Westboro Baptist Church

[ResultsMayVary]

I'm having a problem accepting that free speech can cover a clear menace. The outrage against their words isn't a side effect of what their beliefs, it's a reaction to their direct message. These people pick and target families solely so they can mentally terrorize them. What they're doing isn't even really a protest. To me, that's not using what is protected under the First Amendment, that's abusing the First Amendment.

Yes, a sad abuse; their words may be menacing, but they are not threatening (from what I seen) nor do they resort to any physical acts.  In fact, they follow the legal pathway to their protest licenses.

Its important not to re-think a law of the land based on a few nut jobs.  Its important to remember why most of develop world embraces this idea; what history we went through to get it; and what is allows to us to do today.

So, basically if you don't like them, ignore them? A good strategy, yes. But, I can't ignore them when they committ these atrocities (through a mental way of communication) towards these families. It's a 9-year old, shooting victim. Come on, people...

[bosk1]

As I see it, hate speech is a wonderful way for people to demonstrate just how stupid, silly and childish they really are.  If the Klan kept to themselves and never let anybody see their nutty antics, then they wouldn't be as reprehensible.  By allowing them to act like assholes, everybody gets to see just how silly they really are.  

In the abstract, I agree with you.  And I also think there's some merit to the approach of, "if you're so easily offended by the mere fact that someone says something that you can't simply move on and understand that the problem is with them and not you, you really need to man up and grow a pair.  Life's rough.  Deal with it."  

But here's the thing:  The Constitution, at least as interpreted by the Courts, does not make any right completely unlimited.  The First Amendment was not intended to address certain types of speech, and the Courts have said that hate speech is one of the recognized exceptions.  Part of the test is how the speech would affect a reasonable person in similar circumstances.  Think about how that applies in the present situation.  Yes, the reasonable person engaged in the solemn and sacred act of mourning the passing of a loved one is particularly vulnerable, and is likely to be impacted by such hate speech on a very deep level.  That is and should be entitled to protection.  So, no, I do not believe either the Constitution or any common-sense standard of societal morality should permit this type of thing.  As for me personally, no, I would not die defending anyone's "right" to say the kinds of things the WBC says in their protests because I do not feel any such right exists or should exist.

[El Barto]

I certainly understand some exceptions to the 1st amendment, and I even agree with a couple of them.  However, this is one where we're just not going to see eye to eye.  If you make something as vague as the possible infliction of emotional distress actionable,  then you're going to have that chilling effect on speech that we generally try to avoid. 

A quick side point, doesn't this little girl now constitute a public figure? 

[bosk1]

No, I don't think so.  That designation generally means bona fide celebs, major politicians, popular sports figures, etc.  The fact that her face is in the news now probably isn't enough.

But how is that relevant?  Whether someone is a public figure changes the level of proof if this were a defamation issue.  It isn't.  Nobody is defaming her.  The issue is whether this is protected speech, assembly, or petitioning.

[Perpetual Change]

I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.*

*As long as it doesn't offend me, offend others that I like, convey a message I don't like, or do anything else that might trouble me, and I reserve the right to add to the list of transgressions at any time as I see fit. 

Maybe it's my fault for getting set off my rocker by all this, but unfair cornering of what other people here are saying like this is really starting to get on my nerves.

I'm having a problem accepting that free speech can cover a clear menace. The outrage against their words isn't a side effect of what their beliefs, it's a reaction to their direct message. These people pick and target families solely so they can mentally terrorize them. What they're doing isn't even really a protest. To me, that's not using what is protected under the First Amendment, that's abusing the First Amendment.

This exactly. It's harassment.

[hefdaddy42]

Its important not to re-think a law of the land based on a few nut jobs.  Its important to remember why most of develop world embraces this idea; what history we went through to get it; and what is allows to us to do today.

The reason it was embraced in this country is so that people could speak out against the government without getting killed for it.  I'm not sure how we wound up thinking that it is perfectly OK for anyone to say anything anywhere.

[El Barto]

No, I don't think so.  That designation generally means bona fide celebs, major politicians, popular sports figures, etc.  The fact that her face is in the news now probably isn't enough.

But how is that relevant?  Whether someone is a public figure changes the level of proof if this were a defamation issue.  It isn't.  Nobody is defaming her.  The issue is whether this is protected speech, assembly, or petitioning.

