Ideas on how to stop Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church

[shaarona]

Is there some creative, LEGAL way to stop them from protesting the funerals of fallen servicemen and gays?

I read about a very small town in the south that went to their motel during the night and let the air out of their tires and parked behind them in the motel parking lot.

Word is.. that's illegal... but it did stop them that day.

[GrassrootsConservative]

They have a right to protest just as much as you have a right to be gay.

[Chris]

As a Nation we have chosen a different course—to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate.

@ SNYDER v. PHELPS ET AL. (http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-751.pdf) (.PDF). Alito's dissent included there.



"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
~ Evelyn Beatrice Hall, pseudonym Stephen G Tallentyre, The Friends of Voltaire (1906), summarizing Voltaire's beliefs on freedom of thought and expression. (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Voltaire)

[shaarona]

They have a right to protest just as much as you have a right to be gay.

I don't think the two are comparable.

What would happen if they protested in front of Publix or Walmart or Target?

Could that be construed as disturbing the peace or trespass?

[Chris]

I don't think the two are comparable.

What would happen if they protested in front of Publix or Walmart or Target?

Could that be construed as disturbing the peace or trespass?

Yes, that would be possible, were they to do that. But Phelps is, iirc, a lawyer, and knows the limits.

[shaarona]

@ SNYDER v. PHELPS ET AL. (http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-751.pdf) (.PDF). Alito's dissent included there.


"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
~ Evelyn Beatrice Hall, pseudonym Stephen G Tallentyre, The Friends of Voltaire (1906), summarizing Voltaire's beliefs on freedom of thought and expression. (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Voltaire)

What a tortured ruling.......

Phelps has the option of broadcasting his own TV show or publishing his own newspaper..

I guess its ruled legal.. How sad.

[shaarona]

Yes, that would be possible, were they to do that. But Phelps is, iirc, a lawyer, and knows the limits.

How then is a public funeral different than a public retail outlet?

Publix would stop it, but the father of a fallen soldier cannot?

[Chris]

What a tortured ruling.......

Phelps has the option of broadcasting his own TV show or publishing his own newspaper..

I guess its ruled legal.. How sad.

Why is it tortured? Just because you disagree?

[Chris]

How then is a public funeral different than a public retail outlet?

Publix would stop it, but the father of a fallen soldier cannot?

That's in the case, maybe not the decision, but it was part of oral arguments. The protesters do not interfere and they keep their distance.

[shaarona]

That's in the case, maybe not the decision, but it was part of oral arguments. The protesters do not interfere and they keep their distance.

My answer to you disappeared when the system burped.

To me protesting a wedding, funeral, christening, bar mitzvah or first communion is a violation of religious freedom.

The guests would be subjected to Phelps on walking past his pack of baboons.

[roadmaster]

Number one his congregation is not affiliated with any Baptist. They opted out coming here because it's harder to stand around true Christians. They are allowed to protest but from far away. They knew they would be greatly outnumbered not by hate groups but the truth.

[shaarona]

Number one his congregation is not affiliated with any Baptist. They opted out coming here because it's harder to stand around true Christians. They are allowed to protest but from far away. They knew they would be greatly outnumbered not by hate groups but the truth.

Well.. I agree that no Christians would support Phelps...and maybe I am being difficult, but I sure wish he could be stopped legally.

[Peter1469]

The Phelps crew should be tarred and feathered. And run out of every town.

[roadmaster]

Well.. I agree that no Christians would support Phelps...and maybe I am being difficult, but I sure wish he could be stopped legally.

That would be hard to do. Yes, they were more afraid of us than atheist.

[Chris]

My answer to you disappeared when the system burped.

To me protesting a wedding, funeral, christening, bar mitzvah or first communion is a violation of religious freedom.

The guests would be subjected to Phelps on walking past his pack of baboons.

How does it violate religious freedom? To begin with the Constitution prohibits the federal government from passing laws related to religion. And protests do not stop people believing.

[patrickt]

Phelps and his band of loonies are not a blessing for Christians. No matter how much some talk of "true" Christians it reflects poorly.

I asked a group of ministers once why they didn't come out publicly against whack-jobs and after some muttering they said the line was too tenuous and if they helped attack someone like Phelps then they could, in turn, be attacked. Remember the fad of religious deprogrammers back in the 60s and 70s. Of course you don't but I do. They would literally kidnap people and hold them prisoner until the said they didn't believe. I kept waiting for a Jewish family to kidnap a daughter who'd become a nun and see how that went down with people.

