Illegal To Hurt Your Feelings?

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by BeenThinkin

Would that same procedure not work in our cemeteries as well? Or is that considered a public place? I don't think so! But who knows. How does the preacher that disrupts funerals get by with it?

BT

I think they usually are outside the cemeteries when they do the protests

[missourimary]

They have to be a certain number of feet away. But they make themselves very visible and audible to the mourners. They don't just do this locally, but also travel to other states to picket funerals. What they are doing is spiritually, emotionally, and mentally detrimental to others. And they are proud of it.

The ruling wouldn't prohibit Westboro from peaceably assembling at their church or somewhere several miles away. But it would keep them from coming to a funeral and saying they are happy someone died and that the person is in hell. That isn't freedom of religion or peaceable assembly... and it's NOT free speech. It's an exhibition used to gain media coverage (due to the controversial nature of the protests) in front of a captive audience-an audience that will not leave out of respect for their dead, and who is going to a one time event that they have paid dearly for. They can't very well leave the body with the funeral director and say "We'll be back later." If they did, it would cost them. But staying costs too, because the memory of signs that read "Thank God for dead troops," "You're in hell," and "God hates you," are indelibly stamped on their minds.

[whoami]

Originally Posted by missourimary

They have to be a certain number of feet away. But they make themselves very visible and audible to the mourners. They don't just do this locally, but also travel to other states to picket funerals. What they are doing is spiritually, emotionally, and mentally detrimental to others. And they are proud of it.

The ruling wouldn't prohibit Westboro from peaceably assembling at their church or somewhere several miles away. But it would keep them from coming to a funeral and saying they are happy someone died and that the person is in hell. That isn't freedom of religion or peaceable assembly... and it's NOT free speech. It's an exhibition used to gain media coverage (due to the controversial nature of the protests) in front of a captive audience-an audience that will not leave out of respect for their dead, and who is going to a one time event that they have paid dearly for. They can't very well leave the body with the funeral director and say "We'll be back later." If they did, it would cost them. But staying costs too, because the memory of signs that read "Thank God for dead troops," "You're in hell," and "God hates you," are indelibly stamped on their minds.

I know. What they do is horrendous, and not at all what liberty is supposed to be about. But I'm afraid that if laws or legal precedents are set to prevent them, it will take another chunk out of the freedom of good people who would never consider doing such a thing. Laws seem to have a way of being used against people who are the exact opposite of the people they were created for. It's very sad.

[missourimary]

I think that if Phelps is stopped, protests in front of abortion clinics may also be stopped. Pickets of workers in front of businesses would be different, because they are protesting something directly associated with them and that directly impacts them. The impact would very much depend on how the SC ruling was worded.

Phelps/Westboro protests: picket funerals of service members in order to gain free news coverage to make his voice heard. The protest is not about the individuals the protest is directed at, but their grief is monopolized on in order to protest another issue (homosexuality, for instance, even though the person who died was not homosexual).
protests at abortion clinics: protests in front of the clinic to make their voices heard. The protest is directly related to the supposed actions of the clinic and those entering the clinic.
Union pickets/worker pickets: workers protest in front of the company that hired them, asking for better working conditions, benefits, or compensation. The protest is directly related to the actions of the company and is meant to better their own situation.

I don't think the SC would block all three examples with one ruling. Their ruling, if worded a certain way, might open the door to future rulings against protesters at clinics, because the clinic being protested doesn't directly impact those who are picketing, but it would almost definitely not open the door for those speaking for their own rights as workers pickets do.
~JMO

[coadie]

Actually Phelps is a strong Democrat. he knows the line. He was awarded

OMAHA, Neb. | A judge’s final ruling overturning Nebraska’s flag-desecration law includes an order for the state to pay $8,000 in attorney’s fees to the Kansas church member who filed the lawsuit.

Read more: http://www.kansascity.com/2010/09/03...#ixzz117hvWpJs


Albert Snyder, the father of a Marine who was killed in March 2006 in Iraq, learned late last week that he had been ordered to pay legal costs for Westboro Baptist Church in connection with a lawsuit he brought against the congregation after some of its members picketed his son's funeral in March 2006 in Westminster, Md.

