Fred Phelps can now picket funerals legally

[HumblePie]

Phelps is not protesting outside people's homes. Irrelevant.

In the 25 years Phelps has been doing his asshole routine, not once has he faced a harassment charge.

Did you not read the Supreme Court's Justice quote I posted above? The fact that it is in front of a home is IRRELEVANT! It is the fact that you can not harass a private citizen. And also stated was so long as they have a way to get their message out in another way that does not harass a private citizen, such as free speech zones or permits, it is legal.

Again, if Phelps group was sitting outside a random graveyard 24/7 for an indiscriminate amount of time and he was protesting the war or some other non private citizen entity then it would all be legal. Why? Because then his group is not targeting private citizens. It is not impinging upon their rights. Private citizens would know ahead of time that his group was picketing a given graveyard or funeral home and they could decide if they want to go there or not. That is the line of distinction you fail to grasp.

At this point I can not believe you can be this dense anymore. You have to be obviously trolling as I have proven you wrong beyond a shadow of a doubt here along with others.

http://www.enotes.com/supreme-court-drama/frisby-v-schultz

 

[Amused]

Did you not read the Supreme Court's Justice quote I posted above? The fact that it is in front of a home is IRRELEVANT! It is the fact that you can not harass a private citizen. And also stated was so long as they have a way to get their message out in another way that does not harass a private citizen, such as free speech zones or permits, it is legal.

Again, if Phelps group was sitting outside a random graveyard 24/7 for an indiscriminate amount of time and he was protesting the war or some other non private citizen entity then it would all be legal. Why? Because then his group is not targeting private citizens. It is not impinging upon their rights. Private citizens would know ahead of time that his group was picketing a given graveyard or funeral home and they could decide if they want to go there or not. That is the line of distinction you fail to grasp.

At this point I can not believe you can be this dense anymore. You have to be obviously trolling as I have proven you wrong beyond a shadow of a doubt here along with others.

Humble, that's Justice's remarks is not the binding finding of the court. I posted what the finding of the court was. NOTHING in ANY law says I cannot picket an individual. Maybe you should learn to separate dicta from law?

From the link you just posted...

With a 6–3 decision, the Supreme Court reversed and ruled in favor of Brookfield. Writing for the Court, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor analyzed the freedom of speech and its limitations. Justice O'Connor said picketing is protected by the freedom of speech because it helps Americans consider and discuss important public issues.

The nature of the freedom depends on whether the speaker is in a public or non-public place. Justice O'Connor said picketers on public streets in a residential neighborhood deserve the greatest amount of protection under the First Amendment. Public streets have become a traditional place for the exercise of free speech in America.

By banning picketing "before or about" residential homes, Brookfield was trying to regulate the place where people could exercise free speech. Justice O'Connor said the government can restrict speech like this only if it satisfies a three part test. First, the law must give speakers other ways to express their ideas. Brookfield's anti-picketing law satisfied this test. It only prevented the picketers from gathering in front of a single home to harass the people inside. It did not prevent them from spreading their message by marching through neighborhoods, going door-to-door with anti-abortion literature, or calling people on the telephone.

The second part of the test was that the law must be designed to serve an important government interest. Brookfield's anti-picketing law did that because it was designed to protect privacy in people's homes. Quoting from a prior case, Justice O'Connor said the American home is "the last citadel of the tired, the weary, and the sick." She said the First Amendment does not require Americans to welcome unwanted speech into their homes.

Planned Parenthood and a group of doctors filed a lawsuit in federal court against the anti-abortion groups and twelve individuals. They said the website contained death threats that violated federal laws. On February 3, 1999, a federal jury in Portland, Oregon, agreed and awarded the plaintiffs $107 million in damages.

Abortion protestors said the verdict trampled on the freedom of speech. A lawyer for the plaintiffs, however, said the verdict protected freedom for abortion doctors. "They want the freedom to hug their child in front of a window." The verdict likely will be in appeals for many years.

