Jury awards father $11M in funeral case

[BrAinPaiNt]

LINK (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071031/ap_on_re_us/funeral_protests)



By ALEX DOMINGUEZ, Associated Press Writer 50 minutes ago

BALTIMORE - A grieving father won a nearly $11 million verdict Wednesday against a fundamentalist Kansas church that pickets military funerals out of a belief that the war in Iraq is a punishment for the nation's tolerance of homosexuality.

Albert Snyder of York, Pa., sued the Westboro Baptist Church for unspecified damages after members demonstrated at the March 2006 funeral of his son, Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder, who was killed in Iraq.

The jury first awarded $2.9 million in compensatory damages. It returned in the afternoon with its decision to award $6 million in punitive damages for invasion of privacy and $2 million for causing emotional distress.

Snyder's attorney, Craig Trebilcock, had urged jurors to determine an amount "that says don't do this in Maryland again. Do not bring your circus of hate to Maryland again."

Church members routinely picket funerals of military personnel killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, carrying signs such as "Thank God for dead soldiers" and "God hates ."

A number of states have passed laws regarding funeral protests, and Congress has passed a law prohibiting such protests at federal cemeteries. But the Maryland lawsuit is believed to be the first filed by the family of a fallen serviceman.

The church and three of its leaders — the Rev. Fred Phelps and his two daughters, Shirley Phelps-Roper and Rebecca Phelps-Davis, 46 — were found liable for invasion of privacy and intent to inflict emotional distress.

Even the size of the award for compensating damages "far exceeds the net worth of the defendants," according to financial statements filed with the court, U.S. District Judge Richard Bennett noted.

Snyder claimed the protests intruded upon what should have been a private ceremony and sullied his memory of the event.

The church members testified they are following their religious beliefs by spreading the message that soldiers are dying because the nation is too tolerant of homosexuality.

Their attorneys maintained in closing arguments Tuesday that the burial was a public event and that even abhorrent points of view are protected by the First Amendment, which guarantees freedom of speech and religion.

Earlier, church members staged a demonstration outside the federal courthouse. Church founder Fred Phelps held a sign reading "God is your enemy," while Shirley Phelps-Roper stood on an American flag and carried a sign that read "God hates *** enablers." Members of the group sang "God Hates America" to the tune of "God Bless America."

Snyder sobbed when he heard the verdict, while members of the church greeted the news with tightlipped smiles.

[StanleySpadowski]

We've discussed what I think should be done to the moron Phelps family before while discussing the Patriot Guard but I will say that I'm absolutely appalled by this decision.

Exercising one's freedom of speech, no matter how insane, should never be grounds for a lawsuit.


The ACLU loves to point to the Nazi case in Skokie to prove they aren't left wing loons but they really should have become involved in this if they aren't.

[Cochese]

Those people are genuinely insane. I watched this documentary about them that was done by the BBC, and its frightening how they brainwash the kids to be the next leaders in the horrible cult. I dont want them fined, I want them locked in the psychward, but hopefully this will make them think twice about acting like this again.

[trickblue]

We've discussed what I think should be done to the moron Phelps family before while discussing the Patriot Guard but I will say that I'm absolutely appalled by this decision.

Exercising one's freedom of speech, no matter how insane, should never be grounds for a lawsuit.


The ACLU loves to point to the Nazi case in Skokie to prove they aren't left wing loons but they really should have become involved in this if they aren't.

Here's why I have no problem with this ruling...

WBC was allowed their freedom of speech. People get confused by freedom of speech by thinking there shouldn't be consequences. There are consequences every day for what you say. Some lose jobs, some are sued for defamation, etc...

I normally am against most pain and suffering type of lawsuits, but I think this family certainly can make a case for pain and suffering considering the circumstances...

[silverbear]

We've discussed what I think should be done to the moron Phelps family before while discussing the Patriot Guard but I will say that I'm absolutely appalled by this decision.

I love it... there should be common sense restrictions on free speech in some isolated instances, and this is one of them... you do no have, I do not have, none of us has the right to intrude on a family's grief to make a political statement...

Indeed, they should have made the judgement even more outrageously high...

[theogt]

Exercising one's freedom of speech, no matter how insane, should never be grounds for a lawsuit.Society and the law, since the origin of that freedom, have disagreed. I can't for the life of me think of a single reason to not limit speech in such a way.

[trickblue]

I love it... there should be common sense restrictions on free speech in some isolated instances, and this is one of them... you do no have, I do not have, none of us has the right to intrude on a family's grief to make a political statement...

Indeed, they should have made the judgement even more outrageously high...

I couldn't agree more...

Stanley is a common sense guy, but we do have to answer for our free speech. There are lines in regards to repercussions...

Free Speech is only free to the point that after it comes out of your mouth, you may have to pay for it...

I don't believe in the current lawyer-speak that we have the right to not be frivolously offended. We don't have that right. We do have the right to pain and suffering when it's warranted. I've seen no case personally where I find it MORE warranted. The death of a son/daughter has to be the worst feeling in the world. I pray I never have to go through it. These people deserved to give their son a private, decent burial. I only wish the settlement would have been eleven billion...

The problem here is that they may never see the money. The Phelps bunch are very shrewd lawyers and very intelligent in that respect. They won't take this lying down. Fred Phelps is certifiable, but he and his demon seed are very accomplished in the courtroom. They are Neanderthals in regards to couth and common decency but they are very sharp otherwise...

They have their right to free speech, but they are FINALLY suffering the repercussions of their heinous crapola...

[Viper]

We've discussed what I think should be done to the moron Phelps family before while discussing the Patriot Guard but I will say that I'm absolutely appalled by this decision.

Exercising one's freedom of speech, no matter how insane, should never be grounds for a lawsuit.


The ACLU loves to point to the Nazi case in Skokie to prove they aren't left wing loons but they really should have become involved in this if they aren't.

This is a private affair; you do not have the right to force your words onto another individual. You don’t have the right to be disruptive in someone else’s private life. Surely, you don’t believe I have the right to stand outside your home, in the middle of the night screaming my personal believes. I don’t have the right to follow you around or target you, forcing you to listen to my speech.

[BrAinPaiNt]

One must consider hate speech into the equation with the phelps.

[StanleySpadowski]

I think a lot of people are letting their rightful disgust for these people blind them to the larger issue.

If it's not ok for these tools to express their opinions without ramifications, when would it be ok to express yours?

Should I sue the three people who stood by the local courthouse protesting the schip veto? How about the next people who protest something with a gathering at the National Mall?

[BrAinPaiNt]

I think a lot of people are letting their rightful disgust for these people blind them to the larger issue.

If it's not ok for these tools to express their opinions without ramifications, when would it be ok to express yours?

Should I sue the three people who stood by the local courthouse protesting the schip veto? How about the next people who protest something with a gathering at the National Mall?

As I stated before...when hate speech is introduced I think it changes things.

