I don't know if any one has been keeping up with the news as of late, but as of yesterday, a little church I have extreme hate for just lost big in the courts.

The church is Westboro Baptist Church, led by Fred Phelps. It is the same church that protest at our nations fallen military funerals and pronounce their hate for gays. To give the short list of their sickness.

From the news on the ruling.

“Our message has exploded all over the world,” a delighted Shirley Phelps-Roper said Thursday, a day after the church was ordered in Maryland to pay $10.9 million to a grieving father whose son’s military funeral was the target of the congregation’s frequent picketing campaigns.

Now onto the gist of the debate. Is what the members of Westboro doing covered as free speech, or is it nothing more then unlawful hate mongering?
Are there limits to free speech? Also is some speech so hateful that it should be punished?

Now in the mean time while you debate this... I will be doing the Happy Happy Joy Joy dance with the possibility that this may shut them down permanently!

Well there are laws about free speech being curtailed. I think its called protected speech I'm not sure. But anyway, here is waht you CANNOT say:

Sedition: This definiton is a little vague, but basically if you plot to overthrow the government, siad government can stop you.
Cause a Clear and Present Danger: You can't yell "fire" in a crowded thearter, or similar.
slander: can't falsely destroy someones reputation.
fighting words something that would cause a person to want to hit you (paraphrased that)

There are a few others, but I dont think they apply here. Anyway, heres what I think given those restrictions (which are vaguely remembered from freshman government class). By being at a military funeral, they are speaking agianst the government, but its hardly seditous. They do create a small danger of rioting, but msot people are sensible enough not too. But with fighting words, well there is a hairy issue there and I think that that is what a case against them being able to picket funerals could be made. Speaking out agaisnt gays is not slander, as set in several supreme court precedents, but doing so at a funeral could be slander.

So, long and short of it? Good riddance, and they probably were crossing the line at a legal level. They definitely were on an ethical one.

I hate what they were doing. I think it is extremely disrespectful. I think any person should have the decency to leave grieving families to bury their loved ones in peace, no matter what the circumstances.

That said, I am against the recent trend of picking certain opinions, labeling them "hate speech," and then criminalizing the act of speaking those opinions in a peaceful public assembly. That's exactly the sort of thing that freedom of speech and freedom of assembly are supposed to protect. You're not supposed to have to go to court for giving voice to unpopular opinions. Lately, people forget that. Lately, people seem to think they have the right to freedom from hearing or seeing things they don't like. I don't have freedom from hearing things I don't like; I have the freedom to rebut those ideas just as forcefully (provided that I remain peaceful while doing so).

As wrong as I think the Phelps clan and other hate mongers are, I think our courts and laws are going in the wrong direction lately. In trying to protect some people from hearing hurtful things, we are betraying the ideals on which this country was founded. I hate what the Phelps clan says, but I think the courts and laws are wrong. I think the Phelps clan has every right to assemble on public property and protest public policy (specifically policy related to gays and to the war), even if they do so in a controversial and out-and-out rude or hateful manner. Hate isn't (or shouldn't be) illegal; it's just hateful.

I agree with most of what Palabravampiress said, however I do think that in this particular case, the Westboro Baptist Church did venture into unprotected speech. I am almost libertarian on Freedom of Speech, meaning I think more should be free than less, that more freedom is never a bad thing. However, I recognize that when it comes to Speech, you can be deliberately harmful to another human, and that your right to speak doesn't mean they should be forced to hear it. Interrupting a funeral like that is beyond free speech, its intentionally making an ass out of yourself, its intentionally designed to get media attention, and to piss people off. They were trying to get someone to goad people. If they want to claim that God is killing American soldiers because of homosexuality, they can say that, in their own church, where the people that are hearing it choose to. Doing it at a funeral is not only disrespectful, but it deprives those attending the funeral of their right not to have to hear their intolerant message. Basically, it can be summed up in one sentence:

Just because you have a right to say it, doesn't mean I should be forced to hear it.

"Just because you have a right to say it, doesn't mean I should be forced to hear it."

Okay, but how do you really have the right to say it, then? The problem that I have with this "freedom from" idea is that I can't find it supported in the constitution, whereas I can find support for the "freedom to" angle. You don't have the freedom from hearing someone else's view, no matter how much you might dislike hearing it. That's not how it works. Where the balance comes in is that you have the freedom to refute that person's view. Just as you couldn't legally shut them up or make them say it in their churches or homes instead of in public, they can't shut you up when you refute them in public. At least, that's my understanding of how the constitution is supposed to work.

I think the difference here is that they are NOT simply using their freedom of speech. You can say whatever you want in the public arena, but a funeral is not a public arena, it's a private gathering. Those people were not simply asserting their opinion to assert their opinion, they were intentionally trying to get a reaction. I mean, you can picket an abortion clinic if you feel they are bad, but you can't go into the surgery area and picket in there. That's just terrible.

