Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

(Video) Fred Phelps Freaks on CNN After Losing Case To Marine Father
Stop The ACLU ^ | 31 Oct 2007 | Jay777

Posted on 10/31/2007 7:00:35 PM PDT by Jay777

Listen to this man's insanity! Westboro Baptist Cult of Hate loses suit against the father of a fallen Marine, then their leader displays the mind he already lost!

Must see video!

(Excerpt) Read more at stoptheaclu.com ...


TOPICS: Religion
KEYWORDS: fredphelps
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-44 next last
To: Jay777
I agree that Phelps and his bunch are lunatics and should be condemned by society. However, I have serious concerns about this ruling. As far as I have read, the protesters did not attempt to prevent the funeral from occurring. Nor did they physically assault the father or anyone else. I have even read (someone correct me if I am wrong) that their protest was in a public area. For them to be essentially bankrupted for their speech (yes, I know it is very offensive but it still is an opinion) is very troubling.

How long will it be until some abortion provider or patient uses this precedent to sue pro-life activists claiming emotional trauma? Yes, I know it is not the same at all to us rational people, but to a judge there may be little difference.

These Westburo folks need to be shut down via public condemnation and counter-protests (through fine organizations such as the Patriot Guard) not by the government.

21 posted on 10/31/2007 7:39:18 PM PDT by AVNevis (In memory of Emily Keyes (1990-2006))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pillut48

Yelling fire in a crowded building poses a direct danger to the crowd assembled. The mere act of protesting does not.


22 posted on 10/31/2007 7:44:15 PM PDT by AVNevis (In memory of Emily Keyes (1990-2006))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: AVNevis

I’ve read reports where family members have had panic/anxiety attacks, which could possibly lead to real heart attacks/strokes, whatever.

This phoney preacher and his ‘family’ are a menace. I say don’t let them within 5 miles of funerals—let them say all they want in the next county over! Let the families of our brave heroes grieve in peace!! This is AMERICA, by GOD!!! >:-(


23 posted on 10/31/2007 7:46:34 PM PDT by pillut48 (CJ in TX --Soccer Mom and proud RUSH REPUBLICAN! WIN, FRED, WIN!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: AVNevis

No, but it does cause emotional distress to the family, and that is what this Marine’s father sued for and won. They have their free speech and the consequences that come along with it when you express hate.


24 posted on 10/31/2007 7:48:50 PM PDT by Jay777 (My personal blog: www.stoptheaclu.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Jay777
They have their free speech and the consequences that come along with it when you express hate. And they are facing the consequences. The consequence is that no serious person in America treats this group as a legitimate entity. My problem with this suit, though, is that it is a very slippery slope. A homosexual rights group could use the same argument against Christian groups, arguing that their "hate" speech arguing homosexuality is a sin leads to emotional distress. Bottom line is that we must tolerate freedom of speech and expression, even when we strongly disagree and even if it offends and angers others.
25 posted on 10/31/2007 7:53:04 PM PDT by AVNevis (In memory of Emily Keyes (1990-2006))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: pillut48

Let’s say (theoretically) that I am a Democratic local officeholder who has just announced an outrageous plan to triple you car taxes. You understandably come picket outside of my office to express your strong displeasure. I become distressed because of this, and eventually have a heart attack.

Should I be allowed to sue you?

Again, the circumstances are not the same but to say that the speech could theoretically lead to some harm is not enough to limit it.


26 posted on 10/31/2007 7:57:20 PM PDT by AVNevis (In memory of Emily Keyes (1990-2006))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: AVNevis

Not everyone in a theater where people stampede to the exits might get killed either, but still *SOME* will suffer due to the actions of the person shouting “FIRE!!”—I say all the families who have been hurt by this man and his family should have a class action suit against him, and bring up each and every physical/mental/spiritual/emotional consequences due to Phelps’ actions!

I have no sympathy for this looney tune, especially preaching hate in my Heavenly Father’s Name—none. >:-(


27 posted on 10/31/2007 8:00:44 PM PDT by pillut48 (CJ in TX --Soccer Mom and proud RUSH REPUBLICAN! WIN, FRED, WIN!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: AVNevis
that is allowed under the constitution, as it is a protest of a elected official. No where is it written that this group has the right to be listen to. and citizens do have the right to shut up another one, and that is just what the father did, by using the court..
28 posted on 10/31/2007 8:09:36 PM PDT by markman46 (engage brain before using keyboard!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: markman46
that is allowed under the constitution, as it is a protest of a elected official. No where is it written that this group has the right to be listen to. and citizens do have the right to shut up another one, and that is just what the father did, by using the court.. This is what the first Amendment says: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. I doesn't say that the right of people to assemble in protest of the government is protected, it just says that the right to peacefully assemble is protected. That is the end of the clause.
29 posted on 10/31/2007 8:18:51 PM PDT by AVNevis (In memory of Emily Keyes (1990-2006))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Jay777

Well, what can be said? CNN’s talking head tried very hard to hold Phelps’ feet to the fire, and did an admirable job.

