Fred Phelps can now picket funerals legally

[thegimp03]

Picketing a funeral? Disrespectful assholes. Hopefully a bus happens to lose control going 70 mph and plows through their group.

 

[CallMeJoe]

...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.

Did you approve of the Bush administration policy of setting up "Free Speech Zones" where protesters were allowed to demonstrate so long as they weren't anywhere the President might happen to see them?

 

[piasabird]

So what good purpose is there to protest at a graveyard? The Dead will not care about it one bit? I dont think disrespect of the dead is a worthy occupation. There is nothing honorable about this that needs to be protected. Judges are just basically stupid.

 

[HumblePie]

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

Back that statement up. How is it not free? Again, the 1st amendment states a right to free, but LIMITED speech. You can limit free speech to areas. That is in our laws.

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

There is? Really? Prove it. What makes air horns classified as excessive noise, but loud vocal protests not? Hmm? I'm waiting for the legality of your statement here to prove your statement. What arbitrary identifier are you using to make that claim?

What you are doing is pure deflection. You can not disprove the legality of what I've said. You make an asinine comment and then claim my statements are "moot" because you think you have the power to do so. That's the tactics of a poor debater and someone that has not a fucking clue what they are talking about.

 

[Moonbeam]

So what good purpose is there to protest at a graveyard? The Dead will not care about it one bit? I dont think disrespect of the dead is a worthy occupation. There is nothing honorable about this that needs to be protected. Judges are just basically stupid.

We can't judge between idiots who have no good purpose and idiots who think they determine what a good purpose is if they are silenced and thus not redressed with further free speech.

 

[waggy]

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


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.

sure they have a right to speak their mind. I do think that funerals should have a 500ft zone where they can't.

now i think phelps should be forced to picket comic cons more..

 

[Amused]

Back that statement up. How is it not free? Again, the 1st amendment states a right to free, but LIMITED speech. You can limit free speech to areas. That is in our laws.



There is? Really? Prove it. What makes air horns classified as excessive noise, but loud vocal protests not? Hmm? I'm waiting for the legality of your statement here to prove your statement. What arbitrary identifier are you using to make that claim?

What you are doing is pure deflection. You can not disprove the legality of what I've said. You make an asinine comment and then claim my statements are "moot" because you think you have the power to do so. That's the tactics of a poor debater and someone that has not a fucking clue what they are talking about.

Wow, angry much?

The court explains perfectly:

"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."

Previously: "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."

That's not only my opinion, but the opinion of the court AND the very definition of freedom of speech.

You can restrict the speech of others on private property, but NOT on public property. Merely being offended is NOT justification for silencing someone you disagree with. Not on public property.

 

[Moonbeam]

HumblePie:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Amused
"free speech zones" are bullshit and you know it. If you confine speech to certain areas, it is not free.

HP: Back that statement up. How is it not free? Again, the 1st amendment states a right to free, but LIMITED speech. You can limit free speech to areas. That is in our laws.

M: He did back it up. He said that speech isn't free if it is confined on public property. That speaks for itself. Free speech is confined to public areas, not divisions of public areas which is bull shit.


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

HP: There is? Really? Prove it. What makes air horns classified as excessive noise, but loud vocal protests not? Hmm? I'm waiting for the legality of your statement here to prove your statement. What arbitrary identifier are you using to make that claim?

M: What makes shouting fire an exception? Air horns are an exception. They do physical damage to people's ears.

HP: What you are doing is pure deflection. You can not disprove the legality of what I've said. You make an asinine comment and then claim my statements are "moot" because you think you have the power to do so. That's the tactics of a poor debater and someone that has not a fucking clue what they are talking about. [/quote]

M: Things are moot that are moot. Not his fault.

 

[HumblePie]

Wow, angry much?

The court explains perfectly:

"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."

Previously: "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."

That's not only my opinion, but the opinion of the court AND the very definition of freedom of speech.

