Supreme Court Takes Phelps Case

=Imperator= said:
everyone that has access to guns are mostly conservative and agree with him

if phelps stayed away from military funerals all the retard conservatives on this site would be giving him a pat on the back for teaching those queers a lesson on how they are going to hell.
Click to expand...

sure about that?
 
Darla said:
I am interested to know what others thing of this. I have never viewed this a free speech issue. this is clear cut depraved harrassment to me, and I don't see why the law should protect them from paying damages for the trauma they inflict.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/06/military-funeral-protest-case_n_752310.html


WASHINGTON — The father of a Marine killed in Iraq is asking the Supreme Court to reinstate a $5 million verdict against members of a fundamentalist church who picketed his son's funeral with signs like "Thank God for Dead Soldiers" and "God Hates the USA."

The court is hearing arguments Wednesday in the dispute between Albert Snyder of York, Pa., and members of the Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kan. The case pits Snyder's right to grieve privately against the church members' right to say what they want, no matter how offensive.
Click to expand...

This is a British TV programme about the Phelps, I'm sure you will enjoy it.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?d...JS2BA&q=fred+phelps#docid=1255630606668114621
 
Darla said:
I am interested to know what others thing of this. I have never viewed this a free speech issue. this is clear cut depraved harrassment to me, and I don't see why the law should protect them from paying damages for the trauma they inflict.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/06/military-funeral-protest-case_n_752310.html


WASHINGTON — The father of a Marine killed in Iraq is asking the Supreme Court to reinstate a $5 million verdict against members of a fundamentalist church who picketed his son's funeral with signs like "Thank God for Dead Soldiers" and "God Hates the USA."

The court is hearing arguments Wednesday in the dispute between Albert Snyder of York, Pa., and members of the Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kan. The case pits Snyder's right to grieve privately against the church members' right to say what they want, no matter how offensive.
Click to expand...

it absolutely is a free speech issue

it is, imo, hate speech and totally inappropriate, but it is protected speech
 
Yurt said:
it absolutely is a free speech issue

it is, imo, hate speech and totally inappropriate, but it is protected speech
Click to expand...
Free speech does NOT include the right to harass people in what is one of their most trying times. These people were BURYING their SON, and those subhuman slimes took it on themselves to dishonor their son and everyone else who has died in service to their country. No, sorry, free speech should not include allowing this type of activity without penalty, any more than free speech allows slander without penalty.
 
Good Luck said:
Free speech does NOT include the right to harass people in what is one of their most trying times. These people were BURYING their SON, and those subhuman slimes took it on themselves to dishonor their son and everyone else who has died in service to their country. No, sorry, free speech should not include allowing this type of activity without penalty, any more than free speech allows slander without penalty.
Click to expand...

wait a minute...do you support the right of anti gay rights folks to march/hold signs at a gay rights rally? do you support the right of anti union folks to march/hold signs at a pro union rally? what about at an obama speech? should someone be forbidden to say 'god' hates obama?

yes or no

btw...slander doesn't apply here, at all
 
Yurt said:
wait a minute...do you support the right of anti gay rights folks to march/hold signs at a gay rights rally? do you support the right of anti union folks to march/hold signs at a pro union rally? what about at an obama speech? should someone be forbidden to say 'god' hates obama?

yes or no

btw...slander doesn't apply here, at all
Click to expand...

3 Strawmen on the other thread....4 false analogies on this one.

You are on a roll this evening...
 
Darla said:
I'm actually surprised no one has killed him by now. If someone who just lost a loved one puts a bullet into one of these lunatics, who could blame them really? But I don't understand why it has to come to that. They should be jailed when they show up. Creating a disturbence or something.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I know Darla. We need an office somewhere to decide which kind of speech is perfectly OK and which is disturbing. We can call it the "office of internal security" or something, hell, just go and wake up Stalin and ask for his opinion on the subject.
 
Onceler said:
3 Strawmen on the other thread....4 false analogies on this one.

You are on a roll this evening...
Click to expand...

wtf?

obviously abstract thought and thinking outside the box are too complicated for you....when discussing speech, you obviously have to have lines drawn in the sand....or simply put....examples to explain where the proverbial "you" would draw the line....

its truly pathetic how ignorant you are of what logical fallacies are....what i ASKED are not false analogies, rather....they are specific questions to find out where he draws the line....free speech is not a bright line rule, without questions and examples, you have nothing

thanks again for proving you're an ignorant moron :)
 
Socrtease said:
His speech is indeed protected so long as he keeps it general and aimed toward the military etc. If he says that the soldier being buried did something and it is not true then the first amendment does not protect him and should not protect him. I lived next door to a Phelps for 3 years. I saw Fred and his church/family members everyday picketing somewhere. There was an incident in Wichita or Lawrence or some place in Kansas, where one of the Westboro picketers called an 11 or 12 year old girl a whore when she told them, from the front seat of her dads car, god loves everyone. Her dad heard them call her a whore and spun the car around, drove up on the sidewalk and attempted to run over the member than said it. Dad was charged, went to court, and the jury acquitted him. Since then, the members of the church are a little less mouthy at people driving by them. Gotta love the jury nullification process in america.
Click to expand...

Jury nullification in depriving Americans of free speech?
 
Yurt it getting smarter and smarter!

Go yurt. Now he's getting on the right side of issues!

I could take a vacation if someone else could hold down the fort once in a while, fighting the globalists, the fascists and the totalitarian free speech deniers.
 
AssHatZombie said:
Yurt it getting smarter and smarter!

Go yurt. Now he's getting on the right side of issues!

I could take a vacation if someone else could hold down the fort once in a while, fighting the globalists, the fascists and the totalitarian free speech deniers.
Click to expand...

i shall now commit honorable seppuku
 
I think it is an interesting case for the SCOTUS, because it pits rights to privacy directly against rights to free speech. The protests were not being done AT the funeral, but on private property nearby. While I do not support what Phelps' church did, and I think it is despicable and deplorable to put a dead soldiers grieving family through that, they may have a legitimate argument on grounds of free speech, and it will be interesting to see how the court rules on this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top