There is a HUGE difference between going to the steps of congress and holding a sign saying a member of congress should pass this or that bill or step down....and something like what the phelps do in going to a funeral holding up signs with hateful language.

Freedom of speech is always a good thing.

Larry Flynt would say just because you find something disgusting does not mean he should not be able to put it out.

However even flynt is wise enough to know that his products are age based and not to be shown out in a public setting because of the nature of what the topic/images and language contained.

The Phelps are doing hate speech IMO. They hold signs full of hate and the only reason they do it is for the hope that some person from the funeral will strike them so they can sue that individual.

I think it is karmic justice. Instead of getting to sue someone, they got sued themselves.

I doubt this holds up though. At the very LEAST the money will be reduced a great deal.

[big dog cowboy]

BALTIMORE - A grieving father won a nearly $11 million verdict Wednesday against a fundamentalist Kansas church that pickets military funerals out of a belief that the war in Iraq is a punishment for the nation's tolerance of homosexuality.
They have made a whole lot of headlines up here protesting at the soldiers funerals. It's very embarrasing.

[burmafrd]

Freedom of speech means you can speak as you want but you must also FACE THE CONSEQUENCES OF THAT ACTION. Imus, anyone?
The hateful and totally unjustified attack on a family in the midst of mourning a young man warrants that and MORE.

[morieeel]

Freedom of speech means you can speak as you want but you must also FACE THE CONSEQUENCES OF THAT ACTION. Imus, anyone?
The hateful and totally unjustified attack on a family in the midst of mourning a young man warrants that and MORE.

I know if it was my brother, son etc.. they would be facing the consequences immediately.

:shoot2:

[BrAinPaiNt]

Freedom of speech means you can speak as you want but you must also FACE THE CONSEQUENCES OF THAT ACTION. Imus, anyone?
The hateful and totally unjustified attack on a family in the midst of mourning a young man warrants that and MORE.

Yep. Just like someone can say untruths about someone, written or verbally, and can be sued for libel or slander.

You can say whatever you want...just have to face the consequences.

It is clear as crystal that the only reason they do this stuff is to try and get to people at their worst point by doing and saying the worst things. In their efforts to get someone to attack them or do something to them so they can sue.

As I said before...It is like karma for them that THEY got sued instead.

[StanleySpadowski]

As I stated before...when hate speech is introduced I think it changes things.

There is a HUGE difference between going to the steps of congress and holding a sign saying a member of congress should pass this or that bill or step down....and something like what the phelps do in going to a funeral holding up signs with hateful language.

Freedom of speech is always a good thing.

Larry Flynt would say just because you find something disgusting does not mean he should not be able to put it out.

However even flynt is wise enough to know that his products are age based and not to be shown out in a public setting because of the nature of what the topic/images and language contained.

The Phelps are doing hate speech IMO. They hold signs full of hate and the only reason they do it is for the hope that some person from the funeral will strike them so they can sue that individual.

I think it is karmic justice. Instead of getting to sue someone, they got sued themselves.

I doubt this holds up though. At the very LEAST the money will be reduced a great deal.

Define "hate speech" for me then.



Look, I'm not defending them but rather their right to say something unpopular.

As far as them only saying this to get hit and sue, I think that's far from the truth. Either they truly believe their drivel or I think their goal is to make religious people everywhere look foolish. How does one go from a civil rights lawyer and Al Gore delegate to the Democratic National Convention to a caricature?




I'm stunned that I seem to be alone here in my support for the Constitution.

[BrAinPaiNt]

Define "hate speech" for me then.



Look, I'm not defending them but rather their right to say something unpopular.

As far as them only saying this to get hit and sue, I think that's far from the truth. Either they truly believe their drivel or I think their goal is to make religious people everywhere look foolish. How does one go from a civil rights lawyer and Al Gore delegate to the Democratic National Convention to a caricature?




I'm stunned that I seem to be alone here in my support for the Constitution.

When they carry signs that contain terms of hate for homosexuals...I would term that hate speech.

As far as you not thinking they are doing it to sue...Do you realize that a good deal of his family are lawyers? That he himself has been disbarred?

How do you think these people get their money to travel all over the US?

Do you not find it odd that they only seem to protest funerals? Not just soldiers funerals. Also funerals of real gay people, funerals for the Sago Mine workers.

Why only funerals? See a pattern here?

As I stated before. There is a different between free speech and what they do IMO.

And yet again... you can always say whatever you want, just be aware that you can face the consequences.

[StanleySpadowski]

When they carry signs that contain terms of hate for homosexuals...I would term that hate speech.

As far as you not thinking they are doing it to sue...Do you realize that a good deal of his family are lawyers? That he himself has been disbarred?

How do you think these people get their money to travel all over the US?

Do you not find it odd that they only seem to protest funerals? Not just soldiers funerals. Also funerals of real gay people, funerals for the Sago Mine workers.

Why only funerals? See a pattern here?

As I stated before. There is a different between free speech and what they do IMO.

And yet again... you can always say whatever you want, just be aware that you can face the consequences.


So it's carrying a "hateful" sign?

Look at some of the garbage filled signs at a typical anti-Bush rally. Should moveon be forced to pay millions of dollars?

The Phelps family has seemingly done a very good job of staying within the letter of the law and that's what should be looked at, not the bounds of human decency.

[trickblue]

So it's carrying a "hateful" sign?

Look at some of the garbage filled signs at a typical anti-Bush rally. Should moveon be forced to pay millions of dollars?

The Phelps family has seemingly done a very good job of staying within the letter of the law and that's what should be looked at, not the bounds of human decency.

I agree about the signs, but it is a different arena for public figures such as politicians. That's why paparazzi can constantly hound celebs. It's legal.

I don't think anyone has issues with free speech, our point is that free speech doesn't shield you from the law. You can be sued for your words/actions...

[ZeroClub]

IMO, the story lacks enough detail for me to draw any real conclusions.

How close were the protesters? Were they formally informed that it was a private ceremony? Were they asked to leave private property (but refused to leave)? etc., etc.

By the way, "Free Speech" does not mean that you can say what you want as long as you are willing to suffer the adverse consequences. "Free Speech" means that (certain) speech is free of adverse consequences. ... such that guys like us can offer political opinions in a civil manner WITHOUT being jailed or fined.

[BrAinPaiNt]

So it's carrying a "hateful" sign?

Look at some of the garbage filled signs at a typical anti-Bush rally. Should moveon be forced to pay millions of dollars?

The Phelps family has seemingly done a very good job of staying within the letter of the law and that's what should be looked at, not the bounds of human decency.

Is said hateful signs at a funeral different than being at a political rally in washington? I would think so.

Is hateful signs at a political rally going to put someone one in distress compared to a family burying a loved one? I would think not.

Is a funeral a time for family and friends to bury a loved one and pay their last respects? I would think so.

Is a funeral a place to push your agendas of hate and hoping to get some money? I would think not.