You can restrict the speech of others on private property, but NOT on public property. Merely being offended is NOT justification for silencing someone you disagree with. Not on public property.

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

Incorrect again. Look up free speech zones will you.

So you are saying I could walk into a busy traffic intersection of a major city, set up a podium and lectern, and then begin spouting off whatever the hell I want all day long while impeding traffic? Hey, it's public property right?

No, they can't criminalize the speech, was the part of the ruling that put the injunction on the law. Learn the difference in what the ruling means will you.

As for the ruling, you also have no clue what you are talking about here and judges also make the wrong ruling as well. Take the example of the Boy Scouts and their freedom of association ruling. It had to go to the SC because lower courts were forcing them to take an openly gay member into their organization. The SC ruled, and rightly, that they didn't have to. And an injunction is not a ruling.

You still have yet to prove your claims against my statements earlier. Deflection to the court's injunction ruling in the article does not in anyway, shape, or form make any of my points "moot" yet.

One last thing is part of the first amendment is the right to peacefully assemble. Peacefully is the key word here. Inciting violence through protest is not being peaceful. By their close proximity to the mourners, they are not being peaceful at all but provocative.

 

[cubby1223]

I may disagree with their message but I would defend their right to speak with my life.

Internet talk is easy. I'd be curious if you actually would sacrifice your life, allow yourself to be killed, so some nutjobs can protest a funeral.

I like free speech & all, but I ain't defending those scum with my life.

 

[HumblePie]

M: He did back it up. He said that speech isn't free if it is confined on public property. That speaks for itself. Free speech is confined to public areas, not divisions of public areas which is bull shit.

No he did not back it up. Free speech is the right to speak, not the right to speak everywhere you want. There is a difference that you just do not seem to grasp. There are free speech zones at political conventions for example and anywhere the president travels even in public. It has been tested by the SC and found constitutional. You can LIMIT free speech, just not ban or criminalize it.

M: What makes shouting fire an exception? Air horns are an exception. They do physical damage to people's ears.

And so can loud protesting. People's voices can reach 140 decibels if they want to. Also, air horns are only damaging if I do it in people's ears directly. Otherwise they are not.


But to further my point, let's go with something quieter shall we? Do you think I can go into a public park and setup something very noisy and irritating to others just because I want to? Say something like nails on the chalkboard for 24/7? Again, I'll clue you in, I can not. I would be arrested for disturbing the peace and rightfully so. Again, my right to freedom of speech and expressing myself can not impinge upon the rights of others to use that public area.

Now, is there a way for me to set up an air horn blast session or nails on a chalkboard session in a public park? Sure is. I just have to get a permit, let others in the area know that at a certain date and certain time I'm going to have an air horn jam session. This allows others that do not want to hear it the freedom to not be there if ahead of time. In that case I'm not disturbing the peace and forcibly making others in the public area leave because I want to blast an air horn all day.

 

[Amused]

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

Incorrect again. Look up free speech zones will you.

So you are saying I could walk into a busy traffic intersection of a major city, set up a podium and lectern, and then begin spouting off whatever the hell I want all day long while impeding traffic? Hey, it's public property right?

No, they can't criminalize the speech, was the part of the ruling that put the injunction on the law. Learn the difference in what the ruling means will you.

As for the ruling, you also have no clue what you are talking about here and judges also make the wrong ruling as well. Take the example of the Boy Scouts and their freedom of association ruling. It had to go to the SC because lower courts were forcing them to take an openly gay member into their organization. The SC ruled, and rightly, that they didn't have to. And an injunction is not a ruling.

You still have yet to prove your claims against my statements earlier. Deflection to the court's injunction ruling in the article does not in anyway, shape, or form make any of my points "moot" yet.

One last thing is part of the first amendment is the right to peacefully assemble. Peacefully is the key word here. Inciting violence through protest is not being peaceful. By their close proximity to the mourners, they are not being peaceful at all but provocative.

