• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Court to rule in military funeral protest case

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,602
Reaction score
26,256
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court is getting involved in the legal fight over the anti-gay protesters who show up at military funerals with inflammatory messages like "Thank God for dead soldiers."


The court agreed Monday to consider whether the protesters' message, no matter how provocative and upsetting, is protected by the First Amendment. Members of a Kansas-based church have picketed military funerals to spread their belief that U.S. deaths in Afghanistan and Iraq are punishment for the nation's tolerance of homosexuality.


The justices will hear an appeal from the father of a Marine killed in Iraq to reinstate a $5 million verdict against the protesters, after they picketed outside his son's funeral in Maryland.


OK, so this is going to be about free speech. No problem, except that some people don't seem to get it that, with rights, come responsibilities. You must be familiar with the notion that free speech does not grant one to yell "fire" in a crowded theater. What the Supremes will be deciding will be the extent of limitations involved in free speech. Does it give Fred Phelps the right to invade the privacy of others, and disrupt the grieving of families during funerals with this.................?

capt.63f8c66d15612dc237fbffece3dcb4d8.jpeg


Here is the deal, folks. God gives us the right of freedom of speech, but that does not mean that we can trample the rights of others in the process. Phelps and his klan can rant all day about whether or not "God hates fags". However, when they disrupt the funerals of soldiers, they have crossed the line, and I hope that the family of the dead soldier these punks protested gets every dime from them.

Finally, in the picture, Mrs. Phelps is right about one thing, although I am sure she didn't intend it. Yes, I thank God every day for dead soldiers, because without those who spilled their blood to defend us, there would be no United States of America. However, unlike Mrs. Phelps, I thank those soldiers, both straight and gay, who made the ultimate sacrifice, and gave their last measure, to keep America a free nation. We all die, eventually, and I believe that our rewards in the afterlife are commensurate with how we lived our lives. In that context, I truly believe that it sucks to be part of the Phelps klan, who (IMHO) will be enshrined in everlasting shame, once they leave this world.

Article is here.

EDIT: Check out the picture, and see how patriotic Mrs. Phelps is, with her desecration of the flag. She is a disgusting excuse for a human being, and a waste of good oxygen.
 
Last edited:
I disagree. If they are standing across the street with their picket signs, they are well within their rights. If they are barging in on a privately owned cemetery plot, then they are trespassing, which isn't a free speech issue.
 
It's disgusting to me.

But it is also free speech.

The question, I would think, is: "Did they, in performing this protest, violate another person's rights or a law?"

Not knowing the particulars, I can't answer that question.

And no one ever said you had to be sane to freely speak.
 
It's disgusting to me.

But it is also free speech.

The question, I would think, is: "Did they, in performing this protest, violate another person's rights or a law?"

Not knowing the particulars, I can't answer that question.

And no one ever said you had to be sane to freely speak.

That is the big question. The way I see it is that our forefathers intended rights to be based on property, and that is key. Phelps is entitled to all the life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness he wants. But that is going to be limited in that he cannot trounce on someone else's life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, in the process. With rights, come responsibilities.
 
Last edited:
Protesting a funeral is a great way to generate hatred against your cause.
 
Protesting a funeral is a great way to generate hatred against your cause.

That's their goal. Phelps and his group aren't a church, they're a roving group of scam artists. They say inflammatory **** to provoke responses from individuals and states, then file lawsuits and seek legal fees. Their legal fees just so happen to be paid to Phelps's law firm.

That being said, I'd be surprised if this is anything other than a 9-0 affirm.
 
A truly bizarre protest, clearly a case of lunatics following the insane.

OF COURSE they have the right to protest, no matter how ignorant and unoriginal they are (it's Code Pinko Hates Fags Redux) so long as they stay on public sidewalks and off private property.

What people who supported the Cindy Sheehan idiots say when a copy-cat group targets homos?
 
That's their goal. Phelps and his group aren't a church, they're a roving group of scam artists. They say inflammatory **** to provoke responses from individuals and states, then file lawsuits and seek legal fees. Their legal fees just so happen to be paid to Phelps's law firm.

That being said, I'd be surprised if this is anything other than a 9-0 affirm.

So it's another example of why Lawyers should be strangled at graduation?
 
So it's another example of why Lawyers should be strangled at graduation?

Or why more legislators should be lawyers who are smart enough to refrain from drafting obviously unconstitutional laws that give the Phelps clan a chance to file these suits.
 