The third part of the test was that the law must be written narrowly so that it does not prevent more speech than necessary to protect privacy. Justice O'Connor said Brookfield's anti-picketing law satisfied this part of the test as well. Again, the law only prevented people from gathering in front of a single home to harass the people inside. Because Brookfield's law satisfied each of the three conditions, Brookfield could stop the protestors from picketing in front of the abortion doctor's home.

Now tell me, where in that does it say I cannot picket an individual? It says I cannot picket in front of a single home. Period. The finding has EVERYTHING to do with private residences and NOTHING to do with individuals.

 

[HumblePie]

Humble, that's Justice's remarks is not the binding finding of the court. I posted what the finding of the court was. NOTHING in ANY law says I cannot picket an individual. Maybe you should learn to separate dicta from law?

Dude, did you not read libel and slander laws, or harassment laws? Those are the laws that state you can not do that to an individual. I already posted those. Seriously get a clue.

I will state they do not use the exact term picketing, because the context of the law is meant to be broader than that. Because if they listed exact conduction of action that violates the law, then it would be a huge list that would have to grow larger and larger anytime someone found a new way to harass another person in public. Instead, they state what harassment is and not how the action is conducted. Grow a fucking brain.

 

[Amused]

Dude, did you not read libel and slander laws, or harassment laws? Those are the laws that state you can not do that to an individual. I already posted those. Seriously get a clue.

I will state they do not use the exact term picketing, because the context of the law is meant to be broader than that. Because if they listed exact conduction of action that violates the law, then it would be a huge list that would have to grow larger and larger anytime someone found a new way to harass another person in public. Instead, they state what harassment is and not how the action is conducted. Grow a fucking brain.

Dude, your case says nothing of the sort. Deal with it. They can picket the doctor outside his clinic, but NOT at his home, as the home is a haven. THAT is what the ruling says. NOTHING about restricting speech against individuals.

And nothing in that case was related to libel, slander, OR harassment. Only privacy.

Can I buy some pot from you?

What does your case do? It shows that: "Freedom of speech does not give picketers the right to harass people in their homes." Period. That's it.

 

[SlickSnake]

SlickSnake makes no point at all. Phelps has not acted "angry and insane" nor has he threatened anyone. He simply says things people are offended by. Another person arguing against ridiculous extremes that do not exist.

Phelp's protests are the textbook definition of "Peaceable." Not once has one of his group committed an act of violence. One memeber way back in 1995 was convicted of spitting. That's it.

Again, produce the harassment case you claim applies, and show me case law that says being offended gives you the legal right to shut someone else up ON PUBLIC PROPERTY.

In fact, of all the lawsuits and criminal charges Phlep's has had to fight, not one is "harassment." People sued for various effects of being offended, and all were over turned.

Humble, you wrote a tremendous wall of text there, but none of it applies to this case. I asked for a case in which harassment charges were successfully used against peaceful picketers on public property, and you produced nothing but irrelevant bullshit again. The Home picketing law is interesting, but irrelavant. A Cemetery is not a home.

Phelp's offends. That's it. He's not violent, nor does he even come close to threatening violence. He merely offends.

Obviously you are not even remotely familiar with their evil, vile and reprehensible tactics. I have even seen them myself in action. They are as glassy eyed and brainwashed and stark raving mad and looney insane as one can get. And when they are nearby screaming and hollering about FAGS and cursing everyone including the USA to eternal damnation and Hell, you can't even hear the eulogies or the grave side ceremony. That's called disturbing the peace and harassment and even trying to incite a riot, which is precisely what they want. But by the time they hear the sirens blaring from the cop cars driving up, they scurry away like little bloated maggots full of fresh hate that just finshed eating up a corpse, which is precisely what they are there to do.

Clearly, you are a sad little troll here, defending an insane ranting and raving lunatic and his brainwashed brethren doing his evil and hateful bidding. You should be ashamed for even defending him at all. And you can certainly find videos online of various antics they have pulled at funerals and other places they decide to picket, if you would even call the evil bile that they do picketing, which I certainly don't.