Now you use an example of impeding traffic??? WTF???

Phelp's group does not impede traffic. They merely offend.

Again, being offended is NOT justification for restricting or denying the rights of others.

Yes, yes, we know you disagree with the court's ruling. However, the USSC will find the same way. Offensive speech is still FREE, as well it should be. Restricting speech to "free speech zones" all but stiffles it.

Furthermore, being offended is NOT justifaction for violence. Offensive speech is not bannable merely because violence is threatened. If threats of violence were enough to ban speech, than all speech would be banned.

 

[soulcougher73]

I live about an hour from these loons. Maybe we should go picket their church day and night and even follow them home and picket their homes. Maybe then he might get how annoying it is. If they go to Walmart just follow them around with picket signs to draw attention to them. Maybe we'll get lucky and someone will do the dirty work for us that we wish we could do legally to them.

 

[Red Dawn]

Internet talk is easy. I'd be curious if you actually would sacrifice your life, allow yourself to be killed, so some nutjobs can protest a funeral.

I like free speech & all, but I ain't defending those scum with my life.

No I'd definitely duck. Hell I'd go even further, I'd grab one of them as a shield.

 

[HumblePie]

Now you use an example of impeding traffic??? WTF???

Phelp's group does not impede traffic. They merely offend.

Again, being offended is NOT justification for restricting or denying the rights of others.

Yes, yes, we know you disagree with the court's ruling. However, the USSC will find the same way. Offensive speech is still FREE, as well it should be. Restricting speech to "free speech zones" all but stiffles it.

Furthermore, being offended is NOT justifaction for violence. Offensive speech is not bannable merely because violence is threatened. If threats of violence were enough to ban speech, than all speech would be banned.

Offensive speech is not bannable and you are correct it shouldn't be. But it is LIMITED. Something you fail to grasp. Hence why libel and slander are ILLEGAL. Libel and slander are both "offensive" speech but are not legal. Again, READ THE EFFING ARTICLE ON FREE SPEECH ZONES. Or they can do what I listed earlier and get a permit prior to their assembly in a public place that will impinge upon the rights of others in the area. Just as my example of me wanting to be obnoxious in a public park, they should have to follow the same rules. The want to assemble and spout shit in the street outside the church? Well they set up a date and time to do so. Then those that want to hear their message can and those that don't can avoid them.

Freedom of speech does NOT mean you have the right to force your speech on others. This is what they are doing. They are forcing what they want to say onto people that do not want to listen. They are impinging upon the rights of others.

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.

 

[woolfe9999]

Now you use an example of impeding traffic??? WTF???

Phelp's group does not impede traffic. They merely offend.

Again, being offended is NOT justification for restricting or denying the rights of others.

Yes, yes, we know you disagree with the court's ruling. However, the USSC will find the same way. Offensive speech is still FREE, as well it should be. Restricting speech to "free speech zones" all but stiffles it.

Furthermore, being offended is NOT justifaction for violence. Offensive speech is not bannable merely because violence is threatened. If threats of violence were enough to ban speech, than all speech would be banned.

You're mostly correct. Humblepie is confusing restrictions on speech based on disruptiveness unrelated to the content of the speech (i.e. excessive decibels, assembly blocking throughway) with restrictions based on content. However, we do have out and out bans for certain types of content (i.e. kitty porn, obscenities) as well as time, place and manner restrictions on other types of content (i.e. "patently offensive" speech, usually profanity, which is controlled as to time and place on public airwaves.) However, extending such restrictions to speaking out doors in "the town square" would be a dangerous expansion of past precedent and a slippery slope, as you say.

- wolf

 

[umbrella39]

this should make obama happy.

ods.