So...if someone stands across the street from NAACP headquarters with a "Thank God for dead black people"...that's free speech?

Certainly a grieving mother or father is just as outraged at a Thank God for dead soldiers sign.

Should a "Thank God your daughter has been murdered" sign be tolerated as any grieving father who has had say...his daughter raped and killed and being led out of court after a guilty verdict?

I've been to Arlington for funerals, should any in my group have seen these folk...we would have fed the lil kiddie with the target sign to the Washington DC Zoo animals and taken the parents for a hunting expedition with Dick Cheney.
 
OK, so this is going to be about free speech. No problem, except that some people don't seem to get it that, with rights, come responsibilities. You must be familiar with the notion that free speech does not grant one to yell "fire" in a crowded theater. What the Supremes will be deciding will be the extent of limitations involved in free speech. Does it give Fred Phelps the right to invade the privacy of others, and disrupt the grieving of families during funerals with this.................?

capt.63f8c66d15612dc237fbffece3dcb4d8.jpeg


Here is the deal, folks. God gives us the right of freedom of speech, but that does not mean that we can trample the rights of others in the process. Phelps and his klan can rant all day about whether or not "God hates fags". However, when they disrupt the funerals of soldiers, they have crossed the line, and I hope that the family of the dead soldier these punks protested gets every dime from them.

Finally, in the picture, Mrs. Phelps is right about one thing, although I am sure she didn't intend it. Yes, I thank God every day for dead soldiers, because without those who spilled their blood to defend us, there would be no United States of America. However, unlike Mrs. Phelps, I thank those soldiers, both straight and gay, who made the ultimate sacrifice, and gave their last measure, to keep America a free nation. We all die, eventually, and I believe that our rewards in the afterlife are commensurate with how we lived our lives. In that context, I truly believe that it sucks to be part of the Phelps klan, who (IMHO) will be enshrined in everlasting shame, once they leave this world.

Article is here.

EDIT: Check out the picture, and see how patriotic Mrs. Phelps is, with her desecration of the flag. She is a disgusting excuse for a human being, and a waste of good oxygen.

My understanding is that they are across the street in protest. If that's the case, the too bad too sad. Can't shut idiots up sadly enough, and thus we should understand the rights of everyone must be honored. They are free to associate, protest, and speak. If they aren't on the private property or directly disturbing the event; then there's little to nothing we can do about it.

With rights come responsibilities, including the responsibility to be tolerant of the rights of others so long as they are not infringing upon the rights of others in the process.
 
Last edited:
So...if someone stands across the street from NAACP headquarters with a "Thank God for dead black people"...that's free speech?

Yep.

Certainly a grieving mother or father is just as outraged at a Thank God for dead soldiers sign.

Yep. I think that's the point.

Should a "Thank God your daughter has been murdered" sign be tolerated as any grieving father who has had say...his daughter raped and killed and being led out of court after a guilty verdict?

Yep.

I've been to Arlington for funerals, should any in my group have seen these folk...we would have fed the lil kiddie with the target sign to the Washington DC Zoo animals and taken the parents for a hunting expedition with Dick Cheney.

So you would react to speech you don't like with violence?
 
I disagree. If they are standing across the street with their picket signs, they are well within their rights. If they are barging in on a privately owned cemetery plot, then they are trespassing, which isn't a free speech issue.

Yes, they have the right to protest. But do they have a right to disrupt a person's grieving with their protest? The damage would be of a personal injury type. Personal injuries generally involve money being given as compensation for injuries received. It's a civil matter, not a criminal one. If the court believes that such protesting can actually cause mental harm to someone, even if the protests is taking place on public property, then why shouldn't the person/people harmed receive compensation?
Considering other things people have gotten compensation for, I can easily see how the bereaved should get their compensation. Technically, I pretty sure this wouldn't even make the protests illegal. It should actually just set a precedence for such lawsuits.

I see it as someone suing a rag magazine for saying something that isn't true about a celebrity.
 
Yes, they have the right to protest. But do they have a right to disrupt a person's grieving with their protest?

Yep.

The damage would be of a personal injury type. Personal injuries generally involve money being given as compensation for injuries received. It's a civil matter, not a criminal one. If the court believes that such protesting can actually cause mental harm to someone, even if the protests is taking place on public property, then why shouldn't the person/people harmed receive compensation?

For the same reason that the rest of the sue-happy whiners shouldn't.

