Westboro Baptist Church Protests

[robinb]

Actually, I believe that they protest to draw attention to themselves and try to fish for a First Amendment lawsuit. It is highly suspect that the "pastor" is a former attorney and worked on Al Gore's senate campaigns.

There is no love lost between Al Gore and Fred Phelps. While there were ties between Gore and Phelps, eventually Gore realized that what a whack-a-doodle Phelps is and distanced himself by the mid 90's. After that, Phelps and his family protested at Al Gore Sr.'s funeral.

 

[curious3069]

To those who agree with it is WBC Freedom Of Speech right to protest at a funeral... I ask you to wonder how you would feel if this group or anyone for that matter came to your family members funeral (mom, dad, new born baby) or your friends funeral. Or how about anyone coming to your family members funeral and protesting for any reason.
Would you still say.... well, it is freedom of speech?

Yes I would, every single time. I would hate it and I would hate them, but they still have the right to protest.

 

[julieannbabe]

I was wondering if anyone has witnessed this church protesting a Military Funeral. Our small town lost a soldier last week and his funeral is Tomorrow at our High School. It appears that members from Westboro will be protesting , I feel so bad for this family and just was wondering how bad the protesters will be. I am also afraid of there being trouble, they are coming to a small Alabama town. How do people feel about them protesting? I think it is disrespectful but on the other hand this soldier died for their right to protest.

the best thing you can do with these people is ignore them.

they are crazy and just want attention.

 

[julieannbabe]

Yes I would, every single time. I would hate it and I would hate them, but they still have the right to protest.

no they don't the right to protest when they talk sh*t 'God hates Fags' and all that rubbish.
don't have any right to protest as they are MAD.
if they spoke some sense maybe people would listen but they don't.
bunch of freaks.

 

[curious3069]

no they don't the right to protest when they talk sh*t 'God hates Fags' and all that rubbish.
don't have any right to protest as they are MAD.
if they spoke some sense maybe people would listen but they don't.
bunch of freaks.

In the USA, yes they do.

The things they say are complete rubbish, but they have the right to say them.

 

[pixiewings71]

There are all kinds of limits on free speech that we don't think about. As a pp has said, yelling fire in a crowded theater and causing a panic is not protected. I can't walk into an airport and make a joke about a bomb either. Child pornography isn't protected -- and there are still certain words that cannot be said on the public airways (TV or radio). We don't think about them because they are just common sense. It should also be common sense that protesting at a funeral is wrong.

This is what I think. They are scum bags but in the US people should be able to protest anything they want on public property. That doesn't mean they should do it but they should have the right to do it. Those are two very different things.

Anyone wanting to counter protest should have the same right but in reality the best thing to do is ignore them and not engage them. They are looking for publicity more then anything so ignoring them instead of engaging them, and that means the news shouldn't cover their protests, there should be no counter protest, no yelling threats, nothing, just ignore them. It may be hard to do but if they don't get the publicity they will move on looking for it.

Of course the best thing to do is ignore them but I've really enjoyed the counter protests I've seen people do. My favorite was in SF, those people were protesting something (I can't remember what now) and were on one side of the street, people on the other side were sitting or standing (not yelling or anything, just standing there) with signs that said things like "I have a sign" or "I'm pretty" or other just random saying, nothing inflammatory, nothing that would incite violence just signs that said just about anything. I think one said "I love peanut butter" or something like that. IMO that was the BEST counter protest possible, it made the "church" goers angry and that was it.

To those who agree with it is WBC Freedom Of Speech right to protest at a funeral... I ask you to wonder how you would feel if this group or anyone for that matter came to your family members funeral (mom, dad, new born baby) or your friends funeral. Or how about anyone coming to your family members funeral and protesting for any reason.
Would you still say.... well, it is freedom of speech?

Yes, because it IS Freedom of Speech and it's one of our right as Americans. I would never take that away from anyone, I don't have to like how people use it but it's the truth.

Yes, I would. I wouldn't like it but I would just ignore that they were there. They can yell my deceased family member is whatever they want to call them but that doesn't make it so. You can't control what other people do but you are always in control of your reaction.

They would of course still be scum.

no they don't the right to protest when they talk sh*t 'God hates Fags' and all that rubbish.
don't have any right to protest as they are MAD.
if they spoke some sense maybe people would listen but they don't.
bunch of freaks.

Yes, they DO absolutely 100% have the legal right to do this. And what they do is carefully crafted to make others get angry and lose their tempers causing a situation in which the "church" might be able to sue. Just because they are (to use Firedancer's description) scum doesn't mean they don't have the legal right to protest as they do.

In the USA, yes they do.

The things they say are complete rubbish, but they have the right to say them.[/QUOTE]

yup, we don't have to like it, but they do have the right.

 

[FireDancer]

no they don't the right to protest when they talk sh*t 'God hates Fags' and all that rubbish.
don't have any right to protest as they are MAD.
if they spoke some sense maybe people would listen but they don't.
bunch of freaks.

