The Right Scoop
This is probably one of the toughest issues in our country. But we must uphold the right of free speech as despicable as its use is in this particular case. It is the right of the church to speak out. Why they would choose to do so at a soldier's funeral is absolutely despicable and we totally understand the father bringing this suit. BUT let's follow that with our right to criticize Islam or any other religion. As the media freely criticizes the Catholic Church hourly, let's see if the same standards apply to Islam. Free speech. It is precious and without that we lose our liberty.
NOTE the threats to free speech by the Obama administration:
9/9/2010 Sibelius with respect to Obamacare:
“It has come to my attention that several health insurer carriers are sending letters to their enrollees falsely blaming premium increases for 2011 on the patient protections in the Affordable Care Act. I urge you to inform your members that there will be zero tolerance for this type of misinformation and unjustified rate increases.”
http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2010pres/09/20100909a.html (accessed on 9/16/10)
9/9/2009
Citizens United v Federal Election Commission Solicitor General Kagan argued that Congress could constitutionally prohibit corporations from engaging in political speech such as publishing pamphlets that advocate the election or defeat of a candidate for federal office.
“CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: But we don't put our -- we don't put our First Amendment rights in the hands of FEC bureaucrats; and if you say that you are not going to apply it to a book, what about a pamphlet?
GENERAL KAGAN: I think a -- a pamphlet would be different. A pamphlet is pretty classic electioneering, so there is no attempt to say that 441 b only applies to video and not to print. It does – http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/08-205%5BReargued%5D.pdf (accessed 9/16/10)
Holding: Political spending is a form of protected speech under the First Amendment, and the government may not keep corporations or unions from spending money to support or denounce individual candidates in elections. While corporations or unions may not give money directly to campaigns, they may seek to persuade the voting public through other means, including ads, especially where these ads were not broadcast.
Yet, Chuck Schumer wants to get around the Supreme Court finding:
Chuck Schumer press conference Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections Act ("DISCLOSE Act") he noted that: "Anyone who wants to hide, will not do an ad after this legislation passes. And I think there are a lot of people who like to hide … so I think there'll be many fewer of them."His words revealed the true motivation of this legislation – it is not transparency but rather silencing speech in this critical election year.
Last year health insurer Humana sent out information warning seniors in its Medicare Advantage (MA) plan that an ObamaCare proposal to cut reimbursements for MA plans could have an impact on seniors’ benefits and coverage.Well, the secretary fired off a strongly worded letter demanding that MA plans “suspend potentially misleading mailings to beneficiaries about health care and insurance reform.”
August, 2009
The White House website asked all Americans: “If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to glad@whitehouse.gov.”
9/29/10
A successful businessman in Iowa, speaking to Obama said, "One of the things that concerns me is the repeal of the Bush tax cuts,” referring to Democratic plans to raise taxes on individuals earning more than $200,000 a year and on families and certain businesses earning more than $250,000. "The repeal -- I don't care if it is 5 percent -- that's 5 percent that would create a job," he told Obama during a meeting with about 70 people in a couple's back yard in Des Moines. "Five percent on millions of dollars of profit creates many jobs . . . As the government gets more and more involved in business and more and more involved in taxes, what you're finding is you're strangling those job-creation vehicles." But before Greenspon could complete his question, his microphone was cut off and taken out of his hand.
With that in mind it will be interesting to see how Kagan rules on this! And love the quote from Paine:
"He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself." -Thomas Paine
Pussy country is the US.....try that at military funerals in Australia, boys, and you will be physical assaulted by the mourners until you leave, no matter what the High Court believes.
I have to say I find Phelps message amusing. He uses the constitution to shield himself. You know, free speech and freedom of expression. Yet, his whole message is that America should not tolerate gays. I mean can he not see the simple contradiction here? America should tolerate him because of the constitution, but when it comes to gays, ignore that silly document and do what we say. Fantastic reasoning.
"Communists want to establish an all-powerful governmental entity to build the society."
This is why it's ok to use Communism interchangeably with most of your other forms of ultra-statism. Communism has never achieved the ultimate goal of a utopia in which govt. ceases to exist. Because of that, they end up looking extremely familiar to a fascist regime.
Yep. Libertarians like me kind of hate that premise as well though because that's basically saying that even the founders to some extent believed that mankind is incapable of governing itself and I would love to see nothing more than that.
In those days, it was at least kind of understandable because the common man was too busy farming or working their trade to be able to keep up on whatever the latest legislation proposal was even though there were not near as many as there are today.
