Fred Phelps Family Fundamentally Offensive

If doing what they did to that poor lady during her husbands funeral isn't harrassment, then I just don't know what is.
It's slander, and false accusations.She should take them to court, and make them prove that her husband is in hell. When they can't she should sue them for everything they got. I don't think there would be a jury out there that wouldn't give it to her.

I had first heard about Phelps' church when they protested the funeral of Matthew Shepherd back in '98. I was utterly appalled that people had the absolute moral void to do something like that and I remember the flood of tears shed by a friend of mine who had gone to school with Matthew and alot of crying myself over this despicable act of hatred that followed the heart wrenching and despicable act of murder. I heard tidbits of their goings-on over the next few years, but they essentially fell off my radar, so when I heard about the protests at soldiers' funerals my anger and sorrow was fueled by my experience years before.I found out about the Patriot Guard mentioned in the videos through Internet channels and I find that, besides agitating for legislation, this is the best that we can do to shield these families during their time of grief. Something similar occurred during the trial of Matthew Shepherds's killers when a group of friends and local townspeople showed up wearing the garb of angels to shield his family from the protesters at the trials (I believe the Phelps clan organized these as well as the funeral protest). Even if the Patriot Guard cannot be at every funeral (I'm not sure of they are or not) you can do something to help keep out the hateful noise and organize a group of people to act as a living shield and keep the Phelps and their ilk far enough away from the mourners and/or play music (like the bagpipers in the first video) to drown out their hate-filled bleating.As for the free speech argument, I agree that it is a very fine line, but I believe that in this case, the right of a family to mourn in peace trumps the right to freely protest and these types of laws could possibly be argued using the "violence/riot inciting speech" exceptions. One other option would be to create laws that forbid trespassing on cemetary property if you are not there for a service or to visit a grave. I guess that would only apply to public cemetaries and private graveyards would have to secure against protest through their own means.

You don't think they exibit classic symptoms of cults? When does it cross over into delusion and insanity?Do we have a right to be protected from insane people? What's the line?If it's one person it is easy to say {delusional\insane}, but it can be genetic eh?It would be an interesting approach if they were arrested for anything to have the court investigate whether they are mentally competent to stand trial.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} 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.

Yes that was ... interesting ... , but it was CNN (not that there's much difference). Public nuisance? Incitement to riot?Perhaps checked for rabies?

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} 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 would think that private ones would be easier to close to outsiders, the way restaurants will close to the public to host a wedding reception, for instance.Now I would like my final celebration to be a fireworks party, one where my ashes are packed into the big finale. Perhaps we could find a suitable spot for them to protest ....

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} 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.

Sure, just like the 700 Club or Gene Scott's cult or those following Wyatt or any of the MegaChurches. I think the line is probably at physical violence. Yeah, but they also seem to attract folk that marry into the zoo so it is less likely that it is directly genetic. I'm not sure at all that they could be found sane enough to stand trial.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Video clip three?
CNN displays fox news logos now?

oh well. but like I said, not much difference. "news" is sensation, not sense.

There is a standard for mental abuse as well as physical. Or they are self selecting for similar mental delusions.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} 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.

Something I happened to stumble upon:Fighting words - WikipediaWhich led to:Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire - WikipediaWhich contained:

quote:

---

In late November 1941, Walter Chaplinsky, a Jehovah's Witness, was using the public sidewalk as a pulpit in downtown Rochester, passing out pamphlets and calling organized religion a "racket." After a large crowd had begun blocking the roads and generally causing a scene, a police officer removed Chaplinsky to take him to police headquarters. Along the way he met the town marshal, who had earlier warned Chaplinsky to keep it down and avoid causing a commotion. Upon meeting the marshal for the second time, Chaplinsky attacked him verbally. The complaint against Chaplinsky charged that he had shouted: "You are a God-damned racketeer" and "a damned Fascist" and was arrested. Chaplinsky admitted that he said the words charged in the complaint, with the exception of the name of the Deity.

​

For this, he was arrested under a New Hampshire statute preventing intentionally offensive speech being directed at others in a public place. Under NH.'s Offensive Conduct law (chap. 378, para. 2 of the NH. Public Laws) it is illegal for anyone to address another person with "any offensive, derisive or annoying word to anyone who is lawfully in any street or public place...or to call him by an offensive or derisive name."

​

Chaplinsky was fined, but he appealed, claiming the law was "vague" and infringed upon his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights to free speech.

---

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the arrest (and apparently to conviction and fine):

quote:

---

There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting" words those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.

---

It seems that if it was constitutional to come down on Chaplinsky, it would likewise be constitutional to come down on Fred Phelps and his gang. But more recent (SCOTUS?) decisions said otherwise.MooseAdded by edit - Another Phelps topic and related link: Fred Phelps gets a chance to do the right thingKansas church liable in Marine funeral protestThat decision was overturned, wasn't it?Edited by Minnemooseus, : See above.

This is what some of the critics of religion complain about. There is often a double standard. Religious people, slamming those outside the religion, are given a pass. But non-religious people, criticizing the religious, are considered to be committing some sort of offense.

---

Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity

I have to wonder if the court would have held the same if the words were about organizations and not specifically about a person?

They have a right to protest. Any where at any time.They should not be arrested, they should not be beat up.
You can laugh at them, yell at them, protest their protests etc. but you cannot and should not try to stop their protest.My brother is a soldier, and he has served in Afghanistan and Kosovo, and if he had died in war, and protesters like the WBC people. showed up at the funeral, it would be real hard for me not to start a fight with them. How ever, i sincerly hope that family, friends and law enforcement would stop me.
My brother would agree with me.Though its only somewhat relevant i feel this i worth posting. These are a few posts from Slashdot.org, posted on september eleven, 2001: Rights of freedom are important. To keep them for all, you have to keep them for the few you disagree with too.

That is really too bad. I am a firm believer in the protection of free speech, even if offensive. (I'd even say it is the offensive speech that needs to be most protected.)God bless Chaplinsky, and Mr. Phelps, et al. They will certainly need it.Jon

---

Love your enemies!