BIG differences between going to a rally to protest the government as opposed to doing so at a funeral.


Why do they almost always do this at funerals?

[ZeroClub]

"Hate Speech" differs from hateful speech.

(otherwise there'd be a lot of jailed couples ...).

[Mavs Man]

I'm stunned that I seem to be alone here in my support for the Constitution.

I think you hit on the answer earlier:

I think a lot of people are letting their rightful disgust for these people blind them to the larger issue.

I'm not going to jump up and defend them, especially since I've read about what they've done in multiple incidents over the years. The amount of money seems excessive ($11 million?). And as someone suggested earlier, more information is needed. If they were violating privacy laws at the funeral, why were they not asked to leave, and if they refused, later fined?

[silverbear]

The Phelps family has seemingly done a very good job of staying within the letter of the law and that's what should be looked at, not the bounds of human decency.

Uhhh, the legal system just determined that they broke both... if you really ARE the champion of the Constitution that you claim to be in this thread, then you ought to accept that judgement...

Frankly, I find your rhetoric offensive, when you defend them by saying things like they've "done a very good job of staying within the letter of the law", as if we should APPROVE of their utterly contemptible behavior... you have the right to say that, but then you have to face the consequences of your actions (in the form of message board ridicule, which shouldn't hurt you TOO much, LOL)...

And so the Phelps cult is facing the consequences of THEIR actions...

I'd also suggest that you not dismiss "the bounds of human decency" in such a cavalier manner; I find myself wondering how you'd feel on this issue if it was YOUR loved one being buried with full military honors, only to have those jagoffs show up to try to disrupt the services, to dishonor the memory of your loved one...

I know you to be a good guy, so this "defense" of the indefensible is quite startling to me... I can only hope that some day, the Rev. Phelps' funeral will be disrupted by protestors in exactly the way he's disrupted so many funerals... that would seem to be karmic justice...

[ZeroClub]

Stanley is defending a principle, not the misguided jerks who protested at the funeral.

[StanleySpadowski]

Is said hateful signs at a funeral different than being at a political rally in washington? I would think so.

Is hateful signs at a political rally going to put someone one in distress compared to a family burying a loved one? I would think not.

Is a funeral a time for family and friends to bury a loved one and pay their last respects? I would think so.

Is a funeral a place to push your agendas of hate and hoping to get some money? I would think not.

BIG differences between going to a rally to protest the government as opposed to doing so at a funeral.


Why do they almost always do this at funerals?




For the same reason people rob banks -- That's where the money is.

They protest funerals because that's where they can get attention. Part of me still believes that these people are agent provocateur against religious people in the country so what better place to make them look bad. I mean their "church" is closed, meaing you or I couldn't join if we wanted to. I've never seen another "religion" with this philosophy.

[StanleySpadowski]

Uhhh, the legal system just determined that they broke both... if you really ARE the champion of the Constitution that you claim to be in this thread, then you ought to accept that judgement...

Frankly, I find your rhetoric offensive, when you defend them by saying things like they've "done a very good job of staying within the letter of the law", as if we should APPROVE of their utterly contemptible behavior... you have the right to say that, but then you have to face the consequences of your actions (in the form of message board ridicule, which shouldn't hurt you TOO much, LOL)...

And so the Phelps cult is facing the consequences of THEIR actions...

I'd also suggest that you not dismiss "the bounds of human decency" in such a cavalier manner; I find myself wondering how you'd feel on this issue if it was YOUR loved one being buried with full military honors, only to have those jagoffs show up to try to disrupt the services, to dishonor the memory of your loved one...

I know you to be a good guy, so this "defense" of the indefensible is quite startling to me... I can only hope that some day, the Rev. Phelps' funeral will be disrupted by protestors in exactly the way he's disrupted so many funerals... that would seem to be karmic justice...



BP and I discussed this "church" once upon a time, it was either on this board, the ealier incarnation or when it moved, I don't remember. I probably even commented how I wouldn't be here for a few years if they carried out their threat to picket a certain funeral so the my "loved one" comment was below the belt.


My disgust for them is probably higher than most so I am not defending them, but rather their right to be sub-human.

[BrAinPaiNt]

Uhhh, the legal system just determined that they broke both... if you really ARE the champion of the Constitution that you claim to be in this thread, then you ought to accept that judgement...

Frankly, I find your rhetoric offensive, when you defend them by saying things like they've "done a very good job of staying within the letter of the law", as if we should APPROVE of their utterly contemptible behavior... you have the right to say that, but then you have to face the consequences of your actions (in the form of message board ridicule, which shouldn't hurt you TOO much, LOL)...

And so the Phelps cult is facing the consequences of THEIR actions...

I'd also suggest that you not dismiss "the bounds of human decency" in such a cavalier manner; I find myself wondering how you'd feel on this issue if it was YOUR loved one being buried with full military honors, only to have those jagoffs show up to try to disrupt the services, to dishonor the memory of your loved one...

I know you to be a good guy, so this "defense" of the indefensible is quite startling to me... I can only hope that some day, the Rev. Phelps' funeral will be disrupted by protestors in exactly the way he's disrupted so many funerals... that would seem to be karmic justice...

You need to learn to separate some things in life.

There are many people that believe Larry Flynt and hustler are terrible. Does not mean we should remove his ability to publish the magazine just because we don't like it.

If I defend his right to still publish it, it does not mean I support his views. Just his right to publish.

I understand what Stanley is saying. I know he hates the group. He does not support them or think what they are doing is a great thing. He would never join the group.

He is just making an argument, and a legit one at that, that they should be protected under the freedom of speech topic.

For all intents and purposes he is mostly right.

I just see this as a special case and would love it if they got nailed, even if it does trample on their rights. Hypocrite or not I don't really care as honestly I think being sued and losing is too good for them.

Personally it would be one of the few times I would not mind if someone killed them all, except the children.

I will also say I think this decision will be over turned or at the very least the amount of money will be greatly reduced.

[trickblue]

Personally it would be one of the few times I would not mind if someone killed them all, except the children.

KILK...

Kooks I'd Like to Kill... ;)

[ConcordCowboy]

Those people are genuinely insane. I watched this documentary about them that was done by the BBC, and its frightening how they brainwash the kids to be the next leaders in the horrible cult. I dont want them fined, I want them locked in the psychward, but hopefully this will make them think twice about acting like this again.

Man you're right about that.



