Fred Phelps can now picket funerals legally

[SlickSnake]

Sigh...

Again, TRUE freedom is measured NOT by allowing that with which I agree, but by allowing that which offends me most. I've seen his protests. They are offensive, but non-violent. They remain on public property and do not trespass.

Phelps is among the most offensive folks I can think of.

But being offended is NOT a valid reason to restrict his freedom.

Your argument is the same the religious right uses to try to shut down all sorts of speech they find offensive. It's emotional, and illogical. It's shooting yourself in the foot in the long run. Because if you have the right to limit their speech, someone else has the right to limit yours.

I cannot claim to be an advocate of TRUE freedom unless I defend that speech that offends me most.

Sorry, I won't defend the free speech rights of an insane person or group who has no common decency or morals or scruples and then tries to deny me my right to tell him to shut the fuck up and leave when he's clearly out of line and out of his mind. That's not a free speech right, that's called PERSONAL HARASSMENT. And now that prohibited activity also falls under federal hate crime laws, as well.

And the fact you would unbelievably defend his right to do it, would then justifiably make you just as much of an insane hateful jerk as he is. I can't imagine anyone in their right mind actually defending his actions, in person or online or anywhere else. Unless your crazy too. Are you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_crime_laws_in_the_United_States

"Hate crime laws in the United States protect against hate crimes (also known as bias crimes) motivated by enmity or animus against a protected class. Although state laws vary, current statutes permit federal prosecution of hate crimes committed on the basis of a person's protected characteristics of race, religion, ethnicity, nationality, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, and disability."

And voluntarily choosing to victimize the dead and their grieving relatives at a funeral is about as low into the sewer of moral depravity and evil as they can possibly go, and karma can be a bitch and it will catch up with them one day. And when it does, there will really be Hell to pay, and they will be the ones paying the price for their evil, sinful and hateful ways.

The sooner this cult is rounded up and locked up in the looney bin, the better, and the better off their children will be once they are deprogrammed. What they openly practice is clearly severe mental child abuse, and their kids will be hate filled religious zombies and scared for life from these unholy monsters they call their parents. Parents do not have the inalienable right to destroy their children's minds and lives with religious hate, and it's hard to imagine the state of Kansas hasn't stepped in to do something about it yet. The state of Texas certainly isn't afraid to intervene in dangerous religious cult situations where the kids are in far less mental and physical danger.

Practicing a peaceful religion and restrained, sane free speech is one thing, practicing an angry, hateful, bigoted insanity loosely based on God with a cult leader hollering at funerals targeting the dead and their relatives is not a religion or free speech, it's a severely deranged and delusional psychotic mental illness, which also can get someone arrested for an involuntary stay in a mental ward for observation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_Baptist_Church

 

[HumblePie]

Crap, I was looking for legal precedents in the far past and not what was set by rulings against the WBC themselves. Bah, how could I have missed those! Thanks Slicksnake for the wiki link.

On October 31, 2007, WBC, Fred Phelps and his two daughters, Shirley Phelps-Roper and Rebecca Phelps-Davis, were found liable for invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress. A federal jury awarded Snyder $2.9 million in compensatory damages, then later added a decision to award $6 million in punitive damages for invasion of privacy and an additional $2 million for causing emotional distress (a total of $10,900,000). The organization said it would not change its message because of the verdict.[79][80][81]

On February 4, 2008, U.S. District Judge Richard D. Bennett upheld the ruling, but reduced the punitive damages from $8 million to $2.1 million, bringing the total judgment to $5 million.[84] Liens were ordered on church buildings and Phelps' law office in an attempt to ensure that the damages would be paid.[85]

So the original two lower courts found they had done what I've been stating. Then the federal court, which is in the OP and old I might add, reversed the decisions and now everything is waiting on the SC. However, to many and just about everyone else in the damn world, but Amused it seems, all agree that the WBC stepped over the bounds of protected free speech. For which they've lost prior lawsuits in the past.

 

[1prophet]

Sorry, I won't defend the free speech rights of an insane person or group who has no common decency or morals or scruples and then tries to deny me my right to tell him to shut the fuck up and leave when he's clearly out of line and out of his mind. That's not a free speech right, that's called PERSONAL HARASSMENT. And now that prohibited activity also falls under federal hate crime laws, as well.