As I understand it, and correct me if I'm wrong, the intentional infliction of emotional distress has been A-OKed insofar as the pillory of a public figure is concerned.  But if the distinction is defined as you stated it, the point is irrelevant. 

I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.*

*As long as it doesn't offend me, offend others that I like, convey a message I don't like, or do anything else that might trouble me, and I reserve the right to add to the list of transgressions at any time as I see fit. 

Maybe it's my fault for getting set off my rocker by all this, but unfair cornering of what other people here are saying like this is really starting to get on my nerves.
 

I was commenting on American society in general, not necessarily any specific person here.  That used to be a popular saying, but I doubt many ever gave it any real thought as to far it could actually go.

Its important not to re-think a law of the land based on a few nut jobs.  Its important to remember why most of develop world embraces this idea; what history we went through to get it; and what is allows to us to do today.

The reason it was embraced in this country is so that people could speak out against the government without getting killed for it.  I'm not sure how we wound up thinking that it is perfectly OK for anyone to say anything anywhere.

I think it was intended to make possible the free expression of ideas, not necessarily only those of a political nature.  Note that "or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press" is a separate clause.  Honestly, trying to decipher the punctuation by those guys can be pretty annoying, but this seems pretty clear-cut. 

[El JoNNo]

Westboro Baptist Church Agrees Not to Picket Funeral of 9-Year-Old; Will Instead Take to the Radio

https://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2011/01/westboro_baptis_2.php

​An update on the Westboro Baptist Church -- the hate-mongering group that likes to protest funerals of people who've died of AIDS and been killed in war and suchlike -- who'd recently threatened to protest the funeral of Christina Taylor Green, the 9-year-old killed during the assassination attempt on Arizona Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords. Yesterday a bill was passed in Arizona to prevent the group from coming within 300 feet of the funeral, although they said they might protest anyway, since they'd planned "to picket at one of two intersections more than 1,000 feet from the church." But today the Topeka Capital-Journal reports that the Westboro-ites won't picket the funerals of any of the victims of Saturday's shootings, because, well, they got a better offer:
Shirley Phelps-Roper, a church spokeswoman, said the pickets had been called off after radio talk show host Mike Gallagher offered to have her on his radio program Monday.
Phelps-Roper said the decision boiled down to the church being able to communicate its message with as wide an audience as possible. She said Gallagher's radio audience is estimated to be about 10 million people.

Along with Gallagher's show, radio stations KXXT-AM, a station in the Phoenix suburb of Tolleson, Arizona, and CFNY-FM, 102.1 "The Edge" in Toronto, will give the group airtime. Phelps-Roper will be on "The Steve Sanchez Show" on Saturday morning on KXXT-AM.

Apparently this is not the first time the group has "negotiated" by threatening to picket funerals. But, on the bright side, at least you can turn off (or never turn on) the radio.

[ack44]

Maybe they've figured out that praising God for a little kids death is pretty much the same thing as praising God for abortions.

[j]

Does anybody know if anyone ever tries to "troll" their church services/gatherings?  Not that it would probably have any effect on them, but just for the hell of it.

-J

[Genowyn]

They're too stupid to troll. They just get all martyr-y.

[hefdaddy42]

Does anybody know if anyone ever tries to "troll" their church services/gatherings?  Not that it would probably have any effect on them, but just for the hell of it.

-J

That would be awesome.

[El JoNNo]

The problem with that is they own like an entire block of property. Everyone that is a part of their church live either beside it or across from it, all their properties connect. They are one big happy family... One retarded, asshole filled family..  You probably wouldn't even be able to get near the church.

[AcidLameLTE]

Does anybody know if anyone ever tries to "troll" their church services/gatherings?  Not that it would probably have any effect on them, but just for the hell of it.

-J

I've seen a video of two guys pretending to hump each other in front of them etc.

