The SCOTUS hears the case involving the Westboro Church and the Snyder's today.

START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE

I do not know how these people can sleep at night after the pain they purposely inflict on people that have already suffered incredible loss. I know this is a free country but this is just going too far, if you hate this country that much do us all a favor and don’t let the door hit you in the butt on the way out, hell we will even pay for the airfare.

Oh I hope and pray that this Father of a fallen Marine wins this in the Supreme Court.   These hate mongers need to be stopped. 

Because Jim and I are a part of the Patriot Guard riders...we've seen them at several funerals over the years.    They're despicable people and nothing is more rewarding to be a part of & watch hundreds of bikers drown them out and stand guard around the families who are grieving the loss of their soldier.

[smiley=bow.gif]
Linda_Howell wrote on Oct 6^th, 2010 at 11:27am:

Oh I hope and pray that this Father of a fallen Marine wins this in the Supreme Court.   These hate mongers need to be stopped.  Because Jim and I are a part of the Patriot Guard riders...we've seen them at several funerals over the years.    They're despicable people and nothing is more rewarding to be a part of & watch hundreds of bikers drown them out and stand guard around the families who are grieving the loss of their soldier.

Very cool Linda & Jim!  [smiley=dankk2.gif]  [smiley=bow.gif]

It's disgusting to know that these excuses of human flash are just right up the road from us.

Whoopi Goldberg was talking about it on The View this morning, saying "if you hate our country so much, MOVE!"  She referred to them as being a "taliban" of sorts.  Couldn't agree more...

This is one of just a few things I get worked up about, and it infuriates me anytime I hear their names!  >:(

  Here is a really disgusting picture of what they're doing to the next generation of hate maongers.

    START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE

There should be some limit on "free speech"   This is defamation.  The Baptist churches of America have said repeatedly that these people are NOT a part of their religion and are embarassed by them.   

I understand how it infuriates you Steph...right about now I need to get my blood pressure under control..
   

Linda_Howell wrote on Oct 6^th, 2010 at 1:12pm:

There should be some limit on "free speech"

This particular subject aside, who decides where that limit should be? What is to stop the "who" from limiting those that disagree with the "where"? What if your side is the one that suffers from that limit?

Voluntarily giving up freedoms shouldn't be done with emotion nor haste.

These people are sick... very sick.. Like Whoopi said this morning.. leave the country...

The first time I encountered these sick people was at a funeral procession in Iowa.. the deceased soldier was on a friend of mine. It hurt  me like the dickens to see them out there protesting and nothing can be done to stop them... if it hurt me that much, I could only imagine how the family felt......  As far as I'm concern, this goes beyond  freedom of speech .. this is blasphemy,,,

LadyLuv

I believe the case will end up being thrown out again. 

As a side thought, there can be policies put into place where the picketing/protesting has to stay so many yards away, like they do with restraining orders.  It could probably be petitioned to put into place, but I don't know how?  Since many cemeteries are not State or Federal land (right?  or am I wrong??), I would think whatever entity owns it needs to make the petition??


Racer1_NC wrote on Oct 6^th, 2010 at 1:37pm:

Linda_Howell wrote on Oct 6th, 2010 at 1:12pm: There should be some limit on "free speech"        This particular subject aside, who decides where that limit should be? What is to stop the "who" from limiting those that disagree with the "where"? What if your side is the one that suffers from that limit? Voluntarily giving up freedoms shouldn't be done with emotion nor haste.

Agreed.

Free speech is a cornerstone of democracy, however with that freedom comes a responsibility. An example of this would be that whilst we can free to shout fire for no reason at all in a crowded shop we have the responsibility not to as it could potentially endanger others.

We are free to exercise our freedom of speech anywhere but there is again the responsibility to pick somewhere appropriate. Places like the middle lane of a freeway and in a hospital operating theatre are clearly not appropriate.

So whilst they have the freedom to exercise their freedom of speech, doing so at a funeral is something I'd consider as being totally inappropriate and therefore irresponsible, abusing their responsibility.

If they want to change US policy, which as a democracy it is their right to want, they should be exercising their freedom of speech by targeting it at the decision makers such as the president, congressmen and senators.

By targeting the families of fallen soldiers they are using their freedom without responsibility. The families can't change anything.