[Adelaide]

I don't know if there are many legal ways to stop Phelps/Westboro Baptist Church from doing what they've been doing (but, I'm not a legal expert and I'm not even American).

I personally wouldn't mind seeing Anonymous take them down, but it goes against their ethos and they're busy with other operations in the Middle East. I know previously there was an attempt by a few members to take on the church but it was not widely supported because the group as a whole supports freedom of speech, (one of their strongest beliefs universally). They only went for the Church of Scientology because they were impeding freedom of speech through lawsuits. Still, it makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside to think of what the group could do to Phelps and his mission. I don't agree with a lot of things Anonymous or other hacktivists have done, but there are a handful of major things that earned my respect (such as their involvement in the Arab spring).

[Captain Obvious]

They should do the same thing they did to that anti-Islam filmmaker - just bake up some tax code violation.

[Conley]

Yeah, they get everyone on taxes sooner or later. Didnt they do something like that with Al Capone too?

http://history.howstuffworks.com/history-vs-myth/capone-tax-evasion.htm

That's actually a great idea Cap'n. Someone should make this happen.

[roadmaster]

They should do the same thing they did to that anti-Islam filmmaker - just bake up some tax code violation. Regardless of what we think they still have freedom of speech. I am not afraid of Islam or their threats so most likely they are not either.

[Captain Obvious]

I fully support their freedoms of speech.

What I do not support is harassing family members of fallen soldiers during their loved one's funeral. At that point it ceases being a "freedom" and is nothing more than harassment.

We're too collectively stupid as a society to make this distinction.

[Chris]

But they aren't harassing. They keep their distance.

They're like trolls.

[Captain Obvious]

Ask those family members if they aren't harassing.

[roadmaster]

I fully support their freedoms of speech.

What I do not support is harassing family members of fallen soldiers during their loved one's funeral. At that point it ceases being a "freedom" and is nothing more than harassment.

We're too collectively stupid as a society to make this distinction.

That's why they didn't come here. They were not going to be in sight of the family or be able to harass anyone. Can't say the same for people who mock Christians or go out of their way to insult but that's different isn't it? Get all riled up at them and they do the same to others.

[Chris]

Ask those family members if they aren't harassing.

Irritation is not harassment, least not under law.

It's like an anti-Christian posting a diatribe. It's irritating, inflammatory, but not harassment.

[Captain Obvious]

Irritation is not harassment, least not under law.

It's like an anti-Christian posting a diatribe. It's irritating, inflammatory, but not harassment.

Hence my "stupid society" comment.

This is an area where common sense and decency should prevail, but it does not. And that is the essence of stupidity.

[Chris]

Hence my "stupid society" comment.

This is an area where common sense and decency should prevail, but it does not. And that is the essence of stupidity.

The stupidity is Phelps, the commonsense is the preservation of free speech. One far outweighs the other.

[roadmaster]

Irritation is not harassment, least not under law.

It's like an anti-Christian posting a diatribe. It's irritating, inflammatory, but not harassment.
Correct it's harassing when they go into Church buildings and throw condoms and disrupt services. Or go up to a young teen Christian group and try and threaten them and yell into their faces. Christians know how it feels to be harassed and even here would not allow them to do this. Only problem with cowards is they go after the youth, they should try the older ones.

[Chris]

Correct it's harassing when they go into Church buildings and throw condoms and disrupt services. Or go up to a young teen Christian group and try and threaten them and yell into their faces. Christians know how it feels to be harassed and even here would not allow them to do this. Only problem with cowards is they go after the youth, they should try the older ones.

Agree, that would be harassment and the law should come down on them fro trespassing and assault and disturbance of the peace.

[Captain Obvious]

The stupidity is Phelps, the commonsense is the preservation of free speech. One far outweighs the other.

No, the stupidity is that while we can legislate when it is appropriate and not appropriate to exercise civil liberties like speech and protest, we cannot legislate (or enforce already existing) laws against what is clearly harassment.

Your right to freedom ends when it infringes on my right of privacy.

You are a very mechanical thinker and these issues require an abstract thought process. That process is called common sense. When the parents of a child are being harassed (and harassment isn't really a strong enough term in this case) during the time when they are grieving the death of that child, son, daughter, whatever - who died to protect these idiots freedom, then there clearly is something wrong with the process.

