The supreme court announced this week that it would be considering the Westboro Baptist church case. A quick overview: The WBC is a family “church” out of Topeka, Kansas. The patriarch is Fred Phelps and most of the “church” members are either family or extended family. Phelps was a lawyer until his disbarrment and I, growing up in Topeka, had the “privledge” to go to school with several of his children. Back in grade school days he sent the kids out to sell candy and such to support the church. By the kids own account, he was harsh in his punishment of them if they didn’t meet expectations, to the extent of shaving the head of one of the girls, a fifth grader if memory serves, and reported beatings.
Somewhere in the late ’80′s, I think it was, (feel free to see Wickipedia for more in depth as well as examples of their signage, etc.) the members began picketing Gage Park in Topeka, a reputed gay encounter area, as well as street corners in the community. Signs were graphic to say the least, and there were numerous incidents with community members. I don’t know how many times they sued the city over their “oppression” by the local law enforcement community. Finally, by accord, the local media pretended they no longer existed and for 10 years or so they were just a sorry fact of life for Topekans. For the next decade they traveled around the country, anywhere they thought they could find the media spotlight. They protested at the funerals of Jerry Falwell, Matthew Shepard, Mr.Rogers and on and on. By their account they have picketed over 41,000 times in over 650 cities since 1991.
Then, in 2005, they hit on the one thing that brought national attention. They began protesting at soldiers funerals, putting forth their “belief” that God was punishing America for it’s acceptance of homosexuality by killing our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. No longer was the country willing to be silent and hope they would just go away. Sixteen men, veterans from Post 36 of the American Legion Riders out of Mulvane, Kansas formed the Patriot Guard to stand, at the invitation of family, as a shield between the funeral of a fallen soldier and the cult. The “mission” of the Patriot Guard spread quickly. I was the 486th member of what has become over 185,000 members worldwide and to date I have attended over 30 of these missions.
In 2007 Al Snyder, the father of a Maryland Marine, sued the church and the Phelps’ for invasion of privacy for their protest at his son’s funeral and won a judgement of 11.8 million dollars. This was reduced to 5 million by the judge and later overturned by the 4th circuit court of appeals. Snyder has asked the Supreme Court to hear the case.
Which finally brings us to the point of this post: When does (if ever) the 1st amendment not apply to free speech? Is the WBC protected in their “God hates fags” “Thank God for dead soldiers” rhetoric? If so are they free to protest wherever and whenever they choose? Does the right of a grieving family take precedent over the WBC’s right to free speech and free practice of it’s religious beliefs?
Some here have accused me, good naturedly, of being a “closet conservative” so my answer will likely surprise many of you: I find the Phelps’ and their “church” as vile and disgusting as anything on this earth. Their message is filled with hate and contempt and in my opinion has no place whatsoever in a civilized society. That being said, I believe that the case will, and should, be thrown out. I believe they are indeed protected by the 1st amendment.
Wow! Duane, how can you say that?
Freedom of speech doesn’t mean just the polite sunshine, kittens, puppy dogs, and rainbows. Freedom of speech is not needed, or intended, for “Of Mice and Men”. It is for “The Turner Diaries”. Freedom of the press is not for “CBS News”. It is for “Glenn Beck” and ”Keith Olbermann”. Freedom of religion is not for the quiet Protestant service, or the secluded catecism. It is for you and I, as we please, and in public if we so choose. For if we limit the freedom of one group to speak their mind, or practice their faith, no matter how twisted we may think it to be, we all lose freedom in the end. Sooner or later it will be our point of view that does not conform to the “acceptable”, and freedom lost is seldom regained. As vile as I find their message, I regrettably defend their right to speak it.
I wonder if the solution to the funeral issue is that the people running the cemeteries change their rules regarding public entrance. I mean, aren’t they primarily public property? At least that would keep the morons outside of the entrance, right? I mean, I doubt that a neo-Nazi group would be allowed entry to a Jewish cemetery, right? (I plead ignorance of actual laws on this matter…)
I’m glad that the media gives these people attention. If they didn’t, then mainstream Christians wouldn’t be confronted with the Westboro Baptist Churches or Repent Amarillos of the world. And frankly, a lot of Christians seem to be completely in denial about the “dark side” of Christian Fundamentalism and the bad things that it can inflict on society.