Today however, we are more so consumers than producers. Even the busiest of people in today's modern world can take a little time out of their day to read a newspaper or two...at least figure out what's going on even if they can't necessarily read the whole bills.
If more people would just educate themselves about the issues, then we might be able to actually have a true democracy...and one that actually works instead of a broken republic consisting of officials who may or may not just be lying their tails off in order to get that vote.
I disagree with Glenn on this. We do not have unlimited free speech in this country. You can't walk into the House chamber and disrupt the President's State of the Union speech with your free speech. Same thing here. Private funeral, private property. You do not have a "right" to disrupt it. Free speech is NOT the unlimited right to disrupt and we have a right as a free society to decide the limits. Speak your mind all you want, but do not trample others rights in the process.
Now don't forget, that in Hebrew scriptures there are close to 400 commandments. Ever wonder just who got the job of editing it down to ten? :)
These hateful cretins from Westboro (sic?) or wherever have as much right to speak hate as those who love Truth have the right to proclaim Christ and as those who love war to advocate war. Phelps' bunch o' nuts are not trampling anyone's rights - they are irritating people who claim to love and want to defend this country. It ain't the flag we defend - it's the Constitution!
Oh now wait a minute. I was taught in my schooling that the founders absolutely were afraid of tyranny of the majority like Stuart Mills. To be clear, considering I was a Poly Sci major and a history minor, that is a lot of schooling dealing with the subject.
ARE YOU SAYING COLLEGE PROFESSORS SPIN THE TRUTH?
Although, I do remember Madison touching on the subject in the fed papers.
Yeah. Since there's no hardcore proof that he's a NWO shill, I will just leave it at the "he didn't do his homework" idea...but I'm ever vigilant because stuff like that just strikes a "What the heck?" spidey sense tingling in me.
As my dear daddy has told me countless times..."This is a Judeo-Christian country. Love it or leave it."
Well, dad...I'm still not Judeo-Christian and last time I checked, this is still a secular society thank "God."
Yeah. Well, I finally had a chance to read Thomas More's "Utopia" the other day and my basic thoughts on the subject are this.
Each and every individual has their "ideal society," but no true utopia can exist because my idea of utopia is different than your idea of it or anyone else's idea of it for that matter.
Prejudice is an ugly animal whether it be just your ordinary "homosexuality is a sin and they should find Jesus and change their ways" Christian to these goobers.
What Beck did though when this last gal...oh...I think it was 2 weeks ago or so called in about ending the Federal Reserve.
He basically said something along the lines of (and I'm paraphrasing here) "Think about what you're saying. You can't just collapse the system." When she said "We're Americans and we can handle it." he proceded to use his "my reason for supporting the stimulus" argument and then continued to pile on the "America needs to prepare and we aren't there yet." argument to sidetrack the call.
Thanks for the correction, good sir. Marxism (or basically Karl Marx's idea of Communism) was supposed to be a system where government is used to create the "ideal society" and once the "ideal society" was in place and shown to be able to function on its own...government would actually leave.
Problem of course is that government is flawed cause government is run by human beings therefore true Communism could never truly be obtainable hence the jacked up totalitarian and massively genocidal versions we've seen throughout history.
"First they came for the Jews and I didn't not speak out because I was not a Jew. Then they came for the Communist and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist. Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me." - Pastor Martin Niemoller
You must have the same mindset of my Republican friend who thinks it's okay for the cops to bust into people's houses on a hunch (not evidence presented to a judge to support the hunch as the 4th amendment would prefer) that they might have pot if they actually find it.
Sounds like the "inbred" claims that were made by Levin might be true after all perhaps. After all...maybe their interpretation of the Adam & Eve story might be that it's perfectly okay for family members to have sex with each other since all humans are birthed from the same two humans anyway, so we're like brother and sister anyway. Haha.
You're not open to debate, and, quite frankly, this isn't the forum for that. That should be something conducted directly, not as off-topic BS. This is about the inbred Westboro "Baptist" "Church" types, and if they're allowed to spew their bile on people better than they. Anything else, you've got an address to send it to, directly, as opposed to doing that, here.
You, on the other hand, are nothing more than a laugh and a half. Still whining, sucking your milk bottle and shaking your rattle, crying about me, and reading my every post with rapt attention. Take the hint and find something else to do. You have very little of my attention.
