Gotta stand up for those crazy Westboro haters

[NNN0LHI]

http://www.suntimes.com/news/roeper/2780586,CST-NWS-roep07.article

Spewing bile protected under Constitution's First Amendment

October 7, 2010

BY RICHARD ROEPER Sun-Times Columnist

<snip>Hold your nose and defend 'em

If Margie Phelps and a sewer rat were trapped in a burning building and I had time to save just one, I'd probably have to flip a coin because the choice would be so even. She's execrable.

Of course, that goes for the whole bunch of 'em. Anyone who shows up for a soldier's funeral to spew words of hate is beyond redemption. There's no defense for them.

Yet we must side with them in this case. We must defend Westboro's right to free speech, no matter how hurtful. Holding up signs that say, "Thank God for Dead Soldiers" and "God Hates You" at a fallen Marine's service, despicable as it is, does not fit the definition of invasion of privacy.

The Phelps family isn't making a mockery of our Constitution -- they're making a mockery of themselves with every breath they take. Let 'em rant and rave. But putting a government-imposed muzzle on them would set a dangerous precedent and would give them a thousand times more historical importance than they deserve.

[xchrom]

1. Unrec-

[KansasVoter]

2. Wow, short sighted I see!

[The Northerner]

3. Sacrificing essential liberty for temporary safety is certainly not the answer

As vile as the WBC is, the impediment of their speech affects our free speech as well.

As Evelyn Beatrice Hall once wrote, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

[BzaDem]

5. The problem is that this isn't "essential liberty" just because you say it is.

If they want to spew otherwise constitutionally protected personal attacks, they can do it somewhere OTHER than the guy's funeral. There are numerous "time, place, and manner" restrictions on the first amendment, and people here have never complained about them before.

[X_Digger]

6. You sound like a fan of the 'free speech zones'.. n/t

[mindwalker_i]

17. So they're a bunch of dicks

That doesn't mean we should give up the constitution. What happens when someone like Bush comes along and says that people protesting the Iraq war are a bunch of dicks and shouldn't be allowed to do that?

These Westboro people (Phelp's head looks like a booger, talks like a booger...) are trying to provoke people to respond with fistfights so they can sue. It's economically positive from their perspective and a hell of a business model. Like Rush, they don't believe a word their saying, but they know what their market segment is.

[ThomasQED]

26. "People have never complained about them before."

Soooooo wrong.

[X_Digger]

4. Agreed.

The solution to bad speech is good speech.

[The Northerner]

25. Absolutely

[Canuckistanian]

7. Bill Press was making some good points on this this morning

He made the point that the Phelps' wouldn't be able to display their signs in court, nor would they be able to at a political convention. They'd be thrown out - and they wouldn't have recourse.

And then there's the case of "First Amendment Zones" during the Shrub regime. Nobody was filing 1st Amendment suits back then.

So it seems that freedom of speech is NOT universal. Why should signs be legal at a military funeral?

[X_Digger]

13. If it's a public space, what right does the government have to deny access?

Conventions are private property (try getting in without a ticket.)

Courts are meetings of government (again, not a 'public space' as applied in first amendment adjudication.)

If I understand the Phelps Moron Road Show's act, they stand along a funeral route, or on public property.

[Canuckistanian]

14. OK, that's a good point

The problem is, the Phelps know the law better than any average citizen. And they PROFIT from that knowledge. Deliberately.

That alone should merit some kind of law against making money from other's suffering while hiding behind laws clearly not intended for such use.

[ThomasQED]

27. You're trying to make knowing the law into a crime?

The Phelps are despicable and should either be ignored or met with giant counter-protests. NOT by legislating away the rights of the rest of the country.

[Canuckistanian]

28. No not exactly

What I meant was, they know how to MANIPULATE the law to get what they want.

They know how the system works. They know which jurisdictions to file their suits in to get a sympathetic judge and how to file the right motions and ask for the right amount of money in damages.

They're skilled pros - it's how they make their living.

[ThomasQED]

30. That's not how I understand it

It seems to me that the police are often overzealous and try to restrict protests. With this group, they've found someone who is willing and able to fight back. Maybe if the police knew the laws as well as this "church" and actually followed the laws instead of just trampling people's rights, the lawsuits would fail and their funding would disappear.

I've been to enough protests to see that police like to make stuff up on the spot and shut you down, knowing that by the time you figure out they were lying, the time has passed.

[independent_voter]

8. Fred Phelps is insane

He's a disbarred 1960s civil rights lawyer who lost his mind

read this before you report my post - it's true,

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

the real issue here, is committing mentally ill people when they are a harm to themselves or others, it's not a new issue and there are centuries of precident. the courts have been negligent with him

[CC]

9. Their not the government

they are the families burying their loved ones. It shouldn't of been allowed for Matthews' funeral, not the first one and not this last one.
If the Phelps clan wants to protest the military then let them go stand outside on public property of any base they want but let families say good bye to their loved ones in peace whether murder victim, soldier or whatever.