Fred Phelps


From Wikipedia

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/39/Fred_Phelps_on_his_pulpit.jpg


Fred Waldron Phelps, Sr. (born November 13, 1929) is the pastor of the Westboro Baptist Church (WBC), an independent Baptist church in Topeka, Kansas. Phelps is also a disbarred lawyer and founder of the Phelps Chartered law firm. WBC is listed as a "hate group" by the Southern Poverty Law Center.[1] He is known for preaching with slogans and banners denoting phrases such as "Thank God for 9/11", "God hates ," "AIDS cures ," and " die, God laughs (or mocks)," and claims that God will punish homosexuals as well as people such as Bill O'Reilly, Coretta Scott King, Ronald Reagan, and Howard Dean, whom his church considers "***-enablers".[2][3] His church says he is a "Five-Point Calvinist".[4] He has also thanked God for the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake.[5]

Phelps and his followers frequently picket various events, especially military funerals, gay pride gatherings, and high-profile political gatherings, arguing it is their sacred duty to warn others of God's anger. When criticized, Phelps' followers say they are protected in doing so by the First Amendment.[6][7] President Bush recently signed the Respect for America's Fallen Heroes Act in response to Phelps' protests at military funerals.[8] In April 2007, Kansas governor Kathleen Sebelius signed into law a bill banning the protest of funerals.[9]

Phelps says that he is a preacher who believes that homosexuality and its acceptance have doomed most of the world to eternal damnation. The church at Westboro which he leads has 71 confirmed members, 60 of whom are related to Phelps through blood or marriage or both.

The group is built around a core of anti-homosexual theology, with many of their activities stemming from the slogan "God hates ," which is also the name of the group's main website. Gay rights activists, as well as Christians of virtually every denomination, have denounced him as a producer of anti-gay propaganda and violence-inspiring hate speech.[10]


Education
In 1947, Phelps enrolled as a student at the fundamentalist Bob Jones University, which he left after three semesters.[11] He then spent two semesters at the Prairie Bible Institute. In 1951, he earned a two-year degree from John Muir College.[12]


Civil Rights Attorney
Phelps earned a law degree from Washburn University in 1962, and founded the Phelps Chartered law firm in 1964. The first notable cases were of a civil rights nature. "I systematically brought down the Jim Crow laws of this town," he says.[10] Phelps' daughter was quoted as saying, "We took on the Jim Crow establishment, and Kansas did not take that sitting down. They used to shoot our car windows out, screaming we were ****** lovers," and that the Phelps law firm made up one-third of the state’s federal docket of civil-rights cases.[13]

Phelps took cases on behalf of African American clients alleging discrimination by school systems, and a predominately black American Legion post which had been raided by police, alleging racially-based police abuse. Phelps' law firm obtained settlements for some clients.[14] Phelps also sued then-President Ronald Reagan over Reagan's appointment of a U.S. ambassador to the Vatican, alleging this violated separation of church and state. The case was dismissed by the U.S. district court.[14] Phelps' law firm, staffed by himself and family members also represented non-white Kansans in discrimination actions against Kansas Power and Light, Southwestern Bell, and the Topeka City Attorney, and represented two female professors alleging discrimination in Kansas universities.[13]

In the 1980s Fred Phelps received awards from the Greater Kansas City Chapter of Blacks in Government and the Bonner Springs branch of the NAACP for his work on behalf of black clients.[15]

Phelps Chartered also won one of the first reverse discrimination cases.[16]


Disbarment
A formal complaint was filed against Fred W. Phelps, Sr. on November 8, 1977 by the Kansas State Board of Law Examiners for his conduct during a lawsuit against a court reporter named Carolene Brady. Brady had failed to have a court transcript ready for Phelps on the day he asked for it; though it did not affect the outcome of the case for which Phelps had requested the transcript, Phelps still requested $22,000 in damages from her. In the ensuing trial, Phelps called Brady to the stand, declared her a hostile witness, and then cross-examined her for nearly a week, during which he accused her of being a "slut," tried to introduce testimony from former boyfriends whom Phelps wanted to subpoena, and accused her of a variety of perverse sexual acts, ultimately reducing her to tears on the stand.[17] Phelps lost the case; according to the Kansas Supreme Court:

The trial became an exhibition of a personal vendetta by Phelps against Carolene Brady. His examination was replete with repetition, badgering, innuendo, belligerence, irrelevant and immaterial matter, evidencing only a desire to hurt and destroy the defendant. The jury verdict didn't stop the onslaught of Phelps. He was not satisfied with the hurt, pain, and damage he had visited on Carolene Brady.[17]

In an appeal, Phelps prepared affidavits swearing to the court that he had eight witnesses whose testimony would convince the court to rule in his favor. Brady, in turn, obtained sworn, signed affidavits from the eight people in question, all of whom said that Phelps had never contacted them and that they had no reason to testify against Brady; Phelps had committed perjury.[17]

On July 20, 1979, Fred Phelps was permanently disbarred from practicing law in the state of Kansas,[17] but continued to practice in the Federal courts.

In 1985, nine Federal judges filed a disciplinary complaint against Phelps and five of his children, alleging false accusations against the judges. In 1989, the complaint was settled, with Phelps agreeing to permanently stop practicing in Federal court, and two of his children suspended for periods of six months and one year.[18]


Activities and statements
Main article: Westboro Baptist Church
All of Phelps' recent actions were in conjunction with the congregation of Westboro Baptist Church; see Westboro's notable activities.


Religious beliefs
Phelps says he is an old school Baptist, which includes John Calvin's doctrine of unconditional election, the belief that God has elected certain people for salvation before birth. He says that almost nobody is a member of the elect, and furthermore that he and the members of his congregation (mostly his family) are the only members of the elect, because they are the only ones not afraid to publish the current relevant application of the word of God — in particular, that "God hates ."

During 1993–94 interviews with the Topeka Capital-Journal, the four Phelps children (out of thirteen, Mark, Nate, Katherine and Dotty) who had left the church asserted that their father's religious beliefs were either nonexistent to begin with or have dwindled down to nearly nothing. They insist that Westboro actually serves to enable a paraphilia of Phelps, wherein he is literally addicted to hatred. This statement would serve as the inspiration for the title of the book about Phelps' life, which was never published due to fear of lawsuit, but became public when the author sued the publisher, who maintained that it was a work for hire and therefore could not be taken to another publisher, attaching a copy of the manuscript to the suit as an exhibit thus making it public record. The record was eventually sealed, although the document had already been released over the Internet.

Two of his sons, Mark and Nate, insist that the church is actually a carefully planned cult that allows Phelps to see himself as a demigod, wielding absolute control over the lives of his family and congregants, essentially turning them into slaves that he can use for the sole purpose of gratifying his every whim and acting as the structure for his delusion that he is the only righteous man on Earth.[19] In 1995, Mark Phelps wrote a letter to the people of Topeka to this effect; it was run in the Topeka Capital-Journal.[20] The children's claim is partially backed up by B.H. McAllister, the Baptist minister who ordained Phelps. McAllister said in a 1993 interview that Phelps developed a delusion wherein he was one of the few people on Earth worthy of God's grace and that everyone else in the world was going to Hell, and that salvation or damnation could be directly obtained by either aligning with or opposing Phelps. As of 2006, Phelps maintains this belief.[19] Phelps and his family picket up to approximately six locations every day, including many in Topeka and some events farther afield. On Sundays, up to 15 churches may receive pickets.[21]


The Laramie Project

Phelps giving an interview about The Laramie Project in 2000Many of Westboro's pickets revolve around the play The Laramie Project; Phelps says he consistently sends his followers across the country to picket every performance he finds out about.[22][23] The play documents the reaction of the people of Laramie, Wyoming to the murder of Matthew Shepard.

Phelps is a character in the play and is portrayed negatively. When the play was made into a movie by HBO, (The Laramie Project), Phelps and the WBC traveled to New York City to picket the HBO home offices with signs reading "United You'll Fall."[24]

“ The Laramie Project is a tawdry bit of banal *** melodrama – sordid, cheap, unaffecting, drearily predictable – without the least artistic or literary merit or redeeming social value. Indeed, its only purpose is to promote sinful, soul-damning by playing on the sick, maudlin emotions of doomed, godless America and thereby to recruit ill-bred teenagers to lives of sin, shame, disease, death and hell.[25] ”


Political views
Phelps' stated political views and activities are primarily driven by his view that the United States is, "a sodomite nation of flag-worshiping idolators."[26]


Anti-gay
In 2005, Phelps' granddaughter Jael was an unsuccessful candidate for Topeka's City Council; Jael was seeking to replace Tiffany Muller, the first openly gay member of the Topeka City Council.[27]

The family started protesting homosexuality in the late 1980s after Shirley Phelps-Roper’s then-toddler son was allegedly propositioned by a homosexual in a Topeka park, according to Phelps-Roper.[13]


Anti-Semitic
Phelps was cited by the Anti-Defamation League for his numerous anti-semitic comments[28]: On General Wesley Clark and John Kerry (of Jewish descent):

"His -rejecting, God-hating Jew blood bubbled to the surface. Yes, like his boss [John] Kerry, Clark is a Jew….That these two turds are Jews would not matter—except when they ask for supreme political power & spit in the Face of God, pushing for same-sex marriage, threatening to bring down God’s wrath on us as on Sodom—then some inquiries are in order. Beware! ‘Jews killed the Lord , and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men; forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved, to fill up their sins always; for the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost.” 1 Thess. 2:14.’ Apostate & Jews certain to bring God’s wrath.”"

"Homosexuals and Jews dominated Nazi Germany...just as they now dominate this doomed U.S.A....The Jews now wander the earth despised, smitten with moral and spiritual blindness by a divine judicial stroke...And god has smitten Jews with a certain unique madness, whereby they are an astonishment of heart, a proverb, and a byword (the butt of jokes and ridicule) among all peoples whither the Lord has driven and scattered them...Jews, thus perverted, out of all proportion to their numbers energize the militant sodomite agenda...The American Jews are the real Nazis (misusers and abusers of governmental power) who hate God and the rule of law."


Anti-Swedish
Phelps and the Westboro church run the website godhatessweden.com. Phelps has declared that the heavy Swedish losses in the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake, initially overestimated to be near 20,000, were God's punishment of Sweden for the promotion of homosexuality. In particular, Phelps has criticized Sweden's prosecution of Åke Green. Phelps' website depicts a granite monument designed by himself that claims that Green is a Christian martyr and Phelps has announced plans to erect copies of the monument throughout the United States.[29]

In response, Green has called Phelps "appalling" and "extremely unpleasant",[30].


Anti-Irish
In 2003 Phelps turned his attacks on Ireland. In a sermon preached on July 29 2007 in which he returned to the topic, he told his congregation that he had launched a website [godhatesireland.com] to "expose Ireland as the Emerald (now Pink) Isle of the Sodomite Damned, –saturated with and dykes at every level of society and government." His most recent tirade was triggered off when the Literary and Historical Society, a debating society in University College Dublin invited Phelps to participate in a debate on homosexual adoption. He told his congregation that in the past he had

"warned America about Ireland’s sad, sick, sodomite culture and *** Irish Senator David Norris’s case before the European Court of Human (i.e., ***) Rights. (Incidentally, the “Openly-Gay” *** Irish Senator Norris was represented before that Strasbourg European *** Court, by the famous Dyke-Enabler and Irish President, Mary Robinson.) We warned that WBC has had lots of experience with Ireland’s militant sodomite citizenry, steeped for many decades in ignorant, blind, idolatrous Catholicism, belching out their vile fagspeak, slander, and blasphemy against God and His Word – cursing WBC members as guests on Dublin talk-radio shows. Remember, Martin Luther said Catholic churches, seminaries and monasteries are nothing but sodomite whorehouses filled with unnatural brute beasts and devils. We warned that the very leprechauns of Ireland are likely to be !"[31]
Phelps' attack on former president Mary Robinson and Senator David Norris, both widely respected figures, drew ridicule in Ireland.


Against Flag Idolatry
Fred Phelps refers to the United States as "A sodomite nation of flag-worshiping idolators."

"Military funerals are pagan orgies of idolatrous blasphemy where they pray to the dunghill gods of Sodom and play taps to a fallen fool, they shall not lament for him, saying, Ah my brother! or, Ah sister! they shall not lament for him, saying, Ah lord! or, Ah his glory! He shall be buried with the burial of an ***, drawn and cast forth beyond the gates of Jerusalem." Jer. 22:l5-19. [32]


Freedom of Speech
Phelps is critical of laws against hate speech that make it illegal to preach that homosexuality is sinful. Hate speech laws in Sweden, resulting in the trial of Pastor Åke Green, and Canada are given particular emphasis by Phelps. Phelps has used the term "homo-fascist" to describe countries with such laws.[33]


Democratic Party
Phelps has run in various Kansas Democratic Party primaries five times, but has never won. These included races for governor in 1990, 1994, and 1998, receiving about 15% of the vote in 1998.[34] In the 1992 Democratic Party primary for U.S. Senate, Phelps received 31% of the vote [35] Phelps ran for mayor of Topeka in 1993 [36] and 1997. [37]


Support for Al Gore
Phelps supported Al Gore in the 1988 Democratic Party primary election.[38] In his 1984 Senate race, Gore opposed a "gay bill of rights" and stated that homosexuality was not something that "society should affirm".[39] Phelps has stated that he supported Gore because of these earlier comments.[40] According to Phelps, members of the Westboro Baptist Church helped run Gore's 1988 campaign in Kansas. Phelps' son, Fred Phelps Jr., hosted a Gore fundraiser, which Al and Tipper Gore attended, at his home in Topeka.[10][40] Fred Phelps, Jr. served as a Gore delegate to the 1988 Democratic National Convention.[40][41] Gore spokesman Dag Vega declined to comment; "We are not dignifying those stories with a response."[42]


