Dead Marine's father ordered to pay protesters' legal costs

Quote:

---

(CNN) -- The father of a Marine whose funeral was picketed by the Westboro Baptist Church says an order to pay the protesters' legal costs in a civil claim is nothing less than a "slap in the face."

"By the court making this decision, they're not only telling me that they're taking their side, but I have to pay them money to do this to more soldiers and their families," said Albert Snyder, whose son, Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder, was killed in action in Iraq in 2006.

Members of the fundamentalist church based in Topeka, Kansas, appeared outside Snyder's funeral in 2006 in Westminster, Maryland, carrying signs reading "You're going to hell," "God hates you" and "Thank God for dead soldiers."

Among the teachings of the church, which was founded in 1955 by pastor Fred Phelps, is the belief that God is punishing the United States for "the sin of homosexuality" through events such as soldiers' deaths.

Margie Phelps, the daughter of Fred Phelps and the attorney representing the church in its appeals, also said the money that the church receives from Snyder will be used to finance demonstrations. But she also said that the order was a consequence of his decision to sue the church over the demonstration.

"Mr. Snyder and his attorneys have engaged the legal system; there are some rules to that legal engagement," said Phelps, a member of Westboro who says she has participated in more than 150 protests of military funerals.

"They wanted to shut down the picketing so now they're going to finance it," she said.

The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday ordered that Snyder pay more than $16,000 in costs requested by Westboro for copies of motions, briefs and appendices, according to court documents.

In a motion filed in October, Snyder's lawyer, who is representing him for free, asked the court to dismiss the bill of costs, or, alternatively, reduce the 50-cent fee per page or charge Snyder only for copies that were necessary to make their arguments on appeal.

"We objected based upon ability to pay and the fairness of the situation," Sean Summers said.

The mostly pro-forma ruling is the latest chapter in an ongoing legal saga that pits privacy rights of grieving families against the free speech rights of demonstrators, however disturbing and provocative their message.
Snyder's family sued the church and went to trial in 2007 alleging privacy invasion, intentional infliction of emotional distress and civil conspiracy. A jury awarded the family $2.9 million in compensatory damages plus $8 million in punitive damages, which were reduced to $5 million.

Westboro in 2008 appealed the case to the 4th District, which reversed the judgments a year later, siding with the church's claims that its First Amendment rights had been violated.

"The protest was confined to a public area under supervision and regulation of local law enforcement and did not disrupt the church service," the circuit court opinion said. "Although reasonable people may disagree about the appropriateness of the Phelps' protest, this conduct simply does not satisfy the heavy burden required for the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress under Maryland law."

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case to address issues of laws designed to protect the "sanctity and dignity of memorial and funeral services" as well as the privacy of family and friends of the deceased.
The justices will be asked to address how far states and private entities such as cemeteries and churches can go to justify picket-free zones and the use of "floating buffers" to silence or restrict speech or movements of demonstrators exercising their constitutional rights in a funeral setting.
Both Phelps and Snyder's attorney said they were surprised that the 4th District chose to weigh in on the issue of legal costs when they could have waited until after the Supreme Court hearing.

Phelps believes the ruling bodes well for her side.

"It is a good harbinger of the fact that the Supreme Court will remind this nation that you don't have mob rule. The fact that so many people hate these words does not mean you can silence or penalize them. That's supposed to be the great liberty that we congratulate ourselves on protecting in this nation. We strut all around the world forcing people to give all the liberties we supposedly have," she said.

Phelps anticipated that a Supreme Court ruling in the church's favor would be unpopular, but she said Westboro's members viewed the potential outcome in Biblical terms.

"When the Supreme Court unanimously upholds the 4th Circuit, it's going to put this country in a rage, and we will be expelled," she said. "But whenever it was time for an epic event in the Bible, the thing that happened right before is the prophets were removed from the land, and that's what's going to happen to us. ... We're going to sprint to the end of this race."

Snyder claims he is unable to pay any legal costs in the case and is attempting to raise funds on his son's site, http://www.matthewsnyder.org/. He is equally optimistic that he will prevail before the Supreme Court.

"The American people keep my spirits lifted a lot and give me hope. I think most of the country is on my side on this issue," he said. "Too many people have died to protect our rights and freedoms to have them degraded and spit upon like this church does."

CNN's Bill Mears contributed to this report.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/03/30/....html?hpt=Sbin

---

Being a military guy myself it makes me want to rage that such tasteless protests happens at a deceased person's funeral. To exploit these opportunities in order to parade your hatred against homosexuals is about as selfish and un-Christian as it gets too. The protestors also point to how this country is based around free speech which is ironic since service men and women are the ones putting their lives on the line...goes back to that saying: "I may not agree with what you say but I'll die defending the right to say it."

