So, WRP, we must tolerate intolerance?

I think that the Justices will find for the Snyder family. Free speech does not give people the right to harass and stalk people. The Snyders were not public figures and have more rights than say a politician or famous movie star.

In the end I think that the Court will say that people can bring a tort to defend themselves from written and verbal harassment and abuse. It will be no different than when a movie star sues the Enquirer when they print a false article calling them homosexual.

I think the most fitting response to the WBC gang would be for gay and lesbian people to fill this pitiful little church each Sunday and exercise their first amendment right to educate these people.

Some years ago Fred Phelps brought his little traveling circus to Provincetown, Massachusetts, a community which is more than half gay/lesbian. The citizens of P-town held a town meeting at which they came together around the decision to simply ignore him. He showed up with his signs and his rants and nobody paid him the slightest attention. They walked by him as if he wasn't there. Needless to say, he didn't stay long.

This is not to suggest that this is what Mr Snyder, or others in his shoes, should do. No one can blame him for his anger, and only he knows whether it is the best way to deal with his reality.

But I think it does show that if you really want to get to Phelps, or O'Reilly, or Hannity, or Limbaugh, or any of these creeps, the way to do it is to starve them of the nourishment they subsist on, which is attention.

Did anyone ever sue the Bush administration for their "free speech zones" that were miles from the event at which Bush or Cheney attended?

I agree with The Queen!

As I recall, First Amendment rights may be limited by time place and manner.
How about: you may protest at the cemetery, but not during this hour;
you may protest during this hour, but not at this place; you may protest at this time and place, but not in this manner.
True constitutional scholars will tear this to shreds. Its just a thought.

My understanding is that the WBC was restricted to an area no closer than 1500 feet from the church where the Synder's funeral was being held, and that his activities had to end before the service itself. And that he abided by these restrictions.

The Snyders contention was that they shouldn't have to change the route by which they approached the church to avoid seeing the signs, and that the WBC presence caused them emotional distress. While I feel for them, Phelps didn't break the law and his right of free speech was upheld by the police and the restrictions were appropriate.

It would make me, and a lot of other people, feel really good to see him get his ass kicked. But it would threaten us all to allow it.

How could the vile Phelpses have caused Albert Snyder more pain, by doing what they did or by (say) stabbing him in the guts?

I wouldn't like to guess which.

Now, would you defend to the death, etc., their right to stab Albert Snyder in the guts?

" Congress shall make no law..." that is the introductory line of the First Amendment. The Common Law preceded the Constitution and the judge made law of Torts includes intentional harms by one person on another. ,including the actions for which Mr Snyder received an award against Mr Phelps and his church. These lines have been blurred since the case of NY Times vs Sullivan ( a public figure Plaintiff against a media defendant). This case involves neither; much less restraint by Congressional action .Speech as protected by the Constitution is a value ;but , it is not our only value . The right to Privacy including the right to be let alone while we bury our dead is another value worth legal protection . I know Fred Phelps and he is a bully ; after he was disbarred he simply found another way to abuse people and to fulfill his narcissistic needs. Mr Snyders sons' funeral simply provided an opportunity. A limited opinion on time , place and manner of speech can preserve both values.

Is the issue here Freedom of Speech or Freedom from Harassment?

Two disagreements.

1. Protecting free speech which is disguised hate speech against the powerless, is not the same as protecting free speech critical of the power elite. Phelps free speech protection will not protect ours.

2. If Phelps were not white, but black or Muslim, it would be clear his 'rights' would be less protected. He would be a dead man.

When Bush and Cheney had a safety zone around them protecting them from people exercising free speech, so should every family have the same zone, for instance at the burial site of their loved ones. As one comment above says: "Did anyone ever sue the Bush administration for their "free speech zones" that were miles from the event at which Bush or Cheney attended?" How the Supreme Court can get around that problem,upkeeping special protection for some people and denying the same for others, is beyond me.