Opposition to Al Gore and Bill Clinton
During the 1992 presidential campaign, Phelps protested Hillary Clinton during a campaign speech in support of the Clinton-Gore ticket at the University of Kansas on October 14, 1992. In Bill Clinton's second presidential campaign, Phelps and the Westboro church also opposed Clinton and Gore because of the administration's support for gay rights. The entire Westboro congregation picketed a 1997 inaugural ball[43], denouncing Gore as a "famous *** pimp."[44] In 1998, Westboro picketed the funeral of Gore's father, screaming vulgarities at Gore and telling him, "your dad's in Hell."[44]

In the aftermath of the election, in an incident that would be repeated years later when Phelps circulated a petition to outlaw homosexual work protection, many of the Kansas Democrats who had cast votes for Phelps came forward to express their distaste for him. They said that Phelps had lied about his intentions to numerous constituents, using double-talk and fuzzy language to confuse them; neglected to mention his stances on race, religion, and homosexuality, and campaigned mainly on the platform of a "good ol' boy" Southern gentleman and retired lawyer unfairly prosecuted by the system.[45]


Fidel Castro
Phelps has repeatedly championed Fidel Castro for Castro's stance against homosexuality; in 1998 Harper's magazine published a letter Phelps sent to Castro in which he praised Castro and lambasted the U.S. In 2004, when a pro-homosexual Cuban refugee announced plans to travel to Cuba, Phelps sent another letter to Castro "warning" him of the man's plans and requesting travel visas for a group of WBC congregants so that they could follow the refugee around Havana with signs bearing anti-U.S. and anti-homosexual slogans.


Saddam Hussein
In 2003, before the fall of Saddam Hussein during the Iraq War, Phelps wrote Hussein a letter praising his regime for being, in his opinion, "the only Muslim state that allows the Gospel of our Lord to be freely and openly preached on the streets."[46] Furthermore, he stated that he would like to send a delegation to Baghdad to "preach the Gospel" for one week. Hussein granted permission, and a group of WBC congregants traveled to Iraq to protest against the U.S. The WBC members stood on the streets of Baghdad holding signs condemning Bill and Hillary Clinton and anal sex.[47] After Saddam was hanged, Phelps released a video commentary that stated that both Saddam Hussein and Gerald Ford (who had died the same week) were now in Hell.


Arrests

United States
Phelps was first arrested in 1951 and found guilty of misdemeanor battery after attacking a Pasadena police officer. He has since been arrested for assault, battery, threats, trespassing, disorderly conduct, contempt of court, and several other charges; each time, he (along with Westboro and its other members) has filed suit against the city, the police, and the arresting officers. Though he has been able to avoid prison time, he has been convicted more than once:[48][49][50]

1994: Contempt of court[48]
1994: Two counts of assault (reduced to disorderly conduct on appeal)[49]
Phelps' 1995 conviction for assault and battery carried a five-year prison sentence, with a mandatory 18 months to be served before he became eligible for parole. Phelps fought to be allowed to remain free until his appeals process went through. Days away from being arrested and sent to prison, a judge ruled that Phelps had been denied a speedy trial and that he was not required to serve any time.[49][50]


Canada
Phelps has also claimed that his congregation, along with him, have been arrested in Canada for hate speech.[51] This prompted the founding of "Godhatescanada.com." He has also strongly opposed the legalization of same-sex marriage in Canada and Canada's Supreme Court.


People targeted by Fred Phelps
Main article: Targets of Westboro Baptist Church
Since the early 1990s, Phelps has targeted several individuals and groups in the public eye for criticism by the Westboro Baptist Church after their deaths. Prominent examples include President Ronald Reagan, Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist, National Football League star Reggie White, The Church of of Latter-day Saints, Islam and Muslims, murdered college student Matthew Shepard, the late children's television host Fred Rogers, Jews [52], Catholics, Swedes, the Irish and US soldiers killed in Iraq. He has also targeted Joseph Estabrook Elementary School in Lexington, Massachusetts. He has recently stated that he will target the late Rev. Jerry Falwell's funeral.[53]

Shirley Phelps, a daughter of Fred Phelps, appeared on Fox News, defending the WBC and attacking homosexuality.[54]

In a recent video sermon, Phelps targeted comedians Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert, claiming that they are among the "scoffers and mockers" referred to in the Bible, and used them as evidence that we are in the "last of the Last Days." He was particularly critical of Colbert's Emmy Awards show performance, in which Colbert, tongue-in-cheek, called the Hollywood audience "Godless sodomites."[55] He compared Colbert's comments to the "blaspheming comics" of Sodom and Gomorrah and referred to both Colbert and Stewart as "sacrilegious buffoons."

Phelps' followers have repeatedly protested the University of Kansas School of Law's graduation ceremonies. They have also, on at least one occasion (May 1999), protested the graduation ceremonies for the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.[citation needed]

In August of 2007, in the wake of the Minneapolis I-35W bridge collapse, Phelps and his congregation have stated that they will protest at the funerals of the victims. In a statement, the church said that Minneapolis is the "land of the Sodomite damned." [56]


Efforts to discourage funeral protests

Legislation
On May 24, 2006, the United States House and Senate passed the Respect for America's Fallen Heroes Act, which President Bush signed five days later. The act bans protests within 300 feet of national cemeteries — which numbered 122 when the bill was signed — from an hour before a funeral to an hour after it. Violators face up to a $100,000 fine and up to a year in prison.[57]

As of April 2006, at least 17 states have banned protests near funeral sites immediately before and after ceremonies, or are considering it. These are: Illinois,[58][59] Indiana,[60] Iowa,[61] Kansas,[62] Kentucky,[63] Louisiana,[64] Maryland,[65]Michigan,[66] Missouri,[67] which passed the law, and Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma,[68] South Carolina,[69] South Dakota, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.[70] Florida increased the penalty for disturbing military funerals, amending a previous ban on the disruption of lawful assembly.[71]

These bans have not been uncontested. Bart McQueary, having protested with Phelps on at least three occasions,[72] filed a lawsuit in federal court challenging the constitutionality of Kentucky's funeral protest ban. On September 26, 2006, a district court agreed and entered an injunction prohibiting the ban from being enforced.[72] In the opinion, the judge wrote:

Sections 5(1)(b) and (c) restrict substantially more speech than that which would interfere with a funeral or that which would be so obtrusive that funeral participants could not avoid it. Accordingly, the provisions are not narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest but are instead unconstitutionally overbroad.
The American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit in Missouri on behalf of Phelps and Westboro Baptist Church to overturn the ban on the picketing of soldier's funerals.[73] The ACLU of Ohio also filed a similar lawsuit.[74]


Other responses
To counter the Phelps protests at funerals of soldiers, a group of motorcycle riders has formed the Patriot Guard Riders to provide a nonviolent, volunteer buffer between the protesters and mourners.[57]

In addition, when Phelps and his Westboro followers have shown up at Walter Reed Army Medical Center or other locales in the Washington area, they have been actively protested by the DC Chapter of Free Republic, a conservative website.

