Picketing (aka Fred Phelps is a douche)

Jason

From my e-mail:Supreme Court Case Regarding Pickets Could Weaken First Amendment Protections

Washington, DC - The case involving controversial protests at the funerals of fallen soldiers is raising concerns about the future of First Amendment protections for all Americans. Liberty Counsel is concerned about the effects this case could have on First Amendment rights and has filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court, warning of the potential for serious harm to the First Amendment.

Sanctions such as the civil damages pose a significant threat to First Amendment freedoms by chilling the very kind of controversial speech our Founding Fathers sought to protect. Liberty Counsel does not endorse the message contained in the protesters' signs and other communications and even expressly condemns the offensive tactics of Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church and the content of their rhetoric. However, Liberty Counsel stands with the Founders in supporting the right of protesters and other citizens to present messages of their choosing, even offensive messages, without the chilling effect of tort or other liability or governmental censure.

This just came to the newsroom and got me thinking about the effectiveness of picketing in modern culture. The press release (which continues) is boiled down to, "I hate what you say, but will die to protect your right to say it."

Even though I think Phelps' ideology and tactics are despicable, I'm not sure how I would handle him were I in a position of authority. Oh, sure, I can think what I'd do if I were to meet him on the sidewalk, but the two responses should be totally different. How do we stop Phelps righteously?

Rym

How do we stop Phelps righteously?

Work toward a free society where he is nothing more than an object of ridicule or indifference from all. Or, work toward a society where he is literally just an example of the price of freedom, an abstraction to remind us of what we have while completely ignoring his own actual "message."

Freedom is difficult. It means other people are free to be jerks. We need people like him to remind us that this is the case.

George Patches

My problem with Phelps is the fact that his family (mostly his bitch of a daughter) are literally harassing people.

Cremlian

My problem with Phelps is the fact that his family (mostly his bitch of a daughter) are literally harassing people.

Then sit there and literally wait till she breaks a law and get her on it. (shouldn't be too hard)

Wyatt

I'm not sure how I would handle him were I in a position of authority.

Deny his application to hold the protest. Change them with Harassment, causing Mental Anguish, and or Attempting to Incite a Riot. Don't give them any of the press coverage they're looking for.

Didn't Phelp's son leave the church?

I've driven by a protest where the picketers chose to insult the people driving past. Yelling " YOU'RE ALL FUCKING MORONS!" is a less then effective manner of persuasion. I still have no idea what message they where trying to send. I just remember some bitch with her 3 dogs yelling at the woman in the car next to me until she rolled up her windows.

Churba

Wait, wern't the WBC planning to picket San Diego ComicCon?

I remember when they tried to picket Ronnie James Dio's funeral, and confronted by a legion of metalheads, they folded like a cheap suit.

Nuri

Time, place, and manner restrictions on speech are generally acceptable; these people have a right to get their message out, but they do not necessarily have a right to do it at the funeral. As long as the restriction on speech is content-neutral and rational, it's usually ok. For instance, a town could say no picketing at funerals and be fine. If a town said no picketing on welfare issues at a funeral, but all other topics are ok for funeral picketing, then that's more questionable. It's pretty well-established that time, place, and manner restrictions on speech are fine as long as they are reasonable; I don't see why this case should be such a big deal. It seems reasonable to me to restrict picketing around funeral grounds. Do it somewhere else; those people don't need any more grief.

Change them with Harassment, causing Mental Anguish, and or Attempting to Incite a Riot.

Do you actually know anything about what is a crime? You should look up what you can charge someone with before you say stuff like that, especially if you are going to use caps like it's official or something. Causing Mental Anguish isn't a crime in most places. It's a tort, and you have to show a hell of a lot to get damages for it. There are very specific definitions of what constitutes Harrassment or Attempting to Incite a Riot, legally. I don't think these people have actually met those definitions. It's great to say "Why don't we just arrest these fuckers," but when you don't know what you're talking about it's kind of a difficult argument to back.

Li_Akahi

I remember when they tried to picket Ronnie James Dio's funeral, and confronted by a legion of metalheads, they folded like a cheap suit.

There are places where they should know that they should just not go and picket for fear of their lives, and that was definitely one of those times. That being said, they should also realize that picketing Comic Con is going to do absolutely nothing for them. How many geeks do you think are going to even give two flying fucks to them being there? Practically zero, and the only reason I say practically zero is because there will be some Buddy Christs and Raptor Jesus' trying to hang out with them for lawlz.

Churba

How many geeks do you think are going to even give two flying fucks to them being there?

What do you think chances are that people are going to give it right back to them in some hilarious(and non-violent) fashion?

HMTKSteve

I agree with Liberty Counsel on this issue.

Li_Akahi

What do you think chances are that people are going to give it right back to them in some hilarious(and non-violent) fashion?

I personally think that YouTube will explode with funny videos of geeks fighting back. It's a shame that they're only picketing on Thursday, imagine the shenanigans that could have gone on if they did it on Friday or Saturday.

Jason

It seems reasonable to me to restrict picketing around funeral grounds.

This is dangerously close to Bush- and Vietnam-era "free speech zones" intended to remove picketers' messages away from geographical areas where the speech would be relevant or visible.

Nuri

It seems reasonable to me to restrict picketing around funeral grounds.