As a matter of fact, almost all cemeteries are private property, held by a corporation of shareholders (usually local municipalities and churches). The place the Phelps brood protest is generally in or on the road near the entrance to the cemetery, placing them within the public right of way, i.e. public property (or at the very least easement for public passage), hence why they cannot be arrested for trespass. However, they could be found guilty of a number of misdemeanor charges, such as disturbing the peace, incitement to riot, causing a public nuisance, littering (just made me think of “Alice’s Restaurant” for a moment), etc.
And, much as I dislike it myself, I find that using the First Amendment to defend them is proper. I also believe, however, in the “doctrine of fighting words” as espoused in Chaplinski v. New Hampshire, make for a valid defense in shooting them.
So, I agree with Duane, but I think that Mr. Snyder ought to have gone to SCOTUS under a different theory.
Here’s another shocker Byron, I agree with you! LOL. The light of truth is the best disinfectant and this group is completely bug-f*ck-nuts, IMHO of course.
I’m sorry, I have to disagree with you. Protesting at the funeral of a deceased soldier should be considered harassment, and should be treated as such. Your rights should end the second they start infringing on the rights of others. You cannot stand in front of your neighbor’s house and shout obscenities at them; it is a breach of the peace. You can not call on your church to commit violence against others; that is a hate crime. You can not call your boss a psychopath or a child molester; that is slander. It is one thing to publish a book where you argue vile and obscene things; that is free speech. It’s quite another when you use your speech to create a hateful, harmful environment for others. Frankly, our society needs to grow a pair when it comes to things like this, and stop trying to be so politically correct. No one should have to listen to a bunch of morons shouting obscene things at them while they’re trying to bury their hero. Thank the gods for students and soldiers who respond to these disgusting actions, and shame on the US government for failing to live up to its obligations to protect its people from crap like this.
I am going to disagree as well. First off, my brother lost his life in Afghanistan serving in the US Army so I am pretty worked up on the issue for very personal reasons. However, even that aside I would not agree with this. The words they are using serve no purpose other than to insight anger. If they want to stand with signs that state they don’t support the war, fine. If they want to stand with signs that state they don’t support homosexuality, fine. However they should not be allowed to hold signs that state Thanks God For Dead Soldiers, Thank God for IED’s and Thank God For Terrorists immediately with in the vicinity of a funeral home or cemetery being used for a funeral service. I don’t think they should be able to stand outside the funeral of a homosexual with signs that read God Hates Fags. All these are real slogans they use on their signs. They serve no purpose other than to INTENTIONALLY hurt the family members. They aren’t trying to convert these families. They just want to hurt them. That isn’t free speech nor freedom of religion and quite frankly some of their signs border on sedition, particularly the terrorist slogans.
Jessica, I’m sorry for your loss, and I honor the service of your brother. Sadly, it is the defense of the freedoms of people like this that he and I served to protect. I lost a friend to Afghanistan as well, in ’07. He tore up his retirement papers to go back one more time. I stood at his funeral, with about 600 brothers and sisters. The Phelps’ are masters of knowing where they can and cannot be. I think the family of the deceased is merely “collateral damage” for them, their real goal is attention. Although they obviously have no regard for the feeling of the family. They stand on a public sidewalk or street right of way to avoid trespassing, and their signs are court case tested to be just within the law. I hate it, but stand by my opinion.
Judging from some of the articles I’ve read over the past few yearas, I do believe that the Westboro gang’s main source of income comes from Barratry.
They like to sue (and a few of them are also lawyers just like daddy freddy — just not yet disbarred) the people whom they manage to inflame so much with their hate-speak, that the poor bereaved strikes out to physically attack the Westboro scumbags.
There’s at least one traveling “preacher” I know of in my area who does that for a living — stands on college campuses screaming “whore” and worse and then sues for assault when somebody finally slugs him.
“shame on the US government for failing to live up to its obligations to protect its people from crap like this.”