I see you are in the UK but actually yes, here in the US they do have the right to talk all kinds of hateful rubbish and are protected by the first amendment and while I don't agree with anything they say (or many other groups really) that is a good thing.

I would never in a million years burn our flag or a likeness of any president (whether I liked him or not) in effigy but these things must be allowed for us to really have freedom. Perhaps you have had to grow up here to really understand it but when a question comes up like this where we can err on the side of freedom of speech, expression, or the right to assemble or choose to err on the side of not hurting feelings we really do have to err on the prior and not the later.

 

[Eeyore5]

YES

Listen, as many of you know I have a strong civil rights background. I hate, loathe and despise the KKK but I will defend and uphold their right to legally and peacefully spout their particular brand of crazy.

I will of course raise my voice and protest right back but the true freedom of this country should not and can not depend on my opinions.

No doubt about it I would be P.O'ed if they showed up at anyone I knew funeral but the way to fight back is not to take away their rights. The real freedom and strength comes from uphold some one's rights even though you find them personally repugnant.

Well said. I strongly oppose their opinion. I am a conservative christian and it upsets me that people think they represent my world view. But they have the right to express their beliefs. I am thankful that I also have the right to express mine. I don't know your background is, but I am guessing from your post you understand what it is like to be discriminated against and value freedom. We can think they are nut jobs (I do) but we must support everyone's right to peaceful protest and freedom of speech.

 

[nuttylawprofessor]

The issue before the Court isn't a pure free speech issue. There was no governmental entity curbing the church's speech, and the 1st Amendment only protects against governmental interference with expression. What is really being debated is how far the "public figure" exception can be stretched in personal injury suits. I would bet Scalia and Thomas will be looking at rolling back earlier decisions that made it harder to bring libel, defamation, and other injury suits against people for harms caused by another's speech.

The family in the lawsuit sued the church in civil court for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Traditionally, the 1st Amendment didn't protect an individual from being sued by another individual for the harm caused by the speaker's words. More recently, the Court did create a defense to some of these torts for speech about public figures. It used the 1st Amendment as justification for the exception. So, one of the issues before the Court in this case is whether the family members were public figures, triggering this defense/heightened burden of proof. Based on some public comments that Scalia has made in the last month, it doesn't sound as though he agrees with the public figure exception, and he would allow personal injury suits between private individuals to proceed based on the hate speech.

I don't know where Fred Phelps went whackadoodle, though. This is a man who spent his early legal career fighting for civil rights and equality. Then he lost his mind. The family has become so consumed with spewing hatred, they forgot about all of the good that they initially fought for. What happens to people?!?!

 

[PaulaSue]

They did here. That is the father who is at the Supremem Court today.

 

[laracroft]

I usually do not post about religion or politics as that is a fast way to an arguement. But in this case, it makes me sick. Jesus taught love and compassion and how this group can say the awful things they do make me sick to my stomach. They are loony, but intelligent enough to know what they can and can't do. I can't believe so many of them are lawyers.

 

[goofy4tink]

I'm all for free speech and such, but there have to be limits. There also need to be limits on where they can just 'show up'. Not to mention that I live in a town called Westboro....can I tell you how many people think those 'whack-a-doodles' (love that phrase) are from my home town???
Stop giving them coverage. They seem to crave attention.

 

[Rora]

Just ignore them. They want your attention. They want a scene. The best thing to do is to pretend to ignore them, even though it hurts.

 

[Anjelica]

The issue before the Court isn't a pure free speech issue. There was no governmental entity curbing the church's speech, and the 1st Amendment only protects against governmental interference with expression. What is really being debated is how far the "public figure" exception can be stretched in personal injury suits. I would bet Scalia and Thomas will be looking at rolling back earlier decisions that made it harder to bring libel, defamation, and other injury suits against people for harms caused by another's speech.

The family in the lawsuit sued the church in civil court for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Traditionally, the 1st Amendment didn't protect an individual from being sued by another individual for the harm caused by the speaker's words. More recently, the Court did create a defense to some of these torts for speech about public figures. It used the 1st Amendment as justification for the exception. So, one of the issues before the Court in this case is whether the family members were public figures, triggering this defense/heightened burden of proof. Based on some public comments that Scalia has made in the last month, it doesn't sound as though he agrees with the public figure exception, and he would allow personal injury suits between private individuals to proceed based on the hate speech.

I don't know where Fred Phelps went whackadoodle, though. This is a man who spent his early legal career fighting for civil rights and equality. Then he lost his mind. The family has become so consumed with spewing hatred, they forgot about all of the good that they initially fought for. What happens to people?!?!

You hit the nail on the head - VERY accurate. It's not a clear cut case in terms of the 1st Amendment because as you explained very well the government wasn't involved or infringing on anyones 1st Amendment.

On a personal note - I think the lack of human decency this "church" has shown is beyond excusable. As someone who has seen first hand the ultimate sacrifices these soldiers and families make (including my own) it is inconcievable that these people would act this way. I think they need a first hand tour of Section 60 in Arlington and/or a stay at Walter Reed.