We are (or should be) a nation of humans, not logarithms.

[Chris]

No, the stupidity is that while we can legislate when it is appropriate and not appropriate to exercise civil liberties like speech and protest, we cannot legislate (or enforce already existing) laws against what is clearly harassment.

Your right to freedom ends when it infringes on my right of privacy.

You are a very mechanical thinker and these issues require an abstract thought process. That process is called common sense. When the parents of a child are being harassed (and harassment isn't really a strong enough term in this case) during the time when they are grieving the death of that child, son, daughter, whatever - who died to protect these idiots freedom, then there clearly is something wrong with the process.

We are (or should be) a nation of humans, not logarithms.

Ad hom's not a good argument. I suggest consulting the Constitution instead of liberal ideology. We're a nation of laws, not of men.

[Captain Obvious]

Ad hom's not a good argument. I suggest consulting the Constitution instead of liberal ideology. We're a nation of laws, not of men.

Crying "ad hom" is not a good defense.


We're a nation of laws, not of men.

You're dismissed.

[Chris]

Crying "ad hom" is not a good defense.



You're dismissed.

That's a typical reaction, you engage in a logical fallacy but criticize me for pointing it out.

It was John Adams, though it goes back far as Aristotle, by the way, who said "A government of laws, and not of men" and which you dismiss.

[roadmaster]

Agree, that would be harassment and the law should come down on them fro trespassing and assault and disturbance of the peace.

Lol I know I take after my Dad. Nice but don't mess with my kids or the youth. My Dad wasn't a Church goer but one day I coming out of Church with my grandma, I was 12, two men thought they could talk down to me. Dad got out of his car and tore them up. He wasn't an atheist but was never fond of Church, only took us and picked us up. :grin:

[Captain Obvious]

That's a typical reaction, you engage in a logical fallacy but criticize me for pointing it out.

It was John Adams, though it goes back far as Aristotle, by the way, who said "A government of laws, and not of men" and which you dismiss.

And that's a typical reaction from you. You cite other peoples ideology but fail to comprehend them practically. It shows that you know a lot of things but don't understand them.

We are not a nation of laws, we are a nation of people. At such point that laws begin to govern themselves, then your argument will be valid and civilization will cease to exist.

You should also consider the meaning of "ad hom". You're the first to cry foul with it, but you're also the first to toss it around.

[roadmaster]

But they aren't harassing. They keep their distance.

They're like trolls.

Exactly, they are not allowed to be in contact with the family. The Churches did not support them here and they would have been well out of sight. The only way they would have known they were in the area is by the news. That is not harassing.

[shaarona]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2JAErHl7lZ4&feature=player_embedded]

[Chris]

And that's a typical reaction from you. You cite other peoples ideology but fail to comprehend them practically. It shows that you know a lot of things but don't understand them.

We are not a nation of laws, we are a nation of people. At such point that laws begin to govern themselves, then your argument will be valid and civilization will cease to exist.

You should also consider the meaning of "ad hom". You're the first to cry foul with it, but you're also the first to toss it around.

Logic seems to escape you, captain. Here you invent a lot of straw men to make up another insult. It's unimpressive.

And again you criticize me for pointing out your fallacious logic, how ironical!

So let's skip the BS...


We are not a nation of laws, we are a nation of people.

Society consists of people, the nation is defined by its Constitution and laws.

Laws govern laws? That doesn't even begin to make sense. Laws govern men. As Madison put it, "If men were angels, no government would be necessary."

Were we a nation of men, as opposed to laws, then the law would be a capricious and arbitrary as what subjectively bothers those in charge. Tell me, how do you build civilization on that?

[roadmaster]

Shaarona don't give them recognition. They didn't come here because they were outnumbered. Who in their right mind would protest a funeral?

[Captain Obvious]

Laws govern laws? That doesn't even begin to make sense.

I agree, but that was your thought process that I am critical of.


Were we a nation of men, as opposed to laws, then the law would be a capricious and arbitrary as what subjectively bothers those in charge. Tell me, how do you build civilization on that?

Without people, laws are meaningless. Laws do not create laws or people - people create laws and because it's law does not mean it is absolute. People are imperfect as are the laws along with anything else that they create.

While it's admirable to adhere to standards, applying a standard is one thing. Considering the scope and impact of those standards to concepts beyond their scope is the next progression in logical evolution.