A vote for the Republicans is a vote for Phelps....and Beck...and Limbaugh...Dr what'shername .... $arah Palin and the rest of the American Christian Taliban- Aryan Nation libertarian teabags....or whatever they call themselves.

Get it?

McConnell, Angel...the whole GOP extremist right movement...they all oppose abortion and gay rights. Obama and America etc....just like these people do. Lockstep.

Only they do it in the US Senate and House... where their opinion really counts.
They voted in Congress for Obama to fail....they prayed for Obama to fail.... they wished for America to fail so Obama would fail.

I tell you America....you vote for those vile evil people and you deserve whatever happens to you.

Could someone please investigate the funding for this pack of psychotics. Where do they get the funds to fly around the country and hold these travesties?

I believe that, in this case, the argument can be made that Phelps and crew are advocating open treason. While the Matthew Shepard protest was hateful and in no way justifiable, their "Thank God for IED's" and such seem to be in open revolt against our nation, and, as this made the mainstream primetime news, I believe it will be used as a rallying cry by al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and the other enemies of our nation.

Just my opinion and YMMV

Phelps and his minion might be exercising their first amendment right to free speech, BUT, they are also targeting, stalking and harassing private citizens. There are laws against that.

Try cursing out a cop just because you feel like it, and see what lumps freedom of speech give you.

There are limits to the protections afforded in the Constitution. They assume a measure of fellow-feeling and respect that seem under fire at present by the voracity of the legal profession. In a one-on-one situation, if a person is in another's face about something, especially if they are using the vitriol of the true believer, the peace of mind of the person attacked is being deliberately disturbed.

It's not about live and let live. I'm not about numbing the mind against such abuse. There is a limit, however, beyond which a person may be expected to feel it necessary to respond to quiet the noise. Ask any TPF thug. They do it for fun.

This is a case of harassment not of Free Speech - They hunted down these families in an effort to get attention in order to cause rage so they can file a law suit - plain and simple. They are not a church they are a hate group law firm that put the word "church" on their den of evil. They should be put away for the child abuse they inflict on the members of their family. I am counting the days until that 0ld evil wrinkled prick Phelps is dead, I will be sure to dance on that grave!

The Lord must truly love Fred Phelps. Otherwise he'd a been kilt long ago.

as a lesbian ? Felps is the best PR gays and lesbians could have gotten !!!

Felps ... is a mirror on society. He makes them look at themselves ! shines the light on their own bigotry and hate. Understanding how ignorant it is really. how it's based on ignorance and a lack of understanding from a world that thought the earth was flat !

so as people grow and become educated they understand that homosexuality is just as natural as heterosexuality. as natural as blond hair or left handedness.

that there is no ' cure ' ... the latest ignorance .

Fred was my attorney in a civil rights case in Lawrence, Kansas back in 1965. The All American and All Pro halfback, Gale Sayers, was a co-defendant in the case brought by Lawrence against over 100 students and me, the Episcopal Chaplain at the University of Kansas.

Fred was an incredible litigator and, working alongside Chester Lewis, one of the attorneys in the Brown vs.Board of Education of Topeka, easily won acquittal for all.

About 15 years ago I tried to reach Fred to see if this guy in the news was really that great champion for civil rights several decades ago. As Fred was sick then, his son wrote back to say that Fred had begun his legal career doing first amendment and civil right law almost exclusively and pro bono. He indicated that I was the first and only of Fred's clients who had bothered to thank his father.

As they used to say "and so it goes."

In response to Rev. Tom Woodward, I can only surmise that Mr. Phelps' "sickness" is listed somewhere in the DSM IV-R. Whatever it is that turned the man you describe into the monster that presides at WBC could only be described, as he very well might, as the unspeakable evil, Satan. But whatever -- and I don't believe in demon-possession or any of the clap-trap that passes for "theology" -- the man is warped, and has evidently warped his progeny and their spouses and children.

