Godhatesfags.com & Free Speech

[Erich von Manstein]

Some of you may be familiar with the Westboro Baptist Church, especially given the attention the media has been giving them in the past year. For those of you who aren't:

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

This church is best known for staging protests at the funerals of US soldiers killed in Iraq on the basis that they were killed because God hates gays, disapproves of US legality of homosexuality, and is punishing the US for its sins by killing US soldiers in Iraq. They go back much further than this, however. Back in 1997 they protested at my church after our pastor gave a sermon in which he said that they were going about the wrong way of preaching their message that homosexuality is a sin (this was at a time when the church was staging protests at the funerals of AIDS victims and churches that allowed homosexual members). A freshman in high school, I wrote my very first letter to the editor regarding their actions and earned a direct and incredibly insulting response from none other than the wife of WBC's pastor, a mark I still bear with pride to this day.

The protests at military funerals have drawn the ire of virtually all Americans, however, since the Left despises them for their stance on homosexuality (they believe that it should be a capital crime) and the Right despises them for disrespecting the deaths of American soldiers. The result has been legislation introduced in several states that, in one way or another, would prevent the WBC from protesting at military funerals by outlawing their actions.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/17/us...rssnyt&emc=rss

I think that most of us can agree that the WBC merits all of the disrepute and hatred that they have earned. I encourage any doubters to visit their websites at www.godhatesfags.com and www.godhatesamerica.com. WBC barely even deserves the title of "Church," as its members are all just the extended family of its pastor, Fred Phelps. The only reason they have managed to get this far is by counting among its members several trained lawyers, who have managed to get around most ordinances that would prevent them from spewing forth their hate. Even if you were to agree with their message, however, it would be difficult to support their methods: if my wife was a soldier in Iraq and died in the line of duty and they staged one of their sickening protests at her funeral, I would go straight for Fred Phelp's throat, no matter what the personal cost. I can only imagine the pain that these protests are causing the spouses, parents, and children of those who have made the ultimate sacrifice.

That being said, I find myself debating whether I support the current measures to silence them. I tend to take a more extreme view of the 1st Amendment, finding myself willing to allow many types of speech that the Supreme Court has labeled as being unprotected by the 1st Amendment. After all, a true believer in free speech is not one who insists that his own views be heard, but one who insists that opposing views also be heard, no matter how sickening or disturbing they may be. I haven't reached a conclusion regarding this matter - equally strong arguments may be made for both sides. What do you think? Is there a line and, if so, has the WBC crossed it?

[bdh]

The result has been legislation introduced in several states that, in one way or another, would prevent the WBC from protesting at military funerals by outlawing their actions.

I don't see anything wrong with defining military funerals as private, not public, events and thus protected from harassment and any unwanted individuals. The WBC can do as they wish on any public forum.

[MaximiIian]

I don't see anything wrong with defining military funerals as private, not public, events and thus protected from harassment and any unwanted individuals. The WBC can do as they wish on any public forum.

Precisely. You have said it better and more clearly than anyone else probably could have.

yes... because freedom of speech is qualified. its not unlimited.

In your country, perhaps speech is restricted.
Here, however, people can say what they want as long as they don't take violent action upon their words, say something to incite mass panic ("Run, fire!"), or do something along the lines of a total defamation of character. Even if what Phelps says is moronic and completely insane, he has a right to say it.

[RusskiSoldat]

bdh said it better than I ever could.
They can protest on city streets all they want, but not during private ceremonies (unless of course whoever is in charge chooses to let them).

[danzig]

They are morons but you cant (or shouldnt) prevent people from being morons. Any law passed can be used as a pretext to stop another group, such as political opposition etc from protesting. As much as a loathe Phelps we have to accept his existences, if we limit him then why not others who are equally as offensive? Do they cross the line of freedom of speech? Yep they but *we* cant cross the line and prevent him from doing so especially since it wouldnt even work, he would just find another avenue to take his inbred, retarded family to disgust us with. His own hypocritical nature discredits him from being anything beyond an offensive nuisance, even if you believed homosexuality was wrong what happened to the old adage of hate the sin not the sinner. Im quite sure if God exist in any form people believe him to be that he hates none of his creation though in the case of Phelps I bet he slaps himself in the head and goes "doh" and wonders if he should have turned up the base IQ level of man.

I don't see anything wrong with defining military funerals as private, not public, events and thus protected from harassment and any unwanted individuals. The WBC can do as they wish on any public forum.

Problem they stand across the street where a funeral is being held and protest. How can you prevent that? Cant shut down the street of every military funeral to prevent would be protesters. As far as I know none of them actually attempt to ATTEND the funeral but instead protest right outside greeting people who are arriving/leaving the funeral to mourn their deceased.

I prefer counterprotesting these morons http://youtube.com/watch?v=S8cN2pB3MCE hilarious stuff of aussie Charles Firth 'hitting' on Phelps at one of their protests.