I am pretty ignorant but I thought this kind of stuff was already outlawed but apparently not or maybe not under these circumstances. How do you think the Supreme Court should rule here? I think it should definitely favor Snyder's family.

I agree with your rage.

Phelps' group should be stopped, in my opinion, from defaming any military funeral. Phelps is an embarrassment to Christianity, and is the opposite of Christian in his actions and opinion, IMO.

Unfortunately...REALLY unfortunately, Phelps seems to have the constitution on his side, (freedom of speech and religious expression), so I can't figure out how to deny him and still keep the very freedoms that he is abusing, and that were defended by the dead military guy whose fueral he is debasing.

There's gotta be some kind of civil suit based intimidation, cruelty or harrassment.

They aren't going to stop the war by protesting a man giving a funeral for his son.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cane

How do you think the Supreme Court should rule here? I think it should definitely favor Snyder's family.

---

Freedom of speech isn't free if it excludes speech that is hateful or objectionable, and justice that tailors its judgments to the most popular outcome isn't worth the name. JMO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

Freedom of speech isn't free if it excludes speech that is hateful or objectionable, and justice that tailors its judgments to the most popular outcome isn't worth the name. JMO.

---

I mostly agree with that however there are still boundaries and lines that shouldn't be crossed without consequence.

Did a search on this subject and came up with some stuff on Wiki :

Quote:

---

The Respect for America’s Fallen Heroes Act (Pub.L. 109-228, 120 Stat. 387, enacted May 29, 2006) is an Act of Congress that prohibits protests within 300 feet (90 m) of the entrance of any cemetery under control of the National Cemetery Administration (a division of the United States Department of Veterans Affairs) from 60 minutes before to 60 minutes after a funeral. Penalties for violating the act are up to $100,000 in fines and up to one year imprisonment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Respect...len_Heroes_Act

---

A handful of states passed similar legislation prior to the above. Looking back on the original article, its no wonder too since that disgusting group of "Christians" have been doing this for quite some time and over 150 funerals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cane

I mostly agree with that however there are still boundaries and lines that shouldn't be crossed without consequence.

Did a search on this subject and came up with some stuff on Wiki :



A handful of states passed similar legislation prior to the above. Looking back on the original article, its no wonder too since that disgusting group of "Christians" have been doing this for quite some time and over 150 funerals.

---

No, you misunderstood, that lady had been to 150 funerals, but they have been doing this since the 70's I believe. Their stance is basically that everyone is going to hell and they are trying to spread their message that you need to hate everyone to get into heaven. Do some research on them, it is appalling. There was a good article in the E-N a few months back because they came to san antonio to protest something (I don't know, maybe it was to protest the sun for being lazy when it sets, its going to hell). It gave a pretty good history of the church, and Fred Phelps himself (he was a freakin civil rights lawyer helping black people pro bono for crying out loud. strange mix there). It also talked about this biker gang that rides around following them from protest to protest launching counter-protests and essentially shouting them down and revving their bikes really loud so the Westboro church members cant be heard.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

Freedom of speech isn't free if it excludes speech that is hateful or objectionable, and justice that tailors its judgments to the most popular outcome isn't worth the name. JMO.

---

The very essence of whatever judicial decisions come out of this thing, regardless of how far up it goes.


I also think that since the law that Cane references went into effect, Phelps, et.al. have been careful to position themselves in such a way as to abide by the law AND maximize the likely pain to the folks they are offending, all the while garnering as much publicity as possible. One of Phelps' kids or kids' spouse is a lawyer, and they are very careful.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drachen

No, you misunderstood, that lady had been to 150 funerals, but they have been doing this since the 70's I believe. Their stance is basically that everyone is going to hell and they are trying to spread their message that you need to hate everyone to get into heaven. Do some research on them, it is appalling. There was a good article in the E-N a few months back because they came to san antonio to protest something (I don't know, maybe it was to protest the sun for being lazy when it sets, its going to hell). It gave a pretty good history of the church, and Fred Phelps himself (he was a freakin civil rights lawyer helping black people pro bono for crying out loud. strange mix there). It also talked about this biker gang that rides around following them from protest to protest launching counter-protests and essentially shouting them down and revving their bikes really loud so the Westboro church members cant be heard.

