Fred Phelps should be allowed to protest at GI funerals.

[11 Bravo]

I know there is disagreement on this forum about the issue, but I am a First Amendment absolutist. Is Phelps a subhuman piece of walking, breathing, shit? In my opinion, yes. But in Jerry Falwell's opinion, I am no better; and I'm not willing for anyone to have to forfeit their First Amendment rights as a matter of opinion.
However, I am also of the belief that any legal system which recognizes the concept of "justifiable homicide" would also accomodate a finding of "justifiable assault". If I were ever to encounter Phelps or any of his spawn at a funeral of a friend or loved one, I would beat the living crap out of someone and take my chances with a jury.

[TahitiNut]

1. Agreed.

If the 'test' of a protest/demonstration were the prohibit those which are emotionally disturbing, we'd be in a world of hurt. After all, 'disturbing' is the objective.

Insofar as responding to his in-your-face obscenities, I think the "fighting words" conditions would be met.

[DS1]

3. The problem is that if these signs said "Bush killed these troops"

and not God, then I'm sure the WH legal-types would be working day and night to enforce a "First Amendment Zone" around funerals.

So, in a sense, the test is already failing.

[democrat_patriot]

2. How a bout putting him in a "free speech zone"

2-3 miles for any cemetary..

[zbdent]

4. Near some American Legion types?

Hmmm . . .

[PsN2Wind]

31. No, put him in a free-fire zone

and give the troops firing the salute live ammo.

[BOSSHOG]

5. I'm with you teammate

There should not be any special legislation to keep him and his kind away from funerals. Likewise there should be no ban on anyone who might want to confront the Reverend in a cemetary. When this veteran dies he'll have a helluva time disrupting my party. I'm gonna have a jazz funeral down bourbon street with an all day and night celebration of my life (hopefully drunken debauchery and lots of nudity,) not sadness because of my death. No one will be in the mood for any interference from phelps. Hopefully he'll be burning in hell long before my time is up on this planet.

[brainshrub]

6. I agree.

Sucks that there are people like him, but he has the right to make an ass of himself.

If being an attention whore was illegal, than Paris Hilton would be behind bars.

[madmark2]

7. the funerals are private events by and for non-public figures; that

creates a distinction sufficient to bar phelps without violating the 1st amendments.

[brainshrub]

8. Welcome to DU.

If he stays on the street, and doesn't block traffic I don't see why he should be barred.

BTW: Welcome to DU

:toast:

[CanuckAmok]

9. Get him lots and lots of publicity at these funerals.

All it does is prove what an asshole he is. Also, that's treading on some pretty hallowed ground (pardon the expression). Somebody will eventually kill him because of it.

And how could that be a bad thing?

[ChristianLibrul]

10. Nope.

How can any sane person rationalize intruding on and bullying a family at a funeral? The First Amendment isn't within light years of protecting Phelps and his slime when they do that. You might as well defend his parking on the street in front of your house and protesting your family's July 4th cookout.

[Lolivia]

33. Actually,

SCOTUS has held that picketing is "at the core of protected speech," and that picketing in public streets in residential areas is protected because streets have always been part of the public forum held in trust for public use.

Phelps probably couldn't sit on your front lawn and picket your cookout, but he absolutely could parade up and down your street and protest you.

Protecting free speech means protecting ALL speech - even when spoken by "slime" about truly horrible, offensive things. A city or state probably could make some regulations - but not just because the speech is offensive.

Offensive speech is what we should be most worried about protecting - that's what gives us real rights to speak. After all, happy clappy rah rah speech isn't the kind of speech that is ever in danger of being prohibited.

[WI_DEM]

11. He should also be allowed to be kicked in the ass by grieving

family members and friends.

