God Bless This Town Of Patriots.....

[skyraider]

I guess Phelps should show up at a college football game on Sunday to protest that,,,where are they then, and how about Halloween and my Dad was a ww2 flyer who died 2 months ago, and Phelps did not show then, and all the other dads in my old neighborhood , his group did not show up then, so Phelps is just picking on easy targets of opportunity IMHO.

 

[layoutshooter]

Phelps is just a coward in a long line of cowards that try to hide behind the Constitution. MOST cemeteries, funeral homes and churches are PRIVATE property and he and his group would need permission from the owners of those properties to "protest" on that PRIVATE property.

 

[wimpy007]

It's not the protest that I object to it's the signs they carry, talk about hate. It maybe true that they do no physical damage to speak of, it's the mental damage they cause with there signs is what I strongly object too.

 

[Turtle]

Phelps is just a coward in a long line of cowards that try to hide behind the Constitution. MOST cemeteries, funeral homes and churches are PRIVATE property and he and his group would need permission from the owners of those properties to "protest" on that PRIVATE property.

If you notice, though, Phelps and company don't protest on private property. To a point, that is. They generally stick to public property. Often that's as simple as across the street from the cemetery.

A cemetery is often private property, but with public access, however. From a legal standpoint, unless barricades are erected, with the permission of the owner of the cemetery, there is no legal expectation of privacy, regardless of the status of the land itself. That's how Phelps can get away with it in so many cemeteries.

While it comes down to whether desecrating someone else’s funeral is protected under free speech, or crosses the “fire/crowded theatre” or “libel/malicious intent” lines of speech so vile, pointless, and wrong that the state can regulate it, it also raises a huge question from a libertarian perspective. Can the state, be it a local ordinance or a federal law, attempt to protect people from “emotional graffiti”... or does the hate protester exercising his “free speech” win the day?

Being a Constitutional kinda guy, I gotta go with the "free speech" angle and let a troll be a troll, if he wants to be a troll. And then let the people handle it, as they did in the story above.

 

[Pilgrim]

A funeral is a religious ceremony. Phelps and his clan of wackos hide behind the guise of "free speech" in an attempt to deny or impede certain people the right to practice their religion in a civil and peaceful manner, oftentimes on private property. It could be easily argued that Phelps' freedom of speech rights end where others' freedom to practice their religion begins. We should all applaud the citizens of this town for their intolerance of obnoxious behavior from self-promoting troublemakers.

 

[Turtle]

It could be easily argued that Phelps' freedom of speech rights end where others' freedom to practice their religion begins.

Selectively allowing freedom of speech now are we? Seriously? That's a little scary. Probably should have thought that one through a little more carefully before you wrote it.

Does your freedom of speech end right where Muslims begin to practice their religion? Whoops.

Freedom of speech and freedom of religion are both rights guaranteed us by the Constitution. They are equal in stature, one does not take precedence over another. Therefore, flip it around and see how you like it.

Does your freedom to practice your religion end where other's freedom of speech begins? That's pretty unacceptable, I'd think, and so is the other way around.

As deplorable and disgusting as Phelps may be, as rude and inconsiderate as he may be, as religiously intense and misguided as he may be, his rights are no more or less important than anyone else's.

We should all applaud the citizens of this town for their intolerance of obnoxious behavior from self-promoting troublemakers.

I think that's a fair statement. As long as it's reminded that people really and truly do have the right to be obnoxious and annoying.

Do unto others as you would have others do unto you. Don't do unto others without thinking it through, because someone, somewhere will likely do it to you right back.

 

[Tennesseahawk]

What Turtle and others need to understand is that Phelps is protected by the 1st Amendment against GOVERNMENT censorship... not private censorship. In this case, Phelps and his loonies got outsmarted... that's all. Kudos to smart patriots!

 

[Turtle]

What Turtle and others need to understand is...

Oh, I understand it completely. But I also understand, completely, that when someone's free speech exercised in public is squashed, regardless of who's doing the swashing, it's a violation of their inalienable rights. Private censorship is fine, but only if the private entity has the authority to do so. For example, EO can censor anything it wants on its Web site, but they can't shut me up or censor me in any way outside of EO. Phelps has the right to do what he's doing, just as the townspeople in question have the right to discourage him from being annoying.

What you and a few others need to understand is you can't do to others what you would not allow to be done to you under any circumstances, and that's precisely what some do not understand. Sorry if that comes off as a little insulting, but you started it.

