By The Right Scoop


Just like on the Ground Zero mosque issue, Glenn and Pat disagree on this issue completely. Beck says that the only speech that requires protection is the speech that people find reprehensible and that the right of these despicable protesters must be protected. Pat on the other hand believes it infringes on the right of people to lay their loved ones to rest in peace.


About 

Blogger extraordinaire since 2009 and the owner and Chief Blogging Officer of the most wonderful and super fantastic blog in the known and unknown universe: The Right Scoop


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.


NOTE: If the comments don't load properly or they are difficult to read because they are on the blue background, please use the button below to RELOAD DISQUS.

  • Anonymous

    I loathe WBC as much as anyone, but free speech is free speech.”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”Give to every human being every right that you claim for yourself.””I am the inferior of any man whose rights I trample under foot.” -Robert G. Ingersoll

    • http://doorwaybuck.com CM Sackett

      “I loathe WBC as much as anyone, but free speech is free speech.

      “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
      ~DANIEL~

      Aye, indeed.

      …but even within the borders of “rights” (even unalienable ones) there are equally unalienable BUFFERS between the rights of one individual/group and those of another (else, the “pursuit of Happiness” would be, by virtue of such current definitions… ANARCHIC).

      …and Daniel, your own Mr. Ingersoll’s clear, declarative quotes that you hold in such esteem (this quote, rightly so, I believe… don’t feel that way AT ALL about much of his ‘musings’) ~ even those quotes make it clear that such buffers are as inherent to any personal “Liberty”, let alone “rights” as the Liberty and rights themselves.

      The dogs of Westboro (filthy curs, at that) can bark, yes.

      But NOT AT/DURING the gaping-wound grieving/gathering of a FAMILY FUNERAL.

      NOT THEN… NOT THERE.

      As I mentioned earlier, in this case, and on this subject, I concur fully with Mr. Ingersoll:

      “Give to every human being every right that you claim for yourself.”
      “I am the inferior of any man whose rights I trample under foot.”
      -Robert G. Ingersol

      BTW, my line of thought/reason does NO disservice to Thomas Paine’s words on the subject, either. For if the tortuously grieved family of an American HERO are the enemies of these bastards… then should they, not at least, be “guard(ed) from (the) oppression” of the BILE these putrid ‘coreligionists’ would cast upon their grief?

      Aye, indeed.
      CM Sackett

      • Anonymous

        Well, I don’t know how much of the fee-for-service firefighter debate you caught, but Rich and I seem to be the 2 people who have read the definitive works of Libertarianism from the Austrian School.

        Yes, the same one as Friedrich Von Hayek, many of those thinkers were his colleagues. Murray Rothbard is an interesting guy, for example.

        Given the original meaning of Libertarianism, “anarchic,” is not necessarily a vice in my mind, if we are speaking on philosophy/ideals.

        Here is the beauty though of what economics calls “the invisible hand” coming into play in the political arena.

        The Patriot Guard Riders are the ever-present counter to the WBC protests, and from everything I’ve seen about them, they do a pretty darn good job at keeping back the WBC filth. They came about purely as a reaction to WBC protests and serve the purpose that Pat and possibly yourself are advocating for government to step in for very well already.

        • http://doorwaybuck.com CM Sackett

          I was speaking about the mindset (and actions) of FREE men, not about those inept mudskippers we call “government”.

          The Patriot Guard Riders (know a couple of them) are a beautiful contingency of patriots doing the RIGHT THING (even if it becomes “ill”egal).

          My statement was addressing the entire concept (as you put it) of “freedom of speech”. It is NOT (by virtue of the reality of the real-world) ‘absolute’.

          Every day, and in a million locales, that ‘freedom’ ends… where a p/o’d recipient of such ‘free’ speaking can reach the speaker with his bare hands.

          Aye, so be it.

          • Anonymous

            I’m going to be obnoxious now and split hairs. =P Technically there is still the right to speak freely, there are just more clear and present consequences to such speech (I subscribe to Sartre’s Free Will Libertarianism), unless the right truly is not inalienable, in which the right CAN be taken and the Declaration becomes a moot antique. Though I may be conflating “right” and “ability.”

