Article

2011-03-02 Home Front: Culture Wars

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by tu3031 2011-03-02 10:44|| || Front Page|| [11136 views ] Top

#1 ...so its back out front of the abortion clinics too? /rhet question

Posted by Procopius2k 2011-03-02 10:51|| 2011-03-02 10:51|| Front Page Top

#2 So it's now O.K. to protest in the Whitehouse or during a State of the Union speech before Congress? And one can express their religious beliefs openly anytime, anyplace and these will be protected? One can protest at the SCOTUS deliberations? Yeah, I didn't think so.

Posted by JohnQC 2011-03-02 11:11|| 2011-03-02 11:11|| Front Page Top

#3 Okay, sounds like the revivalist meeting in front of the mosque is on. Or, maybe just an anti-Mohamhead rally in the same location, they're all down with that, right?

Posted by Alan Cramer 2011-03-02 11:17|| 2011-03-02 11:17|| Front Page Top

#4 Roberts described the court's holding as narrow, and in a separate opinion, Justice Stephen Breyer suggested in other circumstances, governments would not be "powerless to provide private individuals with necessary protection."

Well...isn't that a big loophole.

Posted by tu3031 2011-03-02 11:24|| 2011-03-02 11:24|| Front Page Top

#5 I agree with the USSC.

I also agree that Phelps and his gang are evil.

In the US, as it turns out, free speech also protects evil people.

And, it protects those of us who protest the evil.

I wouldn't have it any other way. Any law that could be used to shut down Phelps could be used to shut down Rantburg.

Isn't that right, Mr. Holder?

No, we'll deal with Phelps the way the bikers have done. Don't let Phelps near a military funeral. When his gang say stupid things, drown 'em out with hymns and patriotic music. If they get a bullhorn, we get a larger bullhorn.

You want free speech? You got it. So do I. And I'm louder. Trust me on that one.

Posted by Steve White 2011-03-02 11:25|| 2011-03-02 11:25|| Front Page Top

#6 8-1 is pretty cut and dried.
What Breyer said scares me though. Are they gonna pick and choose what speech is protected by the First Amendment?

Posted by tu3031 2011-03-02 11:32|| 2011-03-02 11:32|| Front Page Top

#7 I agree with the decision, even though Phelps just needs to be run over with a steam roller.

This is good as it will also give protection to the Tea Party protesters. Note that the ruling also mentioned how the Phelps goons obeyed every regulation and followed the police instructions. So does the tea party. Bring cameras and video when you protest to show the tea party being good and the progressive purple shirts as the thugs they are.

Posted by DarthVader 2011-03-02 12:14|| 2011-03-02 12:14|| Front Page Top

#8 Second that Darth, slowly.

Dispicable as they are, I would be more concerned as general theory of a government which arrests those who criticize its government's military, or can pick and choose who is and who is not privilaged to protest, coming from someone who has had to deal with the festerburrow phucks since childhood.

Posted by swksvolFF 2011-03-02 12:51|| 2011-03-02 12:51|| Front Page Top

#9 I agree with the decision, even though Phelps just needs to be run over with a steam roller.

Way too quick, DV. They deserve something much slower.

As for free speech, the only thing more important that that is for them to get their message out so we can recognize them for who they are.

Whatever the medium, be it sound waves or electrons, as long as it doesn't cause injury.

Posted by gorb 2011-03-02 12:56|| 2011-03-02 12:56|| Front Page Top

#10 The SCOTUS is on thin ice, here. 48 of the States have said that what Phelps does is unconscionable. For the SCOTUS to say that it knows better is a snub to the very idea of State governments as collectively superior to the federal government.

To do so over the first amendment is particularly appalling, as there have been an enormous number of modifiers to the first amendment by the courts. Prohibitions of what is not protected speech.

Most fundamentally, the first amendment protects political speech. What Phelps does is not political speech. Nor is it directed at political persons or organizations, but at innocent private persons, with the dual purpose of inflicting distress and causing a response that can then be litigated to Phelps profit.

It is comparable to a group of Klansmen holding a rally and cross burning next to a black community, with intent to sue them if they respond to the attack. Free speech is not an issue.

That Phelps and his people obey local laws while doing so is utterly unimportant. Klansmen rarely violate no-burning ordinances either, as they seldom exist where they would burn their crosses.

Posted by Anonymoose 2011-03-02 13:38|| 2011-03-02 13:38|| Front Page Top

#11 I agree, moose, though pole dancers are protected by the first amendment.

There was a malicious tort here. Their speech seeks to inflict pain. The have a right to say what they wish and that should not be infringed. But they also have a responsibility to bear the consequences.