Monkeys can use simple tools to accomplish minor tasks, however they do not have the ability of critical thinking, which is why they're just monkeys.

[shaarona]

Shaarona don't give them recognition. They didn't come here because they were outnumbered. Who in their right mind would protest a funeral?

Very good advice...................... thanks.

[Chloe]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2JAErHl7lZ4&feature=player_embedded]

Wow I never knew these people existed until I saw this video you have on here. Sick sick people. I dont understand how they can even consider themselves a church.

[Chris]

I agree, but that was your thought process that I am critical of.



Without people, laws are meaningless. Laws do not create laws or people - people create laws and because it's law does not mean it is absolute. People are imperfect as are the laws along with anything else that they create.

While it's admirable to adhere to standards, applying a standard is one thing. Considering the scope and impact of those standards to concepts beyond their scope is the next progression in logical evolution.

Monkeys can use simple tools to accomplish minor tasks, however they do not have the ability of critical thinking, which is why they're just monkeys.


I agree, but that was your thought process that I am critical of.

You have yet to argue with what I argued.


Without people, laws are meaningless. Laws do not create laws or people - people create laws and because it's law does not mean it is absolute. People are imperfect as are the laws along with anything else that they create.

Then you fail to understand my argument. My point--and that of Adams and Aristotle and so many more--it that law cannot be arbitrary, that it cannot be chimerical and depend on subject whims.


Monkeys can use simple tools to accomplish minor tasks, however they do not have the ability of critical thinking, which is why they're just monkeys.

But it is your position that is overly simplistic, based as it is purely on emotionalism. Let me demonstrate how absurd it is in its simplicity: You, and sharoona, and some people believe what Phelps says/does should be outlawed because it is hateful. But if we apply that same emotionalism to other cases we get: Some liberals think what conservatives say/do hateful, so we must outlaw it. And vice versa conservatives, liberals. We've eliminated politics. Further applying that principle, there are some atheists who find what theists say/do hateful, theists, atheists, and thus outlawed. We've eliminated religion and anti-religion belief and thought. Some New Zealanders think what Americans say/do, hateful, and vice versa, let's outlaw that. In short, there is no end of elimination by law based on merely feeling it's hateful. Reductio ad absurdum, by applying your "reasoning" we have eliminated free speech.

[roadmaster]

If we outlawed every group considered hateful in any eyes, no one would be left.

[roadmaster]

Wow I never knew these people existed until I saw this video you have on here. Sick sick people. I dont understand how they can even consider themselves a church. They exist as so does many other types religious and non-religious. Anyone can call themselves a church these days. One of the biggest is the church of Satan in NY. That's not the ones I worry about, it's the ones that are wolfs in sheep's clothing.

[Captain Obvious]

But it is your position that is overly simplistic, based as it is purely on emotionalism. Let me demonstrate how absurd it is in its simplicity: You, and sharoona, and some people believe what Phelps says/does should be outlawed because it is hateful. But if we apply that same emotionalism to other cases we get: Some liberals think what conservatives say/do hateful, so we must outlaw it. And vice versa conservatives, liberals. We've eliminated politics. Further applying that principle, there are some atheists who find what theists say/do hateful, theists, atheists, and thus outlawed. We've eliminated religion and anti-religion belief and thought. Some New Zealanders think what Americans say/do, hateful, and vice versa, let's outlaw that. In short, there is no end of elimination by law based on merely feeling it's hateful. Reductio ad absurdum, by applying your "reasoning" we have eliminated free speech.

Common sense is more often based on simplicity which is why you consistently fail to see the forest for the trees.

And, you are incorrect on yet another point if you're suggesting that my position is to outlaw Phelps and his crew. I never made that statement or any statement that approached that suggestion. Phelps and any other American must be allowed to exercise their constitutionally protected freedom of speech. Common (and many laws) dictate that there are limits to where and how they exercise this right. For example you cannot protest in many areas without a permit for obvious reasons.

Obvious to most people that is.

But if we cannot create an environment where a fallen soldier defending these "rights" cannot be laid to rest in peace and dignity, then we have failed on so many levels. Philosophical bureaucracy is intellectual deevolution.

And we have failed on so many levels because of our failure to exercise the practice of common sense.

[Peter1469]

We don't have to outlaw anything. When good people are confronted with an evil, like this Phelps crew, they act. Tar and feather them. Drive them out of town. Separate them from society.