            I can force myself to acquiesce to the restrictions on speech against direct likely incitement to violence or things like shouting “fire” in a crowded room, but that is the extent for me.

            I also may have missed something in your post, the Beck clip was talking about a Supreme Court case between a family and the WBC. In that context, government forced cessation of speech is completely relevant, it’s the crux of the issue.

            As I’ve said in other threads though, I find myself more and more rejecting Minarchism these days as I watch the behavior of that den of thieves we call Washington. So we may be at odds irreconcilably about this one on a base level, I’m not sure though.

    • http://community.livejournal.com/black_avenger_1/profile Virus-X

      Well, if you want to speak in cliches:

      “Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose.”

      Just as you champion the ‘right’ of Satan’s Little Helpers to engage in what they’re doing, I champion the right of the families of servicemen (you know what that is, right? People that actually have worth, unlike most other people.) to be free of being targeted for harassment, pain and suffering. I will always stand up for the rights of active duty servicemen, Veterans and their families, before I will civilian scum and former military personnel that have forgotten what they are, and become civilians, themselves, as opposed to Veterans.

      If you want to talk in lines from authoritative authors and speakers:

      “And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s. And they marvelled at him.” -Jesus Christ, circa the Book of Mark 12:17

      No authority supersedes His, no word goes above His. Do you think He would approve the fraudulent use of His faith the harass and harm? Do you think He would approve of the use of the rights He gave you to trample on those of others? While you may not have much compassion for the families of people that may’ve been your betters (unless you are/were a serviceman), casting your lot in with evildoers and people that trample on the hearts of others, Jesus Christ does not agree with you that others’ pain is something to be made a mockery of:

      ‘Jesus therefore again groaning in himself cometh to the grave.’ -John 11:38, Geneva Bible

      Seeing the grief of others, as opposed to moving Christ to castigate and criticize the people for their sins (which He had the authority and standing to do, by the way), was moved to grief, Himself, and profound sadness, in light of feeling their pain.

      Freedom is a God-given right, and even the Constitution recognizes, and all rights come from that God-given freedom that people are trying to sell for trinkets and sheckles. Condoning the misuse of God’s power and gifts makes me wonder, in favor of people that live to abuse what they have, as opposed to championing the hurting family of someone that GAVE ALL that he had makes me wonder about you, and why you are here.

      • http://doorwaybuck.com CM Sackett

        “I will always stand up for the rights of active duty servicemen, Veterans and their families, before I will civilian scum and former military personnel that have forgotten what they are, and become civilians, themselves, as opposed to Veterans.”
        ~Virus-X~

        …and you will find me standing in the Gap with you.

        CM Sackett

      • Anonymous

        Here we go again, I don’t think I’ve ever seen even one post of yours that didn’t come across as seething, hyperventilating accusations and personal attacks. You really do get off on trying to police people into 100% agree with you or 100% enemy via full-on offense. Sorry buddy, the violence of action doesn’t help you when there are only words.

        Your line about the right to swing your fist is a red herring.

        This may hurt to hear, considering how many on the right line up to fallate the military, but let’s remember that Americans not in the military are as much citizens of this country as you are. You are no more innately American or entitled to the rights protected by our laws than any of us. Considering active duty and veterans have been charged with preserving that rule of law, you should understand this better than anyone.

        This holier-than-thou attitude of yours is very unflattering, and you do no favors by example for the people you claim to be defending.

        You should know by know that chapter and verse from the bible holds no more legal authority in this country than Mark Twain or “Twas The Night Before Christmas.”

        It has no cowing effect on my as an individual either, I’ve read the bible more than once and found it lacking.

        You should take the time to sit down and read the Constitution, chief, there are 0 mentions of God, Elohim, YHWH, Jehovah or Jesus as the source of ANY of it’s contents. The closest you get is the word “lord” in the DATE.

        I wonder what your commanding officers said to the notion that the whims of a 2000 year dead man supersede their orders, or are you just spitting platitudes.

        Nice way to end your post by the way, a vague “love it or leave it,” it seems. Maybe you should go back and read some of the founders. You and I may both find the Westboro Baptist Church to be deplorable, but guess what that is irrelevant under the law if they weren’t inciting violence.

