Fred Phelps can now picket funerals legally

Bateluer

Lifer
Jun 23, 2001
27,730
8
0
http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/08/16/missouri.funeral.protests.ruling/index.html?hpt=T2

Seems like a number of federal judges recently have handed down verdicts that are VERY unpopular with the states affected, AZ SB1070, this verdict. Hopefully, we'll see the Patriot Guard keep this clowns far away from mourning families.

Washington (CNN) -- Missouri's tight restrictions on protests and picketing outside military funerals were tossed out by a federal judge Monday, over free speech concerns.

A small Kansas church had brought suit over its claimed right to loudly march outside the burials and memorial services of those killed in overseas conflicts. The state legislature had passed a law to keep members of the Topeka-based Westboro Baptist Church from demonstrating within 300 feet of such private services.

Church members, led by pastor Fred Phelps, believe God is punishing the United States for "the sin of homosexuality" through events including soldiers' deaths. Members have traveled the country, shouting at grieving family members at funerals and displaying such signs as "Thank God for Dead Soldiers," "God Blew Up the Troops" and "AIDS Cures Fags."

The Supreme Court last year had granted a temporary injunction blocking enforcement of the law until it could be challenged. The justices will hear a similar challenge this fall involving the same church.

Judge Fernando Gaitan in a 19-page order, dismissed the state legislation.

The laws, said the Kansas City-based judge, "could have the effect of criminalizing speech the mourners want to hear, including speech from counter-protesters to plaintiffs' [the Westboro Church's] message. As the law burdens substantially more speech than is necessary to further the government's interest, [the law] violates the free speech clause of the First Amendment."

Phelps, his daughter, Shirley Phelps-Roper, and other church members had protested near the August 2005 funeral of Army Spc. Edward Lee Myers in St. Joseph, Missouri. The married Army Airborne Ranger died while on patrol in Samarra, Iraq, when an improvised explosive device detonated near his Humvee military vehicle. He was 21, and in addition to his wife, he left behind a daughter. He was later buried at Leavenworth National Cemetery in Kansas.

In response to that protest, Missouri lawmakers passed the "Spc. Edward Lee Myers Law," criminalizing picketing "in front or about" a funeral location or procession.

Phelps-Roper then went to federal court to ask for a preliminary injunction to block enforcement of the statute until its constitutionality could be reviewed. A federal appeals court eventually agreed. That court did not address the broader First Amendment claims, but noted the law was overly intrusive, since it "restricts expressive activity not just within or on the premises of a cemetery of a church, but also on traditional public fora such as the adjacent public streets and sidewalks."

The Supreme Court has never addressed the specific 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. But the justices in October will hear an appeal from the father of a U.S. solider killed in Iraq, after members of the Westboro Church conducted an angry demonstration at his son's burial service in Maryland. The family of the Marine had won a $5 million judgment from the protesters, which was overturned by lower federal courts.

At issue is a balancing test between the privacy rights of grieving families and the free-speech rights of demonstrators, however disturbing and provocative their message. Several other states besides Missouri have attempted to impose specific limits on when and where the church members can protest.

The justices are being asked to address how far states can go to justify picket-free zones and the use of "floating buffers" to silence or restrict the speech or movements of demonstrators exercising their constitutional rights in a funeral setting. Various jurisdictions across the nation have responded to the protests with varying levels of control over the church protesters.

According to a legal brief it filed with the Supreme Court, church members believe it is their duty to protest and picket at certain events, including funerals, to promote their religious message: "That God's promise of love and heaven for those who obey him in this life is counterbalanced by God's wrath and hell for those who do not obey him."

The congregation is made up mostly of Phelps and his family. The pastor has 13 children, and at least 54 grandchildren and seven great-grandchildren. He described himself as an "old-time" gospel preacher in a CNN interview in 2006, saying, "You can't preach the Bible without preaching the hatred of God."