Annachibi, that is kind of how I was going to respond...people at a funeral aren't exactly in a position where they can just leave. They are there to to bury a loved one. Its not like leaving an area of a public park where someone is speaking on a soapbox. They are tied to that location until the duration of the funeral is over, and as annachibi points out, it is a private gathering, not a public meeting. When you are in private, your constitutional right to speech does not exist, and the courts have upheld this. Parents are allowed to tell their child that there are certain words he or she cannot say, can't they? Despite the existence of Freedom of Speech? I would also point out that the Consititution was specifically pointing to the press. Freedom of Speech, in its original context, was designed to prevent governments from being able to squash news stories it disagreed with. This came out of what they perceived was the British government controlling the press in the UK. It has been later applied to individual citizens, but it was not originally intended as such.

We know you are not allowed to shout fire in a movie theater just for the hell of it, as its unprotected. Why? Because shouting fire inside a movie theater (or other crowded building) could lead to panic, and people could get hurt. Really, a funeral isn't that different. People at a funeral are already walking an emotional edge, and would be far easier to incite than they would otherwise. I don't think anyone could argue that the Westboro Baptist Church (disbarred, the Baptist Church has no affiliation with them whatsoever) had good intentions, it is quite clear that they were there to cause trouble, to stir the pot. When you knowingly aggravate people who are more likely to be emotionally unstable, as they did, I don't think a case can be made against the WBC expecting the funeral guests to resort to violence against them. The WBC was attempting to to incite a confrontation, all for the benefit of the cameras. Freedom of Speech has no business with the intentional inciting of riots. Just because a riot did not occur, does not mean they weren't attempting to start one.

There is definite limits to free speech. I've heard of this family church thing. They've been giving 5 year old children signs that protest against gays. Do they have a right to say what they say? I hate to admit it, they do. The kids though? That isn't their speech, thats words been put in their mouths made to believe that gays truly are horribile. (Just so you know, I only saw a 5 minute video of them so I don't know totally everything.) To me you have to earn the freedom of speech. Go ahead, say your views, just don't bring a whole cloud storm behind it. Find a way to say it without angering or hurting anyone.

House Passes Thought Crime Prevention Bill
10-25-2007

`(2) VIOLENT RADICALIZATION- The term `violent radicalization' means the process of adopting or promoting an extremist belief system for the purpose of facilitating ideologically based violence to advance political, religious, or social change.

`(3) HOMEGROWN TERRORISM- The term `homegrown terrorism' means the use, planned use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual born, raised, or based and operating primarily within the United States or any possession of the United States to intimidate or coerce the United States government, the civilian population of the United States, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.

Maybe this new Bill may help your understanding in the who taketh away : http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bil...?bill=h110-1955

"Unlike previous anti-terror legislation, this bill specifically targets the civilian population of the United States and uses vague language to define homegrown terrorism. Amazingly, 404 of our elected representatives from both the Democrat and Republican parties voted in favor of this bill. There is little doubt that this bill is specifically targeting the growing patriot community that is demanding the restoration of the Constitution." :claw:

War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength

Double-plus good!

lets just say the phelps got whats coming to them, i think they are psycho personally....

on the other hand, lets not give the governments any chance of making up laws that will be potentially use to censoring its citizens for no good reasons what so ever.

Genius. Just genius.

What kind of Church that promote Hate.And just because we have free speech,don't mean you can say anything.They sound like a bunch of Ignorant people to me.Yes, some speech really do need Punished?

Here is what gets me. Those who have served, for the most part, recognize the fact that they are defending and willing to di for for those they srongly disagree with. That is admirable.

Those others, saying a lot of stupid crap? Well that is just an idiot saying a lot of stupid crap, plain and simple.

When I served, I could care less if people wanted to argue about me going to Iraq, Somolia, Panama, Haiti or sitting off the coast of what was Burma and ready to go in and kill them if they infringed upon people's right to exodus the country. Spit on me if I was alive, different story, that is assualt and I've a right to defend myself and back then, that pretty much included killing you.

Does Phelps have protected speech? Yes. Is hating a crime? If it is, we're boned. Because you see, we end up with a big problem with people hating haters and always complaining about them. I say let Phelps protest as hard as he can and as often as he can. And when the right circumstances are met, and he is rightfully choked to death by those biker dudes ( forgot the name of them but they go to all the military funerals to block his people), then let them off with a self-dense clause and the world finds itself a little balance.

Trust me, ask the right , intolerant atheist, and you'll hear about all churches promoting hate.

Did you all know that technically, even the KKK doesn't promote hate so much as they do an odd lifestyle of separation. They don't wanna be near people of color. Okay, maybe that is their thing and some black panthers wanna see all white people made slaves, and China and Korea still have issues with Japan and people who are mixed as a result of the world wars and some heinous Japanese soldiers, and some people think that if you dislike certain music or tv shows that you are "hating on them".

Hate is not a crime. It is a human feeling and emotion. A stupid one, but it is what it is