---

God damn how is that shit legal. Good for the counter-protestors fucking their bullshit up. Thanks for this I'm pretty ignorant in this area of life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cane

Good for the counter-protestors fucking their bullshit up.

---

Like you said upstream, there are consequences for crossing lines.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

Freedom of speech isn't free if it excludes speech that is hateful or objectionable, and justice that tailors its judgments to the most popular outcome isn't worth the name. JMO.

---

Yep.

I hope the fees are collected as pennies, and then dumped on these fucker's front lawn. Phelps has the constitutional right be a jackass, and Snyder has the right to pay him in any type of legal tender.

While I feel that the WBC should all eat a bag of dicks and die in a fire, this is the price we pay for the 1st Amendment.

In other news Bill O'Reilly says he will pay the father's judgement costs.

Like O'Reilly or not (I don't always agree with what he says), he did right by that family.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EVAY

The very essence of whatever judicial decisions come out of this thing, regardless of how far up it goes.


I also think that since the law that Cane references went into effect, Phelps, et.al. have been careful to position themselves in such a way as to abide by the law AND maximize the likely pain to the folks they are offending, all the while garnering as much publicity as possible. One of Phelps' kids or kids' spouse is a lawyer, and they are very careful.

---

Well, I think that they would be selecting funerals where this law doesn't apply. The cemetaries have to be part of that organization which is controlled by the VA. If they aren't being buried in a military cemetary, they have free reign. This church is disgusting they have the children in the church go and protest other churches in the town every week, also shops, and just on corners EVERY WEEK. With signs and slogans like "you are going to hell" and "God hates fags". This is one of their more recognizable slogans and is usually included in stock footage that news channels and documentaries use when talking about hatred or gay people, etc. You have probably actually seen the clip of this lady holding that sign.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

Freedom of speech isn't free if it excludes speech that is hateful or objectionable, and justice that tailors its judgments to the most popular outcome isn't worth the name. JMO.

---

Except that interrupting others free speech, assemblies, etc. violates the meaning of free speech. Why do their free speech rights trump others? That is why "Free Speech Zones" are legally OK. When you attempt to overpower someone elses freedoms, you are now violating others rights.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cane

How do you think the Supreme Court should rule here? I think it should definitely favor Snyder's family.

---

If no law was broken, then they should rule not guilty.

Good for Billo. He's still an asshole bully.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 1369

While I feel that the WBC should all eat a bag of dicks and die in a fire, this is the price we pay for the 1st Amendment.

In other news Bill O'Reilly says he will pay the father's judgement costs.

Like O'Reilly or not (I don't always agree with what he says), he did right by that family.

---

Well, I don't like O'Reilly, and I really disagree with him 99.8% of the time, BUT that is all, I disagree and sometimes question his mental capacities because of the conclusions that he comes to. At least his conclusions seem relatively well thought out (albeit wrong in my opinion) I don't however think that he is an intentional hate-monger and I respect him for that (I would put Rush in that category). Every once in a while, he says or does something that I agree with and when these events happen, it is usually a big agreement. This is one of those cases. I may even write him a letter thanking him for doing this.

I know I haven't weighed in on the upcoming case, because I keep forgetting to, but I think that WBC will and should win their case provided that the above-referenced law was not violated. It sucks really really really bad, but I can't justify repealing the 1st amendment because of 155 douchebags.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Except that interrupting others free speech, assemblies, etc. violates the meaning of free speech. Why do their free speech rights trump others? That is why "Free Speech Zones" are legally OK. When you attempt to overpower someone elses freedoms, you are now violating others rights.

---

I don't like those protesters any more than you do, but how exactly were them interrupting the free speech of others?

Terrible story.


Didn't the Patriot Guard biker group put the beat down on some of those douchebags?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

I don't like those protesters any more than you do, but how exactly were them interrupting the free speech of others?

---

You don't consider a funeral with statements made, a form of speech, or the quiet nature people practice at such events?

Come on now. You cant really be missing the point here. Such things are also considered private events, and most cemeteries are not government owned. There is now the right of removing trespassers as well.

Really now. You consider interrupting a private event, free speech?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

Terrible story.


Didn't the Patriot Guard biker group put the beat down on some of those douchebags?

---

They cannot be everywhere.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

Terrible story.


Didn't the Patriot Guard biker group put the beat down on some of those douchebags?

---

That is the name of the biker gang! I couldn't remember. They probably didn't show up to this particular protest out of respect for the dead. They probably figured that they would be only adding to the problem if they were revving their bikes during the service.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

You don't consider a funeral with statements made, a form of speech, or the quiet nature people practice at such events?