The church has also protested at least since 1993 at funerals of gay persons, those who died from AIDS, and others whose lifestyles are deemed sinful but were touted as heroic upon their death.

Missouri officials said the appeals court improperly balanced the free speech rights of both sides in favor of the church.

"Mourners cannot avoid a message that targets funerals without forgoing their right to partake in funeral or burial services, so are appropriately viewed as a captive audience" that is simply unable to shut out the offensive message, said state attorneys.

The case is Phelps-Roper v. Koster (06-4156-cv).
 

Double Trouble

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,270
103
106
Seems like the correct ruling. You don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. Yes, you don't want these idiots to protest in certain places, but it doesn't make sense to allow broad laws that could stifle free speech. I absolutely can't stand that Phelps and his band of idiots, but we can't let that be a reason to restrict all of our freedoms.

Personally I just hope someone snaps one day and takes out Phelps and his family. Then one of the people on the jury should simply refuse to convict and voila, problem solved.
 

Bateluer

Lifer
Jun 23, 2001
27,730
8
0
Seems like the correct ruling. You don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. Yes, you don't want these idiots to protest in certain places, but it doesn't make sense to allow broad laws that could stifle free speech. I absolutely can't stand that Phelps and his band of idiots, but we can't let that be a reason to restrict all of our freedoms.

Personally I just hope someone snaps one day and takes out Phelps and his family. Then one of the people on the jury should simply refuse to convict and voila, problem solved.

Under the Missouri law, they could protest all they wanted, from 300 feet away. The right to swing your first ends where the other man's nose begins, after all.
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
Seems like the correct ruling. You don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. Yes, you don't want these idiots to protest in certain places, but it doesn't make sense to allow broad laws that could stifle free speech. I absolutely can't stand that Phelps and his band of idiots, but we can't let that be a reason to restrict all of our freedoms.

Personally I just hope someone snaps one day and takes out Phelps and his family. Then one of the people on the jury should simply refuse to convict and voila, problem solved.
Do you find it ironic that while in agreement with this to support free speech you also want somebody to go bell-tower on him and his family? I see no reason that keeping a guy like this away from people is akin to "restrict[ing] all of our freedoms". If the laws as written do not work properly they must be amended. Perhaps from a strictly legal standpoint the ruling is proper but if so the laws need to be altered accordingly.
 

DesiPower

Lifer
Nov 22, 2008
15,299
740
126
I someone were to picket outside courts and capitols saying "AIDS cure Politicians, lawyers and Judges" what would be the result? The freedom of speech and or other similar laws have simply gone too far...
 

waggy

No Lifer
Dec 14, 2000
68,143
10
81
while the correct ruling they should have put a distance into it.
 

mmntech

Lifer
Sep 20, 2007
17,501
12
0
The Westboro Baptist Church are dirt bags. They represent the lowest common denominator of humanity, along with their Islamic friends in the Taliban.

BUT, it's their right to protest these events as long as they're on public property. As far as I know, every one of their protests has been peaceful. I may disagree with their message but I would defend their right to speak with my life. Free speech is the only truly inalienable right. Without it, every other right is meaningless, as it was free speech that created them. It's what makes us a civilized society.

Free speech gives you the right to peaceful counter-protest. So by all means get those GOD HATES WESTBORO and SUPPORT OUR TROOPS signs out there at their next funeral protest. Debate them into submission.
 

Merithynos

Member
Dec 22, 2000
156
1
81
I think the answer is to start picketing the church, his house, and the house of every single person that attends his little cult.
 

KDOG

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
5,525
14
81
Hmmmm. They should've put a greater distance to it like 500ft +. On a side note... I'm christian and I just don't understand these tards. I'm surprised some soldier hasn't gone off and taken them out. What they do is absolutely disgusting. They are just plain nuts.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
56,857
17,730
146
We must remember that freedom of speech is NOT measured by allowing speech with which we agree, but by allowing that speech which offends us most.

And trust me, Phelps is about the most offensive person I can think of.