I've been listening to this discussion tonight on the Mark Levin show. It's a freedom versus emotions debate because if we restrict Westboro...we might be happy, but who will be next after the door to speech restriction is opened up? It's bad enough that the FCC has already restricted speech on the radio and on TV.
There is a group called the Patriot Guard Riders that has already found a government-free answer to this. Get more people like this and we won't have this pathetic excuse of a problem anymore.
Pat is correct and this is why: Should WBC be able to yell GOD HATES GAYS in a movie theatre? The answer is no because the purpose of that speech is used as a device to interrupt the film. The people paid to watch the art that is shown in the form of a movie and even a church does not have the right to keep you from enjoying your movie without interruption. In this case the speech by WBC is designed to interrupt another. To tell GOD HATES GAYS over and over during a televised debate in which you are just a spectator is called a "heckler's veto". Doing so does not serve the purpose of delivering a substantive view, but rather the yelling is used as a device to interrupt the event. Just as WBC used the disruption for the purpose of interrupting the funeral event that other people paid for. Should they be allowed to have a GOD HATES GAYS rally in the middle of a 4 lane super highway? The answer is no because the event is designed to interrupt others with the conveyance of an idea being a distant secondary purpose. A funeral is a cultural and (usually) religious exercise of expression and is protected by the First Amendment just as the First Amendment protects you when you pay to see a film or when you watch a speech by Ann Coulter and the police physically remove someone who wishes to do a "hecklers veto" by stopping Coulter from speaking by interrupting the event. WBC should be allowed to protest before and after the service, they may also do si away from the service while it is going on, but not within vocal shot of the service while it is going on.
The problem here is that WBC is doing its' protesting on public property, and not in a privately owned theatre where the owner gets to make the rules.
OK so I get a permit from the city to stage a concert at the out door auditorium at a large city park. I advertise the event and the band comes. Now here comes WBC to stand in the audience and yell GOD HATES GAYS. The park is public property - but it does not make a difference? No. Local governments own all sorts of art exibit halls, concert halls, parks etc etc. A school is public property - can WBC come into your class and yell "GOD HATES GAYS" over and over and over? No because the purpose is to disrupt the class. Go back to my example of staging the protest on a 4 lane highway during rush hour. The highway is public property is it not? You do not have the right to engage in a "heckler's veto" just because it may be on public property.
How far we go is the same standard as it goes into my first post. The answer is that they have to be far enough away that the purpose of the speech is not a device for disruption.
It is important to point out that this stands even if the disruption is accidental. A good example would be a child loudly crying or creating a fuss in a movie theater while the film is running. Or a student who brings an infant that causes a continuing disruption to a classroom. In both cases they can be legally compelled to leave.
I do, however, acknowledge that not all speech is protected by the first ammendment. However, these people normally do have to stand away from the funeral home by a certain distance and therefore aren't directly intruding on the funeral itself. How far do we go? Move them even further away...or just stop them from speaking alltogether?
Do you remember two years ago the large group of college students in Cali. protesting the immigration laws, by doing what, walking down the middle of the highway. I don't recall anyone stopping them.
Do you remember two years ago the large group of college students in Cali. protesting the immigration laws, by doing what, walking down the middle of the highway. I don't recall anyone stopping them.
WAAH! Virus-X is so mean (but I have to read and respond to his every post)!
WAAH! Virus-X mentions God and Jesus Christ, all the time, and doesn't care when I try to say he's wrong!
WAAAHHH!
If you don't like what I have to say, stop reading my posts, suck on your binkie and shut up, crybaby.
In America they have the right to free speech. They don't have the right to make a public display at a funeral that infringes others privacy causing more pain to people that are laying a loved one to rest. I feel they should not be allowed within viewing distance of the funeral or procession. Our freedom should not infringe on or hinder the rights and freedoms of others. I think OK made it mandatory they be a certain distance from any funeral. Morally it is reprehensible, sinful & against all the Bible, they profess to believe, in teaches.
I know someone who knows Sam Phelps kids, and one of the kids told his friend that his dad and relatives still give him a bath and he thinks he is too old, but they told him that it's part of Jesus's cleansing and when they grow up they can cleanse the children. Sounds like the Phelps clan is using religion as a shield which allows them to practice their own interpretations but don't want others to have the same rights.