And Phelps was made to sound very silly indeed.

Well done, CNN, credit where credit is due.

*DieHard*


30 posted on 10/31/2007 9:04:34 PM PDT by DieHard the Hunter (Is mise an ceann-cinnidh. Cha ghéill mi do dhuine. Fàg am bealach.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AVNevis

I utterly fail to see how the first amendment protects incitement to violence. Which is what phelps is all about.


31 posted on 10/31/2007 9:33:18 PM PDT by Ramius (Personally, I give us... one chance in three. More tea?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Ramius

And what happens when the Ninth Circus Court of Appeals decides that a pro-war rally can be considered an incitement to violence? All it takes is someone to make the leap that if War=Violence, then promoting war is inciting violence.

Do you really think that sort of thing is that big of a stretch from previous rulings?


32 posted on 10/31/2007 10:13:43 PM PDT by DougLorenz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: DougLorenz

Well, yes it is different.

Incitement to violence has never been “protected” speech. Not ever.


33 posted on 10/31/2007 10:23:05 PM PDT by Ramius (Personally, I give us... one chance in three. More tea?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: rogue yam

“Whatever one thinks of Phelps, what he is doing at these funerals is holding up signs. Code Pink does this with impunity in the Capitol.”

Code Pink does this outside Walter Reed Army hospital every Friday night...


34 posted on 10/31/2007 10:40:04 PM PDT by Tennessee Nana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Ramius

Exactly. And all it takes is for a court to assert that since war is violence, then pro-war speech is an incitement to violence. I know, it sounds stupid, but how many really stupid judgments has the Ninth Court spewed out over the past decades?

The legal system in this country is based off of case law, which is all about previous rulings. If this judgment against Phelps proceeds sucessfully through the appeals system, then that makes it that much closer to the idea that pro-war rallies might be considered illegal.


35 posted on 10/31/2007 10:40:38 PM PDT by DougLorenz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Ramius
I utterly fail to see how the first amendment protects incitement to violence. Which is what phelps is all about.

I don't think Phelps' rhetoric comes anywhere close to an incitement to violence. I think you are making a huge mistake of judgement here. An incitement to violence is when one person tells another that he should commit a violent act. This is not at all what Phelps does.

36 posted on 10/31/2007 10:45:45 PM PDT by rogue yam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: pillut48
Ya know what? We have freedom of speech guaranteed to us by the Constitution, BUT it's still illegal to shout "FIRE!!" in a crowded theater!!

This is quite simply a terrible analogy, as others have pointed out. First of all, it is illegal to falsely shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater. This is because such a shout can be expected to cause reasonable people to rush for the exits and people may be injured unnecessarily as a result. Reasonable people should be able to observe a bozo holding up a sign that says "God Hates Fags" at a funeral and simply go on about their business without anyone getting hurt as a result. It is a completely different situation.

37 posted on 10/31/2007 10:50:57 PM PDT by rogue yam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Jay777
No, but it does cause emotional distress to the family, and that is what this Marine’s father sued for and won. They have their free speech and the consequences that come along with it when you express hate.

Dude! You have completely and utterly embraced the leftist rationale for speech codes. Shame on you! What the heck is "hate"? Seriously. Where in the First Amendment is the "hate" exception? Keep it up and your grandchildren will go to jail for saying "I love America" in public. Think about it!

38 posted on 10/31/2007 10:55:29 PM PDT by rogue yam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: AVNevis

Of course, you are correct. This is a terrible judgement. Problem is no one here will be consistant enough to admit it.


39 posted on 11/01/2007 9:26:07 AM PDT by southern rock
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: rogue yam

Well, of course I meant ‘illegally’-d’oh! If there really is a fire, then it wouldn’t be illegal—I’m talking about the prank kind of behavior.

In either situation, people would be/are getting hurt because of others—do we really have to wait until the grandfather of a slain soldier drops dead at a funeral after seeing Phelps and Co’s shenanigans? I don’t think so. Like I said in another post-get a restraining order and Phelps for 5 miles away and let them spout their crap *there*. Leave those poor families and friends ALONE!!!!! >:-(


40 posted on 11/01/2007 4:10:42 PM PDT by pillut48 (CJ in TX --Soccer Mom and proud RUSH REPUBLICAN! WIN, FRED, WIN!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-44 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson