Welcome to ECCIE - Sign up today!

catnipdipper · 10-06-2010, 12:13 PM

Tough case before the Supreme Court involving the Phelps church.

At the same time here are some comments from Rush Limbaugh recently.

"he's a jackass"-Obama
"economic illiterate"
"economic ignoramus"
"neophyte little man child president"
"idiot where capitalism is concerned"
"imam child"

He was discussing the expiration of the tax cuts on the rich.

Tough sometimes to support free speech and I mean emotionally not legally.

nsafun05 · 10-06-2010, 12:38 PM

Free speech is a blessing and a curse. Sometimes there are things said that we just don't want to hear.

jac01 · 10-06-2010, 01:45 PM

As disgusting as the Phelps' are and as much as I despise them, they have every right under the First Amendment to preach their hateful rhetoric. They do not have the right to demand that anyone listen to them, nor does anyone else have the right to go through life and not be offended. If the Supreme Court rules against Westboro Baptist Church, I feel that this would be a dangerous precedent and would empower the government to crack down on the free speech of anyone that is not a favored group. This power will no doubt be abused by both the Left and the Right (whichever is in power) to stifle the voices of their political enemies. To be true to the Constitution, the Phelps' must win this case. The First Amendment was put in place not to protect popular speech, but to protect unpopular speech.

sipapi · 10-06-2010, 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jac01

As disgusting as the Phelps' are and as much as I despise them, they have every right under the First Amendment to preach their hateful rhetoric. They do not have the right to demand that anyone listen to them, nor does anyone else have the right to go through life and not be offended. If the Supreme Court rules against Westboro Baptist Church, I feel that this would be a dangerous precedent and would empower the government to crack down on the free speech of anyone that is not a favored group. This power will no doubt be abused by both the Left and the Right (whichever is in power) to stifle the voices of their political enemies. To be true to the Constitution, the Phelps' must win this case. The First Amendment was put in place not to protect popular speech, but to protect unpopular speech.

+1

catnipdipper · 10-06-2010, 01:59 PM

I agree and do not think the Supremes have a choice in the matter.

I think of people making the ultimate sacrifice in order to maintain this and other freedoms and it makes me sad to see how it can be exploited by a few.

BottomlessFilth · 10-06-2010, 02:03 PM

I too agree!! Everyone should have the right to exercise Freedom of Speech. If you don't like it, just ignore it. However, it is people like Phelps that yell so loudly, it's almost impossible for him not to be heard. He has just as much right say he is against something as I do to say I am for something. It's not about who is right or wrong/ good or bad, but about having the Freedom to speak your mind. If they take away our First Amendment rights, what do we have left.....Robots.

***A "private ceremony" is just that...private. Phelps should not be allowed to be present if he is not going to allow the grieving families to lay their dead family members to rest. If he wants to spew vomit from his soul behind a pulpit, so be it. But I do not think he should be allowed to attend funeral services, etc unless he is a family/friend/etc that is wishing to lay the dead to rest in a peaceful ceremony, one that allows people to say their goodbyes and gain closure for the absence of the loved one.***

Omahan · 10-06-2010, 02:09 PM

I think there is a lot more to this than anyone here has touched on. I heard a short report about it on TV today and some tough questions that the justices were asking the lawyers. Justice Ginsberg (who is about as liberal as they come) asked something like "why do they feel that their right to free speech in public should extend to the right to speak to the grieving families of the slain soldiers." Another justice asked how is your first ammendment right harmed if you are able to spout your opinion all over in public, just not at this private ceremony? I don't think the supreme court will ever go against the 1st Ammendment but they may go against the Phelps bunch. If they do I suggest you read the opinion and the dissenting opinion before flying off the handle about it.

nsafun05 · 10-06-2010, 02:30 PM

The justice that brought up the point about the funeral being a private ceremony brought up a good point, however I believe it is a weak one for the same reason that is used for government cameras in public areas. I believe that there is president that we can have no expectation of privacy in a public areas and unless I'm mistaken, cemeteries are not exactly private. On a side note, I disagree with the notion of privacy in public areas. I don't think the government has a right to watch us unless there is cause.

dirty dog · 10-06-2010, 02:53 PM

A cemetary is not a public area, it is a private area unless it is owned and operated by the state or city. Phelps has no right to force his beliefs on to those involved in a private ceromony on private property. Contrary to public opinion there are limits to the first amendment, try yelling fire in a theatere and see where that gets you.

I believe that the founding fathers meant the first amendment as a way of ensuring that we will always have the right to speak against the government without fear of reprisal. It was not meant to be a tool to force an individual or groups personal beliefs on to others without limitations.

lacrew_2000 · 10-06-2010, 03:11 PM

"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."

There is a history of speech and assembly being free...but controlled as far as time and place go. The KKK can hold a rally on public property...but only after they get a permit, and only at the place and time listed on the permit. After the permit expires, its get the hell out time.

I believe the federal government tried to control the time and place of Phelps style protests at funerals (military cemetaries). You could protest before and after, but had to leave a window of time in between for the family to use the cemetary.

