Comments on: The difference between ‘right’ and ‘legal’

By: cam

cam — Sat, 24 May 2008 01:13:40 +0000

16. This Westboro Baptist church not only says they hate the Gay-Community but African-Americans, Canada, Sweden, the Fire Department of NY, victims of 911, Christian Churches, The Pope, Judaism, America, Our American Troops, and the list goes on and on. Many of the groups they despise are specifically named on their hate propaganda, picket signs, and their many websites. They not only hate, but wish death on all that they do hate.
This sick, so called church spreads its hate through picketing in our streets, provoking attacks, with abusive vulgar language. Worst of all, they endanger their own young children, having them man the front lines in their combative demonstrations – attempting to create a confrontation and cause for one more of their frivolous lawsuits.
If a mother has given her son to this country and is putting Him in his grave, this is not the time or the place. This is not about protesters, this is about a group that calls that mother names on the way into a church to say goodbye to that son. We are not talking about FREEDOM we are talking about human decency. This is not about protesting, this is about a life of hate. They are not peaceful. They are not a “church”. They go after any thing that can get them in the news. I am all for protest when there is a reason, I have been in many. This group will protest anything to get its face on TV. It is about an old man lost in the darkness of hate, but will put his six year old grandson in danger to save himself. Do we have a real need to protest at any funeral? Is that a real Freedom.
The city of Topeka, the state of Kansas and the U.S. at large, its citizens and their Churches, schools and events are all held hostage by this “hate group” – always at the tax payer’s expense. With this group it is just not about Freedom. It is only about HATE.

By: Amp

Amp — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 23:15:19 +0000

I’m not a lawyer either, and I summarily reject the premise that only lawyers can discuss the law. That’s absurd. Though, I suppose if lawyers are also people that “just decided to talk,” apparently no one can about legal issues. Good to know!
But anyway, I know hate speech is not banned by the First Amendment, but can’t it be proscribed as group libel or fighting words? In R.A.V v St. Paul, White, Blackmun and Stevens agreed that the St. Paul hate speech ordinance was overbroad, but they disagreed with Scalia’s argument that the government can’t regulate the content of speech, especially fighting words. All three said that, had the ordinance been narrow enough, it would have been constitutional even though it specifically regulated bigoted content. I’m not sure that the Phelps’ protests would qualify as either libel or fighting words, but I was just suggesting hate speech regulation as a tactic the government could take in limiting the funeral protests. Just a thought.
I think the Phelps probably do have a right to protest, even though the protests are horrific. I’m very interested to see if any attempts to stop them will be deemed constitutional.

By: Greg

Greg — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 17:40:11 +0000

Isn’t it obvious? Phelps is a homosexual and feels guilty about it. Those who preach against it with such fervor always are.

By: whea-wix

whea-wix — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 17:09:50 +0000

I am not a lawyer, but I am a constitutional specialist, an American Government teacher, and the head of the Political Science department at the school where I teach. I wasn’t aware I had to flash my credentials to post a comment on Eric’s blog.

But since I have posted my “worthy-ness,” I will clarify my original post where I said that the state is not involved in a criminal case. They do not bring the case, but they can be the defendant. And civil cases are not out to prove that someone broke a law. That is a criminal case and will be brought by the state. A civil case can deal with wrongful death suits or assault or vandalism, all of which are illegal, but the civil suit does not prove guilt beyond a shadow of a doubt. It is merely a preponderance of evidence that one side was harmed by the other.

Hate speech is not banned by the First Amendment, in most cases. The KKK, the Neo-Nazis and all the rest have the right to their vitriolic message. They can organize and hold rallies on private property. They cannot go to others and force their message on them (Virginia v Black is the landmark case here – cross burning is protected speech if done on private property without the intent to intimidate.) I have not followed this case much, so I don’t know if this group intended to intimidate/harass with their hate speech.

By: Dave the Slave

Dave the Slave — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 04:36:43 +0000

AMEN, Momma Snider! That’s what I kept thinking the whole time I was watching an interview with Shirley Phelps. What a steaming pile of hipocracy!
Eric really does voice an interesting idea. Do everyone’s rights weigh the same? Would it even be possible to live in a world where everyone’s rights didn’t outweigh anyone elses’? Do the monsters have a right to protest funerals, and if so, what about the rights for family members to greive the passing of family members unmolested? Why are the psychos’ rights the only ones most people focus on? Probably because “free speech” is bantered around so much, and theres no clear-worded law about every little “right” we as Americans assume we have. I have the right to wake up at 2:13am Thursday mornings and eat a grahm cracker with milk, I don’t need a detailed law outlining that right. …but now I’m just ranting into incoherence…

By: Momma Snider

Momma Snider — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 01:57:16 +0000

All I know is, those Fred Phelps “Christians” are disgusting, vile people. If God were to come close to hating one of his children, it would be one who hates others.

By: Chuckwagon Breakfast

Chuckwagon Breakfast — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 00:04:40 +0000

What was the original question? And how many people here are actually lawyers, and how many are people who just decided to talk? Unfortunately for my last sentence, there’s a strong argument that lawyers are just people who decided to talk. Lawyers go to lots of school to learn how to talk. Does that mean they’re slower than the rest of us who learned to talk before we went to school?

By: Amp

Amp — Tue, 06 Nov 2007 21:29:46 +0000

The First Amendment applies to any laws enacted to curb funeral protests.

By: Turkey

Turkey — Tue, 06 Nov 2007 21:20:46 +0000

As others have well pointed out, the Bill of Rights was added to protect the people from the government/head of state/Powers That Be, not from each other–that’s what individual laws are for. The First Amendment doesn’t apply here.

By: Amp

Amp — Tue, 06 Nov 2007 21:13:02 +0000

“P.S. In a civil case, the government is not involved at all. It is person v person, not state v person.”
Not true. A criminal case is the state bringing a case against a person. Civil cases are a person suing either another person or the state. For those who want to look it up: 42 USC 1983–this allows individuals to sue state and local governments for violation of the constitution and federal statutes and Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents–this allows for the right to sue the federal government for the same.
Hate speech can be another category of restricted speech. I would think any attempts to limit the Phelps’ protests might use that as a reason.