 

[Deb in IA]

The issue before the Court isn't a pure free speech issue. There was no governmental entity curbing the church's speech, and the 1st Amendment only protects against governmental interference with expression.

And this is precisely what Margie Phelps will agrue - that IF there is governmental restrictions on what they are allowed to say, then that IS curbing the church's speech.

I don't know where Fred Phelps went whackadoodle, though. This is a man who spent his early legal career fighting for civil rights and equality. Then he lost his mind. The family has become so consumed with spewing hatred, they forgot about all of the good that they initially fought for. What happens to people?!?!

That is interesting.

One thing I will say for the Phelps' - they are not stupid people. They are good lawyers, and know their Constitutional law.

There is a very interesting essay on this case in Time magazine.

Unfortunately, Albert Snyder does not have a good case. He altered his route to the funeral home so that he did not see the Phelps' protesters outside the funeral home. The only time he saw them was when a news broadcast came on the TV when Snyder was at home with friends and family after the service. One could argue that Snyder could have easily prevented his claimed emotional distress by just not turning on his TV that day, especially since he knew that this incident would probably be broadcast.

 

[DawnCt1]

The issue before the Court isn't a pure free speech issue. There was no governmental entity curbing the church's speech, and the 1st Amendment only protects against governmental interference with expression. What is really being debated is how far the "public figure" exception can be stretched in personal injury suits. I would bet Scalia and Thomas will be looking at rolling back earlier decisions that made it harder to bring libel, defamation, and other injury suits against people for harms caused by another's speech.

The family in the lawsuit sued the church in civil court for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Traditionally, the 1st Amendment didn't protect an individual from being sued by another individual for the harm caused by the speaker's words. More recently, the Court did create a defense to some of these torts for speech about public figures. It used the 1st Amendment as justification for the exception. So, one of the issues before the Court in this case is whether the family members were public figures, triggering this defense/heightened burden of proof. Based on some public comments that Scalia has made in the last month, it doesn't sound as though he agrees with the public figure exception, and he would allow personal injury suits between private individuals to proceed based on the hate speech.

I don't know where Fred Phelps went whackadoodle, though. This is a man who spent his early legal career fighting for civil rights and equality. Then he lost his mind. The family has become so consumed with spewing hatred, they forgot about all of the good that they initially fought for. What happens to people?!?!

I think Fred Phelps is "crazy like a Fox". He knows exactly what he is doing and welcomes an opportunity to sue for personal injury.

 

[nuttylawprofessor]

And this is precisely what Margie Phelps will agrue - that IF there is governmental restrictions on what they are allowed to say, then that IS curbing the church's speech.

One thing I will say for the Phelps' - they are not stupid people. They are good lawyers, and know their Constitutional law.

Unfortunately, Albert Snyder does not have a good case. He altered his route to the funeral home so that he did not see the Phelps' protesters outside the funeral home. The only time he saw them was when a news broadcast came on the TV when Snyder was at home with friends and family after the service. One could argue that Snyder could have easily prevented his claimed emotional distress by just not turning on his TV that day, especially since he knew that this incident would probably be broadcast.

I'll have to disagree with you about the Phelps' knowledge of Constitutional law. Their 1st Amendment argument is actually fairly weak in the Snyder case. The government did not infringe on their right to expression.

If I were a betting man, I would put money on the Court upholding the right to sue for personal injury but affirming the appellate court's dismissal of the case because the Snyders can't prove all of the elements of their emotional distress claim. Ah, if only the police hadn't rerouted the family away from the protest.

I think Fred Phelps is "crazy like a Fox". He knows exactly what he is doing and welcomes an opportunity to sue for personal injury.

But he didn't bring the suit. He's being sued for inflicting the injury.

 

[julieannbabe]

In the USA, yes they do.

The things they say are complete rubbish, but they have the right to say them.

but they seem to want a bit violence with it don't they?

surely if they cross the line that isn't freedom of speech is it? they very aggressive spouting their rubbish.
they not standing there quietly are they?

if it can be proved that there is potential violence is that still freedom of speech?

thanks in advance for answers!

 

[marcyinPA]

I really wish they and other people would quit referring to these people as a church. I can assure you that they are not anything close to a church. To label themselves as a church is a slap in the face to the Baptist religion and other christian religions. They are about as far from Christianity as anyone can get.

Exactly what I was going to say! I pray for these folks, that they truly find Jesus some day.

 

[cm8]

I really wish they and other people would quit referring to these people as a church. I can assure you that they are not anything close to a church. To label themselves as a church is a slap in the face to the Baptist religion and other christian religions. They are about as far from Christianity as anyone can get.

Very true. funny thing is that the KNOW THE LAW, FEEL THEY ARE THE LAW, and KNOW HOW TO MAKE OTHER PEOPLE'S LIFE A LIVING @#$% and they are willing to go through any lengths with the LAW on their side. They are using the same laws meant to protect free speech to violate the rights of another. Seems that since they ARE the law(or so they seem to think) they have the fundamental knowledge of creating havoc and expect the "rest" of us to live with it SN: not all who claim to be Christians are followers of Christ. And there is nothing FREE about the speech they are making