The first ammendment has also been diluted with laws against hate speech in the last 20 years. This could affect the ruling.

Some cities have laws against cursing in public...another bending of the 1st ammendment.

I haven't followed this case too closely, but I think there is a chance the SCOTUS will rule against Phelps. Sure, congress (or the states) can't pass a law limiting free speech. But, as I understand it, this was a civil lawsuit. It may not be illegal to call somebody's dead son horrible things and make a spectacle of his burial (abridging the family's freedom of religion btw), but who says you can't sue Phelps for 'suffering'? People sue for that all the time. I don't see an abridgement of speech question here...I see a question as to whether or not Phelps 'harmed' the marine's family. I think he might have, as he deprived the family its ability to practice their own religious burial ceremony. There are also disturbing the peace laws throughout this country, which Fred may fall under.

Fred may lose...but it may not be a blow to the 1st ammendment. The government can't keep you from talking, but that doesn't mean you can say whatever you want, without consequence, on the back end. We have slander laws, 'fire in a theater' precedents, etc.

Guest052813-01 · 10-06-2010, 03:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by catnipdipper

Tough case before the Supreme Court involving the Phelps church.

At the same time here are some comments from Rush Limbaugh recently.

"he's a jackass"-Obama
"economic illiterate"
"economic ignoramus"
"neophyte little man child president"
"idiot where capitalism is concerned"
"imam child"

He was discussing the expiration of the tax cuts on the rich.

Tough sometimes to support free speech and I mean emotionally not legally.

Yes, but was what Rush said accurate? And did you just get these bites from Jake Tapper's blog - just like every other lib who doesn't agree with him - or from the entire context of his point:

"Obama either gets it or doesn't get it, doesn't matter. I do believe he's an idiot where capitalism is concerned. "Obama also reiterated his view that top-income tax brackets would do little to boost the recovery, since the wealthy aren't holding off buying flat-screen TVs and other big-ticket purchases for lack of a tax cut. Plus, he said, those tax cuts are unaffordable." So he looks at the rich -- I'm not kidding you -- Obama looks at the rich and says, "Look, if they want to go buy a flat screen, they can, whether they get a tax cut or not." So we don't have to give 'em a tax cut because they're gonna go ahead and get their big screen TV and they're going to go ahead and drive the economy. And then he said these tax cuts are unaffordable. "If we were going to spend $700 billion, it seems it would be wiser having that $700 billion going to folks who would spend that money right away," Obama said.

I tell you, folks, this neophyte genuinely is an economic ignoramus. Does he think that the supporters of the tax cut extension for all believe that the rich people will boost the economy by buying flat screen TVs, which are made in China, by the way, does he really think... I mean, this is ignorant. That $700 billion he's talking about, they will use the money that they are allowed to keep to invest in their businesses and save or create jobs, which once upon a time we were told was Obama's top priority. "Obama dismissed the notion that the well-off -- he included himself -- would simply 'take our ball and go home' if they didn't continue to get a big tax cut." He said if they don't get a tax cut, they're not going to pout, they're gonna still be out there. Mr. Obama, our imam child, they have already taken their trillion-dollar ball home and they're sitting on it, you jackass, and I'm sorry to have to say this, but we have all of this pile of cash, how many trillions is it that the news has reported that companies large and small are sitting on. They're not investing it in anything. They're not buying bonds; they're not buying stocks; they're not going into hedge funds. They're sitting on the cash, trillions of dollars. They already have taken their ball and gone home, which is why we have 1% GDP growth and 9.6% unemployment. They've already split the scene because they have no confidence, and they're probably right.

If this guy is this scary, if he is this adamant that they not be confident and that they not have this tax cut extended, which not even a tax cut, it's just the current rates. Nobody's taxes are getting cut here. We're not cutting the richest tax cuts. The 36 rate's gonna stay 36, or 35. It's not going to 33. The only thing that's going to happen is Obama's gonna raise taxes, but nobody's taxes are being cut here. They've already taken the ball and gone home. They're sitting on trillions of dollars of cash. And if you go back to Feldstein and Donaldson of SEC, Mr. Obama, "extend the cut to everybody and you'll inspire confidence," meaning they'll take the trillion dollars of cash they're sitting on and start putting it into play. This is where he's an ignoramus. They're not putting the trillion dollars into play because they're trying to hold onto as much of it as they can before they have it confiscated which is what they think is coming, which is not confidence inspiring. He's a jackass. He's an economic illiterate. He's an economic ignoramus. And that's being charitable."

