Fred Phelps gets a chance to do the right thing.

Westboro Baptist Church and three of the principle members have a chance to pony up $10.9 million dollars. Hopefully they will do the honorable things, sell all their assets, hire themselves out to the dunking booth at the next Gay Pride Fair and pay their debt. News Link

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I was JUST about to post that . but you beat me too it.I can't imagine such a terrible thing happening to a nicer group of people.Probably, because a nicer group of people would not be sued.

As I said, it is an opportunity to for once "do the right thing", but I also believe that even Fred Phelps should have the right to be and appear as stupid as he wants. It is the right even of Biblical Christians to make statements that show they are bigots.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

(1) What on Earth ever happened to the First Amendment?(2) Why on Earth is the word "nigger" always refered to as the "N-word" in the popular press and the word "fag" or "faggot" is always used as is?(3) In this particular case, I fully support Phelps' right to hate speech. No, I don't support his right to his hate speech because of the same reason as N_J's.(4) I swear, we are becoming a nation of political correctness and christian fundamentalism going wild. Has it occured to anyone that this verdict will more likely make martyrs out of the Phelps Clan than shut them up?

---

Disclaimer:

​

Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.

​

He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

I don't know enough of the facts to come to a conclusion about whether I agree with the verdict. I don't think that there's any serious question about whether the verdict is based, at least in part, on the jury's disgust over the message that these drooling bags of excrement spread. I share your misgivings over whether we should be allowed to sue someone because of their speech. However, there are limits that the government can place on the time, place and manner in which speech is communicated. If in fact the actions of the defendants amounted to an invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of severe emotional distress, the defendants can arguably liable on that basis, regardless of the content of the speech.In other words, if they are guilty of tortious conduct, the religious nature of their speech isn't enough to shield them from liability.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

I think the likelihood of that is considerably reduced because of the extreme nature of their conduct. That is not to say, however, that I think it can't happen. I just don't think it will to a great extent.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

Just remember that the jury's disgust wasn't because of their hate message but because of their intended target. They'd been protesting at funerals of gay people for years without anyone as much as say "hey, that's not nice". Mathew Sheppard was a victim of a hate crime and yet nobody said anything when the Phelps Clan protested at his funeral.Why am I pointing this out? Because the fact that people only became disgusted enough to do something about it AFTER they began to target non-gay people tells me that the chances of the Phelps becoming martyrs for the homophobes out there is pretty damn high. Will they be recognized as martyrs right away? Probably not. But people will wait until most people forgot about the soldiers before yelling out "the Phelps fell victim to them fags".Edited by Taz, : No reason given.

---

Disclaimer:

​

Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.

​

He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

Well, you're right. It might be a complete bastardization of Christ's message, and it may disgust us to the core of our being, but the Westboro Baptists have the right to *chokes back vomit* to spread their propaganda.However, I do believe that disrupting a funeral procession, where grieving families are gathered, is considered disturbing the peace, which can and should be punishable by fine and/or jail time.I'll tell you what. Where's the ACLU when you need them.If the ACLU defends the Westboro Baptists, I will retract all my previous statements about them. Well, maybe I shouldn't get carried away. Good question. Wow... You grouped me in the same boat with the Phelps family. Wow.... just..... wow....... I don't know if they could be any more martyred than they already are. They are the nations pariah right now. No ideology wants them around except the extremists who are in their own family. Edited by Nemesis Juggernaut, : edit to add for clarification

---

“This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake

The message that Phelps and similar degenerates spread is protected by the First Amendment. However, that does not mean that the manner in which he spreads the message is protected.He couldn't stand in the middle of the street at rush hour and block traffic.He couldn't trumpet his filth through a bullhorn at 2:00 in the morning.He couldn't hold people at gun point to make them listen.He can't force himself into your home against your will.And he can't immunize otherwise tortious conduct by hiding behind the protections of the First Amendment just because he happened to be speaking when he committed the torts.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

There is also the federal legislation against discrimination.It's a simple matter of conflicting rights: the marine's family's right to privacy in their grief and their right to their religious beliefs, versus the Phelps klan's right to free speech.When there are conflicting rights then the question comes down to who is more harmed. In this case the marine's family was deprived of a private mourning, while the Phelps klan could have been elsewhere and still been able to express their beliefs (as indeed they can't be everywhere).It will be interesting to see who supports Phelps.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

I don't doubt this. However, and again, I must point out that the Phelps clan has been doing this for years and years and years against gay people and their families. Noone said a thing then.I highly doubt this is about a conflict of rights issue.

---

Disclaimer:

​

Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.

​

He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

They have filed suits on his behalf in Missouri, in Kentucky, in Massachusetts, in Iowa, and perhaps in other places too ... I found those four separate cases just by looking at the top ten google hits on ACLU Phelps. Ooooh, I love a good recantation. Will you be wearing a linen shift and holding a candle?

it's a civil suit. you can sue people for things they say. a person bringing a liable/defamation suit is very different than the government passing a law the forbids certain kinds of speech. he has the right to his hate speech -- but his targets have the right seek damages against him too. which group is more likely to kick your ass?

---

quote:

---

The jury awarded Snyder's family $2.9 million in compensatory damages plus $8 million in punitive damages in the first civil suit against the church, which has demonstrated at some 300 military funerals the past two years.

​

Kansas church liable in Marine funeral protest | Reuters

---

---

Nah, I'll just be dressed in sackcloth and ashes with my foot in my mouth...