While the point has been made by others on this thread, I'm still not clear about how this is a constitutional issue, rather than a simple matter of a tort action. As SCOTUS has ruled in other contexts -- as in holding that a corporation does not have Constitutionally-imposed Bill of Rights constraints, as those apply only to actions by governments. No government sought to constrain the Phelps crew, so I wonder why Snyder's tort claim raises any constitutional issue at all. Seems to me the Supremes have taken on a case that has virtually no constitutional import as there is no government role claimed on either side.

I, too, wonder where these freaks get the money to galavant around the country doing the things they do.

How about freedom of speech on the airways that is respected by the FCC? The word "shit" is treated on the airwaves like radioactive waste in the hands of Al Qaeda. The likes of Phelps would bray themselves into a hyperventilated coma if someone described their practices, and his brain, as shit. This must be Satan's favorite word.

Social injustice and sanity notwithstanding, if the in-bred and cosmically ugly Phelps clan physically moved across the line to block access to the funeral, they should be clapped in irons and paddy-wagoned. He and his sorry band of low-IQ losers can spew B.S. in our faces or on the airways, as is his protected right under the Constitution, and we have the right to ignore him or tell him what we think of his values and behavior and brain-- as long as we don't use the word "shit".

what????

@22:17 — Toby, given you're an editor of a LGBT mag and therefore a leader in the LGBT community, I have to ask at what point should people like Phelps be ignored? You did say the best way to deal with his ilk is to ignore them, but given that Phelps has a long history of harassment, history and I'm sure a host of other social negatives, I'm not certain ignoring the problem will fix it.

As a straight, white married male who in the past has worked with several gay men, who I found actually to be among the nicest people albeit standoff-ish, and also am currently friends along with my wife with a lesbian who I love as a sister although I unfortunately don't see enough of her, I do sympathize with the LGBT community. Also as a straight, white married male (in the south), I am also around a lot of poorly-educated bigots who are intolerant, which is not me. I can tell you ignoring them won't work. They actually want that. They want LGers to walk away or otherwise go somewhere and die.

Like Phelps they consider themselves Christians, which in reality all they really are are church-goers, yet they brim with hate for anything that's not white, straight, Christian and sometimes female. These people are, and have been for centuries, a cancer in America. Ignoring them, based on what I've seen, doesn't work. They need to be dealt with. And harshly.

Re: Anti Semitism - response to :
D.M. Wyatt mentioned that Anti Semitism is growing in U.S. churches . If that is really the case , I would say it is about time that the Holocaust perpetrated upon the Palestinians for the past 65 + years is finally brought to light . If any other country or religion would do this to other peoples , our Congressmen would be up in arms, the world would be up in arms and would step in to end the senseless slaughter of innocents.
Lets say for example that the Muslims would march into Spain and take over on the grounds that 1000 years ago , they " owned " Spain , they were just reclaiming what is rightfully theirs.
Would any civilized country stand for that ? But , the U.S. has a double standard. as far as the media and our politicians are concerned , Israel can do no wrong . Of course the Zionists control the media and our bought and paid for Congressmen , sold out for 10 Silver Sheckels.
Washington , D.C. is Z.O.G. territory . This is NOT anti semitic but pure FACT.

Instead of simply clucking disapproval, why not run the names, addresses and phone numbers of the members of this church? That's free expression, too, and would prove just how tolerant we are or should be of the Phelp hate machine.

An all American Circus. I remember when I first saw a loud discussion between American males; I fully expected fists to fly which is what would have happened in Canada among construction tradespeople of which I am one. Surprise, it was like watching two apes blustering & showing bravado with no physical action. I have witnessed the same phenomenon hundreds of times since then & I still don't understand it. Personally I would be forced by my manhood to beat the living shit out of these clowns & let the chips fall where they may & I hate the military & everything they stand for but no one has the right to disrupt a families funeral. Gay's are not even in the ten commandments; now lying is, disrespecting your parents is, shopping at Walmart on the sabbath is; I guess if you are religious (thank god I'm not) you can pick & chose your sins.

"The First Amendment gives us all the right to say as we please, to espouse our views in the public sphere at whatever volume we wish."