Now you see those points in context.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/dai...110.guest.html

jac01 · 10-06-2010, 05:35 PM

In the instances that I've seen the Phelps a-holes protesting, they have always been across the street from their intended target of harassment in a public area. If they were encroaching on private property when they had their protest of this Marine's funeral, by all means they should have been charged with trespassing, disturbing the peace, or whatever else was available to the DA. From the soundbites that I have heard from the Marine's father, the antics of the Phelps idiots at the funeral were offensive to him (no doubt) and caused him emotional distress while mourning his son's death. I cannot claim to know how he feels, since I have never suffered such a painful loss. If this case is truly about whether an award in a civil case should be thrown out because the First Amendment rights of Westboro Baptist Church were violated, I am not sympathetic to the Phelps' case. I was under the impression that it dealt with the Phelps' violating the vague laws that several states have enacted which make it illegal to protest military funerals. As a Libertarian, I believe that those kind of laws are unconstitutional and should be stricken as such. I would never protest a military funeral (or anyone's funeral for that matter) as I and most others I'm sure feel that that kind of behavior is in extremely poor taste. However, I oppose the passage of laws that seek to require people to conduct themselves with "good manners." Call me skeptical, but the Congress and the Executive Branch have for years abused the Commerce Clause of the Constitution to basically claim that the Federal Government can pass any law it wishes and do anything it wants after the ridiculous Wickard v. Filburn decision was decided by the Supreme Court in the 1940's. During Justice Kagan's recent confirmation hearings, she was asked if the Federal Government had the authority to pass a law stating that Americans were required to eat 5 servings of vegetables every day. Her answer was "I think it's a dumb law, but it's not the job of the courts to strike down dumb laws." That both astonished and frightened me. The woman subscribes to the thinking that the Commerce Clause gives Congress the authority to do whatever the hell it wants and the Supreme Court (the final line of defense against oppressive government) can do nothing about it!

I firmly believe if the government is allowed to put their foot in the door here in regards to curtailing the First Amendment rights of one particular group (which granted nobody likes), freedom will ultimately be the loser. Left or Right government doesn't matter, giving the government more power has rarely resulted in that power being used responsibly.

BottomlessFilth · 10-06-2010, 06:21 PM

The thing that really chaps my ass about this, is the fact that they want to sue Phelps. What does that change? What does that rectify? Absolutely Nothing!

I get offended all the time. People have been extremely cruel and mean to me. They say and do things that cut like a knife. Do I sue them over this personal emotional injury? No. Why? Because it won't make things go back to the way they were, and it won't make anything any better. I might have more money in my pocket, but the main issue (being injured emotionally) is not healed.

Today while listening to NPR regarding this whole ordeal, all that kept running through my mind, besides the fact that Phelps is a waste of space, was the old saying "Turn the Other Cheek (not ass cheek lol)."

Now I am not saying don't make sure he isn't present at their funerals and such where he causes a ruckus, but I am saying this..."Turn the Other Cheek." Yes, it hurts the families greatly! Yes, it is not fair to the dead and their families trying to lay that person to rest.

Life isn't fair, never has been and never will be. In my opinion, I feel they need to be the better party here, and say "You know what Phelps? We are going to do everything in our power to not let you ruin this funeral, and also we aren't going to allow you to reek havoc in our hearts and minds either. We simply dismiss you as a decent human being, and we will live our lives trying to be better than that."

Revenge is never the answer....At least that is how I see Life through my own eyes.

jac01 · 10-06-2010, 06:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BottomlessFilth

The thing that really chaps my ass about this, is the fact that they want to sue Phelps. What does that change? What does that rectify? Absolutely Nothing!

I get offended all the time. People have been extremely cruel and mean to me. They say and do things that cut like a knife. Do I sue them over this personal emotional injury? No. Why? Because it won't make things go back to the way they were, and it won't make anything any better. I might have more money in my pocket, but the main issue (being injured emotionally) is not healed.

Today while listening to NPR regarding this whole ordeal, all that kept running through my mind, besides the fact that Phelps is a waste of space, was the old saying "Turn the Other Cheek (not ass cheek lol)."

Now I am not saying don't make sure he isn't present at their funerals and such where he causes a ruckus, but I am saying this..."Turn the Other Cheek." Yes, it hurts the families greatly! Yes, it is not fair to the dead and their families trying to lay that person to rest.

Life isn't fair, never has been and never will be. In my opinion, I feel they need to be the better party here, and say "You know what Phelps? We are going to do everything in our power to not let you ruin this funeral, and also we aren't going to allow you to reek havoc in our hearts and minds either. We simply dismiss you as a decent human being, and we will live our lives trying to be better than that."

Revenge is never the answer....At least that is how I see Life through my own eyes.

I agree. The best way to deal with him is exactly as you described. By allowing him to push your buttons, you are granting him power over your life that he definitely does not deserve. It would probably really piss him off if the target of his protests just went up to him, smiled, and in a good Christian way said, "Mr. Phelps, Jesus loves you. Everyone else thinks you're an asshole! Have a nice day!"

lacrew_2000 · 10-06-2010, 07:21 PM

Being a Topekan, I may be jaded about Phelps. On a regular basis, people are harassed by them while walking from their car to church. I have had out of state clients bail from deals, because they had to wade through the Phelps group to get to a zoning hearing (they picket every council meeting). We have had potential hires from out of state bail, because they were gay, and didn't feel comfortable here. The Phelps group has acted as a neighborhood bully for decades. They have done harm to Topeka. I think it is defeatist to just turn the other cheek. There has to be a point at which his group's rights stop, and other people's rights start. Just my opinion.