---

Sure. But the protestors didn't prevent them from having their funeral, did they?

I mean, except for the message, they're no different than people that might show up in support of the family and to honor the deceased.

Perhaps it's time to extend the law that was quoted earlier to include all cemeteries. Until then, I don't know there's much you can do if they abide by all rules and regulations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

You don't consider a funeral with statements made, a form of speech, or the quiet nature people practice at such events?

Come on now. You cant really be missing the point here. Such things are also considered private events, and most cemeteries are not government owned. There is now the right of removing trespassers as well.

Really now. You consider interrupting a private event, free speech?

---

As long as they got their permits and didn't set foot onto the private land. Yes. Otherwise you can make a case that no protests are protected. Think about it, as the protest goes down the street, they are interrupting people trying to work in the buildings which are on that street.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Come on now. You cant really be missing the point here. Such things are also considered private events, and most cemeteries are not government owned. There is now the right of removing trespassers as well.

Really now. You consider interrupting a private event, free speech?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Judge

"The protest was confined to a public area..."

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

You don't consider a funeral with statements made, a form of speech, or the quiet nature people practice at such events?

Come on now. You cant really be missing the point here. Such things are also considered private events, and most cemeteries are not government owned. There is now the right of removing trespassers as well.

Really now. You consider interrupting a private event, free speech?

---

Wouldn't the counter arguement be that why should someone have keep quiet just because someone else is having a private event nearby?

I'm not sure if there's a point to be made about whether a cemetary could keep protesters out of the cemetary under the premise that the family rented the place and therefore has control over who get in. But I can't see the "interruption" point going anywhere.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Except that interrupting others free speech, assemblies, etc. violates the meaning of free speech.

---

Disagree. There's no "one at a time" stipulation, or any rule of priority in the Constitution. People are free to talk over one another if they wish.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Why do their free speech rights trump others? That is why "Free Speech Zones" are legally OK.

---

Disagree strongly. Free speech zones suck. The whole damn country should be a free speech zone IMO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

When you attempt to overpower someone elses freedoms, you are now violating others rights.

---

How has someone's freedom been overpowered here? Did WBC prevent the memorial from taking place?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drachen

That is the name of the biker gang! I couldn't remember. They probably didn't show up to this particular protest out of respect for the dead. They probably figured that they would be only adding to the problem if they were revving their bikes during the service.

---

The Patriot Guard Riders were present at Snyder's funeral

And I don't believe that they "rev their engines" to disrupt protesters, but rather try to act as a physical shield between the families and the protesters.

Somebody should get all the homos from San Fran, Austin, and Key West and have a giant flamer parade whereever this weird Baptist group is located.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 1369

The Patriot Guard Riders were present at Snyder's funeral

And I don't believe that they "rev their engines" to disrupt protesters, but rather try to act as a physical shield between the families and the protesters.

---

I got the "revving engines" thing out of that article that I referenced. Apparently they didn't do it here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

Freedom of speech isn't free if it excludes speech that is hateful or objectionable, and justice that tailors its judgments to the most popular outcome isn't worth the name. JMO.

---

You're going to hell, thank god for dead soldiers isn't hate speech and or objectionable? If they are saying it's good these soldiers are dead because there are gays in America, that has got to some kind of hate speech.

Anyway, nice to see someone we can all hate for a change :tu

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whottt

Anyway, nice to see someone we can all hate for a change :tu

---

LOL. Yes I agree.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whottt

You're going to hell, thank god for dead soldiers isn't hate speech and or objectionable? If they are saying it's good these soldiers are dead because there are gays in America, that has got to some kind of hate speech.

---

Hate speech criminalizes expression. Is freedom of speech is too radical for you, whottt?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

Hate speech criminalizes expression. Is freedom of speech is too radical for you, whottt?

---

Um yeah thank god for dead soldiers to a man burying his son, at the funeral, is too radical for me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

How has someone's freedom been overpowered here? Did WBC prevent the memorial from taking place?

---

Yes. They disrupted and psychologically tormented the people at the funeral.

Causing mental anguish is a tort, and the obvious remedy is a lawsuit, not hate speech legislation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whottt

There's gotta be some kind of civil suit based intimidation, cruelty or harrassment.

---

A minute ago you were for Euro-style hate speech prosecution.

Did you change your mind about that?

It would all be different had the dead Marine's father been a diminutive, black Harvard professor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

A minute ago you were for Euro-style hate speech prosecution.