At the same time I personally find their actions to be abhorrent. They are using their "religion" and the freedoms that have been gained by the sacrifices of generations of the armed forces to express pure hatred at those who defend those rights they are abusing.

Probably as I'm not from the US I find the damages figures quoted in the article of $11million and $5million troubling. To me, this is as if you can put a price on the "damage" that these people have done. Their actions will have resulted in the family and friends of the fallen experiencing a hurt that will live with them for the rest of their lives, so putting a price on it cheapens that hurt.

I hope the SCOTUS comes to a fair and just decision where there is a balance between freedom and responsibility. And the result is that families can avoid being exposed to such hatred at a time of grief.

Theodore Roosevelt said many times that free citizens have a responsibility to act as though they deserve it.

These people are child abusers along with being obnoxious wastes of good carbon.

Charlie

Melissa,
The problem is that they do stay off cemetary/church property.  They are usually on the side of the road, standing on public property.

And while we can discuss *free speech* until the cows come home, not all speech is protected under this doctrine.  You cannot stand up in a crowded place and yell *fire*. 

Not all speech is protected.

Chaplinsky vs. New hampshire 1942
There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting words" those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morailty.

Now, that being said, subsequent Supreme Court Rulings have narrowed the original ruling.

There is freedom to disagree and there is hate speech and what this group is doing is hate speech.

Quote:

This particular subject aside, who decides where that limit should be? What is to stop the "who" from limiting those that disagree with the "where"? What if your side is the one that suffers from that limit? Voluntarily giving up freedoms shouldn't be done with emotion nor haste

Quote:

I could not agree more. I'm generally against trying to legislate against "hate speech" for exactly that reason. I've been accused of hate speech because I disagreed with a politician's fiscal policy, qualifications and general intelligence.............. Back to top

I knew there was a reason I should have just shut my mouth regarding this subject.  Charlie has a point however...This should be considered child abuse.  If I send my daughter to school with 2 Midol for her Menstral cramps and I get pulled into to the office for child...what> endagerment???   surely these idiots shouold be charged with something.


Going to my corner now and will never put forth another political/religious/point of view again.  I don't have the skin for this kind of stuff.

deltadarlin wrote on Oct 6^th, 2010 at 8:18pm:

There is freedom to disagree and there is hate speech and what this group is doing is hate speech.

I don't buy into the whole concept of "hate speech". Why? Simply put....it's all too easy these days to label a person....a group....and/or an ideology as "haters" simply for the act of verbally disagreeing with another.

Another way of looking at it.....in the '50s and '60s I feel certain one could have found a backwater, peckerwood judge in the rural south to declare civil rights speeches "hate speech" and thus not allowed them. Instead of that, they just turned the dogs loose and the country heard about it......because of that pesky free speech thing.

I've said many times....I love the fact that idiots can speak their minds.....it lets me know who to keep my eye on.

How any Human Being, who has even the most basic understanding of the tenants of Christ's message, can claim that they can interpret a resultant outcome as manifestation of God's anger is both ignorant and pretentious.

If the Creator has the power to set the Universe in motion and the patience to wait for the primordial soup to coalesce into living self aware animals, than I truly believe that It alone has the ability to pass judgment on the outcome of the interactions of It's creation.

I have come to find that the people who have either been saved or who have always possessed the right faith, assume and feel obligated to pass judgment on others and enlighten the sinners to the correct way of thinking and believing.

Is a faith that is obtained through honest questioning more deep than one that is without doubt?

Free thought and free beliefs need not be imposed on others via the noble concept of free speech. When free speech is abused to intentionally hurt another with malice it is neither Humane or Christlike.

Their level of hubris borders on assault.

Steve G

Racer1_NC wrote on Oct 6^th, 2010 at 8:46pm:

deltadarlin wrote on Oct 6th, 2010 at 8:18pm: There is freedom to disagree and there is hate speech and what this group is doing is hate speech. I don't buy into the whole concept of "hate speech". Why? Simply put....it's all too easy these days to label a person....a group....and/or an ideology as "haters" simply for the act of verbally disagreeing with another. Another way of looking at it.....in the '50s and '60s I feel certain one could have found a backwater, peckerwood judge in the rural south to declare civil rights speeches "hate speech" and thus not allowed them. Instead of that, they just turned the dogs loose and the country heard about it......because of that pesky free speech thing. I've said many times....I love the fact that idiots can speak their minds.....it lets me know who to keep my eye on.

