Does Shirley Phelps have the right to protest at soldier's funerals?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by likemyorbs, Oct 7, 2010.

  1. likemyorbs macrumors 68000

    likemyorbs

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2008
    Location:
    NJ
    #1
    I started a Shirley Phelps thread not too long ago but was told that the topic is basically dead. But now it's back to life. Shirley Phelps and her "church" had their day in the US supreme court today. The church members who weren't in court were outside the court house holding up the signs that got them there in the first place. The question is, do you think the Westboro baptist church has the right to protest dead soldiers funerals with hateful signs? the supreme court justices are torn over whether the first amendment allows for free speech to this extent. Is this harassment? If the court rules against them, that means that the KKK is never allowed to protest anything ever again. This ruling will have a lot of effects. I for one don't think they have the right to do that, but some would say that the first amendment protects this kind of behavior. What do you guys think?
     
  2. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #2
    She has the right, and the court damn well better uphold that right. Just because an opinion or protest is unpopular, that does not mean we make laws to shut them up. I want the same rights they have after all.
     
  3. likemyorbs thread starter macrumors 68000

    likemyorbs

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2008
    Location:
    NJ
    #3
    I think this can definitely hold up as harassment. And the family has a great case for emotional distress. There are certain things that even the first amendment doesn't allow. I hate when people use our own laws against us.
     
  4. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #4
    It's tasteless and cruel, but remember that these people can only do this within a certain distance of the funerals. Let them have their voice and counter them with your own, but do not make laws that could hurt us all.
     
  5. fcortese macrumors demi-god

    fcortese

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2010
    Location:
    Big Sky country
    #5
    funerals are extremely and intensely personal moments of grieving and saying goodbye to a loved one. There are ample places for people to express their views and have their free speech, funerals are not one of those places. You can not cry fire in a crowded movie theater-that's not free speech. And neither is protesting a war or expressing your views when people are trying to deal with the loss of someone they love. Where is your compassion and where the h**l is your common decency and sense?
     
  6. likemyorbs thread starter macrumors 68000

    likemyorbs

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2008
    Location:
    NJ
    #6
    I think it would be acceptable to pass a law that bans protests and other disorderly conduct within viewing distance around funerals, weddings, and other sensitive events. In other words, sure they can protest, but in a place where no one attending the event can see them. i just don't think the first amendment allows for this kind of cruelty.
     
  7. fcortese macrumors demi-god

    fcortese

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2010
    Location:
    Big Sky country
    #7
    Way, way out of sight and sound of the funeral, the funeral procession and the cemetery. But these people are not doing that. And the media should not cover it, IMO, if the event is purposely scheduled to coincide with the funeral.
     
  8. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #8
    Totally agree.

    There will always be a-holes.

    Sometimes you just have to endure them... while of course letting them know that they're a-holes.
     
  9. bruinsrme macrumors 601

    bruinsrme

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2008
    #9
    Her and her groups actions are disgusting.

    I wonder how people would react if the same types of protects were aimed other groups,particularly gay and lesbian.

    Believe me I don't wish such tasteless protests on any group but have to wonder if her "rights" would so easily be accepted.
     
  10. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #10
    They can only protest on public property, and they are allowed to by the Constitution. End of story. That is a precious right and needs to be protected.

    Exactly.

    Their protests are aimed at gays and lesbians and the USA's tolerance of us. How in the world did you miss that? That's their whole purpose. That's why they're out there, because our soldiers fight for a country that tolerates gay people.
     
  11. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #11
    This.

    They have every right to do it. That said, the way they go about it is beyond tasteless and downright disgusting.

    This is America, if you want the right to say what you want, you damn well better respect the rights of those who you disagree with, or frankly find to have disgusting views.


    My only exception to this: I wish that when sworn in, an elected official could not legally lie to the public, as all of our politicians do. I wish there was a way to punish them for intentionally misleading the people.
     
  12. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #12
    There is. We vote them out.
     
  13. bruinsrme macrumors 601

    bruinsrme

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2008
    #13
    tolerated? Wow personally I don't want to be tolerated. But if that is the verbiage, ok

    I surely didnt sacrifice/serve 14 years for any person or group to be tolerated. Accepted yes, tolerated absolutely NOT
     
  14. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #14
    No we don't. Not always. Not even close to the majority of the time.
     
  15. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #15
    These people have protested at several gay people's funerals as well. I still stand for their right to do so, as long as they are on public property they have that right.
     
  16. bruinsrme macrumors 601

    bruinsrme

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2008
    #16
    because "the people" have been blocked out of the washington curtain for so long.

    Now that news and info moves so fast, lieing is better reported and people are able to voice opinions and concerns quicker.
    How many people write their elected officials. Last year I read .02% of people do.
     
  17. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #17
    Exactly. The entire system is designed to make sure that nothing ever really changes other than the petty small scale things.
     
  18. bruinsrme macrumors 601

    bruinsrme

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2008
    #18
    Lee please don't tell me you want to be "tolerated"
     
  19. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #19
  20. bruinsrme macrumors 601

    bruinsrme

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2008
    #20
    I am questioning your use of the word "tolerated"

    Is the gay community striving to be accepted or tolerated. I hope you say accepted, I really do. If not, I have misread any legislation I have voted for.

    for instance in MA I voted for gay marriage to be legal, surely not tolerated.

    As much as I think that group is tasteless, ignorant and so on it is unfortunate that their rights have to be respected.
     
  21. bruinsrme macrumors 601

    bruinsrme

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2008
    #21
    reference
     
  22. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #22
    All we want is equal treatment under the law. Total acceptance will never happen.
     
  23. 184550 Guest

    Joined:
    May 8, 2008
    #23
    I think that it is a slippery slope when you start restricting the rights of people to do or say what they want (within reason). Restricting the rights of a small group of people will only set a precedent for the same thing to be done on a larger scale next time.
     
  24. bruinsrme macrumors 601

    bruinsrme

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2008
    #24
    Again, I served for equality of all, not for some and tolerance for others.

    I hope tolerance is the not the goal of the gay community.
     
  25. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #25
    Again, I used their words, not mine. Equal treatment under the law is our goal. We are not so stupid as to believe that everyone will accept us- they won't. There will always people who hate others because they are different. All we can do is minimize the amount of people who do.
     

Share This Page