        You also seem to have a reading comprehension problem, considering I’ve condemned the WBC multiple times in this very thread in plain wording. I’ll thank you kindly not to misrepresent me in the future as a sympathizer of the WBC scum or as “casting (my) lot in with evildoers,” you know, the whole “Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness,” thing.

        • http://community.livejournal.com/black_avenger_1/profile Virus-X

          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.

          • Anonymous

            Good to see you’re too belligerent and childish to actually make an argument, you open with personal attacks, an appeal to authority, baseless accusations and brain-dead chest beating. Someone laughs and points out what an idiot you’re acting like and you go from acting like a 16 year old still getting used to the hormones to an 8 year old.

            It would be nice if someday you grew up enough to manage to type a single coherent and civil word in response to people who disagree with you, I won’t hold my breath though, that appears beyond your very obvious limitations.

            Have fun with the coloring books, skippy.

            • Virus-X

              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.

              • Anonymous

                That is one of the most self-fallating post I’ve read on this website, you have the mentality of an overly-hormonal teenager and an ego inflated beyond imagination, likely from the multitudes on the right lined up on their needs for anyone in a military uniform.

                Here’s a tip, your attitude is a disgrace to everyone past, present and future wearing that same uniform.

                As you have the responsive capabilities of a brick wall, this will be the last time I respond directly to you. Your opinion and attention count for naught, any and all response to you has been for the benefit of 3rd parties reading who might be tempted to sing “amen” to your drivel without thought.

                Keep on shaming the sacrifice of your active duty/veteran peers who actually understand the meaning of “service.”

      • Rich

        I’ll let someone else explain to you what the definition of the word “condone” is, because there isn’t a single person here condoning the action of these people.

        Secondly, your entire arguement stems from a religion, and this country doesn’t set up its laws based on a religion.

        • Virus-X

          1: I don’t need you, nor anyone else, to explain anything to me.

          2: Take you strawman to someone that cares. I would, however, like for you to produce the sentence where I said that American law was based on “…a religion…”. If you can’t, there’s a reason for that. However, I would hope that you’re not stupid enough to not know that the US is based on Judeo-Christian ideology and theology. The Founding Fathers were Christians and deists, by and large, the majority believing in a higher power (most specifically Jesus Christ), and their work product (the Constitution of the United States & Declaration of Independence) was clearly influenced by that. I never said this country based legal jurisprudence on theology, and if you’re insinuating that, or flat-out saying it, you’re a liar. I can, and will, argue from my theological viewpoint, because obviouisly it’s more important to me, than it is to you. If you can’t accept that, then you’re (more than) free to bother someone else. To be frank, I hold Christendom’s rules and regulations (very different from sharia) in higher esteem than what you apparently hold in highest esteem (man-made rules and regulations). That’s your perogative. I’ll exercise mine to my opinion, and as to how I choose to form that opinion, thank you.

          • Rich

            Do you not see the arguement you made?

            They should be stopped because Jesus says so. That is the basis of your arguement.

            I love this line, ” I hold Christendom’s rules and regulations (very different from sharia) in higher esteem than what you apparently hold in highest esteem (man-made rules and regulations).” Easy to tell from the way you act on here. A good tree bears good fruit.

            Finally, you clearly do need the word “condone” defined for you. Either that, or you are insinuating that someone here is actually condoning the actions of WBC which would *gasp* make you a liar.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_FRAOPO3PP2EK7WG3E2YS3MSK5U Star Spankled

    Glenn’s right . We can not take away their free speech no matter how much we hate what they’re doing , but we should make them stand back at least 2000 ft from any funeral to protect the rights and the familes to lay their loved ones to rest in peace.

  • http://twitter.com/wbcsaint Sam R

    I agree that these people have the right to their speech and we should not take that away. After listening to the father and lawyer this morning on Fox and Friends, they arent going after the 1st Amendment rights of this “church” to protest. The “church” was specifically targeting the family with pictures of their son on all literature leading up to the protest and if i remember correctly even his picture on some of the signs the day of the funeral. Do theses people have the right to protest the military: Yes. Is it a right we need to protect no matter how reprehensible their speech and actions are: Yes. In this case however I think that family is going to win because it was a direct attack on them and their son, it doesnt have anything to do with 1st Amendment.