[Democrats_win]

12. Denver Baptist church apologizes for Phelps´actions in newspaper ads.

http://www.riversidebaptist.com/apology.html

This link contains the ad. Their comments about homosexuality is a bit of a stab in the back.

snip
Any careful comparison with the biblical text, evangelical Christianity and historic Baptist belief reveals that this group can be categorized neither as authentically Christian nor Baptist. There is little, if anything, in their actions or attitudes that reflect the character and spirit of our Lord Jesus Christ or the moral influence of our Baptist forefathers.

-snip on homosexuality
I in no way condone homosexuality or any other sinful action addressed in the Bible. Neither do I support the climate of our culture which grows increasingly tolerant of such actions. At the same time, I believe that God is passionately in love with all sinners and has addressed His displeasure with sin by giving up His own Son on the battlefield of the cross. Therefore, I am unapologetic in stating that every genuinely Christian church should be a safe haven for those seeking freedom from sin through repentance and faith in Jesus Christ.

[DearAbby]

13. The right to protest...

as much as I disagree with this scum, they should have the right to protest. They should be allowed their first amendment rights.

Phelps trash has no common decency. I feel so badly for the families of the fallen, to have to deal with this.

When laws are created to restrict even this piece of trash, then laws can be easily created to restrict us all.

[ronnykmarshall]

14. Sure let him

with a cannon shoved up his ass.

[11 Bravo]

15. Hell, he'd probably enjoy it!

Methinks the boy doth protest too much.

[Warpy]

16. Phelps's purpose is to dismantle the First Amendment

which gives us all the right to assemble peacefully and voice our opinions, no matter which group may consider them repugnant.

Somebody needs to follow the money that's funding his extravagant travel budget. My guess is that it will lead back to Scaife, Moon, Koch, or Daddy Bush.

[TreasonousBastard]

17. There's the question of common...

decency in all this. Protests should never be prohibited, but funerals are times of personal grief and reflection for friends and family, and should be left alone.

I'm sure there are plenty here who would gladly dance on Cheney's grave and invade his funeral with signs and bullhorns, but would that be any better than what Phelps is doing?

Some places have set perimeters for protests, as they have for abortion clinics, where the protests have to be reasonably far fom the funeral. That seems to be a fair compromise.

As far as whooping Phelps' ass goes, I think he would like nothing better, so leave that one alone.

[The_Casual_Observer]

18. Phelps simply makes a bad situation worse. The GI's shouldn't

have been sent to Iraq in the first place. Phelps wouldn't have anyplace to demonstrate if bush hadn't invaded Iraq. Fucked up situations always lead to more and different opportunities for fucked up situations.

[Zynx]

19. So, should I be able to go into your house anytime I want and make

a political speech? You are saying the same thing here.

Funerals are private events, not public ones. It is a private moment for friends and family, not a political rally. It is the same as how I can prevent someone from coming into my business and making a political statement. People have weird ideas of what freedom of speech is.

[11 Bravo]

22. Nothing weird about it. My house is private property.

I could have Phelps arrested for trespassing, or I could forcibly remove him myself. His funeral protests are carefully crafted to avoid criminal trespass. Obnoxious? Yeah. Legal? Yeah.
Someone doesn't understand the concept of free speech, but it's not me.

[Zynx]

28. My point is that it is the same principle.

A funeral is not intended to be a public event, but it just so happens that we need them to occur in areas where they are in plain sight. There is nothing political or public about a funeral and thus it is perfectly easy to legislate provisions to protect them from political protest by keeping protesters as far away as necessary as to keep the event safe from political protesters. Much more restrictive laws have been passed and upheld than this.

My basic point is that freedom of speech does not mean you have the freedom to say whatever you want, wherever you want. It NEVER has. There are restrictions and not even the most hard core legal scholar will tell you otherwise.

