Westboro Baptist Church to the Supreme Court

[Aluminum_Butt]

News Story Here

 

I had no idea someone had filed suit against Westboro, and was awarded $5MM - IMO, good on the jury that did that. But the verdict was overturned due to first amendment considerations.

 

I'm not sure how I feel about that. I certainly hate a lot of what gets said in this country, but would heartily defend the right to say it - IMO, that's core to who we are. Some communities, in direct response to Westboro, have established specific protest laws/zones to help protect the families - sounds like that's what happened here, and that it was reasonably effective. And, the Patriot Guard Riders have been helping to shield families from this group for some time.

 

What's the most effective way to deal with this group? Is it possible to extricate "how" something gets said, and still maintain freedom of speech?

[Danny caddyshack Noonan]

The most effective way to deal with those people is to attach a pepper spray canister to ones exhaust. Have it spray into the pipe. Then, drive by them on the upwind side....very slowly while the pepper spray releases into the pipe and heats up.

This would all be done accidentally of course. I think I'm kidding.

 

I agree with the initial jury and not with the appelate court.

 

As a parent of an active duty daughter. I don't believe I have the restraint shown by all of the anguished parents thus far.

[beemerman2k]

Given that this apparently is a Baptist church group, isn't there something the administrators of the denomination could do to either censor them or even "excommunicate" them? I don't think I'd want a church like this associated with a group I worship with.

[Mike]

What's the most effective way to deal with this group?

 

Oh, I have very clear ideas about that. None of them involves a temporary restraining order.

[Ken H.]

Given that this apparently is a Baptist church group, isn't there something the administrators of the denomination could do to either censor them or even "excommunicate" them? I don't think I'd want a church like this associated with a group I worship with.

They are “Baptist” in the local name only. All three national Baptist conventions disavowed Westboro long ago. The term “Baptist” isn’t copyrighted and anyone can use it.

[Ken H.]

We used to live figuratively in Westboro’s backyard (Kansas City – Topeka) so we heard about them a lot. I was a member of the Kansas Patriot Guard for awhile, and saw them in action in person once. They are truly vile in what they say and do.

 

I’ve never quite been able to decide what I think of them though from the free speech perspective. On one hand free speech is an important element of a just society. OTOH, surely there is such thing as going too far. But where to draw the line?

 

It’s a least worth noting there is no absolute right to absolute free speech in Canada, ‘hate speech’ is truly a crime. Of course the Hate Crime Commission that decided what’s what is highly controversial, but overall it seems to me Canada hasn’t suffered too much as a free society by quenching at least some of the extreme stuff.

 

If I was a betting man, I’d bet the Supremes will side with Westboro, but I’m not sure US American society will be any better off for it. It will be an interesting case to watch.

 

[eddd]

...It’s a least worth noting there is no absolute right to absolute free speech in Canada, ‘hate speech’ is truly a crime. Of course the Hate Crime Commission that decided what’s what is highly controversial, but overall it seems to me Canada hasn’t suffered too much as a free society by quenching at least some of the extreme stuff...

 

This case involving the Canadian commission has received quite a bit of attention.

[Motodan]

Having been a Baptist, I can tell you exactly how to stop their irrational behavior....take away their right to have potluck dinners and they'll disband within 48 hours.

 

It is a shame how a "nut" can get followers to do their bidding on such a public stage. I would think a law addressing any attempt to incite a riot at funerals would do the trick., without changing the spirit of the First Amendment....akin to yelling fire in a non burning theater.

 

If I were King....

 

 

 

[bakerzdosen]

I was wondering about this this morning while listening to the NPR story about it.

 

I've gotta say, if the S.C. decides in Westboro's favor, what's to stop their "victims" (or anyone for that matter) from picketing the pastor? I mean, if a group of 100 or so people suddenly decided to follow this guy around 24/7 with picket signs calling him all sorts of (probably) inaccurate despicable things, it would seem that they would be protected by the same verdict that protected Westboro. AND, the ACLU et al would probably be forced to side with the picketers as a matter of principle.

 

What am I missing?