---

:lol that's whottt's m.o.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

It would all be different had the dead Marine's father been a diminutive, black Harvard professor.

---

link?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

A minute ago you were for Euro-style hate speech prosecution.

---

Well the basis for their protest is anti-gay sentiment. One would think that by celebrating the deaths of soldiers simply because gays live here, they are encouraging people to persecute them.

I mean you tell me...how is this man supposed to get them to stop protesting so he can bury his son in peace?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

Did you change your mind about that?

---

I am vast, I contain multitudes. I support many things against these guys. And if the law won't provide it, hopefully lawlessness will....because the law is clearly failing in it's purpose here.

Walt Whitman, vigilante?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blake

:lol that's whottt's m.o.

---

www.spursreport.com

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whottt

www.spursreport.com

---

:lol this is also whottt's m.o. after he fails.

:lol www.spursreport.com

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

Disagree. There's no "one at a time" stipulation, or any rule of priority in the Constitution. People are free to talk over one another if they wish.

Disagree strongly. Free speech zones suck. The whole damn country should be a free speech zone IMO.

---

Yes, but don't we have to acknowledge that "freedom to speak" does not unequivocably mean "freedom to speak wherever and whenever I want"? For exmaple, I certainly support your right to say whatever you want, but if you decide you want to exercise your right on my private property I don't view it as an infringement on your freedom of speech if I decide I want to have you removed from my property. In that sense I think you have to admit that WC does kinda have a point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whottt

:lol www.spursreport.com

---

:lol:lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

Causing mental anguish is a tort, and the obvious remedy is a lawsuit, not hate speech legislation.

---

Agreed. Even then, the whole "I'm offended, you owe me money" concept is something I'm not a big fan of.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coyotes_geek

For exmaple, I certainly support your right to say whatever you want, but if you decide you want to exercise your right on my private property I don't view it as an infringement on your freedom of speech if I decide I want to have you removed from my property. In that sense I think you have to admit that WC does kinda have a point.

---

In this particular case:

Quote:

---

"The protest was confined to a public area under supervision and regulation of local law enforcement and did not disrupt the church service," the circuit court opinion said.

---

Could be wrong, but I'm gonna bet that WH was not really referring to private property when saying "whole damn country should be a free speech zone"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

Walt Whitman, vigilante?

---

Who's being a vigilante? Just expressing my opinion.

And yes, take a special kind for whatever the hell these guys are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coyotes_geek

For exmaple, I certainly support your right to say whatever you want, but if you decide you want to exercise your right on my private property I don't view it as an infringement on your freedom of speech if I decide I want to have you removed from my property. In that sense I think you have to admit that WC does kinda have a point.

---

In the abstract, yes; but this appears not to be the case here. WBC holds their rallies in public areas.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whottt

Who's being a vigilante? Just expressing my opinion.

And yes, take a special kind for whatever the hell these guys are.

---

Encouraging vigilantes to mete out violence to WCB isn't too different from what you claim WCB is doing: inciting against gays.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

Encouraging vigilantes to mete out violence to WCB isn't too different from what you claim WCB is doing: inciting against gays.

---

Except they are encouraging christians to do it, in a majority christian country.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blake

In this particular case:



Could be wrong, but I'm gonna bet that WH was not really referring to private property when saying "whole damn country should be a free speech zone"

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

In the abstract, yes; but this appears not to be the case here. WBC holds their rallies in public areas.

---

Private property would obviously be the no-brainer. The point, I think, that WC was trying to make was whether or not a similar case could be made when a group uses a cemetary for a private function. I.e., should the act of a cemetary granting a private group the use of it's facility for a private funeral grant that private group the right to decide who can and can't show up?

Sure, I don't see why not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whottt

Except they are encouraging christians to do it, in a majority christian country.

---

How is that different?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coyotes_geek

Private property would obviously be the no-brainer. The point, I think, that WC was trying to make was whether or not a similar case could be made when a group uses a cemetary for a private function. I.e., should the act of a cemetary granting a private group the use of it's facility for a private funeral grant that private group the right to decide who can and can't show up?

---

Quote:

---

"The protest was confined to a public area under supervision and regulation of local law enforcement and did not disrupt the church service," the circuit court opinion said.

---

Vigilantes are a minority, and so are gays.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whottt

Vigilantes are a minority, and so are gays.

---

so are picketers at marine funerals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coyotes_geek

Private property would obviously be the no-brainer. The point, I think, that WC was trying to make was whether or not a similar case could be made when a group uses a cemetary for a private function. I.e., should the act of a cemetary granting a private group the use of it's facility for a private funeral grant that private group the right to decide who can and can't show up?

