Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... eheadlines" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Supreme Court announced Monday that it will review whether the anti-gay protests at funerals of American soldiers are protected by the First Amendment.

The case is brought by a Maryland father whose son's 2006 funeral was picketed by members of the Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kan. Westboro pastor Fred Phelps contends that the deaths of American soldiers are punishment for the nation's tolerance for homosexuality.

Phelps and members of his church -- which consists primarily of his family members -- have picketed at funerals across the country, carrying signs that read "Thank God for dead soldiers" and "Semper fi fags."

A jury in Baltimore awarded Albert Snyder more than $10 million in damages, an amount later cut in half and then thrown out by U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit in Richmond.

God hates AGS!?!

It's sad these people aren't hearing God screaming through the Bible telling them to love the sinner and hate the sin, and to reach out and serve those in need...

...but if it takes a gag order/lawsuit from the Supreme Court, I'm all for it. These guys are a joke, a black mark on an already polarizing Christian Community, and just flat out wrong.

They'll get their day in hell too.

andy7171 wrote:God hates AGS!?!

Yes - he does.

Nothing personal GAS - If WBC had a sign that said God Hates Falph I would have changed that to Ralph instead.....but their sings seem to offer only the target of "FAGS" - not Falphs.

ToTheLeft wrote:It's sad these people aren't hearing God screaming through the Bible telling them to love the sinner and hate the sin, and to reach out and serve those in need...

...but if it takes a gag order/lawsuit from the Supreme Court, I'm all for it. These guys are a joke, a black mark on an already polarizing Christian Community, and just flat out wrong.

I'm never for going agains the rights that are guaranteed to us. If the right to free speech is taken away for this I would be very interested to see what the logic behind it is.

Ursus A. Horribilis wrote:

ToTheLeft wrote:It's sad these people aren't hearing God screaming through the Bible telling them to love the sinner and hate the sin, and to reach out and serve those in need...

...but if it takes a gag order/lawsuit from the Supreme Court, I'm all for it. These guys are a joke, a black mark on an already polarizing Christian Community, and just flat out wrong.

I'm never for going agains the rights that are guaranteed to us. If the right to free speech is taken away for this I would be very interested to see what the logic behind it is.

So then you thought it was wrong to keep protestors away from Crawford too?

OSBF wrote:

Ursus A. Horribilis wrote: I'm never for going agains the rights that are guaranteed to us. If the right to free speech is taken away for this I would be very interested to see what the logic behind it is.

So then you thought it was wrong to keep protestors away from Crawford too?

While the President (who ever is president) gets a certain security bubble that I fully agree with...what happened in Crawford was crap...pure and simple...

On the same hand, I have no problem keeping protesters like Westboro a good distance from a funeral...they can protest if they want, but at a set distance (I'm not sure what that is, but someone smarter can figure it out...)

Ursus A. Horribilis wrote:

ToTheLeft wrote:It's sad these people aren't hearing God screaming through the Bible telling them to love the sinner and hate the sin, and to reach out and serve those in need...

...but if it takes a gag order/lawsuit from the Supreme Court, I'm all for it. These guys are a joke, a black mark on an already polarizing Christian Community, and just flat out wrong.

I'm never for going agains the rights that are guaranteed to us. If the right to free speech is taken away for this I would be very interested to see what the logic behind it is.

Agree....and by the same token, I'd have no problem turning my head to allow a family member of the deceased to "address the issue" with any person choosing to exercise their right of free speech in this manner....

Col Hogan wrote:

OSBF wrote:
So then you thought it was wrong to keep protestors away from Crawford too?

While the President (who ever is president) gets a certain security bubble that I fully agree with...what happened in Crawford was crap...pure and simple...

On the same hand, I have no problem keeping protesters like Westboro a good distance from a funeral...they can protest if they want, but at a set distance (I'm not sure what that is, but someone smarter can figure it out...)

Aren't most cemetaries private property? I would imagine adjacent to other parcels of private property? Work out a deal with your neighbors...people have the right to free speech, but do not have an access right to exercise that on your property...

danefan wrote:

andy7171 wrote:God hates AGS!?!

Yes - he does.

Nothing personal GAS - If WBC had a sign that said God Hates Falph I would have changed that to Ralph instead.....but their sings seem to offer only the target of "FAGS" - not Falphs.

Col Hogan wrote:

OSBF wrote:
So then you thought it was wrong to keep protestors away from Crawford too?

While the President (who ever is president) gets a certain security bubble that I fully agree with...what happened in Crawford was crap...pure and simple...

On the same hand, I have no problem keeping protesters like Westboro a good distance from a funeral...they can protest if they want, but at a set distance (I'm not sure what that is, but someone smarter can figure it out...)

Yes if there is an ordinance or law that keeps them a certain distance away then it is also fine with me.

Appaholic wrote:

Ursus A. Horribilis wrote: I'm never for going agains the rights that are guaranteed to us. If the right to free speech is taken away for this I would be very interested to see what the logic behind it is.

Agree....and by the same token, I'd have no problem turning my head to allow a family member of the deceased to "address the issue" with any person choosing to exercise their right of free speech in this manner....

Yup, and if the need to tie my shoe just before the secondary exercising of free speech took place and I were to lean down and tie said shoe and the primary free speecher were to trip over me in the process then I would feel OK with that as well.

Free Speech issue.

This Christian group should be allowed to protest, on public sidewalks, regardless of how disgusting their message is.

The cemetery should be allowed to restrict access on their own property however, because that venue is not a traditional place for public protest.