Their comments are fighting words. They need to bear responsibility for their incitement.

If we can have laws about hate speech, it's hard to see how these guys don't fit under the umbrella.

Finally, this seems to verge on barratry. They are lawyers, not ministers. They should be disbbarred.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2011-03-02 15:29|| 2011-03-02 15:29|| Front Page Top

#12 Finally, this seems to verge on barratry. They are lawyers, not ministers. They should be disbbarred.

Somebody else will have to sue them on that basis. The thing is, they aren't selling their legal skills to anyone outside the family, so being disbarred won't really affect them. They'll just represent themselves in court without being lawyers.

Posted by trailing wife 2011-03-02 18:18|| 2011-03-02 18:18|| Front Page Top

#13 Every legal thing that can be done to make these people's lives miserable as they made the Snyder family and many others should be done. These are not decent people.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2011-03-02 18:22|| 2011-03-02 18:22|| Front Page Top

#14 Then get Holder off his ass and get them declared a hate group, or GLAD. Charge them with stalking as that kid from Kansas was charged for counter-protesting (poorly, but he got the book thrown at him). Municipals have laws preventing tobacco/alcohol within x distance of schools/churches do the same with protests and parades. Noise ordanance violations.

Thing is they are a Jaberwocky for the liberals and fill that role of boogyman - see there, thats what the hateful god lovers are! And if you wonder why after all these years of GLAD type orgs taking people down for suspician of homophobia why have these sheep fuckers not been addressed? Theory is they are quite connected. They had fizzled out until 2003 then made a comeback showing up for soldier funerals...and were given a pass. Until then they picketed plays, art exibits, museums, entertainers such as Bill Mahar, and my artsy friends knew where he was at all times until 2003 for some reason. They are very good at recording and prosecuting counter-protesters who lose their cool.

The issue here is whether there is a Federal Law preventing them ability to assemble and speak. Yes, they are able to do that. Nazis, Klans, Panthers, AZTLANs, GLAD, Jersey Shore, they all are also allowed their parades and such though their messages are offensive to quite a number of people outside that group so long as they follow certain rules of conduct. The laws are there they just need to be used - example that fat hippy sleeping barefoot in WI Capital could have been fined and escorted out for being barefoot in a public building.

But I will tell you, as someone at age 8 who saw stick figures getting corn-holed, the Phucks are gentlemanly compared to what happened to that WI State Congressman. So Eric, time to dust off that ol' Columbia Law Degree and have that discussion about hatred, you know since everyone wants to re-live the 60's and you are all about the 60's the other day. Whatta say ol' chap?

Posted by swksvolFF 2011-03-02 19:12|| 2011-03-02 19:12|| Front Page Top

#15 Theory is they are quite connected.

As I recall Mr. Phelps was very active for Al Gore's presidential run, swksvolFF.

Posted by trailing wife 2011-03-02 19:23|| 2011-03-02 19:23|| Front Page Top

#16 Mutual supporters back in the day, rumors of association with the Clintons, some sort of lefty lawyer club. Ran as a democrat for Kansas Governor.

As I recall there was some sort of cartoon character prawn law, if these people are still using their stick figures in public, there ya go...

Posted by swksvolFF 2011-03-02 20:36|| 2011-03-02 20:36|| Front Page Top

#17 One can dream that these people do something that ends up putting each one of them in prison with a gay cell mate.

Posted by Choluper Munster2900 2011-03-02 20:58|| 2011-03-02 20:58|| Front Page Top

#18 Now THAT would be poetic ~~justice~~ er retribution. :)

Posted by Fire and Ice 2011-03-02 21:49|| 2011-03-02 21:49|| Front Page Top

#19 This type of thing is so hurtful, its like school bullying multiplied tenfold or more, don't be suprised when someone in the deceased's family goes crazy and starts shooting people involved with Westboro. Could I even blame them? No.

Posted by Fire and Ice 2011-03-02 21:56|| 2011-03-02 21:56|| Front Page Top

00:19 JosephMendiola
23:45 JosephMendiola
23:26 Bill Clinton
23:18 sherry
22:40 Fire and Ice
22:33 Fire and Ice
22:31 OldSpook
22:31 gorb
22:24 Barbara Skolaut
22:19 OldSpook
22:12 OldSpook
22:09 tu3031
22:02 Fat Bob Ebbuling4222
21:57 Fat Bob Ebbuling4222
21:56 Fire and Ice
21:55 Ho Chi Grutle5210
21:49 Fire and Ice
21:43 Frank G
21:23 tu3031
21:18 Dale
21:11 Dale
21:02 tu3031
20:58 Choluper Munster2900
20:55 RandomJD