 

[layoutshooter]

Oh, I understand it completely. But I also understand, completely, that when someone's free speech exercised in public is squashed, regardless of who's doing the swashing, it's a violation of their inalienable rights. Private censorship is fine, but only if the private entity has the authority to do so. For example, EO can censor anything it wants on its Web site, but they can't shut me up or censor me in any way outside of EO. Phelps has the right to do what he's doing, just as the townspeople in question have the right to discourage him from being annoying.

What you and a few others need to understand is you can't do to others what you would not allow to be done to you under any circumstances, and that's precisely what some do not understand. Sorry if that comes off as a little insulting, but you started it.

Oh I understand what you mean. I was just taught differently. I was taught that, for the most part, my rights carried responsibility. I was taught that in taking advantage of my rights I had to RESPECT the rights of others. When you stop showing respect for others rights, yours are diminished. If enough "Phelps" run around disrespecting others rights it will not be long till those rights are cheapened to the point where they are no longer of value. You have your opinion, I have mine.

As to not doing to Phelps what I would not allow to happen to me, it seems to me that is exactly what Phelps is doing. I wonder how he and his band of scum would take it if I brought in a few thousand to protest HIS services? Since he is not willing to show respect for the rights of others are his rights worthy of respect? Do unto others..............

 

[greg334]

But see layout, he isn't harming others' rights.

He has yet to tell anyone that they can't hold a funeral or telling others to shut up.

What he is doing is protesting based no a religious conviction that may be twisted to us but not to him - nothing else.

There isn't harm to rights in his way of doing things, he is not calling for harm to others through direct violence or actually taking part in inciting a riot in any form, hence he is using his right of freedom to express himself and his freedom of speech within a reasonable standard set forth by our government.

Remember we do not have a right not to be offended, that just does not exist.

 

[layoutshooter]

But see layout, he isn't harming others' rights.

He has yet to tell anyone that they can't hold a funeral or telling others to shut up.

What he is doing is protesting based no a religious conviction that may be twisted to us but not to him - nothing else.

There isn't harm to rights in his way of doing things, he is not calling for harm to others through direct violence or actually taking part in inciting a riot in any form, hence he is using his right of freedom to express himself and his freedom of speech within a reasonable standard set forth by our government.

Remember we do not have a right not to be offended, that just does not exist.

You think your way, I think mine. You will not change the way I think nor can I your's.

When you disrespect others you cheapen the rights that we enjoy. I believe that his actions do do harm to those people. His actions interfere with the PRIVATE nature of a funeral. They interfere with the family and friends of a fallen soldier to bury that person in peace in accordance with THEIR beliefs. That IS their 1st amendment right. A funeral is peaceful assembly, often religious, and we all have a RIGHT to do these things in accordance with our beliefs WITHOUT the noise of others.

Those families have been through enough. They do NOT deserve to have that final moment degraded by sewer scum.

 

[Turtle]

I know what Layout means, tho, when he talks about responsibility and respect. While Phelps is entirely within his rights, just the same he's still being rude, inconsiderate and disrespectful of his fellow human beings. That's why people don't like him.

Didja know he and (mostly) his family have bought up a block, a little more than that, of a neighborhood, and that's where they all live. They have a big wall around the compound where they fly the flag upside down every day. I've driven right by it. Family and other members of his church, if they criticize him or the church in any way, they get exiled, never to be allowed back in. He's a real slice of sunshine.

 

[greg334]

Yeah but Joe, you are missing the entire point I'm trying to get across.

I got your point without any problem, I feel for those who lost a loved one and get the idea that respect and rights do go hand in hand but the problem is that the document is a restriction on the government, not the individual.

Having a restriction on the end of the government allows us to have a real freedom, not a given freedom as they do in Europe. We are not restricted by a standard that spells out what we can or can not talk about but rather what the government can not tell us what to do. In England, where a lot of our laws come from, they jail kids for expressing their desires not to be included in 'diverse' groups and stifle free speech. Their speech laws are handed down, not up.

As a society, we defined the right to include some respect of life and property - hence the standard of not screaming fire in a crowded room. BUT we have yet to define what respect is or understand how to judge what is offensive and what is not. My words are carefully selected - we do not have a right not to be offended.