They do more to give Christians a bad name than any other religious group I can think of off hand, bar NONE. You would swear they are all possessed by Satan himself if you ever saw them in a protest or even a laughable excuse for an angry hate filled church service. And it chills you to the bone to see how thoroughly they completely brainwash their kids and fill their minds with unbelievable anger and hate at pretty much everyone, including the entire USA.

 

[Amused]

Obviously you are not even remotely familiar with their vile and reprehensible tactics. I have even seen them myself in action. They are about as brainwashed and raving looney insane as one can get. And when they are nearby screaming and hollering about FAGS and cursing everyone including the USA to eternal damnation and Hell, you can't even hear the eulogies or the grave side ceremony.

Clearly, you are a sad little troll here, defending an insane ranting and raving lunatic and his brainwashed brethren doing his evil and hateful bidding. You should be ashamed for even defending him at all. And you can certainly find videos online of various antics they have pulled at funerals and other places they decide to picket, if you would even call the evil bile that they do picketing, which I certainly don't. They do more to give Christians a bad name than any other religious group I can think of off hand, bar NONE.

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.

 

[HumblePie]

Amused, they were not on his private property. They were on public property. It was stated they can not protest, even on public property, a private citizen. They could protest the clinic on public property because the clinic is a public entity. I've already explained that.

Here read this article.

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/con10.htm

but I'll give a quick quote

Second, reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on such speech are permissible if they are content-neutral, narrowly tailored to serve substantial government interests, and leave ample alternative ways for the speech to occur.

Third, speech or expressive conduct can be restricted because of its relationship to unlawful conduct, such as disorderly conduct or trespass.

The article lists several cases brought to SC dealing with protesting and limits imposed upon them. Requiring permits and setting up times and places for protesters to peaceably assemble has been deemed numerous times Constitutional. The permit can not be denied based on context of the protest. That is the only stipulation. Things such as requiring protesters hire police escorts, or being assigned designated areas, or assigned designated times, so long as those areas and times do not deny an audience for the protesters, are also all legal qualifications.

You are the one smoking a ton of pot here if you can not fathom this.

 

[Amused]

Amused, they were not on his private property. They were on public property. It was stated they can not protest, even on public property, a private citizen. They could protest the clinic on public property because the clinic is a public entity. I've already explained that.

Here read this article.

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/con10.htm

but I'll give a quick quote




The article lists several cases brought to SC dealing with protesting and limits imposed upon them. Requiring permits and setting up times and places for protesters to peaceably assemble has been deemed numerous times Constitutional. The permit can not be denied based on context of the protest. That is the only stipulation. Things such as requiring protesters hire police escorts, or being assigned designated areas, or assigned designated times, so long as those areas and times do not deny an audience for the protesters, are also all legal qualifications.

You are the one smoking a ton of pot here if you can not fathom this.

Is your reading comprehension that bad? Your case applies ONLY to private residences. Period. It says nothing of protesting an individual. Not one damn thing. No case law does.

As for your second paragraph, Phelps stays within those guidelines. Finally, read your last sentance: so long as those areas and times do not deny an audience for the protesters.

You cannot force Phelps so far away that his protest is not seen and heard by the event he is protesting. Period.

 

[HumblePie]

No, that would be HARASSMENT LAWS!

engag(ing) in intentional conduct which the actor [harasser] knows or has reason to know would cause the victim, under the circumstances, to feel frightened, threatened, oppressed, persecuted, or intimidated; and causes this reaction on the part of the victim.

Phelps is clearly harassing private citizens. Holy crap you are so fixated on details of a case without realizing the broader scope of implications of decisions.

The laws in many states and cities state that one can not protest outside the residence of a private citizen. These laws have been deemed Constitutional. However, these are NOT federal laws. Not all states have these laws. In areas that do not have these laws, you CAN picket outside a residence and not face the same legal repercussions. You may still face harassment charges based on the type of harassment laws in place for that local area for harassing a private citizen.