  • Rich

    The truly sad part about the whole story is the children that you see from WBC holding signs and protesting, and I’m sure they have no idea why.

    • Anonymous

      They don’t genuinely understand it, but they will parrot it back to make their parents happy, once they are old enough to understand, since this has always been the “good” for them, they will embrace it.

      It’s the same with all child indoctrination, and it’s why I shake uncontrollably with rage whenever I see even a hint of it anywhere. I nearly needed to buy a new computer monitor after I saw that “kids sing for Obama” video in the ’08 elections.

      Maybe the “fates” have a sense of humor and the kids will grow up to be Freethinkers.

      • http://twitter.com/rononel ron

        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.

        • Anonymous

          That’s way too much information, something I really didn’t need to hear, gross.

          • Tyler

            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.

            • Anonymous

              Don’t forget the Noah’s Ark story, same ultimate message about population mechanics.

              • Tyler

                Oh yeah…there was definitely a lot of inbreeding going on there.

                • Anonymous

                  And the story of Lot + his 2 daughters after the destruction of Sodom & Gomorra. Those would be the same 2 daughters he offered to a mob of homosexual men to be gang-raped in preference of attacking god’s angels.

                  Lot was considered RIGHTEOUS (so much so that god went back on his requirement of several worthy people to spare down to just ONE) enough to save out of all the people of Sodom too, so it very well could be that their bible considers it not just acceptable, but holy.

                • Tyler

                  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.

                • Anonymous

                  And the story of Lot + his 2 daughters after the destruction of Sodom & Gomorra. Those would be the same 2 daughters he offered to a mob of homosexual men to be gang-raped in preference of attacking god’s angels.

                  Lot was considered RIGHTEOUS (so much so that god went back on his requirement of several worthy people to spare down to just ONE) enough to save out of all the people of Sodom too, so it very well could be that their bible considers it not just acceptable, but holy.

  • Anonymous

    Unfortunately, some people abuse their rights. If they had pictures of the dead soldier on their signs, that is a direct attack and not so much a freedom of speech issue. Just on a regular protest though, wondering, are most of these cemeteries on private land? Would the owners not then have the right to keep the WBC out?

  • Anonymous

    In what instance is it ok to protest a funeral? If we draw the line there and the law cannot be stretched to cover any other issues, I’m all for taking away the “right” to protest a funeral.

    • Tyler

      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.

  • Anonymous

    oh! but it shouldn’t be the supreme court’s business. it should be a LAW via the LEGISLATIVE BRANCH

  • Anonymous

    Boy. This argument is so stupid and so basic it’s patheic that it goes over so many peoples heads. The Constitution restricts the GOVERNMENT from passing laws that restrict the free exercise of speech, expression, assembly, and religion. It’s hate crimes laws that restict the reaction to such free expression. In other words, the Westboro Baptist Church has the right to go to a funeral and say whatever they want because the police can’t stop them. But the police don’t have to protect them, either. We have freedom of government restrictions on speech. But the government can’t dictate the reaction to that speech, either. More speech is good. A punch in the face is better.

    • Anonymous

      I agree they need a kick in the teeth, but the law does not, unfortunately. It used to be the case that a judge would tell them they deserved it once they tried to press changes.

      These days you would end up losing your house over it.

  • Anonymous

    I absolutely abhor their speech. It desecrates the memory of the fallen. It distorts the message of the Church, the Gospel, and God. It separates rather than unites.

    However, as a veteran who stood in harms way to defend all freedoms for all, even though I completely disagree with what their message is, I will defend their absolute right to spout off their filth. I don’t agree with the extreme left and their rhetoric either, but I will defend their right to speak it.

    Now if someone wants to punch the mob in the mouth, I probably wouldn’t object to that either, but the agressor would pay the price with the law – but I’d be tempted.