And the fact you would unbelievably defend his right to do it, would then justifiably make you just as much of an insane hateful jerk as he is. I can't imagine anyone in their right mind actually defending his actions, in person or online or anywhere else. Unless your crazy too. Are you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_crime_laws_in_the_United_States

"Hate crime laws in the United States protect against hate crimes (also known as bias crimes) motivated by enmity or animus against a protected class. Although state laws vary, current statutes permit federal prosecution of hate crimes committed on the basis of a person's protected characteristics of race, religion, ethnicity, nationality, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, and disability."

And voluntarily choosing to victimize the dead and their grieving relatives at a funeral is about as low into the sewer of moral depravity and evil as they can possibly go, and karma can be a bitch and it will catch up with them one day. And when it does, there will really be Hell to pay, and they will be the ones paying the price for their evil, sinful and hateful ways.

The sooner this cult is rounded up and locked up in the looney bin, the better, and the better off their children will be once they are deprogrammed. What they openly practice is clearly severe mental child abuse, and their kids will be hate filled religious zombies and scared for life from these unholy monsters they call their parents. Parents do not have the inalienable right to destroy their children's minds and lives with religious hate, and it's hard to imagine the state of Kansas hasn't stepped in to do something about it yet. The state of Texas certainly isn't afraid to intervene in dangerous religious cult situations where the kids are in far less mental and physical danger.

Practicing a peaceful religion and restrained, sane free speech is one thing, practicing an angry, hateful, bigoted insanity loosely based on God with a cult leader hollering at funerals targeting the dead and their relatives is not a religion or free speech, it's a severely deranged and delusional psychotic mental illness, which also can get someone arrested for an involuntary stay in a mental ward for observation.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_Baptist_Church

Hate crimes require an actual crime first where actual force is used or the threat of force is used to intimidate.

From your own link.

1964 Federal Civil Rights Law

The 1964 Federal Civil Rights Law, 18 U.S.C. § 245(b)(2), permits federal prosecution of anyone who "willingly injures, intimidates or interferes with another person, or attempts to do so, by force because of the other person's race, color, religion or national origin" [1] because of the victim's attempt to engage in one of six types of federally protected activities, such as attending school, patronizing a public place/facility, applying for employment, acting as a juror in a state court or voting.
Persons violating the 1969 Federal Hate Crimes Law face a fine or imprisonment of up to one year, or both. If bodily injury results or if such acts of intimidation involve the use of firearms, explosives or fire, individuals can receive prison terms of up to 10 years, while crimes involving kidnapping, sexual assault, or murder can be punishable by life in prison or the death penalty.[1] U.S. Courts provide for criminal sanctions, but only victims of gender-motivated hate crimes can "seek compensatory and punitive damages as well as injunctive and declaratory relief".[2]
[edit] Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act (1994)

Main article: Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act
The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, enacted in 28 U.S.C. § 994 note Sec. 280003, requires the United States Sentencing Commission to increase the penalties for hate crimes committed on the basis of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, or gender of any person. In 1995, the Sentencing Commission implemented these guidelines, which only apply to federal crimes.[3]
[edit] Matthew Shepard Act

Main article: Matthew Shepard Act
On October 28, 2009 President Obama, signed the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act (attached to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010), which expanded existing United States federal hate crime law to include crimes motivated by a victim's actual or perceived gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability, and which dropped the prerequisite that the victim be engaging in a federally protected activity

You're probably thinking of hate speech which there are laws against it in other countries but not in the US because it can and will run afoul of the first amendment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech

United States

The United States federal government and state governments are broadly forbidden by the First Amendment of the Constitution from restricting speech. See, e.g., Gitlow v. New York (1925), incorporating the free speech clause. Generally speaking, the First Amendment prohibits governments from regulating the content of speech, subject to a few recognized exceptions such as defamation[33] and incitement to riot.[34] Even in cases where speech encourages illegal violence, instances of incitement qualify as criminal only if the threat of violence is imminent.[35] This strict standard prevents prosecution of many cases of incitement, including prosecution of those advocating violent opposition to the government, and those exhorting violence against racial, ethnic, or gender minorities. See, e.g., Yates v. United States (1957), Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969).
Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, employers may sometimes be prosecuted for tolerating "hate speech" by their employees, if that speech contributes to a broader pattern of harassment resulting in a "hostile or offensive working environment" for other employees.[36] See, e.g., Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson (1986), Patterson v. McLean Credit Union (1989).
In the 1980s and 1990s, more than 350 public universities adopted "speech codes" regulating discriminatory speech by faculty and students.[37] These codes have not fared well in the courts, where they are frequently overturned as violations of the First Amendment. See, e.g., Doe v. Michigan (1989), UWM Post v. Board of Regents of University of Wisconsin (1991), Dambrot v. Central Michigan University (1995), Corry v. Stanford (1995). Debate over restriction of "hate speech" in public universities has resurfaced with the adoption of anti-harassment codes covering discriminatory speech.[38]