[bdh]

Problem they stand across the street where a funeral is being held and protest. How can you prevent that? Cant shut down the street of every military funeral to prevent would be protesters. As far as I know none of them actually attempt to ATTEND the funeral but instead protest right outside greeting people who are arriving/leaving the funeral to mourn their deceased.

You don't have to shut down the street. Just arrest the ring leaders. I don't think it makes a difference if they attend or if they are on different property. You can't play music as loud as you want (there are decibel standards) if it effects other people's property. All that matters is that action A is impacting private event B. In fact, people sue over the effects of their neighbors all the time, especially if it effects property values.

[danzig]

You don't have to shut down the street. Just arrest the ring leaders. I don't think it makes a difference if they attend of if they are on different property. You can't play music as loud as you want (there are decibel standards) if it effects other people's property. All that matters is that action A is impacting private event B. In fact, people sue over the effects of their neighbors all the time, especially if it effects property values.

Problem is unless they are actually doing something to cause a disturbance you'll fall into constitutional problems since simply being there probably isnt enough...hell I bet the Bush admin would have loved to carted off Cindy Sheehan from Crawford Dunno maybe some stricter anti loitering laws but that would have to be a local thing not a federal thing but of course then you open it to being applied to other things. Plus there would be too many loopholes these assclowns LIVE for this stuff they are like rats if there is a hole they will find it requring you to plug that one up with additional laws and so on. People like this abuse the system to their own advantage and if you attempt to fix that you play into their hands and if you dont they have 'fun' with their bs. Its a lose-lose situtation.

[Erich von Manstein]

I think danzig's point is that the legislatures here are banning a certain type of political speech under the guise of banning noise violations and whatnot, which is arguably much different from banning the playing of loud music that can be heard more than 100 feet away.

[bdh]

I think danzig's point is that the legislatures here are banning a certain type of political speech under the guise of banning noise violations and whatnot, which is arguably much different from banning the playing of loud music that can be heard more than 100 feet away.

What difference does it make? Speech is loud too afterall, especially when they use those blowhorns. And even if it is under the guise of banning noise violations, other noises banned also are probably in the interest of the private procession.

Problem is unless they are actually doing something to cause a disturbance you'll fall into constitutional problems since simply being there probably isnt enough

If they don't cause an actual disturbance, what difference does it make. If you can't hear them, they may as well not even be there, so who cares. If you can't detect something and it has no impact, it is irrelevant.

[danzig]

If they don't cause an actual disturbance, what difference does it make. If you can't hear them, they may as well not even be there, so who cares. If you can't detect something and it has no impact, it is irrelevant.

Its tough not to notice a group of people with big signs saying God Hates Fags and praising the death of soldiers at a funeral even if they all stood there quietly. Take a look at some of their protests, no way they arent going to be noticed. Even if they DID just stand there quietly with the signs and tshirts. Bottom line Phelps isnt worth putting at risk the right of people to stage a REAL protest which you would have to do to stop him.

Oh and the Black Prince, so in your opinion (since you are the resident law junkie ) would this fall in violation in Europe? If so wouldnt say an anti war protest with signs of Blair/Bush are a murderer/liar etc also fall into such violation? Where is the line draw? My personally my concern isnt Phelps, if I could Id glady support locking him in a little room with US soldiers as guards and walls plastered with Elton John and George Michaels posters and their music blaring but Im concerned about any attempt to prevent him from doing this being used as a pretext for preventing something else down the line as US laws are quiet different then European ones in regards to speech.

[bdh]

Its tough not to notice a group of people with big signs saying God Hates Fags and praising the death of soldiers at a funeral even if they all stood there quietly. Take a look at some of their protests, no way they arent going to be noticed. Even if they DID just stand there quietly with the signs and tshirts. Bottom line Phelps isnt worth putting at risk the right of people to stage a REAL protest which you would have to do to stop him.

Sure, why not. If they just sit there quietly its easy just to keep your back to them or just move further into the funeral property behind trees. You could even put up a tarp. The beauty of sight is that it is linear, sound, however, is hard to avoid.

(Article 14), the right of families to mourn in private (Article 8)

That seems easy enough, the States should just make it a right.

[Erich von Manstein]

What difference does it make? Speech is loud too afterall, especially when they use those blowhorns. And even if it is under the guise of banning noise violations, other noises banned also are probably in the interest of the private procession.

The point is that the laws that have been enacted and are under consideration are not strict noise violation laws - these would be too narrow and too easily avoided by the WBC as a result. They're banning content-based speech on the basis of context. Maybe it's just my eternal fear of government power, but it's important to ask here the converse of what is really at stake. What if, during the late '60s and early '70s, legislation was under consideration that would have banned any and all jeering of soldiers as they left their planes on their return from Vietnam (a practice that peace activists frequently resorted to)? Or, as Danzig mentioned, the banning of protests outside of the POTUS's vacation house?