BUT... Any ban on his speech is a VERY dangerous precedent, and the start of a very slippery slope.
 

jackschmittusa

Diamond Member
Apr 16, 2003
5,972
1
0
I believe the ruling is correct, much as I detest this group.

Were they to protest at one of my child's funerals, I believe I might kick some ass and argue in court that it was a hot-blooded response to overt and excessive provocation. I believe the number of sympathetic jurors in the pool would be large.
 

HumblePie

Lifer
Oct 30, 2000
14,665
440
126
We must remember that freedom of speech is NOT measured by allowing speech with which we agree, but by allowing that speech which offends us most.

And trust me, Phelps is about the most offensive person I can think of.

BUT... Any ban on his speech is a VERY dangerous precedent, and the start of a very slippery slope.


The ban is not on his speech, but from WHERE he can speak it. No one is stopping him from spouting his nonsense, but that doesn't mean everyone has the right to speak how they want WHERE they want. You wouldn't be too happy if I came right up to ear and started shouting obscenities as loud as I could would you? It's illegal to shout FIRE in a crowded theater as well.

The 1st amendment is something people don't understand to well. It's the right of free speech with limited conditions. You can say anything you want, but you can't say certain things everywhere. That's the limitation. It's because you can't infringe on the rights of others with your right to free speech.

The mourners at the funeral also have the right to free speech of mourning their lost ones do they not? But someone shouting and picketing nearby crap infringes upon those rights as well.

Basically these idiots need a place for their soapbox out of the way of grieving people. They can have to little song and dance however they want so long as it doesn't impose upon the rights of others. That is it in a nutshell.

As a side note though, how the hell are these people getting private information of the funeral times and schedules? That is something I would call private and confidential information and would those bastards for every penny by obtaining it. Unless they sit outside of graveyards 24/7, they should have no way of knowing the private affairs of other private citizens without breaching privacy laws.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,803
6,518
126
You learn to hate yourself by being put down and told you were bad as a child. Put downs are possible because of language. You learn that that a sound is equal to pain. When sound equals pain then pain equals sound. Not too smart, are we?

I went to the zoo and told the monkeys there they were all going to hell because they didn't pray to God every day. They got so upset one of them put his hand out for a peanut and the rest went off to play.
 

HumblePie

Lifer
Oct 30, 2000
14,665
440
126
You learn to hate yourself by being put down and told you were bad as a child. Put downs are possible because of language. You learn that that a sound is equal to pain. When sound equals pain then pain equals sound. Not too smart, are we?

I went to the zoo and told the monkeys there they were all going to hell because they didn't pray to God every day. They got so upset one of them put his hand out for a peanut and the rest went off to play.

Lay off the wacky weed one day before you post. I might actually read something you have to say if you do. It might even be informative.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
56,857
17,730
146
The ban is not on his speech, but from WHERE he can speak it. No one is stopping him from spouting his nonsense, but that doesn't mean everyone has the right to speak how they want WHERE they want. You wouldn't be too happy if I came right up to ear and started shouting obscenities as loud as I could would you? It's illegal to shout FIRE in a crowded theater as well.

The 1st amendment is something people don't understand to well. It's the right of free speech with limited conditions. You can say anything you want, but you can't say certain things everywhere. That's the limitation. It's because you can't infringe on the rights of others with your right to free speech.

The mourners at the funeral also have the right to free speech of mourning their lost ones do they not? But someone shouting and picketing nearby crap infringes upon those rights as well.

Basically these idiots need a place for their soapbox out of the way of grieving people. They can have to little song and dance however they want so long as it doesn't impose upon the rights of others. That is it in a nutshell.

They quite clearly stay on public property during their protests. You ARE free to speak your mind on public property. One CANNOT put the rights of one over the rights of another. We all have EQUAL rights. The mourner's rights do not and cannot negate the rights of Phelp's group, no matter how offensive they are.