---

yeah, Had WBC been at the cemetary, I am sure that the family could have asked the cemetary owners to throw them out. Too bad they weren't at the cemetary so this could have happened.

"majority christian country"

bullshit spin

It's Constitutionally secular country that happens to have a lot of Christians.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

"majority christian country"

bullshit spin

It's Constitutionally secular country that happens to have a lot of Christians.

---

It's [sic] Constitutionally secular country whose population reflects a large, Christian majority.

fify

This is one of those horrible situations where our hearts wish that there was a way to legally outlaw this obvious breach of common decency by the Phelps people.

But, we also know intellectually that to give in to our hearts is to deny the most fundamental rights of our forefathers and the thousands of men (and women) who have given their lives to defend our constitutional right to be assholes of the first order.

We simply cannot deny Phelps the right to be the pubic asshole that he is, and to have his supporters defend that.

Wh, you are such a creative thinker...can you come up with an effective method of 'putting down the Phelps crowd without forfeiting the freedom of speech that the rest of us enjoy and that he and his ilk are abusing?

The 1st Amendment was not created so this dirt bag can go and attack private citizens like this. If anything this is an invasion of privacy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spursncowboys

The 1st Amendment was not created so this dirt bag can go and attack private citizens like this. If anything this is an invasion of privacy.

---

Maybe that is an argument that can be made. Off the top of my head, I would guess that folks would suggest that if the funeral was in a 'public arena', i.e. a public cemetery...the privacy argument won't hold...but hey, it's worth a shot...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EVAY

Maybe that is an argument that can be made. Off the top of my head, I would guess that folks would suggest that if the funeral was in a 'public arena', i.e. a public cemetery...the privacy argument won't hold...but hey, it's worth a shot...

---

Is there such thing as a public cemetery?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spursncowboys

Is there such thing as a public cemetery?

---

Quote:

---

"The protest was confined to a public area under supervision and regulation of local law enforcement and did not disrupt the church service," the circuit court opinion said.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spursncowboys

Is there such thing as a public cemetery?

---

Beats me. Isn't there?

I mean, where my dad's family is from, there are church cemeteries, and I think that some of the other church cemeteries are private, so I guess I always assumed there were.

But, you're probably right. I guess a 'municipal' or even 'military' cemetery is, by definition, public. Good point.

Blake, it seems that people can't read. Both you and I have tried several times make many in this thread aware of the fact that the protesters were in a public place, not private. They were not at the cemetery they were nearby in an adjacent public park. Any discussion of the rights that one has on private property doesn't have any bearing on this case. Oh well, I guess it will just be our little secret.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drachen

Blake, it seems that people can't read. Both you and I have tried several times make many in this thread aware of the fact that the protesters were in a public place, not private. They were not at the cemetery they were nearby in an adjacent public park. Any discussion of the rights that one has on private property doesn't have any bearing on this case. Oh well, I guess it will just be our little secret.

---

I was starting to think I was on ignore

Terrible situation, but at least we know the group isn't exactly growing...it's dying like every other religious entity, they just happen to be more vocal than most. They are the ultimate RL trolls, but the irony is that they are protected by the very people they troll.

The members get a lot of prank calls too, if they haven't changed their numbers by now there's places where you can find the the numbers to "peacefully" troll them back.



"alright, we got a broken window!" :rollin

Not that violence and attempts to inflict injury on people is funny. However, trolls must be able and willing to deal with the consequences of their actions when this subject clearly boils human emotions, sometimes to the point of physical action. :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EVAY

Wh, you are such a creative thinker...can you come up with an effective method of 'putting down the Phelps crowd without forfeiting the freedom of speech that the rest of us enjoy and that he and his ilk are abusing?

---

Maybe.

Social disapprobation. Contrary assholes of the first order, hounding WBC like they hound others.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EVAY

I agree with your rage.

Phelps' group should be stopped, in my opinion, from defaming any military funeral. Phelps is an embarrassment to Christianity, and is the opposite of Christian in his actions and opinion, IMO.

Unfortunately...REALLY unfortunately, Phelps seems to have the constitution on his side, (freedom of speech and religious expression), so I can't figure out how to deny him and still keep the very freedoms that he is abusing, and that were defended by the dead military guy whose fueral he is debasing.

---

Agreed with this completely. I can't see how one could argue that Phelps has his first amendment rights to picket. However, it's amazingly distasteful, and I'm pretty sure I would punch every single one of them in the jaw if I saw them in real life.

