~~Fred Phelps & WBC - as Defendents in front of U.S. Supreme Court this week~~

I don't want to add more attention to Phelps and his merry band of lunatics, however, I am very glad that this case was appealed to the US Supreme Court.

Free Speech is a constitutional right, however, when it is done in a way to demean, damage, inflame, and hurt, and ONLY to demean, damage, inflame, and hurt people, where does one draw the line? If they hate America and think the country is going to hell, why don't they leave it? Money from these lawsuits?

His version of Christianity is sola scriptura at its worst. Rageaholic.

The documentary Fall from Grace was actually participated in by he and his family... it is available on Netflix and instant queue on Netflix. I recommend it, if only to see how much Phelps is deluded and how badly he has brainwashed his family... even the little kids. It is terrible.


I am glad that the Supreme Court is at least hearing this case. I pray for them to reach the best decision for the American people, either way.

news.yahoo.com...
The Supreme Court's 2010-2011 term gets under way this week, and the justices are wasting no time in tackling a case that has the potential to redraw the boundaries of free speech under the First Amendment.

On Oct. 6, the court will hear arguments in a highly charged case known as Snyder v. Phelps.It sets a grieving father who lost his son in Iraq against religious protesters who picketed near the fallen soldier's funeral. The father claims emotional distress and says such demonstrations should not be allowed; the protesters say they were protected under the freedom of speech and peaceful assembly tenets of the First Amendment.

The case has gotten a lot of attention from First Amendment scholars and has also generated an outpouring of support for the grieving father, Albert Snyder. The Veterans of Foreign Wars, 42 U.S. senators and 48 states and the District of Columbia are just some of the groups that have filed briefs in his favor. When an appeals court ordered Snyder to pay about $16,000 of the Phelpses’ legal fees, Fox News host Bill O’Reilly stepped up to make sure he had enough money to cover it.

the players: Albert Snyder, an industrial equipment salesman from York, Pa., is the father of Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder, who died at age 20 in Iraq in March 2006. Snyder says his health has worsened because of the Phelpses’ actions and still can’t separate the memory of his son from the Phelpses’ presence at his funeral. Fred Phelps is the pastor of the 70-member Westboro Baptist Church. (Most of the flock is somehow related to Phelps.) Members of the Phelps family are not strangers to the courtroom; they’ve been involved in other cases related to their protests, challenging local ordinances banning them from protesting funerals and stomping on American flags. Margie Phelps, one of Fred Phelps’ daughters, will represent him and two of her sisters before the Supreme Court.

The scene: Snyder's family and friends gathered for Matthew's funeral in Westminster, Md., on March 10, 2006. Phelps and some of his family members showed up to protest with their signs. The group did not violate any local ordinances with their protest and stayed a certain distance from St. John’s Catholic Church, where the funeral was held. According to court documents, the trial jury found that Snyder only saw the Phelpses’ signs on television after the funeral. The service was able to carry on without disruption, but Snyder’s lawyers say the procession had to be rerouted to avoid the Westboro Church members.

After the funeral, the Phelpses published a written “epic” on the church's website titled “The Burden of Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew A. Snyder,” which said Matthew – who was not gay – was “raised for the devil.” Snyder saw the poem when he did an online search of his son’s name.

I hate these bastards. This Phelps is a sick bastard.
Personally I would categorize his speech as hate speech.
Picketing a grieving families funeral has no value whatsoever in my book.

reply to post by thegoodearth


There is the fine line now isn't it.

But we have to ask ourselves a very important question:

While Fred Phelps and the WBC engaged in some pretty spiteful, nasty and outright disgusting speech, where do we draw the line that dictates who determines what is considered 'unacceptable' speech and to what is 'unacceptable'?

If the Supreme Court finds this speech to be unacceptable and not under the protection of the First Amendment, it will create a precedence that the Government has been seeking since the repeal of the Sedition Acts. For then we allow the Federal Government to dictate what is and what is not, acceptable speech.

If this becomes precedence, then the argument I had with my ex-wife would fall under unprotected speech. As in an argument, sometimes words are said that aim to hurt. I am not proud of it, but I should not be held under charges because that speech is considered 'hate speech'.

Hopefully, for me that is, the Supreme Court just throws the case out and tells the two to take it to Civil Court, where it belongs.

reply to post by ownbestenemy


This should be handled privately. As in, the next time you idiots show up to a funeral the Marines or Soldiers in attendance will beat you to within an inch of your life.

I'm not a violent person folks, believe me when I say this. but some people have epic ass kickings coming their way. Phelps and his idiot cronies are more than deserving of such.

reply to post by projectvxn


I am not violent either... however, these people do provoke feelings of which are such that I thought I would not feel again in my lifetime...

This was handled previously in a civil court. And the resultant actions have been that which have landed it in the Supreme Court. Sadly.