Causing offense is NOT the same as causing a panic.

So your "yelling fire in a crowded theater" point is moot.
 

BoomerD

No Lifer
Feb 26, 2006
65,272
13,538
146
We must remember that freedom of speech is NOT measured by allowing speech with which we agree, but by allowing that speech which offends us most.

And trust me, Phelps is about the most offensive person I can think of.

BUT... Any ban on his speech is a VERY dangerous precedent, and the start of a very slippery slope.

Agreed...it's easy to defend free speech when the person is saying something you like...it's much more difficult (and thus more important) to defend a person's right to free speech when they're saying something that you abhor.

I wonder if using water cannons on the Westies would be acceptable? "Just watering the lawn, your honor."
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,803
6,518
126
Lay off the wacky weed one day before you post. I might actually read something you have to say if you do. It might even be informative.

No you won't because my words equal pain and you can't handle it. All you heard is that you are worthless so you acted like it. You thought that the sound of words would hurt me, the devastation I would feel if you didn't read my posts. Hehe
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,803
6,518
126
Agreed...it's easy to defend free speech when the person is saying something you like...it's much more difficult (and thus more important) to defend a person's right to free speech when they're saying something that you abhor.

I wonder if using water cannons on the Westies would be acceptable? "Just watering the lawn, your honor."

People who deal in hate hate themselves. People who hate themselves fear non-existence. These folk seek to be hated so they can feel something, anything but their inner emptiness. Hate is the food that they seek.

Negative attention is better than no attention.
 

HumblePie

Lifer
Oct 30, 2000
14,665
440
126
They quite clearly stay on public property during their protests. You ARE free to speak your mind on public property. One CANNOT put the rights of one over the rights of another. We all have EQUAL rights. The mourner's rights do not and cannot negate the rights of Phelp's group, no matter how offensive they are.

Causing offense is NOT the same as causing a panic.

So your "yelling fire in a crowded theater" point is moot.

So you are saying that I can sit on any public street corner or public park with a case of air horns and blast them all day 24/7 if I wanted to?

No need to answer that because here's the answer. I can't. Why? I'm breaking the law of disturbing the peace. My right to express my self through constant air horn blaring is impinging upon the rights in the surrounding area to also enjoy their public space. So my example is not a moot point. Just because a space is public does not give you the right to infringe upon others either. This is also because it brings up the other part of the fire in a theater point. Which is that you do not have the right to incite a riot or violence through your freedom of speech. By lining the roadways in public and intentionally harassing others they are inciting and provoking others to violence.

Again, I'm not stating that Phelps needs to be shutup or have his speech banned. Far from it. I'm stating they need to set up legally designated areas, ie a soap box, for them to spout all they want to their hearts content to whomever wants to listen.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
56,857
17,730
146
So you are saying that I can sit on any public street corner or public park with a case of air horns and blast them all day 24/7 if I wanted to?

No need to answer that because here's the answer. I can't. Why? I'm breaking the law of disturbing the peace. My right to express my self through constant air horn blaring is impinging upon the rights in the surrounding area to also enjoy their public space. So my example is not a moot point. Just because a space is public does not give you the right to infringe upon others either. This is also because it brings up the other part of the fire in a theater point. Which is that you do not have the right to incite a riot or violence through your freedom of speech. By lining the roadways in public and intentionally harassing others they are inciting and provoking others to violence.

Again, I'm not stating that Phelps needs to be shutup or have his speech banned. Far from it. I'm stating they need to set up legally designated areas, ie a soap box, for them to spout all they want to their hearts content to whomever wants to listen.

"free speech zones" are bullshit and you know it. If you confine speech to certain areas, it is not free.

There is a difference between blowing air horns (excessive noise) and vocal protests. Another moot point.

Tell me, is the only way you can justify making this illegal is to go to ridiculous extremes?

You can stand on any public space and speak your mind. As despicable as Phelp's group is, they have every right to use public property to speak their mind. Period.