tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7342454496014200176.post7487474182300626736..comments2023-05-05T06:38:34.592-04:00Comments on IMHO: A Test of our PrinciplesNiceguy Eddiehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03896896323840121445noreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7342454496014200176.post-66617831186598852112010-10-08T18:43:57.629-04:002010-10-08T18:43:57.629-04:00JLarue,
Yeah, I hear you. And while it's easy...JLarue,<br /><br />Yeah, I hear you. And while it's easy to look at this and say, "but what Phelps is doing is nothing like that!", that won't matter two or three more expansions and interpretations of this precedent down the road! And it's not even that much of a reach because the CORE ARGUMENT here, while reasonable in THIS case, is the same argument being made by the Park51 protetsters. <br /><br />Even though it's wrong in THAT case, the LOGIC is the same: This is hallowed ground, and it's sacred to ME, and so your freedoms won't be protected here because you offend me. Now... Phelps isn't Rauf. But I'd say that the 9/11 firefighters are every bit as sympathetic as the families of our fallen soldiers, and the fact is that the logic of the precedent COULD be applied there, depending on how they reason it.<br /><br />And if they reason it so narrowly that it ONLY applies to Phelps? That's an admisison that there IS no legal rationale for it, and that they just despise Phelps himself. And that just shows that they can take free speech away from anyone they (don't) like.<br /><br />I'm glad to get some suport for this, but I still feel dirty over 'rooting' for an assbag like Phelps. I've actually asked some bloggers form the gay communtiy to come check this out. I feel like I really should be beatedn up pretty good over this by at least SOMEONE. For karma's sake. Take the curse off.<br /><br />Fuckin' PHELPS.<br /><br />*shudder*<br /><br />Thanks for you comment.Niceguy Eddiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03896896323840121445noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7342454496014200176.post-2275686949270343682010-10-08T13:35:08.905-04:002010-10-08T13:35:08.905-04:00I hope he wins, too. I feel strongly about this no...I hope he wins, too. I feel strongly about this not just as a card carrying member of the ACLU but as a very religious woman. Please don't get me wrong. I think he is despicable. My religious views are certainly not in line with him. But....if he does not win, when will someone in power decide they dont like what I say and limit me to where I can say it? This is my fear with this far right court. If they limit this hate monger then they would change precedence and the far right Taliban led by the likes of Romney and Beck and Palin could use it to limit what I say. My pro science views might hurt the feelings of some uber-religious teacher who feels it is insulting to suggest we descended from apes. Just the sight of one gay pride parade could cause psychological damage to a frantic fundamentalist and their families. Let him protest. I have a "God loves Fags" sign just waiting for my counter protest. What I would like to see is more Christians denouncing this guy and not just for his tone. His message sucks.Janet LaRuehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07548074457924805219noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7342454496014200176.post-60356441745262650782010-10-07T18:23:23.980-04:002010-10-07T18:23:23.980-04:00@Anon - Yep. I didn't say "inbred" ...@Anon - Yep. I didn't say "inbred" for nothing! :) And I really wonder what would happen if Sammy's wish were to come to pass. Would the movement just slowly die? Or would these genetic defectives of his just take the opportunity to spread out and found more of these temples of hatred?<br /><br />Thanks for your comment.Niceguy Eddiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03896896323840121445noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7342454496014200176.post-5997815503260595832010-10-07T18:20:51.537-04:002010-10-07T18:20:51.537-04:00@Sammy - LOL... I was very close to saying the sam...@Sammy - LOL... I was very close to saying the same thing, but I had to resist. :) I really was trying to write a principled piece, even if I did feel UNCLEAN after finishing it.<br /><br />Thanks for your Comment.Niceguy Eddiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03896896323840121445noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7342454496014200176.post-73758844728766811002010-10-07T18:13:36.422-04:002010-10-07T18:13:36.422-04:00@Christoher Back - I seem to remember something ab...