[Ken H.]

what's to stop their "victims" (or anyone for that matter) from picketing the pastor? I mean, if a group of 100 or so people suddenly decided to follow this guy around 24/7 with picket signs calling him all sorts of (probably) inaccurate despicable things, it would seem that they would be protected by the same verdict that protected Westboro. AND, the ACLU et al would probably be forced to side with the picketers as a matter of principle.

 

What am I missing?

Well nothing theoretically. Except that it’s about impossible to ‘out shout’ them so to speak. Remember, Phelps and family has been doing this full time for something over 20 years now. It’s their full time ‘job.’ Almost no one has the resources to effectively counter demonstrate against them. They know that sooner or later, be it hours, weeks or even years, whomever is protesting, picketing, whatever against them will if not sooner, then later - give up and go away. They have other lives. For Phelp’s group though this is their life. They're in it for the long haul. They’re on a mission from God.

 

Remember too, the Snyder case is the first to ever get even this far. Westboro/Phelps has been sued 100s of times and always won up to now. The $5M judgment is largely symbolic anyway, the last I read (when the verdict was first reached) Westboro listed total assets of something like $350K. And Phelps said then you could take everything they had and that wouldn’t stop them.

 

I think ol’ Fred is in really poor health these days so his daughter has picked up the charge.

 

They’re on a mission from God.

 

 

[Joel]

I think ol’ Fred is in really poor health these days ...

 

 

Hmmm. Maybe God hates bigots.

 

The Westboro kooks have already lost in the court of public opinion. What they do is despicable, but it can be ignored. I think that's the best way to deal with them.

 

I'm curious to see how this shakes out, since the issue is not one of the government suppressing free speech, but rather a private remedy for harm caused by speech that tends toward defamation and "fighting words."

[JayW]

The Westboro kooks have already lost in the court of public opinion.

 

Yes. The irony of this situation is that their behavior is actually hurting their cause. They just don't get it.

 

Jay

[ghaverkamp]

I'm curious to see how this shakes out, since the issue is not one of the government suppressing free speech, but rather a private remedy for harm caused by speech that tends toward defamation and "fighting words."

 

Except that it is neither defamation nor fighting words. (And R.A.V. kind of emasculated the latter.) So, the option is to make yet another carve out because crazy people say crazy things that some may find hurtful.

 

I wouldn't characterize it as a private remedy, anyway. It's a government-determined and government-enforced remedy.

[Nomad Indy]

Have been dealing with this scum for almost 7 years now.

Have ridden through the middle of them and had the State Police say, naughty naughty, as they grin from ear to ear. I take the Harley with the straight pipes into the middle of them, drown out thier screeching.

 

When Fred Phelps passes you can bet I will celabrate his leaving us, good riddence.

 

You need to see these bigots first hand.

[Dave McReynolds]

While ignoring despicable people may be the best option in most cases, I don't think it is the best option in this case. If your son or daughter dies in the armed forces, you only have one chance to bury them. I don't think we should allow that to be tarnished.

[Selden]

Like Terry Jones and his church, Westboro Baptist has fewer than 100 members, and most of them are part of the Phelps extended family, which includes several lawyers. So, you can't do much to them financially by driving away members, and they have plenty of free legal counsel. Phelps is an equal opportunity hater: roman and orthodox catholics, mainline protestants, jews, muslims, hindus -- anybody who doesn't see eye to eye with Fred Phelps is going to hell.

 

Statistically, you would think that with so many offspring, at least one in the extended Phelps family would be a homosexual. Who knows, maybe old Fred is gay; there have certainly been enough cases of closeted gay-bashers.

 

Too bad we can't ship the whole family off to Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia.

[Paul Mihalka]

"Too bad we can't ship the whole family off to Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia"

 

Yup. They would make good extremist radical muslims.

[bubbamoore]

As a practicing baptist myself , I an disgusted with this inconsiderate display. However the Baptist religion ,(unlike the Catholic Church ) has no central governing bodies and therefor these fringe groups ( kinda like the Koran burners ) can wear the label and make us all look like idiot.