As has been said before, the First Amendment is there not to protect popular speech, but unpopular speech. I would sincerely like to see a law that prevent people from picketing a funeral, but I doubt it would be constitutional.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

Maybe.

Social disapprobation. Contrary assholes of the first order, hounding WBC like they hound others.

---

I can think of a way... find research on their businesses and picket them.

Or you could just punch them in their face when you see them. Not legal, and not very moral, but sometimes I think things need to be done like this.

(Note: Big difference between thinking something like this has to be done, and thinking it should be the law.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

(Note: Big difference between thinking something like this has to be done, and thinking it should be the law.)

---

True.

Big difference. My granny called it gumption. WBC has it in spades. I hope somebody has the gumption to stand up to them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spursncowboys

The 1st Amendment was not created so this dirt bag can go and attack private citizens like this.

---

The First Amendment was created for all of us, virtuous or dirt bag, makes no difference. If free speech is limited to only those who are pure of mind, pure of heart (i.e., people we already agree with), it isn't free at all.

Sounds like freedom of speech is too radical for you too, SnC.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

The First Amendment was created for all of us, virtuous or dirt bag, makes no difference. If free speech is limited to only those who are pure of mind, pure of heart (i.e., people we already agree with), it isn't free at all.

---

Freedom of Speech doesn't come without cost. The cost, aside from the lives of men and women who vigorously defend it, includes instances of that freedom being used to enable arrogance that cannot be distiguished from stupidity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drachen

Blake, it seems that people can't read. Both you and I have tried several times make many in this thread aware of the fact that the protesters were in a public place, not private. They were not at the cemetery they were nearby in an adjacent public park. Any discussion of the rights that one has on private property doesn't have any bearing on this case. Oh well, I guess it will just be our little secret.

---

Sorry, Drachen,

I was switching back and forth between the game and the spurs chat room and failed to notice your and Blake's clarification of the public/private issue as it was referenced. My bad, and I apologize. If you look at the timing between SnC and I on our discussion of it, you will notice that it is right about 8p.m., and was brief.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blake

I was starting to think I was on ignore

---

Blake, repeat the apology as given to Drachen. Mea Culpa.

Now that is funny. Apology accepted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

The First Amendment was created for all of us, virtuous or dirt bag, makes no difference. If free speech is limited to only those who are pure of mind, pure of heart (i.e., people we already agree with), it isn't free at all.

---

It's not a matter of pure mind, or disagree with their message. It's a matter of interfering with other peoples events. That is just wrong, no matter how you see it.

The first amendment recognizes that we have the right to peaceable assemble. This group is violating that peace.

were there any disturbances at town hall meetings?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

It's not a matter of pure mind, or disagree with their message. It's a matter of interfering with other peoples events. That is just wrong, no matter how you see it.

The first amendment recognizes that we have the right to peaceable assemble. This group is violating that peace.

---

AFAIK, the only thing violent is their message. And there's no mention in the first amendment about 'interfering with other peoples events'.
What's that even supposed to mean?
You can be protesting, praying or doing whatever form of expression, and I can be right next to you doing the exact same thing even if the actual message is entirely opposite.
There's absolutely nothing illegal about that. It actually boggles my mind that you think there is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

AFAIK, the only thing violent is their message. And there's no mention in the first amendment about 'interfering with other peoples events'.
What's that even supposed to mean?
You can be protesting, praying or doing whatever form of expression, and I can be right next to you doing the exact same thing even if the actual message is entirely opposite.
There's absolutely nothing illegal about that. It actually boggles my mind that you think there is.

---

Peace has more than one meaning. How about peace and quiet...

Why in hell are you defending these people who trample on the rights of others to peaceable assemble?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Peace has more than one meaning. How about peace and quiet...

---

How about it? :lol

We're talking about free speech. What kind of freedom of speech requires you to be quiet?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Why in hell are you defending these people who trample on the rights of others to peaceable assemble?

---

What rights of others have they trampled?
How did they prevent others from peacefully assemble?

And you're obviously confused. I'm defending freedom of speech. Something that looks like you have a very difficult time understanding.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EVAY

The very essence of whatever judicial decisions come out of this thing, regardless of how far up it goes.


I also think that since the law that Cane references went into effect, Phelps, et.al. have been careful to position themselves in such a way as to abide by the law AND maximize the likely pain to the folks they are offending, all the while garnering as much publicity as possible. One of Phelps' kids or kids' spouse is a lawyer, and they are very careful.

