AP urges Supreme Court to side with ‘God hates fag’ church

245

Comments

  • mickeyrat
    mickeyrat Posts: 45,361
    while its hard to argue that these "christians" dont have the first admendment protection of free speech and the practice of their brand of christianity, the same question applies to this as the one posed about the proposed islamic cultural center near WTC site.

    Just because we have the right to do something , doesnt mean we should.


    Patriot guard seems to be an answer going forward.

    However, in my eyes the plaintiff has a point about the harassment arguement. One thing to spew that shit at the funeral, quite another to post that shit about him and his wife in addition to disrupting them laying their son to rest.
    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
    you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
    memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
    another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
  • haffajappa
    haffajappa British Columbia Posts: 5,955
    arthurdent wrote:
    Commy wrote:
    if you truly defend free speech you will defend these wackos' right to say what they will, even their rallying at a funeral.


    the second you open up the gate to silencing them, you open it for other things as well, things like dissent.

    on one hand, you're exactly right about it being a free speech issue. And that's the truly disgusting part of it. I want to fight Fred and Co. to the death, but the do have a valid argument in this case. It's tasteless and disgusting, but as long as they're on public property...

    On the other hand, it could be argued that Fred's "speech" is an invitation to violence and shouldn't be protected. It's the whole "yell fire" argument.

    I also agree with the father "that this isn't a case of free speech. It's case of harassment."
    Yeah I have to agree with you.
    If its a matter of free speech there's not much you can do, but I guess if we consider it harassment then its another story. If you start drawing lines in the sand on what free speech is acceptable, it would be a dangerous thing.

    That said, Fred Phelps and his idiotic inbred followers are all sacks of shit, i don't care what anyone has to say.
    live pearl jam is best pearl jam
  • Hugh Freaking Dillon
    Hugh Freaking Dillon Posts: 14,010
    correct me if I'm wrong, but the first ammendment doesn't protect inciting hate.
    Cosmo wrote:
    As much as I vehemetly disagree with the message... and how utterly disgusted I am about their tactics... I defend their right to speak out in public. I feel the same way about the Klan and the Neo-Nazis. The principle of the First Amendment is the most important factor here, not the venom spewed by people i believe are horrible.
    That being said... the First Amendments applies to both of these guys:
    http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak- ... 9833_n.jpg
    Gimli 1993
    Fargo 2003
    Winnipeg 2005
    Winnipeg 2011
    St. Paul 2014
  • haffajappa
    haffajappa British Columbia Posts: 5,955
    Paul David wrote:
    correct me if I'm wrong, but the first ammendment doesn't protect inciting hate.
    Cosmo wrote:
    As much as I vehemetly disagree with the message... and how utterly disgusted I am about their tactics... I defend their right to speak out in public. I feel the same way about the Klan and the Neo-Nazis. The principle of the First Amendment is the most important factor here, not the venom spewed by people i believe are horrible.
    That being said... the First Amendments applies to both of these guys:
    http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak- ... 9833_n.jpg
    Yeah but do you see what he's saying?
    If we say this isn't freedom of speech because it is "hate" then anything considered hate can trump one's right to freedom of speech. What if they then start considering not liking the president's policies as spewing "hate"?

    Hating the WBC is pertty much the ONE thing this board agrees on, i think its safe to say we all think those people are scum, but it is a quesiton of whether or not its freedom of speech or if it is considered harassment
    live pearl jam is best pearl jam
  • arthurdent
    arthurdent Posts: 969
    haffajappa wrote:
    Hating the WBC is pertty much the ONE thing this board agrees on, i think its safe to say we all think those people are scum, but it is a quesiton of whether or not its freedom of speech or if it is considered harassment

    I'm living in Topeka right now, and it's sad that whenever I say that, everyone says, "Oh, isn't that where that 'God Hates Fags' guy is from?" In an article I'm writing for the paper, I describe him as Topeka's own "mark of cain"
    Rock me Jesus, roll me Lord...
    Wash me in the blood of Rock & Roll
  • keeponrockin
    keeponrockin Posts: 7,446
    haffajappa wrote:
    arthurdent wrote:
    Commy wrote:
    if you truly defend free speech you will defend these wackos' right to say what they will, even their rallying at a funeral.


    the second you open up the gate to silencing them, you open it for other things as well, things like dissent.

    on one hand, you're exactly right about it being a free speech issue. And that's the truly disgusting part of it. I want to fight Fred and Co. to the death, but the do have a valid argument in this case. It's tasteless and disgusting, but as long as they're on public property...

    On the other hand, it could be argued that Fred's "speech" is an invitation to violence and shouldn't be protected. It's the whole "yell fire" argument.

    I also agree with the father "that this isn't a case of free speech. It's case of harassment."
    Yeah I have to agree with you.
    If its a matter of free speech there's not much you can do, but I guess if we consider it harassment then its another story. If you start drawing lines in the sand on what free speech is acceptable, it would be a dangerous thing.