[Ken H.]

Yup. They would make good extremist radical muslims.

Heck, I think they qualify as extremist radical Christians.

 

As "Nomad Indy" said, you really have to see them first hand to truly get a grasp of them. TV clips and sound bites don’t even begin to describe their demonstrations. They can (and do) spew hatred 24x7 unlike anything else imaginable. They could easily make a sailor blush. Heck, I think they could make a Taliban fighter blush!

 

When you see for the first time an 8-year old marching back and forth on the sidewalk carrying a sign and screaming at the top of his little lungs, “GOD LOVES DEAD SOLDERS BECAUSE AMERICA LOVES FAGS!” the shock to your senses is unforgettable. It’s almost hard to process that you’re really seeing what you think you are.

 

I actually don’t quite know how they do it. Where does one get the energy to be all consumed by absolute hatred (of homosexuals) to keep a fury of vile hostility spewing forth for 20+ years non-stop?

 

Deep in Fred’s past, which I’m sure we’ll never know, there has got to be some trauma that was the trigger/seed event(s) for what he became. What I understand less is that his children and other followers have bought hook, line and sinker into the whole thing. I bet many a psychologist would love the opportunity to study and actually learn about what’s behind them.

 

[bayoubengal]

Given that this apparently is a Baptist church group, isn't there something the administrators of the denomination could do to either censor them or even "excommunicate" them? I don't think I'd want a church like this associated with a group I worship with.

They are “Baptist” in the local name only. All three national Baptist conventions disavowed Westboro long ago. The term “Baptist” isn’t copyrighted and anyone can use it.

 

Ken you and I are in violent agreement on this one. I am a Southern Baptist and you are right on that they are not part of us. As a military member married to a military member I despise the actions of this group. I am actually quite surprised they have not been visited by a group of ticked off Marines.

[JustJean]

Or a sniper!

[Ken H.]

Or a sniper!

Oh gawd, the last thing you want to do is make a martyr out of one of them. That would just add fuel to their fire.

 

I vaguely recall one of their buildings in Topeka was torched about a decade or so ago.

[Matts_12GS]

Or a sniper!

Oh gawd, the last thing you want to do is make a martyr out of one of them. That would just add fuel to their fire.

 

I feel that way about most of the nutjobs out there...

 

Reminds me of the old Chris Rock routine about how MLK Blvd has turned in most communities.

[Ohio48]

What's the most effective way to deal with this group?

 

Oh, I have very clear ideas about that. None of them involves a temporary restraining order.

 

I'm pretty sure I'll like your ideas.

[1springer]

+1

[DavidEBSmith]

Or a sniper!

Oh gawd, the last thing you want to do is make a martyr out of one of them. That would just add fuel to their fire.

 

In my job, we occasionally get called on to do duty for special events, so we can provide on-site legal advice in case of - well, something. A few years ago I worked the Gay Pride parade, which the Westboro people attended. They were given a designated protest area surrounded by steel barricades and a phalanx of CPD officers to keep them safe from the 400,000 or so not particularly appreciative people around them. (At no time did they show any interest in leaving their protest area to communicate their message up close and personal). When they wanted to leave, to get them out of the neighborhood we had to drive them to their bus in a police wagon, which you can only hope hit every Chicago bump and pothole along the way.

[Dave McReynolds]

They were given a designated protest area surrounded by steel barricades and a phalanx of CPD officers to keep them safe from the 400,000 or so not particularly appreciative people around them.

 

Are you allowed to charge them for this extra service, by any chance?

[Couchrocket]

Perhaps a gay rights demonstration at all the baptismal ceremonies at the church might get the point across?

 

What is good for the goose...

 

Frankly, I'd prefer a little common decency from those misguided bible-thumping idiots.

[Matts_12GS]

They were given a designated protest area surrounded by steel barricades and a phalanx of CPD officers to keep them safe from the 400,000 or so not particularly appreciative people around them.

 

Are you allowed to charge them for this extra service, by any chance?

 

They have to opt in...

[Dave McReynolds]

They have to opt in...