---

Actually, several of them are, as is Fred Phelps. I believe he was disbarred in Kansas but he can still practice in federal courts. My understanding is that he was a pretty good attorney. Obviously, he and his family are jackasses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Why in hell are you defending these people who trample on the rights of others to peaceable assemble?

---

............WC ponders while advocating that the WBC's right to peacably assemble be trampled.

ElNono...

Are you purposely missing my point?

They themselves, in claiming they have a first amendment right, are violating the first amendment right of others.

We have the right to peaceable assemble. Sounds like a funeral to me. They are violating others rights to have a peaceful assembly, and should be jailed in my view for that violation of others constitutional rights.

I believe the Supreme COurt has agreed to review this case. I would not be surprised if it is overturned, or at least, the attorney fees. I don't know the facts of the case but intential infliction of emotional distress is a heafty burden to prove. It is not as simple as being upset, sad or bothered.

I don't know if hate speech was raised in the complaint, it would be interesting to see if the Court would squeeze in something like that to overrule the lower court. Someone with more constitutional experience might have a better theory.

WC,

Given your opinion of freedom of speech, what type of protesting would be acceptable?

After all, the whole point of protesting is to interrupt the activities of someone else.

Protestors at political events disrupt the other party's ability to get their message acrosss. Protestors forming picket lines at work disrupt the ability of that business's employees to enter, or patrons to buy their goods. etc etc.

Using your definition of freedom of speech, I should be able to jail someone on the beach next to me for playing music too loudly, if it disrupts my family's ability to peacefully assemble on the beach to enjoy the sun.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

ElNono...

Are you purposely missing my point?

They themselves, in claiming they have a first amendment right, are violating the first amendment right of others.

We have the right to peaceable assemble. Sounds like a funeral to me. They are violating others rights to have a peaceful assembly, and should be jailed in my view for that violation of others constitutional rights.

---

If it were the state preventing them from assembling peacefully, there would be an action. In this case, it is a group of protestors who are acting under their own constitutional rights. I do not think your logic flies legally speaking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

ElNono...

Are you purposely missing my point?

They themselves, in claiming they have a first amendment right, are violating the first amendment right of others.

We have the right to peaceable assemble. Sounds like a funeral to me. They are violating others rights to have a peaceful assembly, and should be jailed in my view for that violation of others constitutional rights.

---

While it can be argued that they are trying to disrupt a peaceful assembly (funeral), it cannot be said that they are preventing it from happening, ergo denying their right to assemble.

The implied 'infringement' is dicey at best.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

ElNono...

Are you purposely missing my point?

They themselves, in claiming they have a first amendment right, are violating the first amendment right of others.

We have the right to peaceable assemble. Sounds like a funeral to me. They are violating others rights to have a peaceful assembly, and should be jailed in my view for that violation of others constitutional rights.

---

One person's right to peaceably assemble does not give that person the right to restrict someone else's right to peaceably assemble.

We get it, the WBC are assholes. But they've got just as much right to assemble as the funeral goers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

ElNono...
Are you purposely missing my point?

---

No, I'm not. You simply do not have a point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

They themselves, in claiming they have a first amendment right, are violating the first amendment right of others.

---

That would require that one side's first amendment rights have priority over the other. There's no such thing in a public setting. Everybody's first amendment rights are exactly the same, and they all can express at the same time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

We have the right to peaceable assemble. Sounds like a funeral to me. They are violating others rights to have a peaceful assembly, and should be jailed in my view for that violation of others constitutional rights.

---

You keep on skipping the question:
How are they 'violating others rights to have a peaceful assembly'?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

You keep on skipping the question:
How are they 'violating others rights to have a peaceful assembly'?

---

My God.

You really that daft?

Intentional noise, slander, etc. at a solemn event!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

And you're obviously confused. I'm defending freedom of speech. Something that looks like you have a very difficult time understanding.

---

WC started with a twisted reading of the 1st Amendment language, then started piling absurdities on top of that misunderstanding.

He focused on the adverb, ignored the context, and conflated the 1st amendment with the obligation to keep the king's peace, i.e. to refrain from disorderly conduct. Hence WC's claim that the "peace" of funeral was "violated."

Quote:

---

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

---

Note the introductory clause, WC. "Congress shall make no law..."

It puts Congress in the straight-jacket here. It does not create a federal obligation to prevent disruptions of political rallies (or of any other kind of peaceable assembly). Per contra, it qualifies the infinitive "to assemble".

Petition the government for a redress of grievances with signs, chants and songs? Ok.

With torches, sidearms and agricultural implements? Not so ok.