My grand daughter explained how to use the computer to tell about a very private part of my life when I was a younger man. Fred Phelps and I went to law school together and were very good friends. I have been always very surprised by the way Fred went after homosexuals as he was a very tolerant person and open minded. I came to realize that he was reacting to his and my very brief sexual experiment. Fred was a very tender caring young man, we were just talking about sex and were showing each other things and we experimented. The whole experiment only lasted three months because Fred got a girlfriend and a couple of months later so did I. So, I guess what I am saying is, 'Fred quit being a hypochristian and acting like you are better and holier than everyone else. We all have a place on God's earth, you are not the decider.
My grand daughter explained how to use the computer to tell about a very private part of my life when I was a younger man. Fred Phelps and I went to law school together and were very good friends. I have been always very surprised by the way Fred went after homosexuals as he was a very tolerant person and open minded. I came to realize that he was reacting to his and my very brief sexual experiment. Fred was a very tender caring young man, we were just talking about sex and were showing each other things and we experimented. The whole experiment only lasted three months because Fred got a girlfriend and a couple of months later so did I. So, I guess what I am saying is, 'Fred quit being a hypochristian and acting like you are better and holier than everyone else. We all have a place on God's earth, you are not the decider.
My grand daughter explained how to use the computer to tell about a very private part of my life when I was a younger man. Fred Phelps and I went to law school together and were very good friends. I have been always very surprised by the way Fred went after homosexuals as he was a very tolerant person and open minded. I came to realize that he was reacting to his and my very brief sexual experiment. Fred was a very tender caring young man, we were just talking about sex and were showing each other things and we experimented. The whole experiment only lasted three months because Fred got a girlfriend and a couple of months later so did I. So, I guess what I am saying is, 'Fred quit being a hypochristian and acting like you are better and holier than everyone else. We all have a place on God's earth, you are not the decider.
Let me try this one more time.
What did Beck just do on 8/28?
He had a fabulous rally. Who was on stage with him?
Were there protesters on stage with him? NO.
If Beck can have a rally without the irritatant of commie jackasses on stage with signs, then militaries families can bury thier children without that crap too.
What you're essentially saying then is that the family deserves to hire private security to quell these folks and I couldn't agree more.
Should they have to? I don't think so, but I would rather be forced to hire private security to prevent this nonsense than to allow government to interfere.
God bless the Westboro's right to freedom of speech...and may God strike them down. :-)
Karma always has its way of coming around. What goes around will come around in some form or fashion. Maybe with any luck...all their kids will become gay and they won't be able to pass the hate on to future generations.
As much as I,as a veteran, abhor what comes out of the mouths of the WBC, their rights of free speech are protected by the very document that I and every other veteran took an oath to defend with our lives. But in this discussion something needs to be pointed out. The WBC protesters ( I have at my disposal much more off color terms for them) are restricted from even being on the same side of the street as the cemetery nor are they permitted on the grounds. I have heard there is some form of a restraining order against them, not sure if it was handed down from a state or federal court though. Make no mistake I have nothing but loathing for this group who call themselves "Christians",but I would ask all of you, where do you draw the line on free speech? You should consider your answer with great care, remembering that one day you may find yourself on the wrong side of that line.
"First they came for the Jews and I didn't not speak out because I was not a Jew. Then they came for the Communist and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist. Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me." - Pastor Martin Niemoller
Protesting a funeral is not a protest, it's a celebration of the fallen. Maybe they should protest outside recruiting stations where their point of contention is far more appropriate than protesting at funerals that are obviously designed to offend...
Excellent point. What I find funny is that I'm yet to see these Westboro morons actually confront say...gay pride rallies directly. What is it everytime that they claim is the reason why 9/11 happened and why they "Thank God For Dead Soldiers?" It's because they (or as their signs would suggest "God") hate the "fags" and the way our country has allowed them to...um...exist I guess is what they're trying to point out.
They're not just dispicable, but they're clearly idiots as well.
Excellent point. What I find funny is that I'm yet to see these Westboro morons actually confront say...gay pride rallies directly. What is it everytime that they claim is the reason why 9/11 happened and why they "Thank God For Dead Soldiers?" It's because they (or as their signs would suggest "God") hate the "fags" and the way our country has allowed them to...um...exist I guess is what they're trying to point out.
They're not just dispicable, but they're clearly idiots as well.
We have a right to bear arms correct, but you cant just walk up for example into public schools, many college campuses, and other locations with guns. I agree they have the right to say whatever they want, BUT that does not mean they should be allowed to disturb the premises of funerals. A law requiring them to be certain number of feet away is the exact same thing as saying you cant have guns in certain places.
Comment Policy: Please read our new comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.