SOOOOoooooooo agreed.  Happens every day.

The defense of free speech as defined in the Constitution means that the most reprehensible speech is what will be ruled upon, and allowed.  Good, proper, courteous speech is not called into question. 

While I despise the people of "Westboro Baptist Church" (I put it in quotes because the only true thing about the name is the location) we cannot disallow their abuse of our freedoms without leaving the door open for the disallowance of our own speech that does not fit within what someone else would agree with.

This board is an example.  We often get into spirited debate over political matters.  While for the most part, especially since we have moderators, it remains civil, if we were to start limiting what is protected speech and what is not one side of the argument or the other could be curtailed.  I would never want that to happen.  There are those on here whom I disagree with whole-heartedly politically, but I would never want their speech (even though they are wrong ;)) to be stopped.  On occasion I have even been at least partly persuaded by the discussion.

I do wish though that the media would quit calling those scumbags "fundamentalists".  A fundamentalist is simply one who holds closely to the fundamentals of the tenets of his faith.  Being a fundamentalist does not make one intolerant, but rather the contrary.  A true fundamental Christian will love all people equally whether they follow the same beliefs or actions or not.  A true fundamentalist Christian knows he is not the judge, but rather is responsible to share (not force) the Gospel from that Judge that we will all stand before.

Jerry

Freedom of speech is a broad avenue to challenge crossing, but I've often wondered why they are not considered disturbing or breaching the peace.  I don't know the law so looked online.  It seems to apply mostly to loud noise in residential areas.  There are though pieces within the law that should seem to apply to be considered when it's a funeral in a cemetery.



Disturbing the Peace Law & Legal Definition

Disturbing the peace is a minor criminal offense that may be charged when someone makes excessive noise, especially in a residential area, such as by operation of any tool, equipment, vehicle, electronic device, set, instrument, television, phonograph, machine or other noise- or sound-producing device. Local laws vary, so they should be consulted for specific requirements in your area.

In some cases, an activity may only disturb a particular individiual, and the remedy would be a private nuisance claim in which injunctive relief and/or damages may be recovered.

The following is an example of a state statute dealing with disturbing the peace:

"Elements of Disturbing the Peace: It shall be unlawful for any person to:

Make, continue, maintain or cause to be made or continued any excessive, unnecessary, unreasonable or unusually loud noise or any noise in such manner as to annoy, offend, disturb, injure or endanger the comfort, repose, health, peace or safety of any reasonable person of normal auditory sensitivity residing in the area.
Use, operate or permit the use or operation of any electronic device, radio receiving set, television, musical instrument, phonograph or other machine or device for the producing or reproducing of sound in such manner as to disturb the peace, quiet and comfort of any reasonable person of normal auditory sensitivity inhabiting the area.
Congregate because of, participate in or be in any party or gathering of people from which sound emanates of a sufficient volume so as to disturb the peace, quiet or repose of any reasonable person of normal auditory sensitivity residing in any residential area. No person shall visit or remain within any residential dwelling unit wherein such party or gathering is taking place except persons who have gone there for the sole purpose of abating said disturbance. A police officer may order all persons present in any group or gathering from the dwelling unit to immediately disperse in lieu of being charged under this Section."

START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE




breach of peace / disturbing the public peace and quiet
Explanation:
Disturbing the peace is a crime generally defined as the unsettling of proper order in a public space through one's actions.

This can include creating loud noise by fighting or challenging to fight, disturbing others by loud and unreasonable noise, or using offensive words likely to incite violence.

Disturbing the peace is typically considered a misdemeanor and is often punishable by either a fine or brief term in jail.
START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE

Listening to, and reading, some of the commentaries from yesterday on the case before SCOTUS, it would appear the matter hinges on whether or not the father was targeted directly. If the church was picketing in general and lodging a general protest, it would be difficult to disallow even a reprehenisble demonstration. But if they were targeting the father, or the family, or the fallen soldier then such demonstrations may fall under a category of "hate speech." The church seems to agree with this definition, offering in their defense that the father had become a public figure by speaking with the media. I don't think SCOTUS is going to buy that, and I think they will determine this to be a targeted, and thus not protected, "hate crime." And I agree. For what it's worth. Blessings to all who love God and country more than themselves! lance

I think *targeted* may be the defining point here.  I don't have a problem with what the Westboro people are saying (not in the context of havint the right to say what they want to), what I do have a problem with is that they are targeting a particular group of people, under particular circumstances, thereby creating a *captive audience*. 