Late Friday, Snyder learned he would be liable to pay the legal costs of the appeal by the Westboro church and the Phelpses in the amount of $16,500, said his attorney, Sean E. Summers, of York, Pa., in a phone interview late Monday night.

[berkeley]

Freedom of speech... freedom to assemble... just have the right permit...

[missourimary]

Phelps sues and/or is sued by all kinds of people. He was an attorney for awhile. He was disbarred years ago, but with the understanding that his kids could still practice law. He sued a KS university for discriminating against his kids who were applying for law school, too. Phelps may or may not be a Democrat, but his party preference won't help him in KS. KS is a strongly Republican state. He is very familiar with the law, and he wins many of his cases. I'm not familiar with the NE flag desecration ruling. However, Mr Snyder won his case against Phelps on the first round. The case was appealed, and Mr Snyder lost on appeal. It has been accepted to be heard in the SC, but has not yet been heard. The second part of the article you cite is not part of the linked article. There is no date on the part of the second article, but it may be from March?

Interesting, isn't it, that what Phelps is awarded is attorneys fees, which are paid to his attorney children. At least some of the fees are cycled back to Westboro via tithes and offerings and the fees are used to pay for more protests.

Originally Posted by coadie

Actually Phelps is a strong Democrat. he knows the line. He was awarded

OMAHA, Neb. | A judge’s final ruling overturning Nebraska’s flag-desecration law includes an order for the state to pay $8,000 in attorney’s fees to the Kansas church member who filed the lawsuit.

Read more: http://www.kansascity.com/2010/09/03...#ixzz117hvWpJs


Albert Snyder, the father of a Marine who was killed in March 2006 in Iraq, learned late last week that he had been ordered to pay legal costs for Westboro Baptist Church in connection with a lawsuit he brought against the congregation after some of its members picketed his son's funeral in March 2006 in Westminster, Md.

Late Friday, Snyder learned he would be liable to pay the legal costs of the appeal by the Westboro church and the Phelpses in the amount of $16,500, said his attorney, Sean E. Summers, of York, Pa., in a phone interview late Monday night.

[missourimary]

Originally Posted by Berkley

Freedom of speech... freedom to assemble... just have the right permit...

There is no permit required in at least some states, to my knowledge.

[canam]

And an fyi: Bill Reilly said he would pay the fine, i believe.

[missourimary]

Here is more:
Westboro Baptist Church pastor and founder Fred Phelps and members of his congregation picketed Matthew's funeral, holding signs expressing anti-gay, anti-American, and anti-Catholic slogans, including "God hates you" and "You're going to hell."

Westboro Baptist Church also posted an essay on its website entitled "The Burden of Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew A. Snyder." In the essay, statements indicated that Albert and his wife “raised [Matthew] for the devil,” “RIPPED that body apart and taught Matthew to defy his Creator, to divorce, and to commit adultery,” “taught him how to support the largest pedophile machine in the history of the entire world, the Roman Catholic monstrosity,” and “taught Matthew to be an idolator.”
http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/snyder-v-phelps

At what point is something stated in the name of religion wrong? Should someone be able to issue false or misleading statements verbally or in writing about someone else in the name of religion? Could statements like the ones quoted above be considered persecution of another religion (Catholicism)?

Turning the tables, would you accept homosexuals coming to boycott a family funeral, holding signs that state "America hates Apostolics," and "Holy rollers to hell"? If groups of homosexuals came and held a demonstration in blatantly homosexual clothing and actions, in front of your church, would that be free speech? What if the most dearly loved child in your church just died of a sudden illness or injury and they came with signs saying that you killed that child? Free speech or not?

Our church was vandalized a few years ago. I remember the shock of seeing the words emblazoned on the wood and stone, how invaded we felt that our church would be damaged as it was. The vandalism cost hours of labor, but little expense to clean up. Was it vandalism, or simply someone exercising their right to free speech, to write "go to hell" or worse across our front doors?

The damage Phelps is doing doesn't cost more than the vandalism to our building did, outwardly. But the damage is there and has been done, all the same. A funeral is a sacred, one time event. How many times has someone lost a loved one and felt so encouraged when others told the person what a beautiful funeral it was and how well they did in "sending off" the loved one? How wrong to take a person's sacred time of mourning or celebration of a life lived and destroy it for personal gain and notoriety... especially in the name of religion.