 

[HumblePie]

You're mostly correct. Humblepie is confusing restrictions on speech based on disruptiveness unrelated to the content of the speech (i.e. excessive decibels, assembly blocking throughway) with restrictions based on content. However, we do have out and out bans for certain types of content (i.e. kitty porn, obscenities) as well as time, place and manner restrictions on other types of content (i.e. "patently offensive" speech, usually profanity, which is controlled as to time and place on public airwaves.) However, extending such restrictions to speaking out doors in "the town square" would be a dangerous expansion of past precedent and a slippery slope, as you say.

- wolf

Incorrect woolfe. Yes I was using extreme examples, but to demonstrate that there are restrictions. That free speech is not unfettered free speech.

Again, I can not go to a public park with a chalkboard and a box of nails and just start scratching the board to make an irritating sound. It doesn't even have to be loud, just a public irritant. It is just offensive noise of expressing myself. I can not do that at random. However, I can apply for a permit to do that and put up public notices that I am going to be performing my own brand of music call "Nails on a Chalkboard" at a given time. There are laws for this to keep the peace of the public. Not to censor my speech and expression in a public place.

Again, no one has commented upon the fact that free speech zones have been deemed constitutional either. I have zero problem with Phelps and his crew speaking what they want to say. I have a problem with them forcing what they want to say to a captive audience that does not want to hear their speech. That is the difference. If Phelps and crew want to spread their word and message to those that want to hear it, they need to apply for permits and set up a place and time to do so. That is not stopping their free speech. That is not censoring them as it allows them to gather others to the proper time and area to hear what message they have. This has been deemed LEGAL by SCOTUS several times in the past.

EDIT, also of note is panhandling laws. Panhandling is illegal in many states, especially what is termed as "aggressive" or "pro-active' panhandling. Meaning, that in a public place I can not just sit a street corner and ask people for money. It's impinging upon the rights of others in that same public place. Places like Orlando allow beggars to receive permits that allow them to beg at certain spots. Why? Because then they have a time and place set up for their free speech.

 

[jackschmittusa]

woolfe9999

Where can I find this "kitty porn"? Sounds interesting.

 

[Amused]

Offensive speech is not bannable and you are correct it shouldn't be. But it is LIMITED. Something you fail to grasp. Hence why libel and slander are ILLEGAL. Libel and slander are both "offensive" speech but are not legal. Again, READ THE EFFING ARTICLE ON FREE SPEECH ZONES. Or they can do what I listed earlier and get a permit prior to their assembly in a public place that will impinge upon the rights of others in the area. Just as my example of me wanting to be obnoxious in a public park, they should have to follow the same rules. The want to assemble and spout shit in the street outside the church? Well they set up a date and time to do so. Then those that want to hear their message can and those that don't can avoid them.

Freedom of speech does NOT mean you have the right to force your speech on others. This is what they are doing. They are forcing what they want to say onto people that do not want to listen. They are impinging upon the rights of others.

Freedom OF speech does not mean freedom FROM speech. In a public place, you do not have the right to shut someone else up merely because you don't like what they're saying. Period.

If you need permision to speak, or a permit to speak, your speech is NOT free.

 

[Lemon law]

In my mind fighting the free speech of Fred Plelps is simple. Fight fire with fire.

So Fred wants to disrupt a funeral within 300 feet of a funeral. No problem for a municipality, Strew the side walks and lawns with dog shit and tarred feathers, if they want to picket in deep dog shit, let them. After they go home, the municipality has readily available bob cats and volunteers to haul the mess away, and Fred Phelps had better buy some local snow shovels. By the time they can safely clear up the picket line, the funeral will be over.

There is always another way to skin a rat, sometimes it takes thinking out of their box.

 

[HumblePie]

Freedom OF speech does not mean freedom FROM speech. In a public place, you do not have the right to shut someone else up merely because you don't like what they're saying. Period.

If you need permision to speak, or a permit to speak, your speech is NOT free.

Bzzzzzt!! Wrong again! Look up harassment laws for once. You think it's perfectly legal for me to follow your ass around in every public place spouting whatever the hell I want to say to you if you don't want to hear it? People have the right for free speech and people have the right to not be harassed as well. That is what the part of infringing upon the rights of others means. You are not allowed to do so.