On June 5, 2006, Albert Snyder, the father of Lance Cpl. Matthew A. Snyder, who was killed in the line of duty on March 3, 2006, and whose funeral was picketed by Phelps, sued Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church, Inc., in the U.S. District Court in Maryland, for defamation, invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The lawsuit also involves accusations made on Phelps' websites that Mr. and Mrs. Snyder "raised [Matthew] for the devil" and taught him "to defy his Creator, to divorce, and to commit adultery".[75] On October 31, 2007, a jury returned a $2.9m verdict in favor of the plaintiff.[76] Later, the jury returned in the afternoon with its decision to award $6 million in punitive damages for invasion of privacy and $2 million for causing emotional distress.[77]

[BrAinPaiNt]

KILK...

Kooks I'd Like to Kill... ;)

Byrd and Phelps are high on the list.:laugh2:

[jterrell]

Just about anything, and yes Freedom of Speech is amongst those things, is ridiculous if taken to an extreme.

That family had a right to bury their son in a dignified service and place him in the ground without ignorant people pushing their agenda on them.

Words should have consequences.

Growing up I quickly came to despise the weaselly people who talked a lot of offensive smack and never wanted to back it up. As kids you just punch them in the mouth but as adults we put up with way too much of that nonsense.

I am for more punching in the mouth:)
lol.

We all have freedoms and one person's freedom of speech doesn't super-cede other people's freedoms in every other area.

What's worse is half that church is prolly jarring to ghey pron at night.
It's like the Repub congressmen trolling toilets while denouncing it as unnatural by day.

If you aren't gay why care? There are lots of sins out there thus even if you believe it a sin there is no need to single out one.

That church would fit right in over in Taliban-land.

[AtlCB]

Byrd and Phelps are high on the list.:laugh2:

:confused: I thought you were hoping that the fellow West Virginian would run, so you could vote for him. :D

[iceberg]

Define "hate speech" for me then.

Look, I'm not defending them but rather their right to say something unpopular.

As far as them only saying this to get hit and sue, I think that's far from the truth. Either they truly believe their drivel or I think their goal is to make religious people everywhere look foolish. How does one go from a civil rights lawyer and Al Gore delegate to the Democratic National Convention to a caricature?

I'm stunned that I seem to be alone here in my support for the Constitution.

the constitution is not in question - cowards hiding behind it is.

just because we have a freedom of speech doesn't mean we can say whatever we want, when we want.

you can't scream FIRE in a crowded theater.

what if someone were mad at you and they sat outside your home - in the public street - and cussed you out every chance they get?

how come you're so focused on the "rights" of those who abuse them and not the right of the family to have a quiet funeral? how come their rights must be slaughtered so hatemongers can spout their crap?

sorry - rights work both ways and you can't take one set away to give to another and call it our "constitution".

[StanleySpadowski]

the constitution is not in question - cowards hiding behind it is.

just because we have a freedom of speech doesn't mean we can say whatever we want, when we want.

you can't scream FIRE in a crowded theater.

what if someone were mad at you and they sat outside your home - in the public street - and cussed you out every chance they get?

how come you're so focused on the "rights" of those who abuse them and not the right of the family to have a quiet funeral? how come their rights must be slaughtered so hatemongers can spout their crap?

sorry - rights work both ways and you can't take one set away to give to another and call it our "constitution".


Unfortunately, one would be hard pressed to find the "right" to a quiet funeral in the Constitution.

In your "cussing in the street" scenario, as long as the person wasn't violating any noise or other ordinances, there's very little I could do about it. Now in my state, swearing in front of minor has been found to be illegal and there are other laws that may apply but if they were within the letter of the law, that's my tough luck. I'd rather that be the case though than having a jury decide what I may or may not say and when I may say it.


I just find it sickening that so many are adopting the Ivory Tower mindset that freedom of speech only matters when I agree with the speech.

[BrAinPaiNt]

:confused: I thought you were hoping that the fellow West Virginian would run, so you could vote for him. :D

I have never voted for that racist old fart.

[BrAinPaiNt]

I just find it sickening that so many are adopting the Ivory Tower mindset that freedom of speech only matters when I agree with the speech.

In this case, for me, it does. Hey I don't mind being a hypocrite once in a while.:D

However I would rather it be taken care of by having the states or towns pass their own laws so it would not get this far.

[Eric_Boyer]

Are these funerals held on private ground or public grounds? I'm assuming because they are fallen soldiers that it is Federal Property?

[jterrell]

Unfortunately, one would be hard pressed to find the "right" to a quiet funeral in the Constitution.

In your "cussing in the street" scenario, as long as the person wasn't violating any noise or other ordinances, there's very little I could do about it. Now in my state, swearing in front of minor has been found to be illegal and there are other laws that may apply but if they were within the letter of the law, that's my tough luck. I'd rather that be the case though than having a jury decide what I may or may not say and when I may say it.


I just find it sickening that so many are adopting the Ivory Tower mindset that freedom of speech only matters when I agree with the speech.

I do understand what you are saying to a certain extent and obviously understand the ACLU take here as well. But we do have more than one law and they are meant to work to protect us from things such as malicious hate-speech.

There is tons of law to regulate and corral free speech out there because we have failed to direct the law in a common sense fashion. We have free speech areas and I am fairly certain none of those are near a casket.

The text of the amendment is:
“ Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

And we have seen at least 100 cases where the freedom of speech has been challenged in US Federal courts.

I would term Phelps action under the "actual malice" rules which generally only apply to freedom of the press.

[StanleySpadowski]

Are these funerals held on private ground or public grounds? I'm assuming because they are fallen soldiers that it is Federal Property?


Phelps and co. roll into the fallen soldier's hometown then set up camp on public property or occasionally on private property with permission wherever they can get the most attention.

They don't attend the funeral, service, viewing....they make *******es of themselves in the same town/area as it.

[burmafrd]

Its just as STUPID to defend everyone for doing anything as it is to defend NO one for for anything. I call BS on those ivory tower types like stanley who think like they do. That is the kind of attitude that has created the media we have today who feel they can pretty much say anything they want against anyone in the public arena and there are no consequences. There are smudges on all the Bill of Rights. From Lincoln suspending the writ of habeas corpus to Roosevelt allowing the internment camps for Japanese Americans.
And guess what? the constituition survived. Extreme measures to take care of extreme situations. That is what this court case was: an extreme measure to take care of extremists. That is what GITMO is. Those that whine and cry about such are those blind to the forest by trying to keep track of each tree. Personally, I would take Phelps out and gut shoot him and leave him in the gutter to bleed to death.

[jterrell]

Phelps and co. roll into the fallen soldier's hometown then set up camp on public property or occasionally on private property with permission wherever they can get the most attention.

They don't attend the funeral, service, viewing....they make *******es of themselves in the same town/area as it.

They make sure they are in position to be seen by those attending the funeral with their chants and picket signs. They choose locations based on how close they can get to the actual grave site.

In Leavenworth they are apparently less than a football field away from the actual burial site during service.