I totally agree with this town's position and actions - not questioning it a bit and HOPE that it propagates to shut these people down, it is society, not the government that is reacting. BUT with that said I stand firmly on the side of the Constitution which many claim to do then become emotionally reactive with a lot of these issues because of the situation involved. It is black and white, not gray. It may damage what reputation I have in the outside EO world, maybe killing what credibility I have here but nevertheless it is what we have and it works and I stand by it.

 

[layoutshooter]

I am not missing you point, I just don't entirely agree and that is that.

I personally think that Phelps needs to be taught just how difficult it is to digest his own teeth!! Short of that, I think that several hundred thousand or so should protest HIS services!!

Again, he and his scum and better never show up at one of my family functions and pull that stuff. My son is due to head back to Afghanistan late next year and I will have that to worry about again. I take that Phelps guy VERY and what he does VERY personal.

I might have to teach him about the "holy trinity" if he gets in my way. A left hook, a right cross and kick to the stones!!

 

[greg334]

But see that's the problem right there Joe, emotion.

If you start taking that position with any sort of "I will teach them" attitude, then here comes the idiots in the government starting to define things that we do not need to be defined just to protect those who are doing the damage. This is the gray area that people create that leads to the restrictions and bigger problems. In other words, a non-violent approach to all of it is the best and this is where the town did the greatest thing to support both the rights of those who were protesting and the privacy of those who were attending the funeral.

Again read this - I support those in that town and hope that this will happen more often because it is the right thing to do.

 

[layoutshooter]

But see that's the problem right there Joe, emotion.

If you start taking that position with any sort of "I will teach them" attitude, then here comes the idiots in the government starting to define things that we do not need to be defined just to protect those who are doing the damage. This is the gray area that people create that leads to the restrictions and bigger problems. In other words, a non-violent approach to all of it is the best and this is where the town did the greatest thing to support both the rights of those who were protesting and the privacy of those who were attending the funeral.

Again read this - I support those in that town and hope that this will happen more often because it is the right thing to do.

To a point I agree, but ONLY to a point. Respect of OTHERS is the key. There comes a point when, after all else fails, that a little butt kicking is a good idea.

Do unto others before they do unto you. I still bet that you would NOT just sit back if it were YOUR son's funeral. You MIGHT think so, but, I KNOW what I would do. The government can stuff it as well. Don't trust them either. Shoot, this stuff is just the sort of thing that Barry would like to do. ANYTHING to belittle those who died in the service of our country.

Again, you can NEVER change my outlook on this.

 

[greg334]

To a point I agree, but ONLY to a point. Respect of OTHERS is the key. There comes a point when, after all else fails, that a little butt kicking is a good idea.

Yes respect is the key but we must first respect the Constitution and then our fellow men and women.

Do unto others before they do unto you.

Yep to a point but read on.

I still bet that you would NOT just sit back if it were YOUR son's funeral. You MIGHT think so, but, I KNOW what I would do.

I don't know, I wouldn't count on it.

The government can stuff it as well. Don't trust them either. Shoot, this stuff is just the sort of thing that Barry would like to do. ANYTHING to belittle those who died in the service of our country.

Again, you can NEVER change my outlook on this.

The scary thing is this; someone decides to get violent and takes out Phelps, now the FBI gets directly involved and so does our corrupt justice department. Then laws are proposed and passed to protect them, not the people - FUBAR.

This is my fear.

I'm not trying to change your outlook but give you a rational reason why they can get away with it.

You need to understand that our world is assaulted by those like Phelps (and Obama) and it is not the reactionaries who are going to win the fight against them, but those who can see the real problem and issues under the surface.

By fighting them the way they want to be fought - directly and with force - they win no matter what damage is inflicted on them, just like the terrorist who want to see us divided on issues like a building.

For those who get the idea that you have to fight them on a more basic level, like what this town did, there is hope and a chance for them to be served up a more fitting rendition of damage in the long run.

 

[layoutshooter]

Just as with Stalin, Hitler etc, evil always has to be faced and often fought. If and when your way fails, the problem will still need to be taken care of. I agree, that towns way is the best way, but it is unlikely to ever work. Been around too long and seen too much. Too few people today are willing to take a stand against evil. People today accept wrong as right, evil is ok and ethics, standards and principle are ridiculed. When it goes too far, the few will reign it back in. It has always been that way.

 

[Turtle]

Hitler. There ya go. I knew we'd get there sooner or later.

 

[layoutshooter]

Hitler. There ya go. I knew we'd get there sooner or later.

Just an example. Evil is evil. One thing always leads to another. Sooner or later. There is nothing new under the sun.