I don't really know what should be decided, as I agree any blow against the First Amendment is a frightening slippery slope... but for Crying Out Loud... to see it perverted in such a way. What to do.

Though the family may have a case for libel in the publishing of the crap on the website about their son.
I hope the Phelps family gets nailed for that hateful garbage.

reply to post by projectvxn


That is why I think this is a waste of time for the Supreme Court. What law are they putting to the Constitutional test? The First Amendment?

And I agree, sometimes people need to drop the pacifist attitude and take a stand and smack someone down. I don't condone it, but then again, I don't condone correcting my son if ya know what I mean. A good swift kick in the ass is needed from time to time.

reply to post by thegoodearth


No one ever said free speech was or had to be pretty.

But there are consequences for your actions. And if a group of Marines show up to handle business it should be seen as an obvious consequence for irrefutably stupid actions.

reply to post by projectvxn


Well, I have noted that Phelps and his family have never picketed the front gates of Camp Lejeune, NC.
I wonder why. Seems to me that would be a great place for publicity. Hmmm...

I always wished they would when I lived there.

reply to post by thegoodearth


My friend, who was a photojournalist in the Army, had him and his hate-cloud show up to UNLV in vegas about 8 or 9 years back. It didn't go well for Mr. Phelps. My friend was planning counter protests and called in the local media.

He convinced Phelps that he was witnessing "gay indoctrination" in the school and that his presence there would help his cause. Top that Ashton Kutcher.

Here's the article CS(the friend who made it happen) wrote in the UNLV news paper the Rebel Yell

Originally posted by thegoodearth
Free Speech is a constitutional right, however, when it is done in a way to demean, damage, inflame, and hurt, and ONLY to demean, damage, inflame, and hurt people, where does one draw the line?

Think about what you're suggesting here. There are exceptions to Free Speech already. If it doesn't fall under these exceptions, it should be protected. We can't just limit speech because our feelings are hurt or we don't like what someone is saying.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


I know, BH, and as I said in a later post as well, I really don't have any suggestions.
As a couple of his children who have escaped his clutches have stated, he is a violent man, so I don't even think that, as some have suggested (and I know the thought has crossed my mind a time or two) beating him senseless would change anything.
It just really blows sometimes, doesn't it... The very laws that we love and we are grateful for are sometimes what we can lament-- part of being human for me. The pure evil of some in hiding under the umbrella that we all enjoy in such a manner invokes such a helplessness.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Think about what you're suggesting here. There are exceptions to Free Speech already. If it doesn't fall under these exceptions, it should be protected. We can't just limit speech because our feelings are hurt or we don't like what someone is saying.

I quoted you because you said my thoughts much more eloquently than what I could express to people who do not apparently believe in free speech.

This is why I don't agree with indoctrinating children at a young age.
It has the potential to do devestating things to the mind.

...committing violence against phelps and his bunch is not only stupid but illegal... those committing the violence would end up in jail and, then, after the criminal proceedings (which the phelps bunch would win), they would sue you in civil court and win again...

...that wacko bunch isnt worth the trouble and, besides, you're not going to teach them anything... they want to provoke people to commit violence against them cuz a lot of them are lawyers (cha-ching)...

...they have a right to do what they're doing and they know it... hate them or their methods all you want but they're actually testing the limits of our rights and thats a good thing...

...as for the families of the deceased soldiers the phelps bunch target, well, they need grow thicker skin... their loved ones didnt die to protect the non-existent right to not be offended... their loved ones died because they believed they were doing the right thing for our country or for themselves...

reply to post by hinky


I wish more people really understood Free Speech. It's easy to support it when you agree with what's being said. It becomes more difficult (and is a test of our First Amendment support) when we HATE what someone is saying or expressing, but defend their right to do so.

More and more people are willing to let the First Amendment be eroded in exchange for political correctness. They don't want offensive language, flag burning and criticism of the military to be protected. THINK of that that means! A law or Constitutional amendment outlawing flag burning? What kind of Nationalistic crap is that?

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


There are two rights I seriously support. Free speech and right to bear arms. Both support each other.

I financially supported the ACLU for more than several years from the 70's to 90's. We had a disagreement and I now support specific causes.

Brother Fred is despicable and a rascal. He has every right to say what ever he wants to protest in his way. I think he's wrong getting his grand kids involved because they are too young to really make up their own mind. But this is just one grandfather talking to another.

You can not place a limit on political speech. It is a very hard concept to grasp without emotions getting in the way. You see that here within this thread.

reply to post by projectvxn


It's just a matter of time till someone does them in. I have seen videos of people actually throwing things at their vehicle, as they fled a location. Broken windows, too. Saw another where someone hit the one woman in the bunch (the lawyer). Sooner or later, that's going to escalate.

There are, though, some great groups of bikers, and others, that attend these events, and block off these hateful quacks.