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.

Linda_Howell wrote on Oct 6^th, 2010 at 11:27am:


Very cool Linda & Jim!   

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

    Multimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or

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..

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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


SOOOOoooooooo agreed.  Happens every day.

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."

Multimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or




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.
Multimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or

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.

Multimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or

Free speech or harrassment.

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

Agree....

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