    That said, Fred Phelps and his idiotic inbred followers are all sacks of shit, i don't care what anyone has to say.
    You're insulting sacks of shit.
    Believe me, when I was growin up, I thought the worst thing you could turn out to be was normal, So I say freaks in the most complementary way. Here's a song by a fellow freak - E.V
  • Commy
    Commy Posts: 4,984
    Jason P wrote:
    Commy wrote:
    if you truly defend free speech you will defend these wackos' right to say what they will, even their rallying at a funeral.


    the second you open up the gate to silencing them, you open it for other things as well, things like dissent.
    I don't buy the slippery-slope argument in this case. I would consider this obscene behavior. If a key member of Al Qaeda was killed and the Islamic version of this group did the same thing, I would consider in obscene and very disrespectful to those that are grieving a loss. One of the problems with this group is that several of the members actually have law degrees so they know exactly how to walk the fine line.

    But sooner or later, someone is going to end up dead. It's only a matter of time before a family member or former teammate takes matters into their own hands. I'm just surprised it hasn't happened yet. It's sorta like messing with sasquatch.


    there's no "slippery slope" gray area here.


    either you support free speech or you don't.
  • haffajappa
    haffajappa British Columbia Posts: 5,955
    keeponrockin wrote:
    You're insulting sacks of shit.
    Ahhh... I'm so sorry, I never meant any offense to the sacks of shit.
    :oops:
    live pearl jam is best pearl jam
  • haffajappa
    haffajappa British Columbia Posts: 5,955
    arthurdent wrote:
    haffajappa wrote:
    Hating the WBC is pertty much the ONE thing this board agrees on, i think its safe to say we all think those people are scum, but it is a quesiton of whether or not its freedom of speech or if it is considered harassment

    I'm living in Topeka right now, and it's sad that whenever I say that, everyone says, "Oh, isn't that where that 'God Hates Fags' guy is from?" In an article I'm writing for the paper, I describe him as Topeka's own "mark of cain"
    That would suck :(
    I'd much rather be from here where everyone assumes you're a pot head. :)
    live pearl jam is best pearl jam
  • Cosmo
    Cosmo Posts: 12,225
    Paul David wrote:
    correct me if I'm wrong, but the first ammendment doesn't protect inciting hate.
    ...
    The First Amendment protects us from our Government restricting what we say. People will argue, 'You cannot scream, "FIRE!" in a crowded theather'... which is true, unless the theater is on fire.
    When it comes to Rev. Phelps, he is making an interpretation of what the Bible says... and who's to say who's interpretation is right and who's is wrong? The Bible does say homosexuality is an abomination... and that God will punish those who accept homosexuality. His claim is that God is punishing America for accepting homosexuals, instead of stoning to them as the Bible tells us to. That's the thing with religion... it is not law, it is all about interpretation. That is why there are so many denominations of 'Christianity'. Who gets to decide what makes a 'Good Christian' and who isn't?
    Again, I am in no way supporting his interpretation, his message of hate or his tactics... I support his right as an American under the protection of our Constitution to speak in public what he believes. It is not up to law makers to decide who is a Good Christian and who is not.
    ...
    To restrict his free speech... it means someone gets to decide what is 'hate speech'. Is the Tea Party inciting hatred towards our president? There are some that will argue, 'Yes... they are'. The First Amendment is the first right for a reason. because there are countries out there that decide what is good opinions and what are bad. That is for US to decide... as a free people.
    Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
    Hail, Hail!!!
  • Commy
    Commy Posts: 4,984
    Cosmo wrote:
    To restrict his free speech... it means someone gets to decide what is 'hate speech'. Is the Tea Party inciting hatred towards our president? There are some that will argue, 'Yes... they are'. The First Amendment is the first right for a reason. because there are countries out there that decide what is good opinions and what are bad. That is for US to decide... as a free people.
    well said.



    right on.
  • OutOfBreath
    OutOfBreath Posts: 1,804
    I dont think the focus should be on the free speech aspect here. He is able to say what he wants in public, hold rallies and whatnot. But free speech doesnt mean anyone can say or yell anything anywhere.

    The point here is, and should be, harassment. Picketing funerals and yelling in griever's faces about how their sinful ways were to blame for this and so forth, is harassment. Nail the fuckers on that. Not for their digusting opinions, but for intruding and harassing private gatherings. It's a free country, but unreasonably interfering with people's lives actually isn't a right. Restraining orders are dealt out regularly, are they not?

    So, he can say what he want, but picketing funerals, slam his ass with emotional damage fines at the max.

    Peace
    Dan
    "YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death

    "Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
  • Cosmo
    Cosmo Posts: 12,225
    OutOfBreath wrote:
    I dont think the focus should be on the free speech aspect here. He is able to say what he wants in public, hold rallies and whatnot. But free speech doesnt mean anyone can say or yell anything anywhere.