[roadmaster]

But if we cannot create an environment where a fallen soldier defending these "rights" cannot be laid to rest in peace and dignity, then we have failed on so many levels. Philosophical bureaucracy is intellectual deevolution.

And we have failed on so many levels because of our failure to exercise the practice of common sense. It's not about a fallen soldier or a mass murder laid to rest. It's about having a family not have to put up with people around them harassing them. If they want to protest, let them do it out of sight.

[Captain Obvious]

It's not about a fallen soldier or a mass murder laid to rest. It's about having a family not have to put up with people around them harassing them. If they want to protest, let them do it out of sight.

I think we're on the same page in this respect.

[Captain Obvious]

We don't have to outlaw anything. When good people are confronted with an evil, like this Phelps crew, they act. Tar and feather them. Drive them out of town. Separate them from society.

While I don't openly advocate violence in this respect, i certainly wouldn't stand in the way of anyone doing just that.

[Peter1469]

While I don't openly advocate violence in this respect, i certainly wouldn't stand in the way of anyone doing just that.

Justice is hard.

[Chris]

Common sense is more often based on simplicity which is why you consistently fail to see the forest for the trees.

And, you are incorrect on yet another point if you're suggesting that my position is to outlaw Phelps and his crew. I never made that statement or any statement that approached that suggestion. Phelps and any other American must be allowed to exercise their constitutionally protected freedom of speech. Common (and many laws) dictate that there are limits to where and how they exercise this right. For example you cannot protest in many areas without a permit for obvious reasons.

Obvious to most people that is.

But if we cannot create an environment where a fallen soldier defending these "rights" cannot be laid to rest in peace and dignity, then we have failed on so many levels. Philosophical bureaucracy is intellectual deevolution.

And we have failed on so many levels because of our failure to exercise the practice of common sense.

Commonsense is not based on emotion and feeling as you seem to prefer.


And, you are incorrect on yet another point if you're suggesting that my position is to outlaw Phelps and his crew. I never made that statement or any statement that approached that suggestion.

Baloney, Captain, that is the implication of this your statement: "What I do not support is harassing family members of fallen soldiers during their loved one's funeral. At that point it ceases being a "freedom" and is nothing more than harassment."


Philosophical bureaucracy is intellectual deevolution.

But emotional nonsense isn't? And you really haven't argued anything here but you feel their protest is harassment. You find them guilty without a word of justification. For example:


But if we cannot create an environment...

But that is the case, they protest from a distance. You ought to read about SNYDER v. PHELPS ET AL., look at the facts of the case, and judge it as the Supreme Court did, 8 to 1, rather than jumping to conclusions based on feelings.


And we have failed on so many levels because of our failure to exercise the practice of common sense.

Merriam-Webster defines that as "sound and prudent judgment based on a simple perception of the situation or facts." Your judgment is based on emotional appeal.

Go back to post #3 where I provide link to the SCOTUS decision on this. There you'll see sound and prudent judgment.

[Chris]

It's not about a fallen soldier or a mass murder laid to rest. It's about having a family not have to put up with people around them harassing them. If they want to protest, let them do it out of sight.

They did.


In their defense, WBC established that they had complied with all local ordinances and had obeyed police instructions. The picket was held in a location cordoned off by the police, approximately 1000 feet from the church, from which it could be neither seen nor heard. Mr. Snyder testified that, although he glimpsed the tops of the signs from the funeral procession, he did not see their content until he watched a news program on television later that day. He also indicated that he had found the WBC's statements about his son on their webpage from a Google search.

@ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snyder_v._Phelps

Most of the distress Snyder claimed to have suffered was the result of the media circus surrounding it.

[shaarona]

They did.



@ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snyder_v._Phelps

Most of the distress Snyder claimed to have suffered was the result of the media circus surrounding it.

Did someone suggest "outlawing the Phelps gang"?

[Chris]

Did someone suggest "outlawing the Phelps gang"?

Reread your OP where you seek a legal means to stop them.

[shaarona]

Reread your OP where you seek a legal means to stop them.

I don't care what these pinheads believe or what they say.. but I think they should not be allowed to disrupt a funeral. Do you see the difference?

[Chris]

I don't care what these pinheads believe or what they say.. but I think they should not be allowed to disrupt a funeral. Do you see the difference?

No I see contradiction. And they did not disrupt anything. I just above provided the facts said they didn't. So what do you want to stop them doing?