Posted on 03/30/2010 3:01:27 PM PDT by Mrs. Frogjerk
They may have taken that into account and took the risk anyway. They weren’t just fighting for themselves. They wanted to hit the Phelps clan hard to send them a message.
They need to keep fighting this and not give up hope. They were and still are on the right track.
Being able to get a few really good punches in may be worth the financial investment.
OK, Bayb. I can only argue with facts; not with your belief system.
However, it would be just wonderful if you wouldn’t accuse others of all sorts of nefarious motives just because they don’t completely agree with you.
That’s awesome! Good for Bill!
Yes, that is what the Phelps family does. I believe that most of them are attorneys.
The Patriot Guard Riders formed to stop the Phelps from doing this exact thing. I wonder why no PGR riders were there.
Yes, that is what the Phelps family does. I believe that most of them are attorneys.
The Patriot Guard Riders formed to stop the Phelps from doing this exact thing. I wonder why no PGR riders were there.
If you find out why they weren’t there, do let us know.
It's one thing to be bothered by speech of creeps along the lines of the *Mom, he's looking at me* kind of thing. Pointing out errors or inconsistencies in someone's thinking isn't hate speech as the PC crowd likes to portray it as.
Deliberately going out of your way to do something to someone that you know will hurt them in this way is a totally different issue. Stalking is not protected speech. Threats are not protected speech. Lying about the is not protected speech. People sue for liable, slander, and defamation of character, which probably would have been a better track for the Snyders to take.
The problem I have with some of these people who claim the First Amendment is at stake and that we have to allow the phelps free rein because otherwise we set a precedent and could lose our right to free speech is that not all speech is protected as it is, anyway. This is not going to start us down the slippery slope of losing our right to free speech.
If you are prohibited from physically assaulting someone and doing them physical harm, how is what phelps et al doing to a grieving family at their child's funeral any different?
Stalking is a different story and the first amendment doesn’t cover it. But, that’s not the issue here.
And what exactly makes stalking stalking that it can be prohibited? Why can't it be used against phelps in this case?
Motives have nothing to do with it. The First Amendment is not a license to violate others’ rights, no matter what anyone’s motives are.
What rights are being violated by a group of sign carrying, obscenity shouting creeps? (Decency, human kindness, charity - yes, all of those things are being violated, but the First Amendment doesn’t cover these).
Even so, I was more concerned by the attacking of fellow Freepers for disagreeing with you. What’s that about?
And that is exactly the situation we find ourselves in today because of people who have misused and abused the Constitution. People like the phelps group who know how to manipulate people and laws to force everyone else to have to put up with their crap.
They know that by invoking the First Amendment, people will roll over and expose their jugular because they're going to be afraid to be perceived as being against freedom of speech.
phelps et al be able to get those who see what WBC is about and want to stop it, look like the bad guys by misrepresenting them as wanting to restrict freedom of speech, in their SOP of lying.
Considering what our judiciary has become in terms of liberals being appointed, this doesn’t surprise me.
Liberals are callous.
I hope the outpouring of support sends a real message and provides more than enough for the Snyders to manage financially. I’m not one to send money to every cause that comes along, but I so hate and despise the the phelps clan is about and what they’re doing and the abuse of the First Amendment they are engaged in, that I would be willing to break that rule and donate to this family.
I’d even mail out a bunch of pennies to help if he’s forced to pay phelps.
What rights would be violated if someone stalked, harassed, and intimidated you? Do you retain rights that others don’t possess? If you stood between phelps and his intended victims, weren’t you violating his right to use speech in the commission of a crime? If freedom of speech is absolute, how can terroristic threats be a crime?
Who have I attacked? If you don’t know what your false accusation is about, I certainly don’t.
I cannot believe that anyone would buy into the myth that the First Amendment protects the right to commit any and all acts, so long as speech is one of the tools used to commit the act. If that were true, there could be no laws dealing with bullying, perjury, terroristic threats, bank robbery, extortion, etc. Anything that involves speech would magically be legal. LOL
Sounds pretty Canadian. “Hate speech” anyone?
What these people do is heinous, vile, disgusting, etc....
But it is not illegal. It is protected by the First Amendment.
There is no “right” to not be offended.
That’s a straw man. Nobody is claiming a right not to be offended.
Exactly.
BTW, I was reading through the comments on the Fox website and found this from the American Legion. It appears that they are setting up a fund to help with the expenses so that if the Snyders are forced to pay up, that it won’t cost them a nickel.
http://burnpit.legion.org/2010/03/put-yourself-in-his-dad%E2%80%99s-shoes/
Albert Synder defense fund:
The American Legion Burnpit Albert Snyder Fund
P.O. Box 1055
Indianapolis, IN 46206
That’s good to know. I trust the American Legion to spend our donations honorably.
You know, every time someone trots out that old line, it just yanks me back to a discussion on FR when the FLDS thing blew up and and people were commenting on the rights of the children in the case to be free from being sexually abused, and someone actually said that women and children to not have the right to not be raped.
"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."
The First Amendment restricts the actions and authority of the federal government. It doesn't mean that local municipalities or states can't enact legislation restricting protesting outside funerals.
Besides, phelps is free to say what he wants any other time he wants. Not permitting it during and at a funeral he attended for strangers he didn't know for the purpose of inflicting more pain and suffering on the family is not such an infringement on his freedom of speech that it warrants his abuse of the First Amendment and claims that he's protected by it.
This is more than a matter of not being *offended*. The First Amendment was not put in place in order to be misused to hold the country hostage to the despicable actions of a few deranged spawn of Satan.
Eventually......eventually some Marine will walk away from the funeral procession and put his fist through this pricks face so deeply he will never be able open his mouth again.Just a prediction
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.