This was a new law that was made to prevent Phelps from doing the same thing as protesters once did to people at their own homes. Instead it is now aimed at cemeteries. I have been trying to point out to you the correlation between constitutional legal laws baring picketing outside a residence against a private citizen and now this new law doing the same at cemeteries. You fail at fucking comprehension here.

 

[Amused]

No, that would be HARASSMENT LAWS!



Phelps is clearly harassing private citizens. Holy crap you are so fixated on details of a case without realizing the broader scope of implications of decisions.

The laws in many states and cities state that one can not protest outside the residence of a private citizen. These laws have been deemed Constitutional. However, these are NOT federal laws. Not all states have these laws. In areas that do not have these laws, you CAN picket outside a residence and not face the same legal repercussions. You may still face harassment charges based on the type of harassment laws in place for that local area for harassing a private citizen.

This was a new law that was made to prevent Phelps from doing the same thing as protesters once did to people at their own homes. Instead it is now aimed at cemeteries. I have been trying to point out to you the correlation between constitutional legal laws baring picketing outside a residence against a private citizen and now this new law doing the same at cemeteries. You fail at fucking comprehension here.

A Cemetery is not a home, nor does one have an expectation of privacy outside a cemetery. There is NO correlation between a private residence and a cemetery. None.

And you keep using the word "harassment" yet not a single case history of "harassment" applied to picketers has been offered up? Why is that? In all of Phelp's legal battles, not one is based on "Harassment."

You keep using that word, but it's 100% irrelevant. Protests on public property do not meet the definition of harassment. Not even the protests outside private homes. That was ruled on privacy matters, NOT harassment. The protesters were not charged with harassment.

 

[HumblePie]

A Cemetery is a private location. They are not public grounds. Same as a home. There are private individuals wanting privacy on cemetery grounds. Same as in a residence. There are legal laws that bar protesters from picketing outside a residence for privacy concerns of private citizens. This law does the same but for cemeteries. That is the correlation you fail to understand. Privacy is only a consideration for private citizens, not public entities.

Even for public entities, such as an abortion clinic, there are buffer zone laws that are perfectly legal for them. Many states and cities have laws that protesters of abortions and abortion clinics are regulated to be a certain distance away from the clinic to protect the privacy of the private citizens within. Again a similar legal law.

The harassment is because Phelps is specifically targeting private individuals, the mourners of dead soldiers, and not a public entity. The majority of protesters that protest are against public entities or intangibles. Those that protest private citizens have been arrested for harassment among other charges in the past. Many on them recently for protesting specific gay people for example. Trying to google a few I remember briefly reading about.

 

[Amused]

A Cemetery is a private location. They are not public grounds. Same as a home. There are private individuals wanting privacy on cemetery grounds. Same as in a residence. There are legal laws that bar protesters from picketing outside a residence for privacy concerns of private citizens. This law does the same but for cemeteries. That is the correlation you fail to understand. Privacy is only a consideration for private citizens, not public entities.

Even for public entities, such as an abortion clinic, there are buffer zone laws that are perfectly legal for them. Many states and cities have laws that protesters of abortions and abortion clinics are regulated to be a certain distance away from the clinic to protect the privacy of the private citizens within. Again a similar legal law.

The harassment is because Phelps is specifically targeting private individuals, the mourners of dead soldiers, and not a public entity. The majority of protesters that protest are against public entities or intangibles. Those that protest private citizens have been arrested for harassment among other charges in the past. Many on them recently for protesting specific gay people for example. Trying to google a few I remember briefly reading about.

A Cemetary is the same as any other business. One has NO expectations of privacy there. To compare a Cemetary to a private residence is just plain silly. They are not the same.

Again, there is NO LAW against protesting an individual. Please, again, show me the case law that picketing an individual meets the legal requirements for "harassment."

Oh, wait... You cannot. Not even Phelps himself has ever been charged with, much less convicted of harassment. Why? Because "harassment" DOES NOT APPLY.

Buffer zones exist ONLY to ensure unfettered access by clients, NOT to make the speech unheard. Phelps does NOT block entrances to cemetaries in any way, shape or form, therefore he already follows buffer zone rules.

So, what do we have? A Cemetary is a business just like any other. Harassment can not, and does not apply. And phelps does not hamper access in any way.

You have nothing, Humble. Not one damn thing to deny this vile man his freedom to voice his nasty opinions. Not one damn thing.

 

[Kirby]

"Free speech zones" are more of a threat to democracy than Fred Phelps will ever be. :thumbsdown:

As much of a piece of shit he is, denying him the right to protest with some bullshit harassment claim is despicable. Are you going to arrest people who protested Bush or Obama because they singled an individual out?

 

[dahunan]

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

.

One of the most valuable things America stands for

 

[HumblePie]

Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire

''t is well understood that the right of free speech is not absolute at all times and under all circumstances. There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or 'fighting' words--those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.‘”

This shit that Phelps and crew spouts are lewd, obscene, and are "fighting-words" if you have ever seen videos of their protests.


Beauharnais v. Illinois

the Supreme Court upheld a libel law which made it unlawful to defame a race or class of people. The defendant had been convicted for distributing a leaflet, a part of which was in the form of a petition, taking a hard-line white supremacy position and calling for action to keep African Americans out of white neighborhoods. 343 U.S. 250 (1952);

Phelps and crew are specifically target dead solders and gays. Both are classes of people.


Basic principle of Free Speech is this: Your rights end where another person's rights begins. Meaning you can not step on the rights of others. People have the right to a private ceremony to honor their dead. Phelps and his crew seek to disrupt the ceremony with their protests and step on the rights of others. That is harassment plain and simple.

If all they did was stand outside a graveyard, waving images, and giving their message out to those on nearby public property can hear it would be one thing. The fact that they go to deliberate lengths to hinder the ceremonies with loud and brazen noise like air horns is harassment. The fact that their speech is pure hate rhetoric directed at classes of people is also not protected by the first amendment. Amused, again you fail.

 

[HumblePie]

Part of the buffer zone laws is the noise level laws. Protesters of abortion clinics are NOT allowed to make noise that would interfere with the business. It must be confined to public areas. Phelps and crew do not do this. They explicitly make noise loud enough to interfere with the business of the cemetery.

 

[MotF Bane]

Basic principle of Free Speech is this: Your rights end where another person's rights begins. Meaning you can not step on the rights of others. People have the right to a private ceremony to honor their dead. Phelps and his crew seek to disrupt the ceremony with their protests and step on the rights of others. That is harassment plain and simple.

Never seen that one in the Bill of Rights.

 

[HumblePie]

Never seen that one in the Bill of Rights.

Damnit, it's not explicit. Neither is the right to take a shit, or breath air, or drink water. Those aren't in there either. Neither is right for Boy Scouts not to include gay members explicitly detailed in the amendments either, but it was a right defended and upheld by the Supreme Court.

It is based on the right to privacy. In many places of businesses there is a certain expectation of a right to privacy depending upon the business. You walk into a grocery store and the expectation to privacy is not there. When you walk into a doctor office or lawyers office there is an expectation of a right to privacy. The same with a cemetery. Why? Because unfortunately you can not bury your dead just any place. For one thing there are sanitation laws that prevent that. So people who choose to bury their dead must do so in proscribed locations. They are then entitled to a right to privacy just as one would be entitled to a right to privacy when visiting a doctor for a condition.

 

[HumblePie]

Again, I am not at all for stopping Phelps from spewing his rhetoric and crap. I Constitutionally support his right to do so. I do not support the conduct of action for is expression of speech.

Remember the SC has deemed numerous times that restrictions can be placed upon the conduction of action of free speech, not the content of the speech. For example permits, free speech zones, buffer zones, noise level restrictions, and other things that deal with delivery of the speech and not the content are perfectly legal to place general restrictions upon.

That is what this law is aiming to do. It is not trying to stifle the message by Phelps&co, but to allow mourners of the dead their same right to privacy if they so wish it.