 

[Amused]

Crap, I was looking for legal precedents in the far past and not what was set by rulings against the WBC themselves. Bah, how could I have missed those! Thanks Slicksnake for the wiki link.



So the original two lower courts found they had done what I've been stating. Then the federal court, which is in the OP and old I might add, reversed the decisions and now everything is waiting on the SC. However, to many and just about everyone else in the damn world, but Amused it seems, all agree that the WBC stepped over the bounds of protected free speech. For which they've lost prior lawsuits in the past.

See, so this is your problem. Basic reading comprehension and the pacience to read more than what you want to see.

"On September 24, 2009, a federal appeals court ruled in favor of Westboro Baptist Church. It found their picket near the funeral is protected speech and did not violate the privacy of the service member's family, reversing the lower court's award.[86] On March 30, 2010, the appeals court ordered Albert Snyder to pay the church's court costs of over $16,000"

And yet again, not a SINGLE charge of "harassment." So not only did the ridiculous CIVIL charges of invasion of privacy and emotional distress get thrown out, the people who pressed these charges had to pay the court fees of Phelps and his nasty band.

Humble, you have yet to show me a single charge, much less conviction of "harassment" for the act of picketing.

It simply does NOT apply. Picketing does not meet the legal definition of harassment.

 

[Amused]

Sorry, I won't defend the free speech rights of an insane person or group who has no common decency or morals or scruples and then tries to deny me my right to tell him to shut the fuck up and leave when he's clearly out of line and out of his mind. That's not a free speech right, that's called PERSONAL HARASSMENT. And now that prohibited activity also falls under federal hate crime laws, as well.

And the fact you would unbelievably defend his right to do it, would then justifiably make you just as much of an insane hateful jerk as he is. I can't imagine anyone in their right mind actually defending his actions, in person or online or anywhere else. Unless your crazy too. Are you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_crime_laws_in_the_United_States

"Hate crime laws in the United States protect against hate crimes (also known as bias crimes) motivated by enmity or animus against a protected class. Although state laws vary, current statutes permit federal prosecution of hate crimes committed on the basis of a person's protected characteristics of race, religion, ethnicity, nationality, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, and disability."

And voluntarily choosing to victimize the dead and their grieving relatives at a funeral is about as low into the sewer of moral depravity and evil as they can possibly go, and karma can be a bitch and it will catch up with them one day. And when it does, there will really be Hell to pay, and they will be the ones paying the price for their evil, sinful and hateful ways.

The sooner this cult is rounded up and locked up in the looney bin, the better, and the better off their children will be once they are deprogrammed. What they openly practice is clearly severe mental child abuse, and their kids will be hate filled religious zombies and scared for life from these unholy monsters they call their parents. Parents do not have the inalienable right to destroy their children's minds and lives with religious hate, and it's hard to imagine the state of Kansas hasn't stepped in to do something about it yet. The state of Texas certainly isn't afraid to intervene in dangerous religious cult situations where the kids are in far less mental and physical danger.

Practicing a peaceful religion and restrained, sane free speech is one thing, practicing an angry, hateful, bigoted insanity loosely based on God with a cult leader hollering at funerals targeting the dead and their relatives is not a religion or free speech, it's a severely deranged and delusional psychotic mental illness, which also can get someone arrested for an involuntary stay in a mental ward for observation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_Baptist_Church

Then you are no better than they are. In an effort to stop those you disagree with, you stoop to their level of oppression.

Freedom of speech must apply to all, or it applies to none. You can call me all the names in the book you want. In fact, you can say anything you want, and no matter whether I agree with it, or vehemently disagree, I will fight to the death to support your right to say it.

There is a reason the US does NOT have laws against "Hate speech." The problem is you're too narrow minded to figure out why.