@Christoher Back - I seem to remember something about his little band of mutants protesting a comicon! I'm a pretty big comic book fan myself (or at least I was in college) so I found that to be absurdly amusing at the time. I'd forgotten it was Phelps though. The counter-protets signs were funny as hell, IIRC.<br /><br />Interesting point regarding Freedom of Religion and of Religious expression. I hadn't considered that angle at all. BUT since he's neither the government (and thank God for that! Can you imagine?!) nor thier employer, I don't know if you can really make the case, Constitutionally speaking, that the Religious Freedom of the families is being repressed in a way that the SC has jurisdiction over. Interesting point though. And has hostile as I can be to oprganized religion, I have very little tolerance of the outright repression of it's practice. I don't really see a Constituional case on that basis here, but I'll have to think about that a bit. <br /><br />And I don't envy the SC in this case either, though I really bet you they will rule against him. He's probably the only man hated equally by both Liberals AND Conservatives.<br /><br />Thanks for your comment.Niceguy Eddiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03896896323840121445noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7342454496014200176.post-81131115212776592842010-10-07T18:02:39.084-04:002010-10-07T18:02:39.084-04:00@Metal Matt - Yeah, I know, right?! Actaully, th...@Metal Matt - Yeah, I know, right?! Actaully, this isn't really fault of the guy who brought the suit either. Not exactly anyway, assuming I understand you correctly. The original suit was filed by the family of one of our fallen soliders, suing Phelps for mental duress after they picketed at their son's funeral. And for sure, that's a reasonable action on their part. And they WON. A $5 Million Dollar award, IIRC. So, naturally Phelps appealed, and for better or worse the award was set aside, and the case has since moved up to the SC. <br /><br />Now... I'm basically OK Phelps him losing a tort suit in a local or state court. But when the SC rules on free speech issues? I get nervous. (And I think everybody should.) But since it's a dogfart like Phelps? People just want to see him LOSE. And who can blame them? But 20 years from now no one will remember the details of the case, or understand how this stupid precedent got set, if it ends up being used the way I fear it will, anyway. Yeah... if ever there was a worst case scenario for the defense of Free Speech, this is it.<br /><br />Thanks for your comment.Niceguy Eddiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03896896323840121445noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7342454496014200176.post-89777153921809574112010-10-07T15:44:33.083-04:002010-10-07T15:44:33.083-04:00Sammy - are you aware that the "church" ...Sammy - are you aware that the "church" has only about 70 members, and almost all of them are family members? I wasn't until last night.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7342454496014200176.post-62484474729075507052010-10-07T13:50:40.576-04:002010-10-07T13:50:40.576-04:00Put simply, I think Phelps should win the case, bu...Put simply, I think Phelps should win the case, but I hope he is in a one-car fatal crash afterward, with his daughter on board and the grandkids given to the care of anyone but another Phelps from that "church".Sammyhttp://www.facebook.com/sammysingsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7342454496014200176.post-22128956657797901032010-10-07T11:41:17.197-04:002010-10-07T11:41:17.197-04:00Phelps' freak show tried to protest the SDCC b...Phelps' freak show tried to protest the SDCC because in his twisted world view people who read comic books are worshiping false idols and they were out numbered by the counter-protest only 3 or 4 of the Phelps freak show were there and there were well over 100 (some estimates were as high a 1000) in the counter protest. <br /><br /><br />Back to the topic at hand, Phelps has the right to protest and say whatever shit he wants, as long as no one is physically hurt by it (you know the old saying about shouting "Fire" in a public place and causing a panic). But here is a kind of weird counter-argument to it some funerals are religious ceremonies and by protesting them, Phelps is violating someone else's Constitutionally protected rights to Freedom of Religion.<br /><br />I don't envy any of the Supreme Court Justices in this case especially if (and that is the key word here: IF) this basically boils down to Freedom of Speech vs. Freedom of Religion. Because nobody will really win if that is the case.Christopher Backhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12488545358326075545noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7342454496014200176.post-4991027412333079962010-10-07T04:53:09.147-04:002010-10-07T04:53:09.147-04:00I am so torn on this that I don't even know wh...I am so torn on this that I don't even know what to think about it.