This is dangerously close to Bush- and Vietnam-era "free speech zones" intended to remove picketers' messages away from geographical areas where the speech would be relevant or visible.

Okay, (a) we already have these restrictions in many places, and (b) what relevancy does their message have to the grieving survivors of soldiers? What exactly are these mourners going to do that will help the cause? NOTHING. If these guys have a message, they are broadcasting it to the wrong crowd. This is nothing like picketing your workplace for unfair labor practices; the people at these funerals are generally not in a position to do anything about the issue these jackasses are complaining about. I mean, they are bitching about people being gay. How is that relevant to a soldier's funeral? It's not.

Omnutia

b: That would be a valid point if news could refrain from rewarding these people with airtime for being such bitch cakes.

Jason

Who gets to decide what speech is relevant to whom and where? That's exactly the kind of censorship the first amendment was designed to prevent.

Omnutia

The news can be as biased as Rupert Murdoch likes. That said, it will probably need people to stop watching that kind of news before they stop making it.

Nuri

Who gets to decide what speech is relevant to whom and where? That's exactly the kind of censorship the first amendment was designed to prevent.

Constitutional law allows time, place, and manner restrictions on lots of things. Already. Like, it exists. It is not a concept we are throwing around and debating whether we should espouse. Municipalities are allowed to ban demonstrations using certain methods, in certain places, or within certain hours. This would be no different.

There should not be a content-based ban on these guys of any kind. What would work just fine would be a content-neutral rule.

Jason

During the Bush era, and with the blessing of John Ashcroft, free speech zones were used to move "protected" speech out of sight of the media and the very people who were the targets of the protests. This was done not once, but a record number of times to quell speech deemed undesirable to the administration. At the DNC in 2004, a similar zone was established -- again, far away enough from the conference's Boston hotel to make the speech politically irrelevant to the event it protested. It's one thing to prevent panic by stopping someone from yelling fire in a theater, and quite another to toss a blanket over the head of political speech, put it in a closet, and say, "But we're letting them talk, we're just making it hard for anyone to listen."

Churba

' messages away from geographical areas where the speech would be relevant or visible.

Also, I might add - they're not picketing the funerals of soldiers as a protest. They're picketing it as a celebration that the soldier is dead. These people have the sole purpose of broadcasting hate speech - They don't believe that you can be converted, you're either them, or predestined to go to hell, no saving possible. Part of their fucked up, twisted belief system is that they pretty much are told by god to hate everyone and everything who is not them, and another, more traditional part of it is that they must preach their gospel out to as many people as possible, and they know that picketing funerals is not only making a direct point about celebrating the death of someone they hated, and supporting things that the think the bible insists they hate, but also makes a very large media impact, which means they're preaching even wider than before. That's the tactic that has resulted in the tiny little 60 person church being known worldwide.

You are correct, Free speech zones as used by bush were a bit suspect. But are you really telling us that you're going to argue that straight up hate speech is acceptable, and we should let it go on targeting grieving families, just because the best method of stopping it is one that was used by one administration in a distasteful fashion, using laws that were already in place before that administration got into power?

Omnutia

Also, in a sense, shouldn't they picket gay pride events, instead of funerals. Should we require protests to protest near something relevant?

Jason

But are you really telling us that you're going to argue that straight up hate speech is acceptable....

Not at all. I'm asking what can be done to defeat Phelps while protecting political speech.

Churba

Not at all. I'm asking what can be done to defeat Phelps while protecting political speech.

Well, in that case, Nuri's proposition should be acceptable. It's using the laws in an acceptable and possibly beneficial way, even though the previous administration used them for shitpot antics. We should not, in theory, through inaction allow them to cause any more grief to these families for their own benefit.

Neito

Just because I punched someone in the face doesn't mean fists are bad. In the same sense, just because Bush abused them doesn't mean "free speech zones" (perhaps with a different name, cus I really hate that one) are bad.

Churba

(perhaps with a different name, cus I really hate that one)

Truth - Free speech zone just sounds seedy. Pardon me for quoting a trendy catchphrase of those times, but all of the US is a free speech zone, or at least, claims to be for the most part.

Kate Monster

As long as they aren't doing anything illegal and they keep doing it, it will (and has to some extent) become white noise to the greater part of society. If specific families want to bring civil suits against them for damages or if they actually do something illegal, then slap them down, but ignoring them and/or bringing a positive picket in a numbers that vastly overwhelm their negative picket is the best way to go.
If they were ever trying to interfere with something near me, I would just take a page out of The Laramie Project playbook. If you don't know what I am talking about, read about Matthew Shepard and see the movie/play about his murder and the response entitled The Laramie Project.

ZakoSoldier

But are you really telling us that you're going to argue that straight up hate speech is acceptable....

Not at all. I'm asking what can be done to defeat Phelps while protecting political speech.

The way to "defeat" Phelps is to just ignore them or what happened when it was announced they were protesting my school a large group of people organized a counter event.

Omnutia

@Kate: Ah.. mass media enduced apathy.

chaosof99

Comic-Con counter protest to Phelps is hilarious.

Jason

I particularly liked the Superman quip.

Sail

Bender is the best.

Victor Frost

"Hallo. My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die."

Ahhh, I love it when geeks get together.