Considering other things people have gotten compensation for, I can easily see how the bereaved should get their compensation. Technically, I pretty sure this wouldn't even make the protests illegal. It should actually just set a precedence for such lawsuits.

I see it as someone suing a rag magazine for saying something that isn't true about a celebrity.

Funny. I see it as someone suing Starbucks when they spill hot coffee on themselves.:roll:
 
Yep.



For the same reason that the rest of the sue-happy whiners shouldn't.



Funny. I see it as someone suing Starbucks when they spill hot coffee on themselves.:roll:

It's not a violation of Free Speech. The government isn't saying that they can't protest or say what they want. The courts are saying that if what you are saying causes someone to be harmed mentally because they are unable to grieve properly with a hateful protest concerning them going on across the street, then you owe them money for their anguish. Each case should be considered separately as to whether it actually is causing mental harm, but it is legal, and not a violation of anyone's rights.
 
Yes, they have the right to protest. But do they have a right to disrupt a person's grieving with their protest? The damage would be of a personal injury type. Personal injuries generally involve money being given as compensation for injuries received. It's a civil matter, not a criminal one. If the court believes that such protesting can actually cause mental harm to someone, even if the protests is taking place on public property, then why shouldn't the person/people harmed receive compensation?
Considering other things people have gotten compensation for, I can easily see how the bereaved should get their compensation. Technically, I pretty sure this wouldn't even make the protests illegal. It should actually just set a precedence for such lawsuits.

I see it as someone suing a rag magazine for saying something that isn't true about a celebrity.

That's exactly what this case is about - it's a tort action seeking damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress. That doesn't mean that it doesn't implicate the first amendment though.
 
Doesn't the US have an offence of "Breach of the Peace"? In the UK I'm pretty sure it might be invoked if these types tried to disturb and offend mourners at a funeral.

"In the United Kingdom, constables (or citizens) are permitted to arrest a person to "prevent a further breach of the peace" which allows to the police or the public to arrest a person before a breach of the peace has occurred. This is permitted when it is reasonable to believe should the person remain, that they would continue with their course of conduct and that a Breach of the Peace would occur. Breach of the Peace is usually used to remove violent or potentially violent offenders from a scene rapidly; the only punishment that can be inflicted by a court for this offence is to bind over the offender to keep the peace." Wiki lift.
 
So...if someone stands across the street from NAACP headquarters with a "Thank God for dead black people"...that's free speech?

Certainly a grieving mother or father is just as outraged at a Thank God for dead soldiers sign.

Should a "Thank God your daughter has been murdered" sign be tolerated as any grieving father who has had say...his daughter raped and killed and being led out of court after a guilty verdict?

I've been to Arlington for funerals, should any in my group have seen these folk...we would have fed the lil kiddie with the target sign to the Washington DC Zoo animals and taken the parents for a hunting expedition with Dick Cheney.
Nope that's hate speech because they are a minority and are immune from protests.
 
OK, so this is going to be about free speech. No problem, except that some people don't seem to get it that, with rights, come responsibilities. You must be familiar with the notion that free speech does not grant one to yell "fire" in a crowded theater. What the Supremes will be deciding will be the extent of limitations involved in free speech. Does it give Fred Phelps the right to invade the privacy of others, and disrupt the grieving of families during funerals with this.................?

capt.63f8c66d15612dc237fbffece3dcb4d8.jpeg


Here is the deal, folks. God gives us the right of freedom of speech, but that does not mean that we can trample the rights of others in the process. Phelps and his klan can rant all day about whether or not "God hates fags". However, when they disrupt the funerals of soldiers, they have crossed the line, and I hope that the family of the dead soldier these punks protested gets every dime from them.

Finally, in the picture, Mrs. Phelps is right about one thing, although I am sure she didn't intend it. Yes, I thank God every day for dead soldiers, because without those who spilled their blood to defend us, there would be no United States of America. However, unlike Mrs. Phelps, I thank those soldiers, both straight and gay, who made the ultimate sacrifice, and gave their last measure, to keep America a free nation. We all die, eventually, and I believe that our rewards in the afterlife are commensurate with how we lived our lives. In that context, I truly believe that it sucks to be part of the Phelps klan, who (IMHO) will be enshrined in everlasting shame, once they leave this world.

Article is here.

EDIT: Check out the picture, and see how patriotic Mrs. Phelps is, with her desecration of the flag. She is a disgusting excuse for a human being, and a waste of good oxygen.

I'm really glad you've posted this, as I've been following this case and the Westboro folks for a while.

I totally agree with your analogy to the legal limits on free speech 'yelling fire'--but I've had a few people get in my face over that, saying it's not comparable at all. The speech is political in nature and not an attempt to incite a riot or mad rush for the exit.

IMO -- a funeral is a special circumstance. People are vulnerable and the viscous and ugly sings the Westboro people bring go outside the boundaries of free speech. In this specific circumstance, their speech becomes an overt and deliberate assault on the families, an attempt to provoke emotions and cause injury those in attendance.

The $5mil was punitive and appropriate.
 
It's not a violation of Free Speech. The government isn't saying that they can't protest or say what they want. The courts are saying that if what you are saying causes someone to be harmed mentally because they are unable to grieve properly with a hateful protest concerning them going on across the street, then you owe them money for their anguish. Each case should be considered separately as to whether it actually is causing mental harm, but it is legal, and not a violation of anyone's rights.

I agree--scotus should tread lightly.

The Phelps have gone way off range and are no longer under any umbrella of protection.

They go to such an extreme--it's unreasonable and inappropriate.

How they don't get arrested for disturbing the peace every time is amazing. I know the family is a bunch a lawyers, but they're not the most competent attorneys. I guess cities are intimidated.
 
I hate what Phelps does as much as anyone but I don't want to lose the first amendment either.........
 
Ya know... I have to hope the Supremes rule that the Phelps can be sued out of existence for this crap.

I'm sorry, that crap just isn't right. Period. It is just flat wrong to hold a sign saying "thank God for dead soldiers" at a soldier's funeral, where his parents and grandparents and siblings and friends can see it. It is just flat ****ing wrong.


Forty years ago, somebody would have "handled" that situation and the cops would have looked the other way... end of problem.
 
Nope that's hate speech because they are a minority and are immune from protests.
Parents of dead soldiers are also (thankfully) a minority, and if anything is hate speech, these protests are. Why are they not immune?
 
OK, so this is going to be about free speech. No problem, except that some people don't seem to get it that, with rights, come responsibilities. You must be familiar with the notion that free speech does not grant one to yell "fire" in a crowded theater. What the Supremes will be deciding will be the extent of limitations involved in free speech. Does it give Fred Phelps the right to invade the privacy of others, and disrupt the grieving of families during funerals with this.................?

capt.63f8c66d15612dc237fbffece3dcb4d8.jpeg


Here is the deal, folks. God gives us the right of freedom of speech, but that does not mean that we can trample the rights of others in the process. Phelps and his klan can rant all day about whether or not "God hates fags". However, when they disrupt the funerals of soldiers, they have crossed the line, and I hope that the family of the dead soldier these punks protested gets every dime from them.

Finally, in the picture, Mrs. Phelps is right about one thing, although I am sure she didn't intend it. Yes, I thank God every day for dead soldiers, because without those who spilled their blood to defend us, there would be no United States of America. However, unlike Mrs. Phelps, I thank those soldiers, both straight and gay, who made the ultimate sacrifice, and gave their last measure, to keep America a free nation. We all die, eventually, and I believe that our rewards in the afterlife are commensurate with how we lived our lives. In that context, I truly believe that it sucks to be part of the Phelps klan, who (IMHO) will be enshrined in everlasting shame, once they leave this world.

Article is here.

EDIT: Check out the picture, and see how patriotic Mrs. Phelps is, with her desecration of the flag. She is a disgusting excuse for a human being, and a waste of good oxygen.

As long as they are standing across the street and not trespassing then they can say what ever hateful thing they wish.Personally I think someone should photoshop Phelp's picture on someone getting ****ed in the ass and put on a protest sign with the words God Hates Faggy little asswipe anti-American preachers and then a bunch of people go protest his church.
 
Ya know... I have to hope the Supremes rule that the Phelps can be sued out of existence for this crap.

I'm sorry, that crap just isn't right. Period. It is just flat wrong to hold a sign saying "thank God for dead soldiers" at a soldier's funeral, where his parents and grandparents and siblings and friends can see it. It is just flat ****ing wrong.


Forty years ago, somebody would have "handled" that situation and the cops would have looked the other way... end of problem.

How do you feel when some of our friemds on the left burn our soldiers in effigy and nothing is done to them....
 
Back
Top Bottom