[StanleySpadowski]

They make sure they are in position to be seen by those attending the funeral with their chants and picket signs. They choose locations based on how close they can get to the actual grave site.

In Leavenworth they are apparently less than a football field away from the actual burial site during service.


You worded it much better than I but that's what I meant.

I would argue that they don't put themselves in the area that's most disruptive but rather the area that garners them the most attention but why quibble.

[iceberg]

Unfortunately, one would be hard pressed to find the "right" to a quiet funeral in the Constitution.

In your "cussing in the street" scenario, as long as the person wasn't violating any noise or other ordinances, there's very little I could do about it. Now in my state, swearing in front of minor has been found to be illegal and there are other laws that may apply but if they were within the letter of the law, that's my tough luck. I'd rather that be the case though than having a jury decide what I may or may not say and when I may say it.

I just find it sickening that so many are adopting the Ivory Tower mindset that freedom of speech only matters when I agree with the speech.

sorry - "rights" work both ways. i *do* have a right to say my last peace to my departed in my own way. you *do not* have the right to heckle me because you want to believe it's your right to do so.

again, why must i curtail my rights so those who abuse it and hide behind the constitution as a wide stroke of right and wrong.

obviously the judicial system and their own knowledge of the constitution is different than yours because of what they found.

do i or do i not have the right for "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"? if i do, then that would *not* include those infringing upon it.

in the end there needs to be a mutual respect on *both* sides. but it always seems the ones who abuse that right are the first to fall behind the constitution as it being their "Right" to do so.

i disagree with you on this one and *not* because i need everyone to agree with me but because like bp was saying, the "hate" clause should come into play sooner or later.

it's not my right to stand outside a church populated by blacks and burn crosses, defame them with the N word, and so forth. even just to yell racist remarks at them. is it?

what about "fire" in a crowded theater when your "right" puts the safey of countless others in danger? do you have *that* right?

[CanadianCowboysFan]

My theory is that the leaders of the cult involved in this thing are probably gay or lesbian but are desperately trying to hide it. Like an impotent beach boy flexing his muscles at the beach.

[trickblue]

My theory is that the leaders of the cult involved in this thing are probably gay or lesbian but are desperately trying to hide it. Like an impotent beach boy flexing his muscles at the beach.

Almost all of them are family... it's incestuous...

[StanleySpadowski]

obviously the judicial system and their own knowledge of the constitution is different than yours because of what they found.




No, a bunch of people too stupid to get out of jury duty made this decision, not the judicial system. This judgement will almost definitely not stand on appeal.

That's the only benefit in the instance. Hopefully these loons will be spending their time tied up in the courts instead of disrespecting heroes.

[silverbear]

Unfortunately, one would be hard pressed to find the "right" to a quiet funeral in the Constitution.

Tell me, Stan, if I throw a noisy party at my house, and the cops come after the neighbors call to complain, are they trampling on my constitutional rights to free speech??

I just find it sickening that so many are adopting the Ivory Tower mindset that freedom of speech only matters when I agree with the speech.

I don't care what view you're espousing, when you disrupt a family's funeral service, you're WRONG...

Period... and if the law doesn't say that clearly, then the law is what's wrong, and ought to be changed...

[StanleySpadowski]

Tell me, Stan, if I throw a noisy party at my house, and the cops come after the neighbors call to complain, are they trampling on my constitutional rights to free speech??



I don't care what view you're espousing, when you disrupt a family's funeral service, you're WRONG...

Period... and if the law doesn't say that clearly, then the law is what's wrong, and ought to be changed...



Well, old friend, I don't think the chipmunks or porcupines are gonna complain about the noise you make in the woods but unless your area has a noise ordinance, they're probably SOL.

As I said, I'm probably as revolted by these clowns as anyone but I think the laws that are currently being passed are unconstitutional and wouldn't be surprised that if these tools push it long enough are found such.

The best way to shut them up are through noise ordinances so they can't chant, remember the Constitution says they have a right to say what they say but it doesn't say they have a right to say it loudly.

They'd then just show up with signs but that could be handled with "parade" permit laws. Any sign larger than x by x constitutes a "parade" and they must have a permit to hold a parade. There's a one month review before issuing permits but the permits are good for x number of years.

That would probably pass Constitutional muster and these tools would effectively be shut up.

[Garland powerplay]

Send them to Iran this is the same religious rhetoric that is over there.

[jterrell]

Well, old friend, I don't think the chipmunks or porcupines are gonna complain about the noise you make in the woods but unless your area has a noise ordinance, they're probably SOL.

As I said, I'm probably as revolted by these clowns as anyone but I think the laws that are currently being passed are unconstitutional and wouldn't be surprised that if these tools push it long enough are found such.

The best way to shut them up are through noise ordinances so they can't chant, remember the Constitution says they have a right to say what they say but it doesn't say they have a right to say it loudly.

They'd then just show up with signs but that could be handled with "parade" permit laws. Any sign larger than x by x constitutes a "parade" and they must have a permit to hold a parade. There's a one month review before issuing permits but the permits are good for x number of years.

That would probably pass Constitutional muster and these tools would effectively be shut up.

The Constitution has lots of paragraphs and this is but a partial sentence.
Many forms of speech and instances of public demonstration have been ruled to NOT be protected. Idiots like this insure we go further down that road.

This Amendment gets all this love because it effects the media so they talk about it ad nauseum. But it's certainly not any more relevant than any other section and its rights not anymore sacrosanct than any other rights presented in the constitution.

Were I a prosecutor I'd argue this interferes with the religious rites of a funeral and are in fact BREAKING the 1st amendment on that ground.

[silverbear]

Well, old friend, I don't think the chipmunks or porcupines are gonna complain about the noise you make in the woods

ROTFLMAO!!!

OK, it had to happen some time-- the Bear has done been beat in an argument... scored a clean knockout, you did...

Biggest laugh I've had in a long time, wild man, and I thank you for it...

[burmafrd]

Too many think the first ammendment says freedom from religion. It really means that all have a right to practice whatever their religion is- as long as it does not impact on OTHERS rights. These POS were denying, or trying to deny, that family's right to have their service over their son free of interference from others.

[jterrell]

Too many think the first ammendment says freedom from religion. It really means that all have a right to practice whatever their religion is- as long as it does not impact on OTHERS rights. These POS were denying, or trying to deny, that family's right to have their service over their son free of interference from others.

when I profess my deep-seated love for the pants of Jessica Alba its called stalking....

:laugh2:

we can't simply say anything at anytime, anywhere.

there is freedom of speech than a violation of others rights.

[Eric_Boyer]

Phelps and co. roll into the fallen soldier's hometown then set up camp on public property or occasionally on private property with permission wherever they can get the most attention.

They don't attend the funeral, service, viewing....they make *******es of themselves in the same town/area as it.

In which case these s shouldn't lose a lawsuit I guess.