Protesters get out of control, $10.9 million payout

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Stev0 @ Nov 1 2007, 09:26 PM) [snapback]533654[/snapback]</div>

My simple answer is just that: Simple.

Freedom of Speech should be, frankly, simple. As in, you get to say what you want, when you want, how you want, no matter what.

However, in this litigators country that is the USA, where one can sue over stupid things all the time, lawsuits will happen.

I don't agree with the message that this church has, nor would I support it, but I do support their right to have said message. Even one filled with obvious hate and bile.


As to your question about blasting stereos at 2AM, well, frankly, it would not bug me one bit. I would not care. I am often awake all night. That falls under a category of common decency, which is not a freedom of speech issue. At least IMO, which, is not a legal one; I am not a lawyer.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Ichabod @ Nov 1 2007, 09:27 PM) [snapback]533655[/snapback]</div>

I am glad I am not your lawyer either, as I would fail miserably at the job, causing you undue stress and loss of your money.

Again, though, the right to express oneself, one's views, are what I am behind. The moment we start telling others what to say, or how/when to say it, we start going down that path towards a regime that will end in dictatorship. We may already be on that path, given the Bush administration and the way they operate. But I digress.

The point of this thread, in my view, was to ask two questions, and I answered them. There is no need for more explanation then yes or no.
1. Does the first amendment protect these protesters?
2. Should there be a law against protesting at funerals?

Again, it's simple. Yes, the first amendment protects those with views that may indeed, seem evil or disgusting, and no, there should be no law against protesting at funerals, since that would infringe on the first amendment.

My view is simplistic, and I won't apologize for it. This to me, is a simple issue.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Nov 1 2007, 04:17 PM) [snapback]533605[/snapback]</div>

I actually wrote a blog article on why I don't think he is really a Calvinist after his shenanigans with the Matthew Shepard case (basically, pointing out that Mr. Phelps, as a Calvinist, cannot possibly know if Matthew Shephard went to heaven or hell). His tormenting of the Shepard family was absolutely criminal in the moral sense.

BTW - most people don't know that the modern day KKK was or American Nazi Party was bankrupted by the Southern Poverty Law Center (something like that) through civil suits. Suing them out of existence is not anti-speech; they are free to speak, but if they harm someone, they are still responsible for their actions. Our freedoms do not come with a "no responsibility" clause.

Phelps does harm people, particularly grieving family members like Matthew Shepard's parents, and Albert Snyder, who I nominate for "Hero of the Month" for pursuing the lawsuit.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TJandGENESIS @ Nov 1 2007, 07:40 PM) [snapback]533675[/snapback]</div>

TJ, it's your son's 8th birthday, so you throw him a private party in a public park where you have reserved the section of park (and paid a fee for it). During the party, a group of strangers shows up and begins disruptively to insult your son personally, your family and your guests. Is this behavior you would defend as "freedom of speech?" Public defamation, which that would be, is legally prosecutable as libel, and there are no freedom of speech protections for libel. Nor is disturbing the peace protected, nor invasion of privacy. The only difference between those funerals and my hypothetical birthday party is that the birthday party would have had more smiles ruined by the invading group, but beyond that they are identical in terms of privacy of function. It isn't that the law outlaws "certain speech at funerals" (which it appears some governments have attempted to do, misguidedly), it's that the law ALREADY outlaws defamation, disturbing the peace and invasion of privacy, and simple enforcement of those existing laws is sufficient, as it DID in this case, to squelch anti-social behavior. The fact that some forms of anti-social behavior HAPPEN to be vocal expression (i.e. "speech") does not exempt the behavior if it transgresses the laws of libel, disorderliness and personal privacy.

I DO agree that speech CONTENT (provided it isn't libelous) cannot be regulated, but the manner of its delivery CAN be. Or, to give another example, if a group of strangers invaded your son's birthday party full of fun and compliments and unsolicited gifts, but completely disrupting your arrangements, you would have legal sanction to sue them for, again, disturbing the peace and invasion of privacy. It's not the CONTENT that's at issue (except for libel), it's the manner.

