our 'sinful' peaceful ways. If there had been a funeral, it was a Wednesday, what then???

This is tricky, but I think we must stand on the side of free speech. If there is a way of joining the suit while distancing ourselves (protesters for peace) from the Phelps Kult, so much the better. I would check out this lawyer, though, and see if he/she is not just a setup. I still would pursue it but would check out the ACLU's lawyers on it.

One could see many conflicts in this concerning massive marches in NYC, LA, Chicago, DC, lots of churches, lots of funerals......

[proud2BlibKansan]

31. Hey Hannah!

I know this lawyer very well. He is good people. And as I said, I would sure rather see him fight this law than Phelps.

That abortion truck is so repulsive! It tempts me to get one ourselves and put pictures of dead and injured Iraqi kids on the side. But the idea is to gain followers, not repulse people, eh?

Peace! And Happy Memorial Day!
:hi:

[create.peace]

42. Our posts crossed each other! re: lawyer

Hi!!

All I had to go on was that 'a lawyer' had talked to you, so I wanted to make sure. To quote one of your and my faves: "Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you!"


I was at a bluesfest yesterday in Sedan, and wearing my Crawford Peacehouse Tshirt, and some buttons (food not bombs, the revolution starts now, and 1. steal the election 2. steal everything else) and got lots of good feedback. Alot of people (mostly women) are totally fed up with this admiseration. These were KS and OK folks! also Watermelon Slim, a vfp, friend of Ward and those guys, played and will be in Russell at bluesfest there (Russell, she says???) and is so cool and speaking out supporting VFP at his performances.

So, let's be walking billboards for our stand against tyranny. You never know who you will meet!

[proud2BlibKansan]

50. When is the Russell bluesfest?

I LOVE the blues!

[create.peace]

88. Nobody gets outa here without singin' the blues (adventures in babysitting

this is relevant to the topic of free speech because the blues is protected speech!!!

Flatland Blues Festival - Russell, KS
June 3—4, 2006

Performers:
http://www.flatlandblues.com/2006/perf.html

I know half the lineup and they are great!!
wish we could be there but are in Ark City for prairiefest!

Ticket Prices: $15 advance & $20 At the door (Adult)
$5 Advance & $10 at the door (Children 6-14)
Children under 5 are Free
buy online

[create.peace]

35. If We had been able to stop the war, Phelps wouldn't have venues...

As I was reread some posts, written while I was writing my post, it occured to me that we were already hamstrung be the socalled PATRIOT act during the build up to war. Our free speech was already limited to zones, and the media coverage of huge marches of ordinary citizen was minimal at best. It is more than time to fight back.

I know that the ACLU is representing Phelps, or at least is challenging a law aimed at him, in another state, so I would check that out. It seems to me that this law could be challenged without any reference to Fred.

To the poster who wrote about the right of a family to a respectful atmosphere during the services, I agree, but the peace protesters are not targetting the church as Fred is. I am sure that there could be an agreement amongst the protesters to tone down the volume. A silent protest sometimes is very effective, but signs can't be read during a church service so.... Also, true grief is deaf to most everything that is going on around you, so the objection to ambiant noise is probably not well founded.


Let's just stop the war and take Fred's current battlefield away.

[xmas74]

33. You know that I hate Phelps with a white-hot passion.

You also know that I am already planning on drinking mass amounts of coffee and Mt Dew when he dies-gotta keep the bladder as full as possible so that I really can piss on his grave.

But in this case I have to back him. This is a slippery slope. First, they take away his clans' rights to protest at military funerals. What's to stop them from taking away other rights, whether it be protesting or writing LTTE's (since that is expressing an opinion publicly) or any other form of public expression (such as signs, bumperstickers, etc-all public expression and I have to wonder if the bill could be retooled to eventually include it).

I hate the man but I have to back him up in this instance. I hated him protesting gay funerals. I cringed and wanted to punch him every time I saw a sign or heard the mere mention of his name. But I still had to say to myself that, as an American citizen, he had the right. And then I gleefully reminded myself that it also meant that I have the right to protest at his funeral someday.