 

[Selden]

Check out Landover Baptist Church. Not new; Landover has been around for a long time.

[Couchrocket]

Check out Landover Baptist Church. Not new; Landover has been around for a long time.

 

Charming.

[DavidEBSmith]

They were given a designated protest area surrounded by steel barricades and a phalanx of CPD officers to keep them safe from the 400,000 or so not particularly appreciative people around them.

 

Are you allowed to charge them for this extra service, by any chance?

 

That's part of protecting their first amendment rights. And cheaper than cleaning up the mess if we didn't do it.

[KMG_365]

Check out Landover Baptist Church. Not new; Landover has been around for a long time.

 

Charming.

The truly sad thing is . . . it took me a few minutes . . . .

[KMG_365]

Here's one for the lawyers:

 

[Bud]

I'm a betting man and I bet the SC will side with free speech on this one for the following reasons:

 

1. In this particular case they followed the local regulations regarding their protest and,

 

2. The SC is very reluctant to limit free speech. (just look at recent decision that gave corporations (persons) the right to provide political contributions)

 

 

 

I personally find them vile, offensive folks who, by their actions, make a mockery of Christianity.

 

OTOH The best way to deal with them is to expose them for who they are. Most reasonably intelligent folks, when given the opportunity to see them for what they are, can quickly dismiss them for what they are: Hatemongers of the worst kind.

 

It is just so sad that they choose to try to spread their hate at funerals of military members, the very folks we count on to defend our country, so that this group, and many, may others, have the freedom to protest.

 

 

[steve.foote]

Here's one for the lawyers:

 

 

I wonder if she is aware that she is holding a sword in her right hand?

[Selden]

The truly sad thing is . . . it took me a few minutes . . . .

That's the way it is with good satire.

[Mike]

 

OTOH The best way to deal with them is to expose them for who they are. Most reasonably intelligent folks, when given the opportunity to see them for what they are, can quickly dismiss them for what they are: Hatemongers of the worst kind.

 

 

These are, as you have noted, vile and hateful human beings. I like to think that they'll eventually get their comeuppance, here and in the hereafter.

 

Nonetheless, one benefit of permitting vile and repugnant speech is that it serves to illustrate how far from normal and decent the purveyors of such messages are. These nitwits have done more to unite Americans against their cause than they could ever imagine.

 

But, frankly, while I can rationalize a reason why the Constitution should protect their speech, this is the way I feel: They're vile. They're evil. They deserve to die.

[1springer]

They protest at funerals....maybe we should allow them the opportunity to practice free speech....say in....Afghanistan!

[SeanC]

The truly sad thing is . . . it took me a few minutes . . . .

That's the way it is with good satire.

It is good satire (and it took me a few moments as well). It raises an interesting question, however: If someone were to satirize, say, a particular Islamic sect or Judaism in a similar fashion (and probably someone already has), would we consider it satire or bigotry?

[Matts_12GS]

[it raises an interesting question, however: If someone were to satirize, say, a particular Islamic sect or Judaism in a similar fashion (and probably someone already has), would we consider it satire or bigotry?

 

[Bud]

 

OTOH The best way to deal with them is to expose them for who they are. Most reasonably intelligent folks, when given the opportunity to see them for what they are, can quickly dismiss them for what they are: Hatemongers of the worst kind.

 

 

These are, as you have noted, vile and hateful human beings. I like to think that they'll eventually get their comeuppance, here and in the hereafter.

 

Nonetheless, one benefit of permitting vile and repugnant speech is that it serves to illustrate how far from normal and decent the purveyors of such messages are. These nitwits have done more to unite Americans against their cause than they could ever imagine.

 

But, frankly, while I can rationalize a reason why the Constitution should protect their speech, this is the way I feel: They're vile. They're evil. They deserve to die.

 

I will assume "They deserve to die." is hyperbole.

 

One of the reasons the US has any moral high ground in the world stage is our ability to allow speech that offends and ideas that are contrary to our form of government.