 

[Moonbeam]

HumblePie:

This shit that Phelps and crew spouts are lewd, obscene, and are "fighting-words" if you have ever seen videos of their protests.

M: Wat? I thought they were words designed to keep more troops from dying by the will of god. Didn't we kill Jesus because he said things we didn't like?


HP: Phelps and crew are specifically target dead solders and gays. Both are classes of people.

Everybody is some class of people. I thought Jesus came to save Jews.


HP: Basic principle of Free Speech is this: Your rights end where another person's rights begins. Meaning you can not step on the rights of others.

M: Right, you shouldn't stop folk who are trying to save you.

HP: People have the right to a private ceremony to honor their dead. Phelps and his crew seek to disrupt the ceremony with their protests and step on the rights of others. That is harassment plain and simple.

M: I thought military cemeteries are public places. How can you honor the dead better then trying to insure there will be fewer who are killed?

HP: If all they did was stand outside a graveyard, waving images, and giving their message out to those on nearby public property can hear it would be one thing. The fact that they go to deliberate lengths to hinder the ceremonies with loud and brazen noise like air horns is harassment. The fact that their speech is pure hate rhetoric directed at classes of people is also not protected by the first amendment. Amused, again you fail.

M: Those who fail are the ones who don't listen, no? When folk don't have to hear what they need to hear we will all be dead. Down with cries of wolf. We need to protect people from dangerous words, fighting words, words fools believe in.

 

[HumblePie]

Damn moonbeam, why are you being a deliberate troll there?

EDIT and

M: I thought military cemeteries are public places.

No, they are not open to the public. That is why Phelps and crew have to stand outside the cemeteries for their protest in the first place. Otherwise they would just come inside.

 

[Kirby]

It is based on the right to privacy. In many places of businesses there is a certain expectation of a right to privacy depending upon the business. You walk into a grocery store and the expectation to privacy is not there. When you walk into a doctor office or lawyers office there is an expectation of a right to privacy. The same with a cemetery. Why? Because unfortunately you can not bury your dead just any place. For one thing there are sanitation laws that prevent that. So people who choose to bury their dead must do so in proscribed locations. They are then entitled to a right to privacy just as one would be entitled to a right to privacy when visiting a doctor for a condition.

LOL @ the mental loops to come to that conclusion

 

[Moonbeam]

Damn moonbeam, why are you being a deliberate troll there?

Not a troll, a questioner. Everything to me seems to be about whose ox gets gored.

Mulla Nasrudin's bull broke down the fence and gored the neighbors' cow so he ran to their house and demanded payment saying your bull broke down the fence and gored my cow, to which he was answered, no payment can be given. It was an act of God whereupon, the Mulla admitted he had gotten it wrong and to which the neighbors claimed that was now a different matter.

How you see things depends on from where you look. The hidden and unexamined assumption in everything is that the place from which I view things is the only place that is good. And thus it is that everybody has the right opinion, the one and only religion, and makes only just laws, etc.

And all of this is the result of ego attachment, the need to be right so as not to feel worthless as we were made to feel as children. Try as I might, I could not escape that feeling but I died trying. hehe

 

[Moonbeam]

Damn moonbeam, why are you being a deliberate troll there?

EDIT and



No, they are not open to the public. That is why Phelps and crew have to stand outside the cemeteries for their protest in the first place. Otherwise they would just come inside.

There was a pile driver working miles away from where I live and the racket it made was profoundly annoying. It made a thousand times more noise than Phelps. It would rise and fall saying asshole asshole asshole asshole, over and over again. I can only thank God it was talking about my neighbor.

 

[Lemon law]

Although it will be certainly against the law and therefore illegal, but if Phelps keeps pushing his luck, someone is going to take a gun and blow him away. I am somewhat surprised it has not happened already, but I might also wonder of Plelp's congregation will be so eager to continue his life's work if one or more of them are serious wounded or killed. Being dead right on legal rights has never ever brought anyone back from the dead.

Phelps is playing with people's raw emotions, at exactly a time when those raw nerves are most exposed.