If we allow his rights to be trampled upon whose to say that we will not end up the same way? Maybe we will never be able to change his mind or ever expect any kind of support from him if we were in the same situation but showing him support in this case is the right thing to do.

[proud2BlibKansan]

36. I already have my sign for his funeral ready

I am assuming you will be standing next to me when the time comes? :)

[xmas74]

46. Of course.

I have a number of friends who plan on joining us. My friends J and M plan on engaging in numerous public displays of affection for the event, since Phelps hates the "f*gs".

Looks like my backyard might be tent city for some of them since they will be driving in from all over the US. (I'm the nearest of the bunch to KS).

[demgurl]

39. I say give Phelps every freedom he wants.

If we would stifle someone else's freedom then we are letting people have the weapon to stifle our own freedoms. I do not want that for myself and so I will not do it to anyone else.

This 1000 ft. rule smells exactly like the freedom zones that * sets up when he has gatherings. How many of us said that what * was doing was on the up and up and how creating freedom zones does not restrict our freedom in any way?

I did not like it being done to us and I will not condone it being done to anyone else. Each time we allow this to happen, it pushes the bar a little more. It sets a new precedent and erodes our freedoms that much more.

If freedoms zones are not good enough than 1000 foot rules should be disdained as well. I do not agree with Phelps in any way shape or form but I would gladly go to jail to fight for his right to protest. We should all have the right to protest without restrictions.

[rman]

40. Do your peace vigils take place while there's a funeral?

Are your vigils noisy? Disrespectful to the deceased or their family?

[kiteinthewind]

43. We are in a shopping district but there are several churches nearby. Don't

know if there are funerals, but never noticed anything on Sunday afternoon that would lead me to believe that. No, our vigils are not noisy, but people honk to show their support as they drive by. No, never disrespectful of the deceased or their family, and I see where you are going with it, but I guess then we get into who's definition of disrespectful? And where does it say in the constitution that you can't be disrespectful? I can't stand Phelps, and I have no doubt he is hurtful to families of the deceased, but if we take away his free speech, then ours could be taken away next. This is so difficult.

[rman]

49. I'm not sure where i'm going with this..

I do think there's an argument to be made to prohibit people from targeting a funeral as the subject of a protest and making a point of it being heard by family members of the deceased, during the funeral even. I think family members have a right to morn in peace and such a protest violates that right. The protesters can express their opinion on some other occasion, the funeral takes place only once.

I think laws should be made that do allow for demonstrations near churches as long as those are not disruptive of what takes place inside the church. I think objective criteria can be formulated; nothing louder than background noise (traffic etc), and nothing directed at visitors inside the church.

I guess that's were i was going.

[northzax]

58. what if, just as a thought

instead of having a memorial service in a church, you had one outside? does it have to be a funeral, in a church? My family is cremated and has the ashes scattered in places we treasure, can we restrict in all those places as well, or just churches? what about a Jewish family sitting shiv?

most places already have laws about disturbing the peace, certainly making enough noise outside a church (while on public property) would count, almost everywhere, as a violation of a noise ordinance, or disturbing the peace.

sure, it may be poor taste to protest a funeral (although I did at President Reagan's procession) but the Constitution clearly isn't all that concerned about poor taste.

[Cameron27]

44. Well that's the point isn't it

How would freedom of speech be defiled by establishing a law to prohibit any demonstrations of any kind during an actual private funeral ceremony?

Before this maniac began his vile protests, I thought there actually were ordinances in place to protect against this sort of thing

[proud2BlibKansan]

51. We protest twice a week at 2 different places.

Both times not far from a church. I doubt there are funerals on Sunday but there are likely to be on Tuesdays.

The only noise is from cars who drive by and honk for peace. Oh and we do usually have at least one person drive by and yell curse words at us. But that is THEIR noise, not ours.

