DISQUS

Jonathan · 2 years ago

As much as I absolutely find Fred Phelps' actions abhorrant, I'm not real keen on this verdict. Jeremy over at G-A-Y I thought made a pretty good argument for why this verdict wasn't a good one. Like I said, I find the actions of that clan to be beyond anything that is decent. But, if we curtail their rights to speak their mind how soon before that filters down to the right of groups like Exodus to speak their message...or any church for that matter. Obviously there is a line that must be drawn, but is that line subject to the whims of the majority that don't like the message?

j.

Randy · 2 years ago

I have similar concerns that is why I want to see legal analysis of the case on what potential precedents this might set. That's why I stated,

My only concern is that other groups will try to abuse this toward other protestors. I would be interested in analysis of what potential new precedents this might set.

It could be argued (maybe not well) that what Phelps did was abuse his civil liberties to assault the civil liberties of others. He tried to take away from the "freedom of assembly" and possibly even the expression of "freedom of religion" of the funeral attendees (I don't know but would assume that it had some sort of religious element to the service.)

Freedom of assembly and religious expression are just as important as freedom of speech.

For peculiar situations like this, it is ok with me.... just as long as the peculiar situation isn't used as precedent for everybody. As the old High school civics analogy goes, "you have freedom of speech but you cannot yell fire in a crowded theater if there isn't one without penalty."

But again, I am interested to see if this sets any bad precedents.

Jonathan · 2 years ago

As much as I absolutely find Fred Phelps' actions abhorrant, I'm not real keen on this verdict. Jeremy over at G-A-Y I thought made a pretty good argument for why this verdict wasn't a good one. Like I said, I find the actions of that clan to be beyond anything that is decent. But, if we curtail their rights to speak their mind how soon before that filters down to the right of groups like Exodus to speak their message...or any church for that matter. Obviously there is a line that must be drawn, but is that line subject to the whims of the majority that don't like the message?
j.

Randy · 2 years ago

I have similar concerns that is why I want to see legal analysis of the case on what potential precedents this might set. That's why I stated,

My only concern is that other groups will try to abuse this toward other protestors. I would be interested in analysis of what potential new precedents this might set.

It could be argued (maybe not well) that what Phelps did was abuse his civil liberties to assault the civil liberties of others. He tried to take away from the "freedom of assembly" and possibly even the expression of "freedom of religion" of the funeral attendees (I don't know but would assume that it had some sort of religious element to the service.)
Freedom of assembly and religious expression are just as important as freedom of speech.
For peculiar situations like this, it is ok with me.... just as long as the peculiar situation isn't used as precedent for everybody. As the old High school civics analogy goes, "you have freedom of speech but you cannot yell fire in a crowded theater if there isn't one without penalty."
But again, I am interested to see if this sets any bad precedents.

Mike Ensley · 2 years ago

First of all, I think it's the least of what the Phelps clan deserves. I don't believe it's their expression being punished--but the blatant harassment of violating a family's private ceremony with their slanderous display. I hope this curtails their future efforts in a big way.

As for bad precedent, I think it's a guarantee that some will try to abuse this verdict in their war against choice. Let's face it, some people are so blinded in their views, they can't or won't recognize the mountainous difference between Westboro and Exodus. I believe those people are in the minority, though.

Ted Slater · 2 years ago

There's a difference between free speech and harassment/incitement to violence. It's my opinion that what the Phelps are doing is the latter.

Randy · 2 years ago

I agree with you Mike. I think those folks are in the minority as well.

I agree with you to Ted :). I think it is amazing that their incitement to violence has not actually erupted into street brawls/riots yet. Maybe this decision will curb that from happening.

Jonathan · 2 years ago

I remember the very first time I ever saw the Phelps clan in action. It was both frightening and a little bit humorous. I remember soon afterwards having a conversation with my dad about whether their approach was "christ-like" (he didn't think so...by a mile). I saw a youtube post they've made where they are literally crowing about the publicity this brings them. That's one of the ugly downsides as well. I guess I'm just leery when it comes to our protected speech. Where do we draw the line?

j.

Mike Ensley · 2 years ago

First of all, I think it's the least of what the Phelps clan deserves. I don't believe it's their expression being punished--but the blatant harassment of violating a family's private ceremony with their slanderous display. I hope this curtails their future efforts in a big way.
As for bad precedent, I think it's a guarantee that some will try to abuse this verdict in their war against choice. Let's face it, some people are so blinded in their views, they can't or won't recognize the mountainous difference between Westboro and Exodus. I believe those people are in the minority, though.

Ted Slater · 2 years ago

There's a difference between free speech and harassment/incitement to violence. It's my opinion that what the Phelps are doing is the latter.

Randy · 2 years ago

I remember my first run in too. Phelps yelling at me... someone spat at my feet and daring me to walk on a gay pride flag covered with things I can't describe. I walked around it ... which caused more jeering.

I don't think there is a line to be drawn aside from the Constitution and the application of it through executive, legislative and judicial branches. I don't know that there is an all or nothing line. It seems like the line is as Ted aptly described as harassment with incitement to riot.

Randy · 2 years ago

I agree with you Mike. I think those folks are in the minority as well.
I agree with you to Ted :). I think it is amazing that their incitement to violence has not actually erupted into street brawls/riots yet. Maybe this decision will curb that from happening.

Jonathan · 2 years ago

I remember the very first time I ever saw the Phelps clan in action. It was both frightening and a little bit humorous. I remember soon afterwards having a conversation with my dad about whether their approach was "christ-like" (he didn't think so...by a mile). I saw a youtube post they've made where they are literally crowing about the publicity this brings them. That's one of the ugly downsides as well. I guess I'm just leery when it comes to our protected speech. Where do we draw the line?
j.

Randy · 2 years ago

I remember my first run in too. Phelps yelling at me... someone spat at my feet and daring me to walk on a gay pride flag covered with things I can't describe. I walked around it ... which caused more jeering.
I don't think there is a line to be drawn aside from the Constitution and the application of it through executive, legislative and judicial branches. I don't know that there is an all or nothing line. It seems like the line is as Ted aptly described as harassment with incitement to riot.