<br /><br />I'm completely, 100% with you on the issue of freedom of speech, and on the implications that beginning to limit it can have. Couldn't agree more.<br /><br />With that being said... I honestly don't know if I could bring myself (if I were a SCOTUS justice) to say, effectively, "Hey, Phelps. Go ahead and keep on truckin'. What you're doing is guaranteed protected by the Constitution!"<br /><br />Ugh, it's gross. Why do decisions like this have to be made?<br /><br />Honestly fuck the person who brought up this lawsuit. It can only turn out to be shitty either way.Metal Matthttp://www.facebook.com/the2ndheartbeatnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7342454496014200176.post-347408827005181472010-10-06T20:13:44.837-04:002010-10-06T20:13:44.837-04:00@Silky977,
You bring up an interesting point rega...@Silky977,<br /><br />You bring up an interesting point regarding CIVIL versus CRIMINAL Penalty. As that's legit, as it IS really what at the heart of the matter. (The $5 Mil in damages.) BUT I came accross something while looking into some other first ammendment cases earlier today: Who is it that decides the verdict in civil cases? The Judiciary (the Government.) And the authority of the Government is necessesary to enforce that ruling. So even while the award is being given to a victim, as opposed to the State, it is still being levied by the Gov't. So there IS still a free speech issue in play.<br /><br />As for people protesting outside his church? Frankly, I'd be surprised if it doesn't happen, though the good people of Westboro (?) might simply be that much better (or that much worse) than the likes of thee and me. And actually? I doubt he spends much time there anyway. He does seem to be on the road a lot. Lots of dead soldiers still.<br /><br />God I hate that I'm actually arguing on this fuckhead's behalf. This is making me ill.<br /><br />But, while I may seem paranoid about it, there is ample precedent for the expansion of precedents and for the broadening of previous decisions and there reasoning. It might not win me a lot of friends, but I'd rather suffer a single Fred Phelps every generation or so than continue to see our freedom curtailed and limitied one little speck at a time. <br /><br />And I realize I'm probably not making a lot of friends with this piece. I seriously hope that no one ever takes this as a defense of this monster or of his vile ministry. Andcan likely rest easy, because I have little doubt that this court will rule as both of you guys want them to in this case. The Roberts Court is not great defender of free speech, at least for individuals, anyway. And given the unsympathetic piece of shit we're talking about, it's not like I'd be HAPPY if they went the other way anyway.<br /><br />Thank you both for your comments.Niceguy Eddiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03896896323840121445noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7342454496014200176.post-47359243610217222622010-10-06T19:57:05.730-04:002010-10-06T19:57:05.730-04:00@DellDolly (part 2)
And no matter how narrow the ...@DellDolly (part 2)<br /><br />And no matter how narrow the SC Decision is worded, it sets yet another precedent (like the Bong Hits for Jesus case) of the Supreme Court, or the Government, taking it upon itself to decide who can say what, and where. And future lawyers (working for people like Phelps, maybe?) we keep trying and keep trying and keep trying to apply it to something else. What’s more, what people consider “significant” or “harmful” changes over time. There is no way to make an argument that applies even to an extreme case like Phelps and at the same time guarantee that it can’t be applied somewhere else. And once it is, that will spawn a whole new round of cases where unpopular groups will see themselves being controlled. As I see, only by taking the position that “Congress shall make no law […] abridging the freedom of speech” can we guarantee that our freedom will be maintained.<br /> <br />And yeah… inevitably some asshole like Phelps will go out of their way to find the boundaries of that and break them. But when a perfectly reasonable case is made by a perfectly reasonable person like you against him, inevitably some other shiester will seek to use that to his advantage. And I can see it now: If the WBC can’t assemble near a funeral, then they’ll argue that LGBT groups can’t assemble in schools. And frankly? I DON’T trust the Supreme Court to continue to make the right decisions in those kinds of cases.