I don't believe we are being disrespectful to the deceased or the family, but since I realize the family may see what we are doing as disrespectful, I would refrain from protesting near their funeral.

[kiteinthewind]

41. Some good advice from Bluzmann57

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=226x4678#4679

[saltpoint]

53. While Phelps et al are ghastly excuses for civil libertarians, they

should have the same right to demonstrate as other groups we prefer and admire.

I thought of the Neo-Nazi and Klan groups who sometimes get permits to march through Skokie, Illinois.

The ACLU protects their right to free speech, even as it does progressive groups on those same streets.

Public outcry against Phelps is not unanimous, but it's close. Even conservative neocons recognize extremely bad form when they see it, and Phelps' group more than qualifies for bad form.

I have no lawyerin' skills, Proud2Blib, but my hunch is that if we want free speech for the left of the scale, we have to honor it on the other side too, even if it's wielded by spiritual thugs like Fred Phelps.

[northzax]

55. messy, this democracy stuff, huh?

I do believe that Jesus fella said something about what happens to the least of us, happens to all of us.

My big question is, who defines what a protest is? If I stand on the sidewalk and watch a military funeral, holding a sign that says "Thank you for your sacrifice, God Bless America." isn't that actually a protest? It's an expression of my first Amendment rights, just as holding a sign that says "God hates war" would be. So is all speech restricted, or just the speech the cops want restricted? What if the soldier was anti-this war and shared the same sentiment? would then holding a sign that says God Bless America be a protest? What if 1000 feet from the church is, in fact, my personal property? can I not put a sign in my front yard, on my own property? what if I was there first, and the church just opened up?

ay, carumba, mine head hurts from the possibilities. Better not start restricting the speech in the first place.

[Hippo_Tron]

59. Look, if somebody were to just go kick Fred Phelps in the balls...

while he is protesting a soldier's funeral, one would be hard pressed to find a jury that would convict that person of assault.

[proud2BlibKansan]

61. Phelps would sue

[Hippo_Tron]

79. And again, find me a jury that will award him any money

You would have to fill it with mindless anti-gay zombies.

[proud2BlibKansan]

80. It happens all the time

Where do you think he gets his money?

[Hippo_Tron]

81. As far as I knew...

Phelps was a legitimate attorney before he started going into the "fag hatred" business. That has to account for some of it. I also figured that crazy people contribute to his cause all of the time.

[proud2BlibKansan]

82. He has been disbarred

but his whole family is made up of lawyers. He was originally a preacher and then went to law school.

I honestly don't know if he gets many donations. He does all kinds of crazy things for money. His kids sold candy door to door for years in Topeka. And they did well enough to support his huge family and pay his law school tuition.

[kiteinthewind]

67. Could you take care of that, Hippo_Tron?!?!

Uh, just kiddin. Sort of. Maybe not. Do you have any steel toed boots? Okay, I guess I have to say just jokin.
:dilemma:

[Eric J in MN]

62. As Fred Phelps loses his free speech, so do the rest of us.

nt

[proud2BlibKansan]

64. An unfortunate but true fact

[snot]

66. GLAD YOU ASKED

I consider myself a hard-core first amendment fan. But to me, the whole point of the first amendment is to ensure that ideas are aired where they can be heard by the gov't and the general public. I want unfettered free speech in the village square, on non-residential streets and in all the media.

But, for example, I do NOT believe anti-abortionists should have the right to picket the homes of individual doctors. That is not an attempt to get their message out to the gov't or the general public; that's just an effort at personal harrassment and intimidation of a single individual.

Similarly, I do not believe corporations should have the unfettered first amendment right to invade our privacy by calling us in our homes at all hours. There are Constitutional privacy rights and other rights that can and should be balanced against first amendment rights, especially when the time and place are not aimed so much at gaining attention from the gov't or general public but seem aimed more at harassing individuals or small groups.

I certainly haven't analyzed all the pros and cons of protests at funerals, but I'm inclined to view funerals of people who were not public figures as occasions when the privacy of those attending should outweigh the first amendment rights of protestors, whichever side they're on.