[icysk8r]

This is a tough issue for me, because while I can see why people dislike the WBC because of their ignorant and dim views on the world, they should be able to protest all they want as long as they aren’t inside the funeral home or causing a major disturbance.  While I am sympathetic for the families, I also feel that the WBC is targeted by legislation.  No group of people should be victim to such mistreatment by the justice system.  Now, while I’m not a fan of the WBC myself (in fact I hate them), they are doing what they believe is right for the world, and should be allowed to do so in a non-violent way.  Perhaps the picket line should be a bit smaller, as 300 feet is very far away.  There is never any shortage in counter-protests against the WBC, in fact they many times overwhelm the WBC in numbers, so I don’t see how the WBC is causing too much of a disturbance as long as you don’t pay attention to them - which is really want they want all along.

[PlaysLikeMyung]

Does anybody know if anyone ever tries to "troll" their church services/gatherings?  Not that it would probably have any effect on them, but just for the hell of it.

-J

ooooh yeah. but we're not allowed to talk about them here

[Perpetual Change]

No group of people should be victim to such mistreatment by the justice system. 

Yeah, this. God forbid our justice system deny people the liberty to protest outside of people's funeral services. What a tragic end for democracy and free speech that would be.

[Voyage 34]

No group of people should be victim to such mistreatment by the justice system. 

Yeah, this. God forbid our justice system deny people the liberty to protest outside of people's funeral services. What a tragic end for democracy and free speech that would be.

THANK YOU! It's my god-given right to ruin the last memories that people will have of their loved ones, if I so wish. To hell with their grieving and celebrating the life of a loved one. Jesus Christ...

[icysk8r]

No group of people should be victim to such mistreatment by the justice system. 

Yeah, this. God forbid our justice system deny people the liberty to protest outside of people's funeral services. What a tragic end for democracy and free speech that would be.

THANK YOU! It's my god-given right to ruin the last memories that people will have of their loved ones, if I so wish. To hell with their grieving and celebrating the life of a loved one. Jesus Christ...

If people didn't get so offended and give them all of the attention they want they would go away.  All they want is a bigger audience, so we give it to them?  Makes no sense. 

[ResultsMayVary]

No group of people should be victim to such mistreatment by the justice system. 

Yeah, this. God forbid our justice system deny people the liberty to protest outside of people's funeral services. What a tragic end for democracy and free speech that would be.

THANK YOU! It's my god-given right to ruin the last memories that people will have of their loved ones, if I so wish. To hell with their grieving and celebrating the life of a loved one. Jesus Christ...

If people didn't get so offended and give them all of the attention they want they would go away.  All they want is a bigger audience, so we give it to them?  Makes no sense. 

You ignore them and they will still protest, with people paying attention or not. They're a bunch of loons that are protesting certain events based on absolutely ridiculous reasons to even have a protest.

[Voyage 34]

No group of people should be victim to such mistreatment by the justice system. 

Yeah, this. God forbid our justice system deny people the liberty to protest outside of people's funeral services. What a tragic end for democracy and free speech that would be.

THANK YOU! It's my god-given right to ruin the last memories that people will have of their loved ones, if I so wish. To hell with their grieving and celebrating the life of a loved one. Jesus Christ...

If people didn't get so offended and give them all of the attention they want they would go away.  All they want is a bigger audience, so we give it to them?  Makes no sense. 

You ignore them and they will still protest, with people paying attention or not. They're a bunch of loons that are protesting certain events based on absolutely ridiculous reasons to even have a protest.

Exactly. Whether we get mad about them or not, they're still going to do what they do. They're not just going to go away if we stop paying attention.

[icysk8r]

No group of people should be victim to such mistreatment by the justice system. 

Yeah, this. God forbid our justice system deny people the liberty to protest outside of people's funeral services. What a tragic end for democracy and free speech that would be.

THANK YOU! It's my god-given right to ruin the last memories that people will have of their loved ones, if I so wish. To hell with their grieving and celebrating the life of a loved one. Jesus Christ...

If people didn't get so offended and give them all of the attention they want they would go away.  All they want is a bigger audience, so we give it to them?  Makes no sense. 

You ignore them and they will still protest, with people paying attention or not. They're a bunch of loons that are protesting certain events based on absolutely ridiculous reasons to even have a protest.

Exactly. Whether we get mad about them or not, they're still going to do what they do. They're not just going to go away if we stop paying attention.

Then what's the sense of getting pissed off about it?  Ignore them.  Stop caring what they think.  I don't like every christian who says I'm going to hell because I'm an atheist, but I just ignore them because quite frankly I don't give a shit what they think and don't believe I'm going to their hell.  Why does everyone care so much? 