  • deBeaujeu

    Glenn, you need a thorough investigation of this guy Pat. His Marxism seems to be slowly transpiring. Is he infiltrating your team? Who else but Bill O’Reilly to conduct such a complete investigation. Bill will use his whole team for this important investigation and will report the findings in 6 months.
    In the meantime be alert,

    deBeaujeu

    • Tyler

      I think you may be on to something whether it be actual Marxism or perhaps a bribe or blackmailing threat from someone on the Marxist side.

      I say that really more based on him not shutting his ignorant piehole about the guy whose house burned down than about this, but this and that together should make us keep an eye out and particularly our ears open.

      • Anonymous

        It’s not marxism, it’s simply statism of a certain flavor.

        • Tyler

          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.

          • Anonymous

            Precisely, hence the divide between the iconic personalities involved in the October Revolution.

            This difference in methodology in pursuit of the same idillic communal government-free society is what simultaneously causes the split between Anarcho-Syndicalists and Communists as well as their cooperation.

            Communists want to establish an all-powerful governmental entity to build the society.
            Anarcho-Syndicalists/Libertarian Socialists want to just skip right to the utopia.

            Fortunately I have eyes and brain enough to understand history and human nature, so I am the polar opposite.

            • Tyler

              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.

              • Anonymous

                This could turn into a very long and protracted debate but I’ll just say that if forced into utter practicality, I will agree, mostly…sorta.

            • Rich

              “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.

              • Anonymous

                Pretty much, though the one’s that still try to seriously call themselves truly “communist” still keep up the guise of international workers paradise nonsense, will really being more for their nation dominating the world under (Moscow) instead of actual internationalism.

                Fascists make no bones about them being for their own nations workers.

                What you describe is why Anarcho-Syndicalists tentatively work with straight up Communists to overthrow the established order. That is where their similarities in methodology end.

  • Smcaronx

    I disagree with Beck.

    The third radio guy in the clip kept trying to intervene with his counter argument.

    He never got a chance (at least not in the clip).

    But twice he said “But what about the Pr..”..

    I think he was going to say “What about the President. People are not allowed to hold up signs and protest next to the President when he is giving a speech…

    So we already inhibit free speech in this manner.

    Bottom line:

    Do we keep protesters off the stage when the president wants to speak? Yes.

    Does a family who looses a son/daughter in defense of this nation deserve this protection long enough to bury thier child?

    hell Yes.

    Beck is wrong.

    • Tyler

      Can’t be right about everything. That’s why it’s key for people to remain free-thinking individuals as opposed to listening to this man as if he’s some kind of prophetical figure.

      What urks me about Glenn more though is the way he talks down to anyone who presents the idea of ending the Federal Reserve on his show.

      I urge everyone who has the time and is able to…call in and suggest ending the Federal Reserve system and see how Beck reacts. Last time someone did that I heard, he used his petty defense for why he supported the stimulus again.

      • Anonymous

        He nor any radio personality, by virtue of call screening, ever seem to have anyone articulate on with well thought out arguments for contrary opinions.

        I would love to get on the show the next time he attacks science, or see Judge Napolitano push him about the Fed, it will NEVER happen though. All we’ll ever see is Joe Blow from nowhere who can’t string 2 words together but happens to take that position.

        • Tyler

          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.

          • Anonymous

            Potential/pseudo-anarchists maybe. Then again, Glenn Beck has never done the necessary homework to actually understand what it is he’s saying when he shouts “I’m a Libertarian,” to those of us who actually have done our homework.

            If he exclusively means the Libertarian party platform, then he is no better in that than high school kids trying too hard to fit in with a new clique.

            • Tyler

              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.

  • Bsm138

    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.

  • Mrcombi

    Beck is going blind in more ways than one…

  • Joe-106

    free speech is A protected right . But shouting in my window is not

  • Mrcombi

    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…

    • Tyler

      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.

    • Tyler

      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.

  • KeninMontana

    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.

    • Tyler

      ‎”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

  • ImJustSaying

    God bless the Westboro’s right to freedom of speech…and may God strike them down. :-)

    • Tyler

      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.

  • Smcaronx

    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.

    • Tyler

      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.

  • Rononel

    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.