Mark Baird
Alameda CA

 

With freedom comes responsibility. You can say whatever you like, but you have a responsibility to be truthful and respectful. And hopefully constructive, but that's probably pushing it.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TJandGENESIS @ Nov 1 2007, 09:40 PM) [snapback]533675[/snapback]</div>

You have obviously never lost anyone close to you. Words CAN hurt as much as actions. Unless you think people should have the right to stab or shoot anyone they want anytime, for any reason.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(airportkid @ Nov 1 2007, 11:07 PM) [snapback]533693[/snapback]</div>

Yup.

Of course, I don't have kids, don't want them, think they are a waste of time. So, asking me about this with the context of my son's 8th Birthday, is about as good as asking me if I know what it's like to be black when I'm white. I can guess, but I don't know what it's like.


If, however, you put the context it's my wife's 39th birthday party, in a public park, (private or not, it's still a public park), and all the other elements are in place as you described for the party in your post, I would still say it's a freedom of speech issue.

When I get death threats, of which I have had many, since I'm the 'liberal preacher', it's still a Freedom Of Speech thing. I just believe in the First Amendment that strongly. Sorry.
Turn the other cheek, is also something I try to live by.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(airportkid @ Nov 1 2007, 11:07 PM) [snapback]533693[/snapback]</div>

Well, Mark, you can feel free to think that way. I just look at this in a more simplistic view, that is all.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hyo silver @ Nov 1 2007, 11:53 PM) [snapback]533713[/snapback]</div>

Agreed. But with freedom also comes the price of having to deal with nits who like to spit on others, and you have to stand up for them to have that right. I was in the NAVY 20 years ago. And during that time, I would have laid down my life so others could enjoy the freedom of speech we sometimes take for granted.

I don't like a lot of things, some known on this board, but I would always fight for the right of people to do what they want. I'm not saying there shouldn't be laws, or penalties for violating the laws of the land, but I am all for someone to say or do what they want, when they want.

I used to have a t-shirt, from the band TIN MACHINE, that said in large red letters on the front, 'F*** You, I Love Tin Machine' (with all the letters in the word that starts with 'F'), and I would wear it around a lot, and suddenly one day, I just stopped, when it occurred to me I was offending others. I was young and stupid, and grew up a bit on that day. But still, to this day, if I saw someone wearing that same shirt, I would defend their right to wear it.

Should people know better? Yes. But sometimes people, organizations, they need to grow up as well, before they get it.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Stev0 @ Nov 2 2007, 12:11 AM) [snapback]533716[/snapback]</div>

What a moronic thing to say. I have lost many people close to me. My parents have both passed away, I have lost countless friends to AIDS, and I lost a very dear friend in the plane that crashed into the Pentagon on 9/11. And that last action, cost us a lot, wouldn't you say?

Words are just that: Words. People say they hate me all the time, because I defend gay people, for instance, and the people spilling the hate at me? Mostly 'Christians'. They say that me, a preacher, can't defend the acts or actions of gay people. And when I do, I am often invited to do things to my self, that is anatomically impossible, or I am asked to rid myself from this plane of existence.

I have even know some of these people. Real people. Real threats. Real words. But here is the deal: I ignore them, forgive them, move on.

It's what a great deal of us need to do. We need to as a human race, we need to grow up. We need to stop hating others, when we disagree. We need to stop adding fuel to the fire, by hating them back. The worse thing that could happen to these people at this 'church', is that they are ignored. That they are just shut out.

There is a great scene, at the end of the animated TV show, How The Grinch Stole Christmas, when all the Whovians join hands, and sing with joy, despite there being no toys, or food, or Christmas decorations. I know, I know, it's 'fake' but the underlying message should be adhered to. We need to forgive, and move on, and be happy with what we have.

If but we could, this world would be a better place. So when you all wish ill will towards this 'church' for their ill behaviour, wouldn't it be better to ignore them; to move on, to let things be?