[7StringedBeast]

No group of people should be victim to such mistreatment by the justice system. 

Yeah, this. God forbid our justice system deny people the liberty to protest outside of people's funeral services. What a tragic end for democracy and free speech that would be.

THANK YOU! It's my god-given right to ruin the last memories that people will have of their loved ones, if I so wish. To hell with their grieving and celebrating the life of a loved one. Jesus Christ...

If people didn't get so offended and give them all of the attention they want they would go away.  All they want is a bigger audience, so we give it to them?  Makes no sense. 

You ignore them and they will still protest, with people paying attention or not. They're a bunch of loons that are protesting certain events based on absolutely ridiculous reasons to even have a protest.

Exactly. Whether we get mad about them or not, they're still going to do what they do. They're not just going to go away if we stop paying attention.

Then what's the sense of getting pissed off about it?  Ignore them.  Stop caring what they think.  I don't like every christian who says I'm going to hell because I'm an atheist, but I just ignore them because quite frankly I don't give a shit what they think and don't believe I'm going to their hell.  Why does everyone care so much? 

You don't have christians picketing outside of your front door protesting your beliefs either do you?  These people are going to the funerals to protest the funerals.  How do you not see why that is really upsetting for people.  It's beyond messed up.

These people aren't just talking shit from 100s of miles away.  Do you see the difference?

[Voyage 34]

No group of people should be victim to such mistreatment by the justice system. 

Yeah, this. God forbid our justice system deny people the liberty to protest outside of people's funeral services. What a tragic end for democracy and free speech that would be.

THANK YOU! It's my god-given right to ruin the last memories that people will have of their loved ones, if I so wish. To hell with their grieving and celebrating the life of a loved one. Jesus Christ...

If people didn't get so offended and give them all of the attention they want they would go away.  All they want is a bigger audience, so we give it to them?  Makes no sense. 

You ignore them and they will still protest, with people paying attention or not. They're a bunch of loons that are protesting certain events based on absolutely ridiculous reasons to even have a protest.

Exactly. Whether we get mad about them or not, they're still going to do what they do. They're not just going to go away if we stop paying attention.

Then what's the sense of getting pissed off about it?  Ignore them.  Stop caring what they think.  I don't like every christian who says I'm going to hell because I'm an atheist, but I just ignore them because quite frankly I don't give a shit what they think and don't believe I'm going to their hell.  Why does everyone care so much? 

You don't have christians picketing outside of your front door protesting your beliefs either do you?  These people are going to the funerals to protest the funerals.  How do you not see why that is really upsetting for people.  It's beyond messed up.

These people aren't just talking shit from 100s of miles away.  Do you see the difference?

This. It's one thing if you want to say "god sent the shooter to punish America" (which is what they have said in regards to the Arizona shootings), but it's totally different when you go to protest the funeral of a nine year old girl. What do you think that does to those parents who see that shit while they are trying to lay their daughter, who was cut down in cold blood, to rest? Do you think they can simply ignore it?

[Adami]

They didn't go to a funeral of a 9 year old girl.

[Voyage 34]

They didn't go to a funeral of a 9 year old girl.

I know. But what if they did, as they intended? What about the protesting of soldiers and marines who died in the middle east. No matter your opinion of those wars, those who died still have friends and family who want to mourn them in peace. How are they say supposed to simply ignore an obnoxious group of people who want to piss all over their grieving?

[7StringedBeast]

Politics should not be brought into funerals.  It's pretty disrespectful.  Especially if that person who died was not even in politics.  People should have the right to mourn at a funeral in peace.

[El Barto]

So I ask again, where do you draw the line?  How far away do they need to be?  What constitutes a disturbance?  What if you're a mile away and some of the mourners have to drive past you?  Could I buy billboard space and use it to call the deceased a douchebag?  Everybody's looking at this only from the POV that the WBC are assholes.  I agree that they are, but you can't make a law that infringes on one specific groups right to speech. 

[7StringedBeast]

I already said outside of sight and earshot.  If they are out in the public square that's one thing.  If they are right outside the cemetary gates, that's another.