That is the crux of this discussion. I hold the opinion that the government (SCOTUS) must protect their right to SAY crap like this, to me it’s what the 1st amendment is for. I exercise my right to offer an alternative to their hate.
Freedom of Speech is not an absolute. As Mr. Justice Holmes noted, it does not extend to giving someone the right to shout “FIRE!” in a crowded theater. Likewise, people who use speech to injure other people’s reputations have for many many years been liable to be compelled under the law to recompense the people whom they have injured, even if those words were uttered in a public space. (Indeed, a slander uttered in the public square has traditionally been held to work a greater injury than a slander uttered in private.) The same principle, it seems to me, applies here. I myself have stood with hundreds of others and watched a group from the Westboro Baptist Church conduct one of their protests. None of the onlookers standing outside the main gate at Fort Campbell, Kentucky lifted a finger to interfere with their proclaiming their views that the soldiers from Fort Campbell who died overseas in Iraq and Afghanistan did so solely because America is too tolerant of homosexuals. (Admittedly, the thirty-odd local, county, and state police officers standing between the seven Westboro demonstrators and the several hundred onlookers may have had something to do with the onlookers’ inaction.) But the fact of the matter was that the Westboro people had every right to conduct their protest at that time and place, and their rights were respected and protected.
But, by the same token, it is a longstanding principle of the law that a person must not willfully act in such a manner as to cause injury to another, upon pain of criminal or civil prosecution. We have already established that words can do injury (see slander, above.) A number of states now recognize the intentional infliction of emotional distress ad an actionable tort. If members of the Westboro Baptist Church choose to exercise their right to protest in a place and time and manner that is likely to cause some other person emotional harm, and they do so in a state where such an act is actionable, they should no more be able to claim that the First Amendment renders them immune from such a suit than could someone who commits slander.
Words to live by:
1. “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” – Evelyn Beatrice Hall (writing as Stephen G. Tallentyre, summarizing Voltaire).
2. “First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out–
because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out–
because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out–
because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out–
because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me–
and there was no one left to speak out for me.” – Pastor Martin Niemoeller, attributed (And before anyone tells me I got it wrong, please see here for an in-depth discussion of this quote and its likely origin and development. Thank you.)
Duane – Thank you for being part of the Patriot Guard Riders.
Thank you
I am in complete agreement. While their message disgusts me, it is a covered pot that boils over.
The KKK is powerless now because we don’t “cover their pot”. Repression gives groups like this self-justification to intensify. Remove the cover, and they fizzle out in the spotlight like those nutjobs that claimed they’d cloned a human. (And I don’t use the term nutjob lightly.)
To this hate group I say:
So here’s your street corner. Go stand and look like fools. Even Fox News outted you, and called you repulsive slime who shouldn’t call yourselves decent by any stretch. You don’t have liberal or conservative allies in ANY media. The more you talk, the more the public reviles you.
Keep talking, because the jokes on you. Or I should say, the joke is you.
I was at a funeral mission outside Wamego , Ks for a young soldier. The cult showed up and the sheriff showed them to their assigned protest area, about 100 yards off the highway ankle deep on a muddy road, about 1/4 mile from the church. He had to protect them, he said, from traffic, so they couldn’t be on the highway right of way. The lawsuit is still pending last I heard. In Hutchison the local PD built a “pen” out of bright orange snow fence and gave them the area to protest in. Safe from thrown objects, etc. About an hour before the service, several 18 wheelers showed up and parked in front of the protesters, effectively shielding the church from this group. There are ways.
My personal favorite response to them is the “San Fransisco option”:
http://laughingsquid.com/san-franciscos-answer-to-westboro-baptist-church/
the best ones in my opinion were the “I was promised donuts” and “I have a sign”.
I whole heartedly agree. When I saw this, I thought what a great example of fighting hate and intolerance with laughter and love.
In Ybor City, an area of Tampa, Florida, there are always these guys out there with nasty Christian signs. (Here they are on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-uyFDFm3vk ; And here’s a news article about them: http://www.tampabay.com/news/business/tourism/theres-no-quieting-street-preachers-loud-calls-to-repent-in-ybor-city/1050998 )
So a couple years ago, some Atheist group decided to start standing on the opposite street corner with snarky signs like, “JESUS ISN’T COMING!” I mean, I’m not an Atheist, but I love these guys.