[readmoreoften]

68. Very good point.

I think all GLBT families should get restraining orders from Phelps before funerals. Does an abusive boyfriend have the right to stand outside a schoolyard playground and yell, "you're mother's a fucking whore" to his ex-girlfriend's children at recess. Probably not. Why should a man carrying a sign insinuating that my girlfriend practiced bestiality be allowed to disrupt her funeral?

Shit, I'm involved in a labor strike and I can't even protest near my employer's events. I can't get within 20 blocks of the RNC. All of a sudden if Fred Phelps can't say I'm a gerbilfucker at my funeral, America is going to lose its right to free speech?

[Disturbed]

69. Busholini's Executive Order.

How will that play out?

Freedom of Speech doesn't mean that only people we agree with can speak.

[snot]

91. WHAT you say shd not be restricted; but

WHERE and WHEN you say it -- that's the issue for me. You should have an absolute right to say anything you want in the village square, in the media, or other places that normally function as forums for expressions of opinion.

I just don't see a funeral as that kind of forum.

I think that some "demonstrations" seem designed more to harass small groups of private individuals rather than to influence public or opinion or government policy, and when it looks like harassment, I'm less sympathetic to the free speech claim.

[WolverineDG]

71. Free speech is free speech

even if you don't like the message & think what the Phelps cult is doing is morally disgusting & wrong. Phelps isn't winning ANYONE over to his side by protesting soldiers' funerals. In fact, he's pissing conservatives off. Let me quote you an email I received from my right-wing brother (it was regarding another topic & he was defending me against some really rabid wingnuts in doing so, & color me :o when I discovered he even knew who Fred Phelps was):

>> Look at the wingnuts protesting military funerals. They
Muslims. Nope. Baptists. Albeit self proclaimed.<<

What we should be doing is what the freepers did: counter-protest. (thought I'd never agree with THEM, will wonders never cease?)

dg

[proud2BlibKansan]

73. Well do we have to be there on the same day as the freepers?

Could we maybe come up with a rotating schedule? I don't mind agreeing with them on this but do they have to actually be there at the same time I am? :)

[WolverineDG]

75. LOL

Maybe Skinner & Rimjob need to get together & work out a schedule for the counter-protests. ;)

dg

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

72. I Say Leave It Alone.

I think it is a fine law. It shouldn't impede your peace protests whatsoever, and if there was a day that there was a funeral at the church it would probably be best to hold the protest till afterwards, or another day, anyway.

[proud2BlibKansan]

74. And if they change the law to prohibit all protests?

I don't know that I want to let that happen.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

76. I Don't Think They'd Get Away With That.

But limiting it to only respecting funerals would have most people's support. If that's all the law is right now then I support it.

[proud2BlibKansan]

78. This administration is getting away with all kinds of crap

I never thought I would see the day when my phone company would turn over phone records to the govt.

[Beelzebud]

77. Free Speech is more important than Phelps.

[Jeffersons Ghost]

84. The trouble with fighting for human freedom...

"The trouble about fighting for human freedom is that you have to spend so much of your life defending sons of bitches; for oppressive laws are always aimed at them originally, and oppression must be stopped in the beginning if it is to be stopped at all."

-- H.L. Mencken

[dalaigh lllama]

85. The terms of that law seem waaaay too broad

Seems to me the best way to deal with Phelps & Psychos, Inc. would be to have counter protestors everywhere they went to drown them out and ridicule them.

[proud2BlibKansan]

87. I like the bikers who drown them out

best idea I have heard yet.

[Fovea]

86. Freedom is the freedom to say

things that are not popular.
Fred, as hateful as the little punk is, is not worth cancelling the 1st amendment for.

And when I say hateful I have seen him in action one too many times.

[atommom]

89. I agree that this law is far too broad.

If lawmakers had wanted to, they could have made it more specific, to target Phelps' tactics more directly. Broad prohibitions on protests are not a good thing.