The irony is, your post is FILLED with hateful speech.

 

[HumblePie]

See, so this is your problem. Basic reading comprehension and the pacience to read more than what you want to see.

"On September 24, 2009, a federal appeals court ruled in favor of Westboro Baptist Church. It found their picket near the funeral is protected speech and did not violate the privacy of the service member's family, reversing the lower court's award.[86] On March 30, 2010, the appeals court ordered Albert Snyder to pay the church's court costs of over $16,000"

And yet again, not a SINGLE charge of "harassment." So not only did the ridiculous CIVIL charges of invasion of privacy and emotional distress get thrown out, the people who pressed these charges had to pay the court fees of Phelps and his nasty band.

Humble, you have yet to show me a single charge, much less conviction of "harassment" for the act of picketing.

It simply does NOT apply. Picketing does not meet the legal definition of harassment.

No, they had defamation charges in there numbnuts but Snyder decided to drop them. Why? Awards for defamation and harassment are very low. And no, Snyder does not have to pay court fee's because it is an ongoing case. Man you are stupid. He won the first two courts, lost the third and is waiting on a docket at the supreme. I've shown in pervious precedents with cases similar to this that supreme court has sided with the plaintiffs in cases like these. Look at the case history I've listed.

And one thing you are right on. Picketing does not meet the legal definition of harassment by itself. It is HOW the picketing is done moron. The way WBC pickets is the definition of harassment. Look at the WBC wiki page and scroll to the bottom where it talks about all the legal battles that they have LOST. Yes they have won some, but they have lost more than they have won.

 

[Amused]

No, they had defamation charges in there numbnuts but Snyder decided to drop them. Why? Awards for defamation and harassment are very low. And no, Snyder does not have to pay court fee's because it is an ongoing case. Man you are stupid. He won the first two courts, lost the third and is waiting on a docket at the supreme. I've shown in pervious precedents with cases similar to this that supreme court has sided with the plaintiffs in cases like these. Look at the case history I've listed.

And one thing you are right on. Picketing does not meet the legal definition of harassment by itself. It is HOW the picketing is done moron. The way WBC pickets is the definition of harassment. Look at the WBC wiki page and scroll to the bottom where it talks about all the legal battles that they have LOST. Yes they have won some, but they have lost more than they have won.

As I said, your reading comprehension just plain sucks. I don't see what you think you see on that page. What I see is they've won the freedom, over and over again, to picket on public property.

As does your idea of freedom.

 

[HumblePie]

As I said, your reading comprehension just plain sucks. I don't see what you think you see on that page. What I see is they've won the freedom, over and over again, to picket on public property.

As does your idea of freedom.

And what I see is you have no clue about shit. Every picketer I know is always worried about crossing the line into harassment or violence. This is why most people that picket obtain permits if they can. It makes sure they are peaceable, that they don't get hassled by the cops, and that their message actually comes across. When you are trying to give a message, coming off like a douche bag, or harassing people, or inciting violence is not going to make anyone listen to what you have to say.

Of course even with permits, there are waivers for on the spur moments that pop up that someone wanting to exercise their free speech can not obtain a permit fast enough for. Even still, a quick notice to the city officials or police department giving them a heads up as to what you are doing goes a long way to making sure the assembly stays peaceful and that the message is still heard. You fail to grasp the system of how free speech works.

I have shown you NUMEROUS accounts of legal restrictions upon free speech. The act of picketing, the actual action, is not free speech. Just the message. As such how you get your speech across can be regulated as long as any regulation in place is equal and fair to all. I have given you direct quotes from Supreme Court Justices on the issue of free speech and what is protected by the amendment and what is not.

Part of the reason I haven't shown you harassment only cases is because none of those go to the supreme court. Harassment is typically a misdemeanor charge. Same with defamation. They can be felonies, but when those end up as felony charges, there has always been other bigger felony charges. As such, the minor charges get dropped and the big ones get scored. Just the way the judicial system works. Those that get slapped for harassment and defamation only never seem to appeal it and take their time in jail. They don't even show up in the papers that much or on the internet.

Phelps and crew have stepped over the bounds of free speech many times. The wiki proves which cases they have lost. The fact is, what WBC is doing is something that only they have ever done. Period. No one else in the history of the US has protested funerals like they have. There are no legal precedents for that exact situation. There are precedents for similar situations that have made it to the federal court of appeals or the SC. Those I have listed for you.