[11 Bravo]

32. That's twice you have erected a Straw Man to knock down.

First by claiming that my approach would allow Phelps to enter my house uninvited, and now with the claim that I believe the First Amendment allows one to say "whatever you want WHEREVER (emphasis mine) you want". I of course made neither claim, but don't let that get in the way. (After all, you have a First Amendment right to misrepresent my words.) You are correct in stating that restrictive laws have been passed. Are you in favor of those laws? Do you support the "legal" use of "free-speech" zones to shield Bush from the dissent of the citizenry? If so, then I will disagree with you as a matter of law, but will respect your consistency in the matter. But if you think, as I and a host of legal scholars do, that those "free-speech" zones are clearly unconstitutional, then how can you favor the legal codification of exactly such a further restriction, simply because you happen to disagree with the particular content of the speech being expressed? Right now what Fred Phelps does is legal. Vile and hateful, but legal. Steps are underway to abridge his right to free expression. I prefer not to slide any farther down that particular slope.

[Zynx]

39. Slippery slope my butt.

I stand by my statement that funerals are private affairs and need to be respected. Freedom of Speech does not mean you have the right to say whatever you want wherever you want to say it. This has been confirmed by many Supreme Court rulings over the years. I don't believe in the idea that if we restrict Fred Phelps' "right"(even though I don't believe such a right exists) to interfere in the final moments a family gets to spend with the body of their relative before they are given to the earth that we will suddenly be starring another Sedition Act in the face. If you can't trust the legal system to draw any distinctions then we will start heading down a very slippery slope, to borrow your phrase.

The only way I will condone allowing Phelps to protest at funerals is if the family is given the right to beat him senseless and be protected under the idea that Phelps' protests constitute provocation.

BTW, in case you haven't noticed, whenever there are protests at political events where protesters can't cross so that they don't disrupt the event. Hell, they usually put them far enough away that they can't be heard by those attending the event. Now I am not saying that Phelps can't say what he likes, but I am saying that he can't say it in range of the family burying their dead. This sort of practice has been upheld again and again.

[11 Bravo]

47. Read the Constitution ... or at least the OP.

You state that that it's cool with you if Phelps gets his ass kicked after exercising his rights. I clearly stated that I would beat the shit out of him or any of his spawn, and take my chances with a jury.
But as for that pesky Constitution ... In the course of the debate, Madison originally warned of the dangers arising "from discussing and proposing abstract propositions", suggesting instead that Congress "confine ourselves to an enumeration of simple, acknowledged principles". The framers did so, and the language is clear and unequivocal. "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech." I took an oath 36 years ago to protect those sentiments, and while I no longer wear a green suit, I still believe in the words.
Have legislative restrictions been passed? Yeah, and I disagree with them. You neglect to state if it is only speech with which you disagree that should be legislated out of existence. In fact, you appear to believe that since abridgements to the First Amendment have been previously enacted, it's now open season ... at least on opinions you don't share. I'll stick with Madison and the framers. You can hang out in one of Bush's "free speech" zones, since their very existence provides the sole rationale for your argument.

[Hobarticus]

24. A funeral is a private event on public property...

Yes, it is disgusting and repulsive, but there's nothing that can be done to stop him.

[Zynx]

27. There have been far more restrictive clamps put on "free speech"

than that over the years that have been upheld by the courts.

[Hobarticus]

30. And anything you do to restrict his speech would later be used on YOU

Sure you want to go there?

[Zynx]

38. I don't protest at funerals.

I have more respect than that. There are certain times and places when political demonstrations are simply not appropriate and I am willing to restrict it in selected circumstances.

Did you know that barriers to free speech already exist? Did you know that it is illegal to spread rumors that a bank may go under? Did you know it is illegal to express a desire to harm a government official? Did you know it is illegal to advocate the violent overthrow of our government? These have been ruled constitutional. Very few legal scholars believe in the absolute right to freedom of speech as some here seem to be advocating. I don't take a black and white view of these issues. There are certain lines that need to be drawn and I think that it is entirely proper that we respect the right of people to lay their dead to rest without making a political spectacle of it.

[Hobarticus]

42. Most normal people don't.

Don't equate restricting unpopular free speech with inherently harmful speech (such as the examples you listed). Apples and oranges. No one's going to lose their life savings or stampede out of a movie theater because of what he says.