As for the second part, it is still free. You are not being censored. You are allowed to speak. You are allowed to say what you want. Just because you have to do it at a time and/or place designated elsewhere does not remove your freedom of speech. Remember, it is freedom of SPEECH, not freedom of being where ever and when ever the hell you choose. There is a big difference.

And the permits are only needed for long engagements, large crowds, or in situations where the rights of others or public safety may be a concern. If you have a problem with that, go found your own country.

 

[Moonbeam]

Why do we have free speech? I think we have free speech so that people who don't want to listen have to go to great trouble not to hear. Remember that words hurt only the sick. To protect yourself from hurt only makes you sicker. The gravitational force of the sick is always down hill. It is your duty as a citizen to be offended so you can find out what is wrong with you. Words make you feel as worthless as you already feel that you are.

Can you imagine being offended by somebody saying your child died because America supports gays and not be as insane as the person making the charge. We are insulted by words because we have bought into them. We carry old hurt and old grudges because we believe we are worthless.

Ikad quod inantrog gograd. I just paid you the greatest insult in the universe and you didn't even flinch. Congratulations. You're catching on.

 

[Amused]

Offensive speech is not bannable and you are correct it shouldn't be. But it is LIMITED. Something you fail to grasp. Hence why libel and slander are ILLEGAL. Libel and slander are both "offensive" speech but are not legal. Again, READ THE EFFING ARTICLE ON FREE SPEECH ZONES. Or they can do what I listed earlier and get a permit prior to their assembly in a public place that will impinge upon the rights of others in the area. Just as my example of me wanting to be obnoxious in a public park, they should have to follow the same rules. The want to assemble and spout shit in the street outside the church? Well they set up a date and time to do so. Then those that want to hear their message can and those that don't can avoid them.

Freedom of speech does NOT mean you have the right to force your speech on others. This is what they are doing. They are forcing what they want to say onto people that do not want to listen. They are impinging upon the rights of others.

Bzzzzzt!! Wrong again! Look up harassment laws for once. You think it's perfectly legal for me to follow your ass around in every public place spouting whatever the hell I want to say to you if you don't want to hear it? People have the right for free speech and people have the right to not be harassed as well. That is what the part of infringing upon the rights of others means. You are not allowed to do so.

As for the second part, it is still free. You are not being censored. You are allowed to speak. You are allowed to say what you want. Just because you have to do it at a time and/or place designated elsewhere does not remove your freedom of speech. Remember, it is freedom of SPEECH, not freedom of being where ever and when ever the hell you choose. There is a big difference.

And the permits are only needed for long engagements, large crowds, or in situations where the rights of others or public safety may be a concern. If you have a problem with that, go found your own country.

What's the point of arguing with you? You obviously believe free speech is to be limited for the mere act of offending or annoying others. A clear violation of the original intent of the first amendment, but what the hell, you think the limits that can be applied are endless, so there is no arguing with you.

As for the freedom to utter my speech where I choose in public, if you cannot see that limiting WHERE I may say it is LIMITING the speech and the freedom thereof as well, well... as I said, there is no arguing with you.

Meanwhile, the implications of limiting Phelp's speech are far reaching, and will have unintended consequences. If you limit his right to be there, you ALSO limit the rights of those who wish to speak in favor of the funerals as well. In effect, you have outlawed standing on the side of the road in observance of a funeral procession.

Or wait, do you mean you only want to outlaw "offensive" speech in observance of a funeral? Well then, who defines "offensive?

The travesty of your narrow minded thinking on our liberties is that you cannot see how you are cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Get this straight: You do NOT have the right to be free from hearing another's speech in public, no matter how offensive you may find it.

 

[Infohawk]

woolfe9999

Where can I find this "kitty porn"? Sounds interesting.

Lulz, especially in light of the ultra-serious tone of his post.