I know there are thousands of examples of where we need to govern our own people, to protect others, to be sensitive to others needs and wants. But we also need to protect with a passion, the right to have Freedom of Speech, even when it's not something we agree to at all.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(airportkid @ Nov 1 2007, 08:07 PM) [snapback]533693[/snapback]</div>

Excellent analogy. Disturbing the peace and slander are still that even if the people doing it are speaking while they do it.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TJandGENESIS @ Nov 2 2007, 04:27 AM) [snapback]533786[/snapback]</div>

No need to apologize for being tolerant of threats against yourself. But making death threats is illegal, and an excellent example of where the freedom of speech is not an absolute right.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TJandGENESIS @ Nov 2 2007, 04:27 AM) [snapback]533786[/snapback]</div>

Spitting on others is also illegal, as well it should be, and nobody should stand up for the right of people to spit on other people.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TJandGENESIS @ Nov 2 2007, 04:27 AM) [snapback]533786[/snapback]</div>

That's what happened in Fargo. The usually ultra-conservative Fargo Forum even called on people to ignore Phelps, and that's what nearly everyone did. Other than a few who waved and smiled at them. However I do feel that being ignored is only the second-worst thing that could happen. Since they get their funds by suing people, I think the best thing is that they be deprived of operating funds by a lawsuit so strong that any money they come into is taken away from them before they can use it to provoke another incident that would allow them to sue another innocent victim.

Phelps is not a preacher. He is a criminal.

Would you argue in favor of the "right" to paint offensive slogans on other people's cars? Is that protected free speech? How about the free speech "right" to paint a swastika on the house of a concentration camp survivor?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TJandGENESIS @ Nov 2 2007, 06:27 AM) [snapback]533786[/snapback]</div>

Sure, you may have lost people physically close to you, but you obviously don't care about them in the least. If you did, you would be hurt if someone slandered them, ESPECIALLY during their funeral, but since you're a cold, emotionless shell of a human, I just feel sorry for you. I really do.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TJandGENESIS @ Nov 2 2007, 04:27 AM) [snapback]533786[/snapback]</div>

Lucky for you that your parents were of a different state of mind.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(IsrAmeriPrius @ Nov 2 2007, 01:02 PM) [snapback]533943[/snapback]</div>

Lucky for you that your parents were of a different state of mind.[/b][/quote]
Also lucky that TJ was smart enough to realize how he felt before he had kids and resented them. Don't cast stones.

 

What no one has discussed is that most cemeteries, except military cemeteries, are private property and if these idiots who are protesting are doing it on the private property they should be thrown in jail, for trespassing and if they refuse to leave anything else the law allows would be justified. They can protest on the side walk all they want. I don't agree with what they have to say but they do have the right to say it.

 

Everyone should have the right to say whatever stupid thing they want. But that doesn't mean they have the right to say it WHENVER and WHEREVER they want.

I teach in a public school. If a person comes into my classroom and starts yelling horrible things - do I have to sit there and let them? If a student starts calling me names, or talking in a sexually explicit manner - can I not have them removed? Of course I can!

A person operates a business. Protestors decide to come into the facility and yell at patrons of the business. Does the business owner have the right to have them removed from the premises? Of course they do!

You do have the right to say "God Hates Fags" as much as you want. You don't have the right to invade someone's private event - generally held on private property - and personally attack the people at that event. If Phelps truly believes these things, it should really matter WHERE he says them. So why doesn't he show up at events where it won't be a disruption or get him lots of publicity? Why don't we see him hanging out at the cemetery when they AREN'T burying a war hero? Why isn't he outside the White House with his signs?

Oh yeah - because he doesn't really care about his message. He's just hoping to piss off some poor family so that he can sue them when they finally snap.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(FBear @ Nov 2 2007, 12:40 PM) [snapback]533969[/snapback]</div>

For the record, I believe they have a right to say it, too. They can put on their website whatever they want, they can picket the White House, the local shopping mall, they can march down the middle of Castro Street in San Francisco, I have no problem with that.