If they want to line the roads of every major road out there and chant their drivel, go for it.  If they want to stand on the steps of the Supreme Court and hold their signs up, go for it.  If they want to stand anywhere and protest, go for it.  BUT don't target a specific group at a specific time.

If Fred Phelps and his group are so firm in their beliefs, why not attend Gay Pride Parades and protest?  Why don't they target military bases?  They could easily stand on the roadside and spew their hatred to their hearts' content.

Instead, they target people who they know are particularly vulnerable.

START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE

Free speech or harrassment.

I'm way on the side of obnoxious free speech but this is stupid. However, the country has to put up with know nothings every now and then....bad manners and all. This kind of protest....if that's what it may loosely be called, isn't for me. I'd be humiliated to be on their side of the rope.

Charlie

Marc wrote on Oct 7^th, 2010 at 9:46am:

When common sense (and a lack of political correctness) existed in this country, it would go like this: "Your Honor, we were at the funeral waving signs and screaming that we were glad that the soldier got killed. Then his family and friends came over and beat the Hell out of us." Response by the Judge: "Well, what did you expect them to do - that was their son!? I'm tempted to charge YOU with intentionally inciting violence/riot, kinda like yelling fire in crowded theater." As we use less common sense, we try to make up for it with more laws. It doesn't work well.

Agree....

deltadarlin wrote on Oct 7^th, 2010 at 8:20am:

Instead, they target people who they know are particularly vulnerable.

Actually Delta...they go where it will get the most media coverage and spark the most arguments. Their tactics seem to work rather well........unfortunately. If they were protesting on the side of the road somewhere in Kansas they wouldn't even be on our radar.

Once again....just to illustrate a point. The picture posted by Potter in a different thread referencing Jane Fonda's treasonous actions during the Vietnam War was considered funny and appropriate by most if not all that have commented. I'm reasonably sure that Fonda, her friends and family would consider it "hate speech". When it comes to a citizen's rights, one can't have it both ways. It either is......or is not......for everyone.

As much as I hate to admit it, it is their right to do this.  That soldier died so they could.......

Racer1_NC wrote on Oct 7^th, 2010 at 1:35pm:

deltadarlin wrote on Oct 7th, 2010 at 8:20am: Instead, they target people who they know are particularly vulnerable. Once again....just to illustrate a point. The picture posted by Potter in a different thread referencing Jane Fonda's treasonous actions during the Vietnam War was considered funny and appropriate by most if not all that have commented. I'm reasonably sure that Fonda, her friends and family would consider it "hate speech". When it comes to a citizen's rights, one can't have it both ways. It either is......or is not......for everyone.

Admit it or not, you're right Racer...

Keep in mind, Snyder is not suing over the Westboro's Church using free speech.  He is suing over the right to privacy.  They are two different issues.

deltadarlin wrote on Oct 8^th, 2010 at 7:47am:

the right to privacy

That thread title may have altered the flow of conversation.




Quote:

They are two different issues.

Unfortunately, I think the Supreme Court will find in favor of Westboro "church" based on free speech issues

UNLESS - it can be shown that Westboro "church" makes it a point to "stalk" the victims of their protests.  They admit that the read the obituaries specifically looking for funerals of fallen military so that they can hold their protest rallies against gays in the military anywhere they can (whether the dead soldier was gay or not makes no difference to them).  This is stalking.

If Westboro really wants to make their statement - why are they not sitting out front of the Pentagon with their signs, why not in front of military installations everywhere in this country.  Why just a soldier's funeral?  Why?  Because they get TV/Media coverage at a funeral, that' why.

And to Linda and Jim - Thank you!  Keep riding.

Sandy

Quote:

Why just a soldier's funeral?  Why?  Because they get TV/Media coverage at a funeral, that' why.

TV eyeball competition. It's similar to "If it bleeds, it leads."

Charlie