[danzig]

The point is that the laws that have been enacted and are under consideration are not strict noise violation laws - these would be too narrow and too easily avoided by the WBC as a result. They're banning content-based speech on the basis of context. Maybe it's just my eternal fear of government power, but it's important to ask here the converse of what is really at stake. What if, during the late '60s and early '70s, legislation was under consideration that would have banned any and all jeering of soldiers as they left their planes on their return from Vietnam (a practice that peace activists frequently resorted to)? Or, as Danzig mentioned, the banning of protests outside of the POTUS's vacation house?

Another comparable and fairly recent thing is abortion clinics, the supreme court upheld a Colorado law that prevented protesters from being any closer than 8 feet to entry/exit of a clinic and it was a divided 6-3 vote so anything further would probably be overturned anyway. Westboro guys from video Ive seen all seem to further away then that so again Im not sure anything we can really do to them that isnt possibly worse then their actions.

As Ozy pointed out I think the issue is always going to be where the right balance should be. Its so tough cause you see people like these guys and your gut reaction is they should be stopped but then you have to consider the cost doing so.

How? What, are they just going to stand there? Some protest.

The futility of a protest doesn't stop protesters, they know you know they are there and that is often enough for these types of protesters. Its why you still have antifur, antiabortion etc protests despite the fact they know regardless abortion and fur are going to continue to exist in this country Never underestimate the feeling of self importance egomaniacs like this get from their actions.

[the Black Prince]

In europe, we have many human rights

these are categorised in 3 ways

Absolute Rights
the name says it all, the rights are absolute, such as the Right to Life

Unqualified Rights
These rights have no qualifications or restrictions on them, but are not considered absolute. A country may derogate from these rights. (Choose not to uphold them) Such as the Right to Marry.

Qualified Rights
The exercise of these rights is subject to a number of restrictions or in some other way limited. Both the Right to Liberty and the Right to Freedom of Speech are qualified.

The Right to Liberty is qualified because the state also has the right to deprive you of your liberty following the due process of a criminal conviction.

The Right to Free Speech is qualified

The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or the rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

in this case, the rights of others are the rights of gay people to be free from discrimination (Article 14), the right of families to mourn in private (Article 8)


Freedom of Expression, Liberty and Assembly are qualified and balanced by the rights of others to be free from Abuse, Crime and Intimidation

[Sher Khan]

Isn't there a counter-group of big, burly biker gangs that try to out-maneuver the protesters and try to block them from protesting?

[Tom Paine]

Just add this clause:

Article 30, UN Declaration of Human Rights
Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

That would seem to go some way to stop them doing it, or at least, remove some of the more... offensive and threatening stuff.


But yeah. Its a balance of rights, in the end, and where the right balance is struck is a matter of permanent controversy.

[bdh]

Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

Thats a horrible idea. It would effectively make the UN declaration of human rights an absolute document to which all most adhere....or else.

The point is that the laws that have been enacted and are under consideration are not strict noise violation laws - these would be too narrow and too easily avoided by the WBC as a result.

How? What, are they just going to stand there? Some protest.

They're banning content-based speech on the basis of context.

So, context is everything. You can't say whatever you want in my private residence. I have the right to kick you out if I want.

Maybe it's just my eternal fear of government power, but it's important to ask here the converse of what is really at stake. What if, during the late '60s and early '70s, legislation was under consideration that would have banned any and all jeering of soldiers as they left their planes on their return from Vietnam (a practice that peace activists frequently resorted to)? Or, as Danzig mentioned, the banning of protests outside of the POTUS's vacation house?

At Vietnam? If they use public roads and public facilities, then there is nothing private about it. At the POTUS's house? They were only able to do that because he lived on a ranch. If the President lived in a house in a suburb, they would have to be removed for being to noisy. That, and they would probably need a permit in order to comply with city ordinances, which are already approved by the Supreme court.

[the Black Prince]

lol, thats Article 17 in Europe
Nothing in this Convention may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or perform any act aimed at the destruction on any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein or at their limitation to a greater extent than is provided for in the Convention.


i tend to forget it, because only articles 2-14 have been directed enacted in UK law



where is the line drawn?

badly, very very badly, on a case by case basis by judges in the UK and Strasbourg.
Unlimited detention without trial is unlawful, unlimited detention without trial whilst awaiting deportation is.

Any group advocating the murder of Bush or Blair would be unlawful (conspiracy to murder, incitement to murder)
Calling blair a liar is clearly legal (its been done many times). For it to be in breach of the convention, Blair would have to prove he is being defamed by the claims, and to do so, he would have to prove the claims are untrue. This may prove difficult for any politician!

Any group protesting and calling for something bad to happen to ANY group of people... Gays, Muslims, Christians, Blacks, Whites, Labour Party Members, Students... all of that would be unlawful. In this case, the church in question is targeting gays. There are muslims imprisoned in the UK for targeting jews and christians, nazis imprisoned for targeting Jews and so on...

[Tom Paine]

Its in there, bdh... basically, its a clause admitting the concept of the balance of freedoms.

[bdh]

Its in there, bdh... basically, its a clause admitting the concept of the balance of freedoms.

Except you've essentially outlawed people's right to protest an end to free speech. Thats oxymoronic.

engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.