Actually there are other cases dealing with restrictions of free speech and harassment but they are for other scenarios. Such as workplace harassment and sexual harassment. Neither of which is protected by free speech.

 

[Moonbeam]

How to answer Phelps:

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2092923&highlight=

 

[SlickSnake]

http://www.godhatesfags.com/schedule.html

Out of all the protests listed, the last one is a cemetery, but it don't mention if they are targeting (stalking) and harassing a specific dead person and their families. Notice they plan to spend 1 hour protesting, until the cops get called and finally show up and they run away like spineless cowards.

10/05/2010 4:30 PM - 5:30 PM Arlington, VA
Arlington National Cemetery Jefferson Davis Hwy & Memorial Dr. All roads lead to the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS)! Next stop on the I-70 GodSmack Tour from WBC to DC: Arlington National Cemetery. ANC is the mother lode of dead soldiers for this nation's death watch and worship of rotten dead carcasses. That cemetery is full of dead reprobates crooks, cowards and whoremongers (and thanks to the lazy brutes that run ANC, many of those rotting carcasses now lie in a dog park with poo adorning their graves). You should put on mourning rags when you go into that place! Stop worshiping those piles of putrid dust! Here is their end: And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened...and the dead were judged...according to their works...and whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire, Rev. 20. No person who fears and obeys God would let their loved one be buried in that hill-of-damnation! Thank God for Dead Soldiers!

 

[SlickSnake]

This one shows what they are really like, in the rotten core of their hateful black hearts. Notice the time: 30 minutes. Just enough time to spew their evil, foul venom and wish every one dead from cancer and get the crowd worked up into a riotous rage, then they flee like rabid rats back to their sewer.

10/02/2010 2:00 PM - 2:30 PM Effingham, IL
Legacy Harley-Davidson 1315 Althoff Ave. All roads lead to the steps of the Supreme Court of the United States -- the conscience of this vile land -- to cry against their alters! next stop on the I-70 GodSmack Tour from WBC to DC is Legacy Harley-Davidson Breast Cancer Awareness Ride (like everybody doesn't already know about that particular decades-long GodSmack on the crazy biotechs of this generation). This hapless bunch of boobless-bitter-biker-bitches and bastards bellyaching about their latest shame-idol: B-E-A-U-tiful! God smites them with a cancer, showing His power to bring their puny, insignificant lives to a grinding halt, and they turn the smiting into a god to worship with all their wealth and attention -- but never even consider repenting. Like the ancient Philistines -- when plagued with hemorrhoids (emerods) -- began making idols shaped like the nasty things attached to their hindquarters. Here's the verse that applies: "For many walk, of whom I have told you often ... that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ: Whose end is destruction, whose God is their belly, and whose glory is in their shame...." (Philippians 3:18-19). Yes! somebody has to tell these crazy people that God will not stop with the plague until they stop with the rebellion. They will not -- and their parts will keep rotting and falling off -- but we must still bind them with God's standards of obey, obey, obey; or get your own GodSmackin'!

 

[Moonbeam]

Why do you fan your hatred of haters, SickSnake. Are you envious?

 

[SlickSnake]

Why do you fan your hatred of haters, SickSnake. Are you envious?

Why are you so obsessed with self hate and hating haters, Moonbeam? Are you one of those religious geeks that thinks loving a hater will bring you eternal life in the after life and save your soul? I found that turning the other cheek and loving a fellow hater just gets you a black eye, in this life, and makes the hater go away happy, and that sends the wrong message to the hater. I also don't think that's a good recipe for a healthy self image or ego. Would Hitler have changed his evil ways if we all just loved him more? Maybe, but I'm not stupid enough or naive enough to die at his hands finding out.

All your ongoing platitudes you endlessly post about everyone's self hate don't mean shit when you are the one seemingly full of self hate and keep bringing it up time after time. And holding up a mirror to others that you hide behind for the purposes of a heated debate don't make you any better than they are, Moony. I'm fine with all my loathing self hate, and I can use it constructively and defensively against other self hating assholes who deserve it.

I would hardly consider that envious. But then, the whole point of your post was designed to start an argument just to prove your point, as if you had one to start with. Does the pot call the kettle black much?

But seriously, we all love you here, and you sure know how to put us in our place and stuff...