I'm not arguing with you about this jackass, he's a turd better off flushed. But those young men and women, whose funerals he's making an ass of himself at? They died believing they were defending his rights, not just the ones they agreed with. Right or wrong, that's what they believed. For them, I say he can run his filthy piehole off all he wants.

[Zynx]

43. He can do it all he wants.

I'm just saying keep him far enough away so that they can't hear him during the funeral. I think we have to respect private events such as that.

[Hobarticus]

44. I don't agree with sequestering political protesters, so I can't agree

to sequestering him, either. It stinks, but that's how it works.

[soothsayer]

20. You are 100% correct

[Beelzebud]

21. You are correct. And sometimes that freedom comes with a price.

Let Phelps keep shooting his mouth off. It's just a matter of time before he does it in front of the wrong person.

[Hobarticus]

23. Repulsive as it may seem, this is his freedom of speech.

It's pretty goddamned pathetic that he'd choose to excercise that freedom at the funeral of a soldier, but that's his cross to bear.

[Zynx]

41. However, we are well within our own legal means to legislate how far

from the funeral he can be. The idea is to put him far enough away that nobody can see or hear him who is attending the funeral. This is done with regular political protests all the time.

[Hobarticus]

45. No, we are not.

Just as I consider it a violation of freedom of speech to sequester political protesters, I can't endorse this, at all.

[leeroysphitz]

25. It's tough to keep the strong emotions these "people" bring out

in the rest of us from clouding reason but in the end you are right. We either believe in free speech for all or we don't.

Personally I do believe in free speech for all Americans even when it has the sad side effect of allowing vicious screwballs like Phelps to spread hate...

[ShaneGR]

26. I do not believe that the first ammendment should apply to funerals....

I do support the right of people to express their views, but showing up at someones funeral who you do not know, insulting the person who has passed away and his/her family and those who are grieving in my opinion is not protected free speech.

Should I be able to stand outside of an african-american's funeral with signs saying "God wanted this N*****r dead." Or outside of a Jewish funeral "God doesn't accempt K*kes".

The answer is no. Actually, I'm pretty sure that should be considered a hate crime.

[11 Bravo]

29. How about little girl's birthday parties?

Or bar mitzvahs? Parades? Piano recitals? I'm sorry, but as long as it is done on public property (or one's own private property) I will remain a First Amendment absolutist, regardless of how repugnant I may find any given free expression thereof to be.

[Lolivia]

35. Good thing your opinion doesn't decide free speech jurisprudence

Funny, when I was exercising my first amendment rights by protesting *'s last inauguration, I was told EXACTLY the same thing - the * supporters with their man furs and helmet hairdos had the opinion that I had no right to show up at THEIR inauguration and insult * (who I didn't know) while they were celebrating, and that it wasn't protected speech.

It's a good thing that neither their opinions nor yours control what is protected.

[Zynx]

40. An inauguration is a public political event.

A funeral is a private, non-political event. There is an enormous difference.

Also, I think you would note that they did restrict WHERE you could protest relative to the stage. For example, they did not allow you to protest on stage. They stuck you far enough away that people on stage couldn't hear you. That is all that is being proposed here with the funerals. We are simply saying stick 'em as far away as possible so that the family can have some peace and quiet when they are laying their son or daughter to rest.

[Lolivia]

51. I protested in the street

along the parade route.

I may not be able to enter private buildings, but I can protest on the street. It doesn't matter what the event is that is being protested - that doesn't affect the analysis.

So while Phelps and his ilk may not be able to enter the church and actually protest the funeral, they may stand in the street/public sidewalks and protest. The nature of the event is irrelevant.

In general, private property owners are able to exclude people. So again, it's possible the protesters could be kept out of the church or cemetary (depending on the details) but they cannot be kept off public street/sidewalks/other public areas. It doesn't matter if the event is an inauguration, a funeral, a business meeting, or whatever. Restricting speech based on whether it is about political or non-political events would be impermissible content-based restrictions - highly unconstitutional.