Just like I have the right to yell "I have a bomb in my suitcase" in my living room or at a friend's house, which doesn't mean I have a right to yell it in the middle of an airport.

"Creating a Public Nuisance" laws are a good thing. Just like Freedom of Religion also means Freedom from Religion, Freedom of Speech also means Freedom from Speech - while everybody should have a right to say whatever they want to say, everybody should have a right not to have to listen to what they don't want to listen to. Otherwise, the Do Not Call list would be declared unconstitutional, mail filters blocking out spam would be illegal, and I would not be able to put certain <strike>self-proclaimed doctors</strike> users on this board on Ignore.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Nov 2 2007, 10:10 AM) [snapback]533836[/snapback]</div>

if the act is illegal, then it's illegal. However, if it's not illegal then I suppose I would support the right to have Freedom of Speech.

Having been in the position of people spray painting hateful things on my house ('God Hates Fag Lovers'), I can say while I disagree with the method of broadcasting the message, I refuse to condemn them, or their means of expression. If I do so, then I am coming down to their level. They can do what they want, and if the law stipulates punishment for what they do, they deserve to receive that. We live in a society that protects us. We have to abide by the laws or we turn into the anarchists that we despise.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Stev0 @ Nov 2 2007, 11:35 AM) [snapback]533890[/snapback]</div>

First, how is your day? Is it going well? I hope so. I hope you are not suffering any ill will, or physical aliment. I pray that you receive what is coming to you.

Second, when my mother died, I did not miss her at all. She and I suffered many years of her hating me, and the choices I made. She was a Roman Catholic, and could not stand that I was a 'Christian' preacher. She did, on many occasions, tell me to my face that she wished I had never been born, and wished I was dead. Of course a great deal of that was due to her heavy drinking, and I know that. She also saw fit to leave myself, and my little brother, (whom she also hated), out of the will. Actually saying, 'Peter, Bobby, Michael get this and that, and nothing goes to TJ and Joey'.
That is but the tip of the iceberg that was my mother.
I forgave her, but I did not miss her. I am of the opinion, that just because they are your family, you do not have to love them. I am closer to my room mate of the past twenty + years, then any of my natural brothers. Keith still lives with me, even after 15 years of marriage to my wife. Keith has cerebral palsy,
and depends on me for driving him, among other things...If that indicates that I am 'a cold, emotionless shell of a human', then we have different definitions of what it means to have emotions.

How dare you assume how I feel, when you do not me outside of this forum. You don't know if I cried when my father died; I did. You don't know if I cried when my friend died on that plane; I did. You don't know, for instance, that my cat is missing, and has been for over a week, and how upset I am.

Frankly, the internets can be a cold, emotionless place with no means to express one's 'voice', in a manner that conveys emotion. If you wish to judge me based on typed letters, on a screen, then that is your right. But expect a rebuke, if necessary.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(IsrAmeriPrius @ Nov 2 2007, 01:02 PM) [snapback]533943[/snapback]</div>

Actually, given the life I had growing up, the abuse, the hatred, I wish I had not been born to that particular set of parents. My father, wonderful man that he was, was also weak when when it came to standing up to my monster of a mother. When she passed on, he got a backbone, but it was a tad too late, I'm afraid.

So, if I had the option, impossible as it would be, to have been born, or not, I would have rather chosen to have not been born at all.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Proco @ Nov 2 2007, 01:16 PM) [snapback]533954[/snapback]</div>

Thank you. Yes, at one point, I was thinking that my wife and I should try for kids, but I am glad we did not. She is a teacher, who comes home tired from dealing with kids all day long, and I have little patience for children at times. I have come to the conclusion, that some are natural born parents, and others are not. I would have been, I think, a good enough parent, not repeating the mistakes of mine, but would I have been the best parent a child can have, with my often odd schedule, and late hours? Not sure I would have been. So my wife and I elected to not have children; better to err on that side of the fence, then to have had children at all. IMHO, of course.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TJandGENESIS @ Nov 2 2007, 03:04 PM) [snapback]534102[/snapback]</div>