And no, this Christian group should not5 be allowed to use megaphones or other electronic devices to artificially amplify their speech.

Ursus A. Horribilis wrote:

ToTheLeft wrote:It's sad these people aren't hearing God screaming through the Bible telling them to love the sinner and hate the sin, and to reach out and serve those in need...

...but if it takes a gag order/lawsuit from the Supreme Court, I'm all for it. These guys are a joke, a black mark on an already polarizing Christian Community, and just flat out wrong.

I'm never for going agains the rights that are guaranteed to us. If the right to free speech is taken away for this I would be very interested to see what the logic behind it is.

I agree 99.9% of the time.

I also agree that this group of hate mongers need to be silenced for the good of the everyone. It's a selfish deviation from my typical stance of "more government, more problems", but one I'm more than willing to make.

I thought most cemetaries were public property? Except for the ones on church property, most of them here are "owned" by the County, Township, City, or similar local government body.

If I were on the murder jury trying the father of a dead gay soldier whose son or daughter's funeral was desecrated by this group, the father would be found not guilty.

native wrote:If I were on the murder jury trying the father of a dead gay soldier whose son or daughter's funeral was desecrated by this group, the father would be found not guilty.

OSBF wrote:I thought most cemetaries were public property? Except for the ones on church property, most of them here are "owned" by the County, Township, City, or similar local government body.

It doesn't really matter whether the cemetery is public or private.

Cemeteries are not "traditional" venues for protest, thus protesting would not be allowed on cemeteries regardless if it is public or private.

For example, elementary/high schools, FBI offices, Court Buildings, the White House etc. are all government owned public property. But people can't just walk up inside them and start protesting. Instead, protesting is limited to the sidewalk adjacent to these areas. The same holds true for cemeteries.

ToTheLeft wrote:

Ursus A. Horribilis wrote: I'm never for going agains the rights that are guaranteed to us. If the right to free speech is taken away for this I would be very interested to see what the logic behind it is.

I agree 99.9% of the time.

I also agree that this group of hate mongers need to be silenced for the good of the everyone. It's a selfish deviation from my typical stance of "more government, more problems", but one I'm more than willing to make.

Then it really isn't the right to free speech any more correct? It's the right to free speech for those deemed acceptable now then I guess?

Ursus A. Horribilis wrote:

ToTheLeft wrote:
I agree 99.9% of the time.

I also agree that this group of hate mongers need to be silenced for the good of the everyone. It's a selfish deviation from my typical stance of "more government, more problems", but one I'm more than willing to make.

Then it really isn't the right to free speech any more correct? It's the right to free speech for those deemed acceptable now then I guess?

It is distasteful, but they have a right to say what they want, as long as it is not advocating direct violence. They do however, don't have the right to be ridiculed, scorned or confronted.

dbackjon wrote:

Ursus A. Horribilis wrote: Then it really isn't the right to free speech any more correct? It's the right to free speech for those deemed acceptable now then I guess?

It is distasteful, but they have a right to say what they want, as long as it is not advocating direct violence. They do however, don't have the right to be ridiculed, scorned or confronted.

Where did you get the idea that I thought they did have the right not to be ridiculed? As far as I'm concerned EVERYONE is fair game for ridiculing and I think you should know that fairly well so why the addendum there? Did I say something that made you think I was advocating not ridiculing them?

Ursus A. Horribilis wrote:

ToTheLeft wrote:
I agree 99.9% of the time.

I also agree that this group of hate mongers need to be silenced for the good of the everyone. It's a selfish deviation from my typical stance of "more government, more problems", but one I'm more than willing to make.

Then it really isn't the right to free speech any more correct? It's the right to free speech for those deemed acceptable now then I guess?

I admit that my stance on this is contrary to my beliefs about freedom of speech and lack of government involvement. It's not even "those deemed acceptable". I'm all for free speech. This one, isolated group rubs me the wrong way, and because of this, I set reason aside and wish nothing but trouble upon them from the legal system.

ToTheLeft wrote:

Ursus A. Horribilis wrote: Then it really isn't the right to free speech any more correct? It's the right to free speech for those deemed acceptable now then I guess?

I admit that my stance on this is contrary to my beliefs about freedom of speech and lack of government involvement. It's not even "those deemed acceptable". I'm all for free speech. This one, isolated group rubs me the wrong way, and because of this, I set reason aside and wish nothing but trouble upon them from the legal system.

I get that. Problem is if we start pointing out the weak in the herd for the wolves to swallow up then at some point it may well be you and your group that is ripe for the fang. I don't understand why anyone in the herd would acquiesce to not fighting for the very right they wish to NOT have taken away from them.

Flag burning sickens me too, but it is a free speech issue so I make the reconciliation in my own psyche and keep government protection of my thoughts out of the way of all that.

I get what you're saying. At the end of the day I stand for the free speech that lets these idiots do what they do... when cooler heads prevail, I agree with you. This whole topic just pisses me off tho.

The Westboro is very careful what they do. They make sure they stay on the sidewalk or other public property. They make sure the police know they are coming. They video tape everything. If a private citizen tries to assault them because of their message they try to sue law enforcement for failing to protect them after they've been notified that they would be protesting. If law enforcement tries to limit their speech too much, tries to take their signs away, etc. they sue law enforcement.

Several years ago we had a young man from our community killed in Iraq. I don't know if the military is still doing it but at that time they came in with a crew that briefed law enforcement, city and county officials, and people from the church where the funeral would be about Westboro's tactics and gave us a big list of do's and don'ts to keep us from getting in trouble.