“About an hour before the service, several 18 wheelers showed up and parked in front of the protesters, effectively shielding the church from this group. There are ways.”
Now THAT’S what I’m talking about!
If their right to speak is protected, then someone else shouldn’t be sued for engaging their right to speak against them and their protest. If it doesn’t go both ways, it’s crap.
That’s the main part of the problem, though. WBC doesn’t care about “saving” anyone, they don’t care about evangelism, and they don’t give an amoeba’s butt about what God thinks. The preceding comments about them looking for publicity are dead on; there are actually people who send these aphids money for “the cause”.
Telling them they’re stupid and hateful is what they want to hear, because they’ve cooked up a dynamic where people hating them is proof of how courageously righteous they are. It’s another reason why they keep finding new entities to harass and condemn, no matter how far-fetched the reasoning is behind the choice (they protested a production of Fiddler On The Roof because it has Jewish characters). They score their success by how much they can make people loathe them. It’s a “psycho”logical condition, and they’ve all embraced it because being isolated from other people by ideology allows them to feel superior and special.
As much as I favor dousing the lot with a couple hundred gallons of pig swill, yer better off just laughing at them and making fun of them – not being taken seriously kills them. This clip of Michael Moore and the Sodomobile with Fred Phelps is hilarious:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABH_RFeeGAs
…and people say Michael Moore doesn’t do anything worthwhile…
This is parallel to the clear area mandated around abortion clinics, free of demonstrators. IMHO it’s not an abridgement of First Amendment rights to regulate, on a small scale, where expression takes place. Obviously if authorities tried to declare a whole town an expression-free zone that would be a violation of the First Amendment.
I’ll buy it with this exception. Bring back the legal concept of “fighting words”. This was a standard used untill about the 1960′s that allowed “free speech” which was so offensive to the comunity standards to be considered justification for anger and offence to the point of a punch in the nose. Yes this set of sociopaths, this group (edited comment), have the right to protest at the funeral of one of my comrades in arms. I don’t get to sue him, because no mater how many times I have read the constitution (high double digits) I can’t find anything in there about the right not to be offended. (this inspite of a VAST number of people who seem to claim to have found such. People on all sides of the spectrum, gay or straight, christian, pagan, right, left, center) So it’s not against the law for him to say what he says.
BUT, I find it so offensive that it should not be a criminal act for me to deliver a swift kick in the tiny shiveled remnants of what might once have been his manhood either.
Any objections?
Got some steel-toed boots you can borrow, but wear a ski mask so I don’t have to come get them back from you in jail.
Perhaps the boot the “Aussies” were preparing to use on Bart Simpson would be of an appropriate size and heft for the job.
“You right to swing your fist ends at my face”
First of all, GO PATRIOT GUARD! That and the Silly Sign Counter Protest are epic wins! “I was promised donuts” has become it’s own entity in our group, but my second favorite is “Han Shot First!”
More on other places who’ve done it:
http://snoozepossum.blogspot.com/2010/02/san-francisco-rickrolls-wbc.html
Also did a blog this morning on people who are fighting back against Repent Amarillo’s similar tactics:
http://snoozepossum.blogspot.com/2010/03/repant-amarillo-erm-repent-armadillo.html
Second, I agree that they have the right to say whatever they wish, as hatefully ignorant as it is. But not by screaming it in my ear when I have told them to get the hell away from me.
What I don’t get is, why does their right to stand in a public or private place and impede other people’s business trump my right to throw them out of my personal space, or refuse to listen to them? If personal space is a legally recognized concept, then I’d try to go with a “group personal space” argument for events such as funerals. I understand that some municipalities have done that after having to deal with WBC, and drafted laws specifying a distance in feet/yards that protesters must remain beyond.
I’m not aware that (nickname removed) have been in NC, but we’ve had a similar problem in Charlotte with the “Peace Is Treason” campaign and a group of anti-abortion protestors who wouldn’t give an organizational name. They show up at events and literally stand on top of people, yelling to drown out whatever they say, and often making it impossible to even stand in one place silently without needing to wipe spittle off your face.