 

China, among other nations, is an example where you can end up in jail, or end up dead, by protesting government actions or ideas. And yet, some of their citizens desire freedom so much that they are willing to suffer the consequences.

 

Whenever I get bummed over politicians in the US, I remind myself that it is so much better than almost anywhere else on earth.

 

 

[SeanC]

Whenever I get bummed over politicians in the US, I remind myself that it is so much better than almost anywhere else on earth.

+1 and a big

 

Being born a US citizen is like winning the lottery. Despite having to put up with a lot of dickholes (of which Phelps is but e pluribus unum), the freedom and opportunity we have is like nowhere else. I feel very fortunate for that.

[Mike]

 

OTOH The best way to deal with them is to expose them for who they are. Most reasonably intelligent folks, when given the opportunity to see them for what they are, can quickly dismiss them for what they are: Hatemongers of the worst kind.

 

 

These are, as you have noted, vile and hateful human beings. I like to think that they'll eventually get their comeuppance, here and in the hereafter.

 

Nonetheless, one benefit of permitting vile and repugnant speech is that it serves to illustrate how far from normal and decent the purveyors of such messages are. These nitwits have done more to unite Americans against their cause than they could ever imagine.

 

But, frankly, while I can rationalize a reason why the Constitution should protect their speech, this is the way I feel: They're vile. They're evil. They deserve to die.

 

I will assume "They deserve to die." is hyperbole.

 

I actually view it more as a statement of incontrovertible fact, albeit a sentiment upon which I would not urge anyone to act. So, don't anybody go and get any funny ideas.

[doc47]

Satirizing Islam or Judaism? Humor or bigotry?

 

It is not a simple quid pro quo.

 

I think it depends a great deal on historical context and traditional relationship. When someone in power makes a joke about someone with less power it is different from when that dynamic is reversed. This relationship has long been recognized and institutionalized. An example is the "Festival of Fools" from the Middle Ages when the common people had license to satirize the nobility and wealthy for a day.

 

Power must be wielded with delicacy or it becomes bullying and Christianity has been in power in the US, Europe and Latin America for a very long time.

 

 

[doc47]

Yes. Sometime liberty must hate her job, but it is crucial to continue it...

 

Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!

Sir Thomas More in A Man For All Seasons

[SeanC]

Satirizing Islam or Judaism? Humor or bigotry?

 

It is not a simple quid pro quo.

 

I think it depends a great deal on historical context and traditional relationship. When someone in power makes a joke about someone with less power it is different from when that dynamic is reversed. This relationship has long been recognized and institutionalized. An example is the "Festival of Fools" from the Middle Ages when the common people had license to satirize the nobility and wealthy for a day.

 

Power must be wielded with delicacy or it becomes bullying and Christianity has been in power in the US, Europe and Latin America for a very long time.

 

So Baptists are in power, akin to the noble and wealthy of yore? I see what you're getting at, but I think it misses the mark in this case. See, the satire linked previously wasn't directed at Christianity as a whole, but rather Baptists, a sect of Christianity that has traditionally attracted the rural poor and African American communities in this country.

[Ken H.]

It raises an interesting question, however: If someone were to satirize, say, a particular Islamic sect or Judaism in a similar fashion (and probably someone already has), would we consider it satire or bigotry?

Well it is an interesting question. I suppose the simple (and simplistic) answer is that it is satire when you (not you Sean specifically) are saying it about someone else and bigotry when someone else is saying it about you. Like so much else, it’s all about point of view. I suppose intent is some element of the distinction also. Is it done with the intent to amuse or the intent to disparage? Although intent can be hard to quantify and is easily misunderstood too. If we try to speak cautiously we’re at times criticized as being too ‘PC.’ Or that the other side ‘needs to grow a thicker skin.’ OTOH, wars are stared about words spoken. I suppose we will always struggle with trying to figure out where’s ‘the line.’ I, being a diehard pacifist, will always think in general we should pause for thought before saying ‘that.’

[Dave McReynolds]

I, being a diehard pacifist, will always think in general we should pause for thought before saying ‘that.’

 

 

??? Are there any other words you think we should pause before saying?