My thoughts on Westboro Church...

The Westboro Baptist Church is responsible for some of the most heinous acts of legal protests in American history. As much as I detest the group, their principles, and everything they stand for, I am forced to agree that their protests fall well within their constitutional rights outlined in the first amendment. The group’s constitutional right to protest was solidified by the March 2010 Supreme Court case Snyder v. Phelps (Ameigh).
Albert Snyder, father of a marine killed in Iraq, brought the Westboro Baptist Church’s leader Fred Phelps to court after the group had protested at his son’s funeral (Hudson). The case quickly elevated to the Supreme Court level. The court made a nearly unanimous 8-1 decision to uphold the Church’s right to protest and ordered Snyder to pay the Church’s legal fees. Chief Justice Roberts had stated about the case, “Simply put, the church members had the right to be where they were, Westboro alerted local authorities to its funeral protest and fully complied with police guidance on where the picketing could be staged. The picketing was conducted under police supervision some 1,000 feet from the church, out of the sight of those at the church. The protest was not unruly; there was no shouting, profanity, or violence (Reilly).” It is clear by this statement that the court remained impartial in the decision and kept emotion out of their ruling. This is admirable, as emotion should not play a roll in justice, even after the group had personally attacked President Obama, the gay community, Jews, and African Americans (Extremeism…. Church).
The issue hit close to home when the group protested at my school, Miami University, this past Tuesday. According to the Church’s protest schedule, the group would be protesting at “Miami University, the home of the First Amendment hating cowards… (Westboro . . . Schedule).” The campus was astir for the few weeks before the group’s visit, with counter protest plans aplenty. One group, Spectrum, had planned “Unite Miami,” a counter protest to promote tolerance and unity (Engle). In fact, most Miami students appeared to detest the group and their policies, as seen in the various interviews conducted by Fox News (Miami… Church). Fred Phelp’s daughter commented on the Church’s actions stating, “When Miami University caved to the mob, that opened up a great liberty to us. Now we can stand on those streets — public right of way — and take this warning to those students who need it badly (Engle).” Caving to the mob referred to Miami’s refusal to let the group speak at one of their religious classes. It is obvious that the group knows that they are well within their rights to protest, and know how to exploit any counter protest to benefit themselves. We, in fact, were warned by several staff members not to engage the protesters, as it would be a likely invitation for a lawsuit. It seems that any confrontation with this group would end in the same.

 

As much as I felt for the Snyder family, I was disgusted by their actions. They actually dishonored their son's service in my view -- as he fought to defend our rights under the Constitution. Now Phelps, emboldened, will continue to turn up the volume in his hateful and disgusting rhetoric. Phelps and his ilk thrive in attention -- starve them of it by ignoring it and they whither and die. But now the flames of his vitriol have only been stoked by his victory and he truly has the imprimatur of the federal courts to back him up. Emboldened, you will see his rhetoric reach new depths of repugnance.

By the way, welcome to the forum. Can I kindly suggest you throw in a few line breaks from time-to-time? Your post was well-written but very hard to read.

 

By the way, I think these guys get it right: http://www.patriotguard.org/

They don't go running to the government, they exercise their own First Amendment with some good ol' American iron.

 

The Westboro people are con artists. They use the system to make money. They're all lawyers and paralegals. They bait these lawsuits against them knowing they've stayed within the parameters of the law. They are truly vile.

The best thing is to ignore them and use the law to delay and deflect them as the Patriot Guard and some clever localities have been able to do.

Nice initial thread. Rated 5.

 

Funerals, weddiings, birthday parties and Christenings should be off limit.

 

Why? And they already are "off limits" to the extent that they are on private property. But the citizens right to express himself in public and on public property is protected by the Constitution.

 

Truly. Attention seekers whither and die when they're ignored.

 

While I normally side with free speech, I think it would be ok to limit free speech from funeral protests.

I don't see much difference between having a funeral protest and inciting a riot given the sheer repugnance of it.

We already limit speech with regard to inciting riots, yelling fire in a theater, and other acts of that nature, so it seems consistent.

 

I'm not sure a funeral protest rises to the standard of the other examples you listed. I think we need to be very careful when we start to scale the slippery slope of limiting any of our freedoms -- the genie does not go so easily back into that bottle.

 

in no way is the behavior of this group even remotely Christian

 

For what its worth... I agree.

 

So if I am mad at Submarinepainter (not that I am in any way shape form or fashion just for the sake of argument) I can picket your house??
　
　
They should have their tax exemption revoked and they should be criminally charged with harassment of individuals that in no way have anything to do with their grievances.
　
　
They should also be criminally charged with fraud, for impersonating a religious organization associated with the Christian belief, as should many others, who are political organizations in need of tax exemptions.

 

Considering that funerals are generally private events, it would seem that best thing to is keep the funerals away from public view, so there is no obligation to allow for this vile 'freedom of expression'. Invite everybody but them to attend.