    The point here is, and should be, harassment. Picketing funerals and yelling in griever's faces about how their sinful ways were to blame for this and so forth, is harassment. Nail the fuckers on that. Not for their digusting opinions, but for intruding and harassing private gatherings. It's a free country, but unreasonably interfering with people's lives actually isn't a right. Restraining orders are dealt out regularly, are they not?

    So, he can say what he want, but picketing funerals, slam his ass with emotional damage fines at the max.

    Peace
    Dan
    ...
    That is exactly correct.
    Flag burning, for example. It is a form of free speech. But... an open fire in a public place is not. So, many cities have written laws prohibiting open fires in public settings. This way, the person burning the flag (or a cross or an efigy or a draft card or a bra) in an open fire can be arrested and charged on that offense.
    Restrict the tactics used by Rev. Phelps' minions by restricting public harrassment, disturbing the peace or other statutes. Perhaps, drafting local legislation that limits noise levels within a certain distance of a cemetary or something. But, it must be done at the local or State, not the Federal level.
    Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
    Hail, Hail!!!
  • Godfather.
    Godfather. Posts: 12,504
    I don't know if anybody has said this but what do you do when a person or a group over-laps the free speech issue and infringes on another's rights ?

    Godfather.
  • OutOfBreath
    OutOfBreath Posts: 1,804
    Godfather. wrote:
    I don't know if anybody has said this but what do you do when a person or a group over-laps the free speech issue and infringes on another's rights ?

    Godfather.
    Well, I guess that's what me and Cosmo seem to be on about. Free speech is all well, but harassment etc is not precisely because free speech is one thing and personal rights another. :)

    I'll restate that the key is not to outlaw the talk, but rather the method of graveyard picketers. That's where the line is drawn.

    Peace
    Dan
    "YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death

    "Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
  • Electric_Delta
    Electric_Delta Posts: 977
    These people do not represent the teachings of Jesus or Christians at large.
    Bristow, VA (5/13/10)
  • pjfan021
    pjfan021 Posts: 684
    i agree that the decision on this needs to be clear about the harassment issue. you don't want to limit free speech but what these people are doing is disgusting. If these people can go to a funeral and say all the terrible shit they are, why can't you call someone a fag and queer on the street? Because it's harassment plain and simple. I would've snapped if i was that guy. if those assholes did that to me i think i would lose it and i won't blame someone when they do.
  • Jason P
    Jason P Posts: 19,420
    Commy wrote:
    Jason P wrote:
    Commy wrote:
    if you truly defend free speech you will defend these wackos' right to say what they will, even their rallying at a funeral.


    the second you open up the gate to silencing them, you open it for other things as well, things like dissent.
    I don't buy the slippery-slope argument in this case. I would consider this obscene behavior. If a key member of Al Qaeda was killed and the Islamic version of this group did the same thing, I would consider in obscene and very disrespectful to those that are grieving a loss. One of the problems with this group is that several of the members actually have law degrees so they know exactly how to walk the fine line.

    But sooner or later, someone is going to end up dead. It's only a matter of time before a family member or former teammate takes matters into their own hands. I'm just surprised it hasn't happened yet. It's sorta like messing with sasquatch.


    there's no "slippery slope" gray area here.


    either you support free speech or you don't.
    This isn't free speech in my opinion. It's free douche-baggery and harassment and for some reason we allow it to go on and on.

    I don't know why we continue to lie to ourselves over free speech. We already have restrictions on free speech. I can't scream curse words on live television without repercussions. I can't go into a courtroom, library, funeral home, etc and just start screaming the word "fuck" over and over without repercussions. So why is it OK for me to stand on a sidewalk just outside the same establishments with a giant megaphone and get away with it? To me, it is pure non-sense.

    But I agree that with the current "oh well, what are you gonna do?" attitude that the nation has embraced, the patriot riders are the only way to deal with these folks.
    Be Excellent To Each Other
    Party On, Dudes!
  • nuffingman
    nuffingman Posts: 3,014
    Commy wrote:
    if you truly defend free speech you will defend these wackos' right to say what they will, even their rallying at a funeral.


    the second you open up the gate to silencing them, you open it for other things as well, things like dissent.
    Where does the line between free speech and insulting behaviour begin?

    Noboday should have the right to do what these whackos did at the funeral.
  • mikepegg44
    mikepegg44 Posts: 3,353
    nuffingman wrote:
    Commy wrote:
    if you truly defend free speech you will defend these wackos' right to say what they will, even their rallying at a funeral.


    the second you open up the gate to silencing them, you open it for other things as well, things like dissent.
    Where does the line between free speech and insulting behaviour begin?

    Noboday should have the right to do what these whackos did at the funeral.

    I can stand with a generic sign anywhere. It is when the speech is directed at a particular person that it can become harrassment. At least in my eyes
    that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
    It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
    - Joe Rogan

Categories