In regards to if they had actually gone to the little girl's funeral, I don't understand how that is free speech and not harrassment.  The girl is not a public figure, she isn't involved in politics, so they have NOTHING to protest.  They are just being a pain in the ass to be a pain in the ass.  It's harassment.   Just like if a bunch of Christians camped out in front of Icy's house protesting that he's not a Christian.  That's not free speech, that's harassment.

All you have is " where do we draw the line"  well where do we draw the line with anything?  The second you make any law it becomes a "slippery slope" because some lines are drawn. 

If this had gone down, and people sued over it, it would be up to the courts to decide whether or not free speech was applicable in this situation.  I could see it going to the Supreme court.  Although I feel like it would not hold up as free speech in this situation. 

[Voyage 34]

I could see it going to the Supreme court.

I believe it already is. I think the Supreme Court is supposed to deliver a verdict on the right of privacy at a funeral v. free speech this spring.

[Orbert]

Everybody's looking at this only from the POV that the WBC are assholes.  I agree that they are, but you can't make a law that infringes on one specific groups right to speech. 

We're not talking about a specific group's right to free speech.  We're talking about a specific type of "protest" and whether or not it should be allow under the tenets of free speech, since it's not really a protest at all.  It just so happens that there's only one group out there doing it.

[Voyage 34]

Everybody's looking at this only from the POV that the WBC are assholes.  I agree that they are, but you can't make a law that infringes on one specific groups right to speech. 

We're not talking about a specific group's right to free speech.  We're talking about a specific type of "protest" and whether or not it should be allow under the tenets of free speech, since it's not really a protest at all.  It just so happens that there's only one group out there doing it.

Right. And suppose that the Supreme Court rules that you can't protest funerals, that means people can't protest Fred Phelps' (pastor of the WBC) funeral when he dies. I think they have that coming to them, but hey if it's ruled that they can't do it, neither can we.

[Dublagent66]

Hey, everyone knows that keeping hate to yourself is no fun.  That's all these people are, haters having fun.  Nothing more.

[El Barto]

Everybody's looking at this only from the POV that the WBC are assholes.  I agree that they are, but you can't make a law that infringes on one specific groups right to speech. 

We're not talking about a specific group's right to free speech.  We're talking about a specific type of "protest" and whether or not it should be allow under the tenets of free speech, since it's not really a protest at all.  It just so happens that there's only one group out there doing it.

Right. And suppose that the Supreme Court rules that you can't protest funerals, that means people can't protest Fred Phelps' (pastor of the WBC) funeral when he dies. I think they have that coming to them, but hey if it's ruled that they can't do it, neither can we.

I don't know if you're suggesting that I give a shit about Phelps, but I don't.  I wouldn't have any problem with people protesting his funeral for the simple reason that he's a douchebag.  I'm only maintaining that people should have the right to gather in a public place in protest of whatever they want.

I could see it going to the Supreme court.

I believe it already is. I think the Supreme Court is supposed to deliver a verdict on the right of privacy at a funeral v. free speech this spring.

Snyder vs. Phelps.  Here's the audio for oral arguments.    Truth be told, Snyder's case was kind of lame.  This is the guy who found out about the protest by watching it on TV afterward, and then sued the WBC for a gazillion dollars.  The funeral wasn't disturbed at all by the protests. 

[Voyage 34]

Everybody's looking at this only from the POV that the WBC are assholes.  I agree that they are, but you can't make a law that infringes on one specific groups right to speech. 

We're not talking about a specific group's right to free speech.  We're talking about a specific type of "protest" and whether or not it should be allow under the tenets of free speech, since it's not really a protest at all.  It just so happens that there's only one group out there doing it.

Right. And suppose that the Supreme Court rules that you can't protest funerals, that means people can't protest Fred Phelps' (pastor of the WBC) funeral when he dies. I think they have that coming to them, but hey if it's ruled that they can't do it, neither can we.

I don't know if you're suggesting that I give a shit about Phelps, but I don't.  I wouldn't have any problem with people protesting his funeral for the simple reason that he's a douchebag.  I'm only maintaining that people should have the right to gather in a public place in protest of whatever they want.
 

Then I guess we are going to have to disagree. I simply don't think that anyone has the right to invade the privacy of mourners at a funeral and call it free speech. It's an abuse of the right, and violates the rights of others.