I truly feel that if this guy loses the case when it goes to the Supreme Court, you can kiss that church goodbye.
And yes, I think he loses. While what they're doing is disgusting, and assuredly endangering themselves, it's protected speech.
He's absolutely right that something IS going to happen eventually. It might not be him, despite his seemingly veiled threats, but someone will step up and do it.
These nutjobs cannot continue to protest at people's funerals and not expect repercussions.
All it takes is a protest at a funeral where some parent or family member feels like they have nothing left to live for, and goodbye church members.
You can only poke a bear with a stick for so long before it rips your head off.
I just hope whoever does it, does so while yelling: "This is God's will!" And by the church's own logic, he/she would be right.
Free Speech versus Inevitable Violence
Isn't there some law about "inciting violence?" Doesn't that imply that, according to law, violence can be provoked?
That's the guy's argument.
Unfortunately, they aren't inciting violence. Sure, yelling things like "Your son deserved to die because he's gay" at that person's funeral might incite violence, but that's not their intent.
We all know that is going to be the end result, but the law doesn't see it that way. (currently)
He did win the first trial, but lost in appeal, so we'll see how the Supreme Court rules.
"Happy slaves are the worst enemies of freedom." - Marie Von Ebner
"It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies..." - Orwell
"It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies..." - Orwell
Margie Jean Phelps, one of Fred Phelps' daughters and an attorney,
Figures. There is a legal mind behind it. I'm sure she advises her daddy on how to do things just inside the law. I think the whole bunch should be shot.
Figures. There is a legal mind behind it. I'm sure she advises her daddy on how to do things just inside the law. I think the whole bunch should be shot.
In marriage there is always one person right. And the other one is the husband.
Wait a sec. Going out in public, in front of their relatives, & verbally condemning the deceased to an afterlife (which a couple billion people allegedly believe in) in a completely baseless & insulting way ISN'T asking for violence to happen? Even if you're just honestly stating your beliefs, unless you're also 100% ignorant of the culture in which you live, you're also inviting an ass kicking. Even Jesus finessed the Romans every now & again. He didn't go prance around in front of the dead dudes' families & tell them about how they're going to hell.Leisher wrote:Unfortunately, they aren't inciting violence. Sure, yelling things like "Your son deserved to die because he's gay" at that person's funeral might incite violence, but that's not their intent.
Now, whether or not you can take away someone's right to invite an ass-beating ... probably not.
Diogenes of Sinope: "It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
Yeah, I'm with Malcolm, I could very easily see their speech as being inciteful regardless of what they claim to be their purpose.
I mean, if I were walking down the street and yelled "NIGGER, NIGGER, NIGGER" cuz I like the sound of the word, it could still be inciteful.
There's a grey area between directly inciteful speech ("Grab your gun, let's go kill Bob") and indirectly inciteful speech (outrageous, offensive). Sounds like the courts (1 win, 1 loss) have the same issue with the grey area.
I mean, if I were walking down the street and yelled "NIGGER, NIGGER, NIGGER" cuz I like the sound of the word, it could still be inciteful.
There's a grey area between directly inciteful speech ("Grab your gun, let's go kill Bob") and indirectly inciteful speech (outrageous, offensive). Sounds like the courts (1 win, 1 loss) have the same issue with the grey area.
It's not me, it's someone else.
You could easily make a case that lots of talk "incites violence." On one hand, he can say whatever he believes. On the other, someone may elect to shut him the fuck up one day. If the reverend or any of his flock ever get physically assaulted & hurt, someone ought to take into account their history of doing this type of thing repeatedly.
Some protesters should stand outside their church with a 100-foot graphic banner of Jesus & the apostles ass-fucking each other in a gay orgy. We'll see how long it takes before god's army throws the first punch.
Some protesters should stand outside their church with a 100-foot graphic banner of Jesus & the apostles ass-fucking each other in a gay orgy. We'll see how long it takes before god's army throws the first punch.
Diogenes of Sinope: "It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
We know they have a lawyer, I'm also guessing they video tape everything waiting for someone to beat them up.unkbill wrote:Maybe that is the problem. Nobody has hit one of them that. I would think if enough people smacked them around maybe they would be said to be inciting violence. Sign me up and everyone start whacking the pitiful fucks.
"Be bold, and mighty forces will come to your aid."
Even if you're just honestly stating your beliefs, unless you're also 100% ignorant of the culture in which you live, you're also inviting an ass kicking.
Yes, you are, but not in the eyes of the courts.
And don't get me wrong, I'm on the side of the folks who want them to shut up. If I woke up tomorrow to find that someone trapped their whole congregation in their church and burnt the thing down, my first thought would be: "What did they think was going to happen? They brought this upon themselves." I'd proceed to feel bad for their kids because they're the innocent victims, but wouldn't feel a microsecond of remorse for the adults.
And that's the gray area everyone is talking about and why this case is going to the Supreme Court.
Think about it this way, if this is inciting violence, then this is too.
It's going to be a very interesting decision.
P.S. Did everyone read the article? I didn't know this church was essentially one family...
"Happy slaves are the worst enemies of freedom." - Marie Von Ebner
"It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies..." - Orwell
"It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies..." - Orwell
The court's ruling might protect them from a government-sponsored beatdown, but that's it.
But that's the point I'm trying to make.
Everybody with an IQ above 2 knows that this is going to end with violence, but does the law see it that way?
Let's be honest, this group doesn't want to get mowed down by a vet with an M-16. They want attention sure, but not that kind of attention. They probably want someone to take a swing at them.
However, none of that has happened yet. Doesn't that prove the law as correct in ruling that their speech is NOT inciting violence?
Again, even if they all die at the hands of someone they pissed off, they don't WANT TO, thus they don't have intent. (And yes, I get that they might want someone to punch them...that's what makes this an interesting decision.)
Edited By Leisher on 1271183613
"Happy slaves are the worst enemies of freedom." - Marie Von Ebner
"It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies..." - Orwell
"It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies..." - Orwell
If they don't want to die, they shouldn't unnecessarily put themselves in situations where their lives are in jeopardy. Chronic stupidity is just a death wish by a different label.
Diogenes of Sinope: "It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
-
DoctorChaos
- Posts: 1579
- Joined: Fri Oct 08, 2004 7:58 pm
At the risk of being banned, first let me say what they are doing is morally reprehensible and disgusting. That said, I think they have the right to say it. We should not be legislating good taste. You and I know doing that is in poor taste and disrespectful, but we start with a slippery slope. Where do we say what is ok and not ok to say? As the old saying goes, God protects fools and small children. This is definitely the case here. The protesters were on public land and had a permit, right or wrong.
Wadda mean? Other people can read this?!