For months, they set up at intersections and would get right up in your car window with bullhorns, and if you rolled your window up to try to block them out they’d just put the horn right up to the glass. The two restaurants with patio dining at one intersection downtown lost business because they were so loud you couldn’t have a conversation or order, and it was loud enough even inside that people got up and left, or just didn’t come in. A buddy who works at one of them said the cops and the city said they can’t do anything about it because it’s their right, and that the diners aren’t being forced to eat there.
I’ve had someone move repeatedly to block my path and shove signs in my face while trying to walk into Planned Parenthood for an annual exam that I could afford. I told her if she didn’t get out of my way and my face, I would move her. She started up about me threatening her, and I was told by the clinic staff that I was legally liable for making a threatening statement. They couldn’t answer me when I asked about my right to walk unhindered on privately owned property where I had not only permission, but had paid money to be. They said I could go out the rear door near the dumpsters to get to my car if I wanted.
If they can swing at my face, I should be allowed lateral blocks, not be required to duck and run, or take it.
@Snoozepossum,
That anti-abortion group would probably be Operation Scr… er, Save America (formerly Operation Rescue) – they’re headquartered here these days.
I’ve seen them twice, but they’ve been at I-85 and 485 exit ramp lights, and they’ve had signs announcing who they were. Mebbe they got a “radical fringe element” of their own?
They’re one of the reasons I want a “If the fetus you save is gay, will you still fight for it’s rights?” bumper sticker.
I agree—even though I’m a bleeding heart liberal. I hate everything that Westboro stands for, but I can’t see any legal reason that they should be denied to stand for it. I think it’s sick, twisted, and seeing them makes me wish I believed in hell so i could be certain that they would end up in it. But it’s one of the truths of Free Speech that anyone gets to have their say.
The only think I could think is that it might fall under “hate crime”—not the protesting of funerals but the “God hates fags”.
Louis Brandeis said it best: The First Amendment means (or includes) “Freedom for the thought we hate.” Repressing that is the first step on the slippery slope. (Apologies for cliché.)
I am surprised more folks don’t know of or remember the Angel Bridages of the 1990′s after Phelps announced there would be a protest at Mathew Shephard’s funeral and locals got white robes and enormous angel wings and withing the cemetary stood with their backs to the protesters blocking them from view.
Another tactic I’ve heard used in response to them has more humor to it… a group collected pledges from folks for donations to the local gay and lesbian community center for every ….I think it was 5 minutes… block of time Phelps preached during the protest. Then they sent cohorts to the protest and had them encouraging Phelps to rant on and on… the money raised was donated to the local GLBT community center…
Don’t get angry, get creative!!
aw heck that should be Angel Brigades…
I’m torn between saying “beauty!” and “brilliant!”, so I’ll just do both.
I like that second idea! That could also be done on an individual level – just set up a card table reasonably close to the protesters, with a poster announcing that you’re holding a “listen-in” to raise money for whatever they’re protesting against… call it “Listening so you don’t have to” or some such.
Gentlemen, I think we got us a plan . . .
(goes digging around in the shop for that plastic folding camping thinger)
In this account by j. fleck, there are some picture of another counter-demonstration using the idea of the Angel Action from Matthew Shepard’s funeral.
http://www.inkstain.net/fleck/archives/001708.html
Big Gay Jim on the first Angel Action:
http://biggayjim.blogspot.com/2008_09_01_archive.html
Angel Action in Newark, CA:
http://www.pbs.org/niot/citizens_respond/newark_update.html
I believe whole-heartedly in free speech.
But there is a point where free speech crosses over into the territory of harassment, and that I can not and will not condone.
In other words, someone else’s rights end where my nose begins, or where my property line is, etc.; otherwise we don’t have equal freedoms. They have a right to speak, no one ever said they had the right to be heard by those who have made it clear they are uninterested, or to force other people to listen, using means that in many cases border on terrorism.
There are laws against disturbing the peace, harassment, making threats and stalking, and many of these groups fall under them, if only they would be enforced. They don’t get to hide behind “free speech” while they actively harass other people, at least not according to the law.