 

Demonstrating outside the chapel, church or funeral home.. or at a burial site offends me and I am all for free speech..

 

I don't think that's relevant to this topic exactly.

 

Yes, in fact, you can.
　

As should all religious organizations.

　
Standing on a public street and holding a sign does not constitute harassment.
　

Another excellent argument to tax religious organizations.

 

You don't honestly think military families invite these vile creeps to their loved-one's funerals, do you? Their demonstrations take place on public property. Were they to set foot inside the funeral home, or in the parking lot, they would then be charged with trespassing. What they do follows the letter of the law. And they have every right to do it.

 

But you said earlier you'd like to legally prohibit the demonstrations. Therefore, you are not "all for free speech."

 

The right to free speech is not impeded, by pointing moronic idiots in the right direction. DC is that away, glad I could help, have a nice day.
　
　
The right to peaceably assemble and to petition the government for grievances, has nothing to do with picketing a private citizen or their funeral. The utter stupidity and ignorance to understand basic words and their meaning is really destroying the mentality of this once great nation.
　
Everything has restrictions. Standing on a street corner banging a drum is not a peaceable protest, or free speech, it's called disturbing the peace.
　
　
Directing the grievance towards an unassociated party is not peaceable assembly, it is harassment plain and simple. If they are picketing war, gays in war, war on gays, or whatever other nonsense they wish to protest it needs to be directed at the party of their complaint. In this case the government itself. Not a dead soldier. He can't do anything for them anymore or before, but especially now since he has died, and isn't capable of addressing their stupidity in the first place. They are directly assaulting the family during a period of grief, and accomplishing nothing more than public unrest. Every time they choose to disturb a family in grief they need to be arrested, detained for 24 hours and then released back into the wild. If they wish to picket the Pentagon, the White House, Congress or all three, then they have a constitutional right to do so.
They do not have th e right to impose their wrath on an innocent party, the family in this case. That’s harassment.
　
　
Let's test my theory. Next time you are mad at the phone company go to the gas company and protest. Get you little sign, and stand in front of the gas company and petition your grievances with the phone company. A police officer will most expeditiously give you the opportunity to move along, and/or detain you if you resist. They may and rightly so, hold you for a few days for a proper
psychological evaluation to assure you are not a threat to society, other individuals or yourself for that matter, and they will be perfectly within their right to do so.

 

Yes.. I would.. I don't see demonstrating at a family event to be about "freedom of speech"..

Get a parade permit and demonstrate in the street, but leave families alone.

Or they can buy radio and TV time.. newspaper Ads.

The Westboro Church is using the system.. and wrongfully so.. It wasn't meant to protect those who would insult and hurt grieving families.

But then.. I am not a policy wonk who believes that one size fits all. Discrimination is part of being an adult.

 

Of course not. I just think that there must be ways to make these events private. With some exceptions, cemetaries, churches and surrounding lands are not public spaces. They have no right to be there, not even a parking lot if it's private property. I don't know how clever people than us have not found a way to deny those Westboro bastards an audience.

 

Actually they have... I think it was in Alabama.. The locals parked their cars and trucks behind them in the motel parking lots before the funeral and the local cops were MIA.. so they couldn't leave the motel to harass and insult the grieving families.

 

I agree that these are vile people. But popular speech does not need protection. Today it's these inbred knuckle-draggers because they hurt someone's feelings. Tomorrow it's hate speech... then where does that leave us? Unsure if we can even utter a sound lest we offend someone and they would like to have us locked up for it. Freedom is sometimes messy. But I'll take it, warts and all, considering the alternative.

 

But they're not demonstrating at a family event. They demonstrate on public property. They are guaranteed the right to free speech and free assembly by the Constitution. In short, they do have the right to be jerks. The alternative is a society in which nobody gets to say anything for fear of offending someone -- take a look at your typical college campus these days if you need a bit of foreshadowing. Liberty dies slowly, but surely, with each successive blow. But considering the alternative, I'll take it, warts and all. Words can't hurt you -- you are free to ignore them. Or you are free to have some real American heroes come by like the Patriot Guard Riders and they can exercise their First Amendment rights on your behalf.

They are demonstrating in the street.

Sure. They probably do. I don't know...

They are not "using the system" any more than anyone else freely expressing themselves -- an American tradition as old as the nation itself. What it was meant for was to protect the citizen from his government and the abuses therein. It is unwise, in my view, to further erode that protection for the sake of psychological comfort. YMMV.

Certainly. But only when held up against objective criteria. In a free society, there can only be one standard that enables the government to act -- harm. Words can not harm you. In some instances, they can, like yelling "FIRE" in a theater. And in those instances, the government acts appropriately as it is compelled to do so to mitigate harm.

 

Well.. you may give them a pass under "free speech". I don't. A funeral is a family event..

I am not a policy wonk.. I think discrimination is in order.. One size does NOT fit all unless you are a recent Harvard MBA that can't think on your feet.