    • http://twitter.com/rononel ron

      who knew, pretty far out.

    • Tyler

      I have no idea if what you just said is actually true, but if it is…that would explain a lot.

  • Rononel

    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.

  • Rononel

    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.

  • Artbyleew

    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.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=197402182 Chuck Norton

    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.

    • Rich

      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.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=197402182 Chuck Norton

        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.

        • Rich

          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.

        • Rich

          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.

          • Rich

            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?

            • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=197402182 Chuck Norton

              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.

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=197402182 Chuck Norton

            They may have done it, but it does not mean that it was constitutionally protected.

  • Tyler

    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.

    • Anonymous

      That is EXACTLY the point I made to CM Sackett, thank you.

      This is two highly charged EMOTIONAL debates in two nights, and somehow I guess the freedom and free-markets people have been on the “evil” side of both.

      People need to realize that the problem isn’t external when they start treating an issue as “good vs evil” rather than “right vs wrong.”

      • Tyler

        What ever happened to the old saying “fight bad speech with more speech” anyway?

        • Anonymous

          They adopted the fundamentalist and patrio-tard mentality of “Agree with me or shut up/get out.”

          • Tyler

            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.”

            • Anonymous

              I’m not trying to cast any unnecessary aspersions on your father, but people like that would have hated our founders.I’ll never understand the difficulty with understanding the difference between being a nation OF (majority) Christians, and being a “Christian nation.”

              EDIT: And anyone who says that the 2 are one and the same, then they subscribe to Tyranny of the Majority, and they are my enemy as well as the enemy of our Founders.

              • Rich

                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.

                • Anonymous

                  They were absolutely afraid of Tyranny of the Majority, that is exactly what the constitution is in place to prevent, it enables the operation of majoritarian-ish rule while simultaneously protecting the rights of the minority.

                  Some college professors spin the truth of course, but so do the evangelist movements trying to stick the 10 Commandments (which 10, by the way, the Bible gives 2 separate sets) on everything government.

                • KeninMontana

                  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? :)

                • Anonymous

                  That would be the selective memory of Christians and/or the handy Jesus-whiteout (more selective memory of the ACTUAL jesus quote).

                  If I remember right there are 613 Commandments total in the Old Testament, including the 2 versions of the famous rock slab 10.

                • Tyler

                  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.

                • Anonymous

                  Just how libertarian are you, and no offense intended, how naive?

                  Education is no protection against majoritarian tyranny in true democracy.

                  Just look at the majority of todays ivory tower intelligencia, people so full of their own innate genius they are somehow smarter than history and basic mathematics. They are often the ones in favor of collectivist rights and “greater good” rationale.

                  Any time where power is consolidated into a state or there will by oppression of the “other,” at least with the mob though they don’t have tanks and fully decked out police department gear to come at you in.

                  The will to power is part of human nature as well as prejudiced groupthink/mob mentality. The Non-Aggression Principle does not necessarily flow from education, so long as their are still that gut-level tribalism governing peoples emotional/visceral reactions to other human beings.

                  This is the ONLY reason I still have one foot in Minarchism, but I’m a hair’s breadth away from saying “screw it,” to junk the state and take my chances with my friends/neighbors against the mob.

  • Tyler

    ‎”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

  • Manfred

    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!

    • Anonymous

      Here here!

  • Jimbob

    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.

  • Rich

    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.

    • Anonymous

      I think the Constitution for him is nothing more than a convenient shield, a means to an end to him. He either relishes the contradiction, or sees it as the “GOD WILLS IT,” reasoning, which of course supersedes everything else.

      If we were to scrap the Constitution and lock him down, he would continue to scream just as loud while waving all of the old scripture saying that (true) Christians will be mocked and persecuted by the world, and in his mind, his family are the only “true” christians. Persecuting him would encourage him, in a way. It’s the kind of psychological chicanery in almost all cults, outside attacks only increase conviction and group solidarity.

      (Interesting that this is the same response by most national identities to outside attack as well)

  • Test

    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.

    • Anonymous

      We’ll try REAL hard to lose sleep over what you think about the US, chief.

  • AgentRose

    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