[Art_from_Ark]

16. Agreed-- a funeral is a very personal matter

It should be open only to family members and whoever else they choose to invite.

[SmileyRose]

31. Small communities are easier to get a settlement from than the Federal Government

You'll notice they don't take their road show to Arlington funerals. They strategically pick cities and counties, protest without a permit and then start filing lawsuits when the cops hassle them or private property owners run them off. Most of the time it's cheaper to settle so the Phelps pockets the dough and moves on.

They are predators, not protesters.

[MuseRider]

10. Showing up at anyone's funeral

to picket with hate is a disgrace. Do not forget, they were doing this to the GLBT community long before they started with the soldiers.

[TheMadMonk]

11. Assault is not free speach. EOFM

[era veteran]

12. The Klan Phelps are in it for the money on lawsuits.

They are despicable. They do have a free speech right that should not be tampered with. Your last thought is so true; ".. give them a thousand times more historical importance than they deserve." A great temptation to screw with free speech. This is a terrible situation.

[Canuckistanian]

15. Exactly. They don't give a shit about the First Amendment

It's just a money-making tool for them.

[struggle4progress]

18. Frankly, I'd just as soon have the wackos out in the open for everybody to see and smell

A standard "clear and present danger" test should keep them at a reasonable distance from funerals, where emotions naturally run high and where Westboro's inflammatory ugliness would be likely to produce uncivil disturbances

But if they want to stand at least a block or two away from a funeral to spew their hate, let them. It won't win them any friends: ninety nine of every hundred people that see them will simply be disgusted

[kenny blankenship]

19. Fuck that.

The Phelps group can go wave their ugly signs in the town square on the same day as a soldier's funeral. They can have their free speech in the public park, or march up some street somewhere in the same town. But they should be kept the fuck away from that funeral with their "Thank God For Dead Soldiers" and "God Hates Fags" signs. There's a perfectly valid public safety reason for insisting on some separation of these "expressions". It actually doesn't have anything to do with "privacy rights". You wouldn't let the KKK burn crosses or march outside the funeral of a black civil rights leader would you? You wouldn't say that that was protected speech, would you? Nor that, if the KKK were forced to have their hate festival someplace else that day, that the Constitution's 1st amendment was now a dead letter. I certainly hope not. They can say all the shit they have to say but they don't have to say it there. Allowing that would be sending a gilt edged invitation to violence into the public space. In 1979, at a Communist Workers Party "Death to the Klan" rally in Greensboro, N.C., a counterprotest group of KKK and Neonazis drove up, and shot and killed 5 anti-Klan protesters. The CWP rally had a parade permit. Greensboro police did nothing to keep the Klan away from the rally, although, through informants, the police had foreknowledge that the Klan was coming. In addition to the 5 dead, 10 others were wounded. You don't have the right to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater, and your right to freedom of expression doesn't trump all legitimate concerns over public safety. In this thread, I've seen several posters express their belief directly, or else imply, that the Phelps protests are deliberately trying to provoke violence. I would agree with that. Just move the Phelps Phreaks to a venue well away from places where soldiers are being laid to rest, far enough away that no connection can be made. They can say all the filth they have to say there, and the street will stay safe for members of both gatherings and for uninvolved passersby.

[TheKentuckian]

20. I have to agree as far beyond putrid as they are though if

someone was to respond in a non-approved manner you'd have a hell of a time getting a conviction from me.

[complain jane]

21. To be perfectly honest, what offends me here

is that someone would flip a coin over the lives of an innocent animal vs. The Phelps'.

[complain jane]

22. What about

a group that follows them around?

[proteus_lives]

23. Fuck'em and let them spew their filth.

Point and laugh.

If Phelps one day gets his ass kicked up one side of the street and down the other, I won't cry about that either.

[the redcoat]

24. First they came for the christian radicals...

Gotta side with the OP on this one. I hate these guys but unless they are forcing people to listen, they have a right to their own views, as skewed as they may be. It's only words, we have to be stronger than insane rhetoric.

[joeybee12]

29. Let me just say this...

I have no idea how I come down on this...it's a toughie, as vile and reprehensible the Phelps are, it's still tough.

Oh, and I'd opt for the sewer rat.

[lunatica]

32. There are already laws against being a public nuisance

The Constitution doesn't have anything to do with these laws, because they're created because one person's or group's actions can interfere and distrupt another person's groups rights to expect not to be harassed.

Who needs the Constitution in this case? The Constitutional rights of the harassed group are just as important.