<br /><br />In fact, I’m willing to bet that they WILL rule against Phelps, for the very reasons you lay out (and maybe an extension of the TPM reasoning, which I’m not crazy about either, but that’s for another post.) But I fail to see why that logic couldn’t be twisted around to be used against, for example, the very groups that Phelps is so opposed to. And when THAT happens? I DO NOT trust that the Supreme Court will reach the right decision. (If I could, we would have had gay marriage some time during President Gore’s second term!) Maybe I’m being paranoid but the Roberts Court is far and away the most regressive in our lifetimes.<br /><br />So I am not willing to risk that. I’m not. Phelps will eventually die. He’s insignificant in the grand scheme of things - just an asshole that has caused people a lot of duress. But if we fall into that trap, the precedent that gets set can (and I believe WILL) continue to have a detrimental effect on our freedom of speech and assembly for generations to come.<br /><br />Seeing the shenanigans that the Right and the Supreme Court are capable of, I’d rather suffer Phelps, and not give them the chance.Niceguy Eddiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03896896323840121445noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7342454496014200176.post-87822654855004166142010-10-06T19:56:35.935-04:002010-10-06T19:56:35.935-04:00@DellDolly, (part 1)
You have no idea how easy it...@DellDolly, (part 1)<br /><br />You have no idea how easy it would be for me to agree with you. But I can’t.<br /><br />There’s nothing at all wrong with what you said, primarily because it’s YOU saying it. But let’s “contemplate the ‘if’s’” for a moment…<br /><br />First of all: IF [the speech?] ‘significantly impinges on the liberty of others.” The thing is…? SPEECH ALONE can’t do this. It can HURT, it can OFFEND. But by itself speech can not impinge AT ALL on my liberty. Now… when the ideas being exposed get picked up and promoted by politicians? And they pass laws based on it? Yeah… THAT can impinge on my liberty. But that door swings both ways. And less principled, less scrupulous people than the likes of thee and me can use (and have) the same logic to work against us. Think: “The Iraq War was to ‘secure our freedom,’ thus protesting against the war is a threat to our freedom.” Now... that’s BULLSHIT, of course. But how often have you found yourself calling BULLSHIT on the Right, the Government, the Media, etc… over the past 10 years or so? For me, examples of their tortured logic come up almost daily. BULLSHIT happens ALL THE TIME. So I can’t trust THEM with the same tools I’d trust YOU with.<br /><br />Second: “[if it doesn’t] have a huge impact on the liberty of the person who’s free speech I desire to limit.” Again… Is this different from the argument that prohibiting GLBT groups from meeting on school campuses doesn’t have a “huge impact” on their “liberty” because, after all, they could meet “a couple of blocks away.” (Or that they could have their club, without it being sponsored by the school?) More relevantly, it sounds a lot like the arguments being used against the expansion of the Park 51 Islamic Center. I’m not saying that you’re WRONG, or that you’re like THEM; only that while YOU will take this logic and apply it sensibly; many others will take the SAME LOGIC and apply it absurdly.Niceguy Eddiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03896896323840121445noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7342454496014200176.post-34219762887383420452010-10-06T15:17:03.414-04:002010-10-06T15:17:03.414-04:00I agree that this guy has the right to be as big a...I agree that this guy has the right to be as big an asshole as he wants to be, and to protest where he wants to protest without being criminally (not civilly) penalized. His freedom of speech protects him from government intrusion, but I also believe the family has the right to sue his ass for disrupting the funeral and causing them great personal anguish. People should start protesting outside of his church during sermons. See how he feels about it then.Silky977noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7342454496014200176.post-50604256568687695312010-10-06T14:11:28.762-04:002010-10-06T14:11:28.762-04:00Yeah, I disagree.
I think it's okay to put so...Yeah, I disagree.<br /><br />I think it's okay to put some limits on free speech when it significantly infringes on the liberty of others without having a huge affect on the liberty of the person whose free speech I desire to limit.<br /><br />I don't think that this guy has the right to disrupt the funerals the way he does. If he wants to protest a couple of blocks away, he can STILL get his message across without impigning on the rights of the funeral-goers so very much.DellDollynoreply@blogger.com