Really? I'm glad you're not representing me in court.

As usual, I agree with most of what you say until I find a statement like this one.

So if Phelps and co are allowed to upset heroes' funerals, ordinary citizens shoudl safely be able to claim, for instance, that there is no way the towers could have collapsed in about 10 seconds following the max resistance path on 911, right?
They should not be held as unamerican or something, right?

Freedom of speech is NOT freedom to hate, although all can do that. We must look at the intent of those who use our laws to abuse others. Defending bullies under the guise of freedom of speech is just another way to take advantage of the rule of law and not the spirit of the law.

This will not be overlooked by anyone who has a conscience, because he will feel in his gut that a wrong has been committed even if he is not able to explain, in First Amendment language, why.

Surely, the Supreme Court will have the words to explain to us mortals the whys of their decision, no matter which way it comes down. But after the Citizens United decision, I am not at all sure they will get it right.

The Supreme Court has become just another tool of the rich and powerful who will make the laws bend to their perversions, so the decision will be made, not in the interest of laws or the spirit of the law, but by how this decision can be used in the future by the elite whose goal is nothing but greed.

I agree with the above:

A few years ago, when then-president "W" came to our city, protesters were allowed. Of course, they were restricted to a fenced-in area ONE MILE from the venue.

Secondly, we do not have unlimited rights. Individuals cannot stand in front of polls and solicit for their candidate, and this is the same thing promo for their church beliefs.

I watched Phelps on c-span this week and she is definitely not a Christian. "You will know they are Christians by their LOVE" not their hate or their love of war, either. Early Christians were called priests of peace because they refused to go to war.

"Liced-Christs" 10/08 16:37 said it well. Methinks Phelps protesteth too much. Most naturally heterosexual men are *not* obsessed with the sex lives of gay folks. The only people who seem to have an issue with it have "issues" they are suppressing (badly).

I wonder how many people realize there are many countries with free speech in their constitution AND hate-speech laws?
 
That you have the right to say what ever you believe is a fundamental principle of this country; but many free nations maintain that right while restricting it in only two ways. One, what you say must not be a lie. Calling gay people sinners is obviously subjective and can't be called a lie. But if you said all gay people are pedophiles, you'd be breaking the law. The second rule is that the speech cannot exist solely to defame and demean individuals or groups and/or incite violence and degradation against them. In other words, sure you can stand and make your arguments against gay marriage, but you can't just scream "fags will burn in hell" at a bunch of people if that's all your message is about.  

 
Just proves that, while our constitution is a damned good document, there are parts of it that weren't thought out properly.
 
I don't believe freedom of speech includes the right to provide false information and spread defamation. I believe that those kinds of speech infringe on the rights of others, both who they are directed to who they are directed at. But I get a lot of crap for suggesting the 1st Amendment IS NOT written in stone, at least not the way most people think it is. All because the original writers ignored the language that would've made an amendment that protects the rights of the speaker and the listeners.
 
Hate-speech seeks to make the race/gender/orientation/etc  - being spoken against - worth less in the public eye. It seeks to prevent them from freely expressing their own thoughts, ideas and feelings. After all, people like Phelps would just love if being gay became illegal, in which case gay people wouldn't be allowed to speak about their own thoughts, feelings, lives without fear of prosecution. Hate-groups, in a nut shell, seeks to deny freedom of speech to the people their vitriol is directed at. How can their hate-speech be free of restrictions without harming the 1st Amendment rights of its victims? The answer is; it can't. Just like freedom of religion means; not only can you practice whatever religion you believe in, you have no right to force someone else to practice yours. You're rights end where the other person's begins. Why aren't we acknowledging that freedom of speech has the same restrictions?
 
I know it's a slippery slope, but it's also not rocket science.

Well, Anonymous on 10/11 at 14:48 - it would seem so, but I think it becomes all murky and jurisdictional. What would seem obvious however, is that in a civilized country, common decency would forfend.

Leave it to Arminius Aurelius to go totally off-topic, thus off the rails. Ignore him, too.