I think what Phelps does is horrific - the man is mentally ill - but free speech means protecting all speech.

[geniph]

34. I've got friends, Vietnam combat veterans

who've been riding their motorcycles to the funerals that Phelps and his repulsive little klavern was scheduled to protest at, and forming a human barrier between the family and the WBC maroons, so the family never has to see the fuckers. These are big, scary-looking fellows too, who wouldn't hesitate to thump the ass of any Phelpsite foolish enough to try to cross their line.

The real question here is whether a funeral and/or a gravesite service is considered private. In my opinion, yes, they are, so the first amendment does not apply. You don't have the right to trespass on private property and insult people at a private event.

[Hobarticus]

36. Now, this kind of de fecto censorship has my ringing endorsement...

Phelps may have freedom of speech, but he also has the freedom to get his teeth knocked out for saying the wrong thing to the wrong people. Can't say I'd feel too bad about it, either.

[11 Bravo]

46. My user name was also my MOS from 1970-72 ... 11B (Infantry)

I am also a combat veteran, and I fully support your buddies. As I stated in the OP, I would kick ass and take my chances with a jury. But when Phelps and his klavern (I like your word) are on public property, I believe they have the right to spew their shit without GOVERNMENT intrusion. They're on their own when it comes to pissed-off vets.

[Initech]

37. I'm in favor of the 500 feet rule...

Sure, let Phelps and his fuckers protest at funerals but they can only protest outside of a 500 foot radius of the churches / cemeteries. Then people wont know (or probably care for that matter) what these assholes are protesting, exactly. Then Phelps just goes away quietly.

[butterfly77]

48. Yes. let him march..

Pretty soon someone is going to put a foot in his ass and I hope it is on camera and reported over and over just like the Natalie holloway story.

[kevinbgoode]

49. I think one point should be made very clear here. . .

for one thing, when did military funerals suddenly become special events? Fred Phelps has been picketing and getting ugly at the funerals of gay Americans for nearly a decade - and not one state has done a damned thing about it. Then suddenly they start picketing military "hero" funerals, and all of the sudden their families are sacred - but ours weren't. To me this is more than a First Amendment issue - this is an issue of government choosing that some people's rights are worth protecting while ignoring others.

What if I happen to be the surviving partner of a gay relationship and the family (which has the legal right to determine the funeral even if I lived with the guy for 20 damned years) decides to BAR me from the event because their evangelical minister doesn't like gays? Since I have no legal standing, what if it pisses me off so much that I make some nasty signs directed at that family and start screaming outside the door? Is the grief of...say...some distant cousin who didn't speak to my dead partner for 20 years more protected than me by banning demonstrations? You're damned right the cousin is more protected. . .and that is an absolute outrage. To me, these laws are saying that MY grief is not only unrecognized but is EXPECTED to not interfere in the slightest with the public display of tears only allowed legally recognized families - the members of which happily voted against my marriage rights so they could be assured of getting their greedy paws in the partner's property. And now the STATE should prevent ME from picketing this BS?

[11 Bravo]

50. Military funerals have always been considered special.

And, yeah, having been to more than a couple, including services while still in the field, I may be biased. Maybe it's the concept of getting iced for "a greater good", whatever the fucking politicians have determined that to be this year. But your underlying point could not be more valid, nor more poignantly expressed.

[Joe Fields]

52. So far, he has been allowed to do this, but, I believe there is a

fine line between the protected right of freedom of speech and spouting hate-filled rhetoric, which could incite violent behavior. With freedom comes responsibility.

[DanCa]

53. Can we protest Fred Phelps?

I wonder what the inbreed will think if the 8o,ooo plus members of Du showed up on his doorsteps with signs protesting the coward for constantly bombarding grief stricken families with his diseased venom.