How sad.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Stev0 @ Nov 2 2007, 08:35 AM) [snapback]533890[/snapback]</div>

Stev0: I think the above is unjustified. I strongly disagree with TJ on the issue in this thread, but he has demonstrated that he is not a "cold, emotionless shell of a human." He stands up frequently for people who are despised by society and he is a strong advocate for human rights. On this issue of this thread, his analysis of the question differs radically from mine and yours, but that does not make him cold or emotionless. Even his decision not to have kids (a decision I'd have made if I'd ever had anyone to make kids with) does not make him cold.

I think it would be appropriate for you to apologize to him for those words, and resume debating the substantive question in the civil manner you normally maintain.

Note: I am not a moderator, so the above is a suggestion from a friend, and not a demand.

Another note: TJ believes in a religion that I think is even more ridiculous than the Flying Spaghetti Monster. But he advocates a strongly humanistic version of his religion, and for that he has my highest respect.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TJandGENESIS @ Nov 2 2007, 05:04 PM) [snapback]534102[/snapback]</div>

I am sorry, but I came to that assumption when you stated you would encourage people to protest and say horrible things about the people in question during their funeral.

I am an animal lover, and can related to your cat missing. I do hope you find your cat, but I find it hard to believe you wouldn't mind people holding up signs in front of your house saying "Thank God for Roadkill!"


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Nov 2 2007, 06:10 PM) [snapback]534130[/snapback]</div>

I actually applaud his decision not to have kids; I have made the exact same decision, and wish a lot more people did.

However, someone not minding people parading in front of the family and loved ones of the victims of 9/11 holding signs that say, "Thank God for 9/11," well, if that's not cold, then I guess we have different standards of what being cold is.

 

Thank you for the kind words.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Nov 2 2007, 07:10 PM) [snapback]534130[/snapback]</div>

I do believe in Christ, but I don't believe in religion. On that issue, I am not a fan of religion. It often brings more discord then accord, frankly.

But this Flying Spaghetti Monster sounds delicious. Or am I wrong about that?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Stev0 @ Nov 2 2007, 07:16 PM) [snapback]534132[/snapback]</div>

I did not say I would encourage people to do that. Find where I did. What I did say, is, I would support their right to do what they did, despite how it despises me.

I am not a fan of their twisted message, at all. I am just saying, again, that, I will support their right to have it.

It's part of my basic philosophy: Don't tell others what to do with themselves. I know that puts me in a minority when it comes to my fellow 'preachers', but it is whom I am.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TJandGENESIS @ Nov 2 2007, 06:39 PM) [snapback]534139[/snapback]</div>

When talking about something that hurts other people, I equate "support their right" to "condone" which I equate with "encourage". If I see a mugger attacking an old lady, if I do call the police, I am not "simply minding my own business" - I am adding to the problem by allowing this person to go off and mug some other old lady in the future. To trot out the well-worn quote, "All that is necessary for evil to succeed is that good men do nothing." I realize you don't see it this way, and we'll never see eye-to-eye on this, so I have said all I have to say about this depressing topic.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Stev0 @ Nov 2 2007, 04:16 PM) [snapback]534132[/snapback]</div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Stev0 @ Nov 2 2007, 05:58 PM) [snapback]534165[/snapback]</div>

There is a tremendous difference between a stance which holds freedom of speech so high that it permits even offensive speech, and encouraging or condoning that speech.

I believe that TJ extends freedom of speech beyond what is appropriate or beneficial to society.

But he never encouraged or condoned the behavior of Phelps, and I can debate with him the proper limits of freedom of speech without transferring to him the blame due to those who abuse the rights he believes society must extend to all citizens.

I really feel you are wrong when you assert that support for freedom of speech is the same as condoning the use that extremists make of that right.