PDA

View Full Version : Major Media Companies Side With Phelps to protest Funerals



Apocalypse
07-18-2010, 07:21 PM
(...)the liberal media are standing side by side with Phelps and his Westboro Baptist Church in a demonstration of First Amendment fundamentalism. They've filed a “friend of the court” brief in favor of the right to infuriate families of the fallen with those vicious funeral protests.

The list includes the Associated Press, Bloomberg News, Dow Jones, the E.W. Scripps Company, the Hearst Corporation, NPR, The New York Times, and the Tribune Company (parent of the Chicago Tribune and Los Angeles Times). Jeff Schogol of the military newspaper Stars and Stripes reported these companies joined other free-press advocates in supporting these hateful incitements:


ARLINGTON, Va. — Twenty-two media organizations have sided with a radical church against the father of a fallen Marine who is trying to sue it for picketing his son’s funeral.

The media organizations filed a friend-of-the-court brief on Wednesday with the Supreme Court in favor of the Westboro Baptist Church, which protests near servicemembers’ funerals because it believes that troops’ deaths and other national tragedies are divine revenge for America’s tolerance of gays and lesbians.


Read more: http://newsbusters.org/#ixzz0u4xvLM6x

22 news outlets that won't get me to bother with them.

fettpett
07-18-2010, 09:23 PM
just remember, as much as we can HATE what someone says, the First Amendment guarentees their right to say it. sometimes we have to let these people say their shit.

Hawkgirl
07-19-2010, 08:24 PM
just remember, as much as we can HATE what someone says, the First Amendment guarentees their right to say it. sometimes we have to let these people say their shit.

A funeral is also a private family matter.It's an invasion of privacy matter. The first ammendment is being abused in this scenario. Clearly, you can't yell Fire in Movie theater....you can't yell FAGGOT at a funeral. The Westboro Baptist Church is the most despicable group of people out there. They do NOT have the right to disrupt a famiy's funeral service under the protection of Free Speech. That is just absurd.

warpig
07-19-2010, 08:54 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZGKx2pTBQc

Odysseus
07-19-2010, 09:50 PM
Apparently, the media hates the families of dead service members more than they hate anti-gay bigots. Good to know where we stand in their hierarchy of loathing.

Rockntractor
07-19-2010, 10:10 PM
I once saw a vacuum truck that was used to suck prairie dogs out of their tunnels and eradicate them, if we could scale this up a bit I could think of lots of uses for it!

PoliCon
07-19-2010, 10:27 PM
just remember, as much as we can HATE what someone says, the First Amendment guarentees their right to say it. sometimes we have to let these people say their shit.

agreed. And as long as they are saying it in a public venue - there is little that can be legally and properly done to stop them.

PoliCon
07-19-2010, 10:30 PM
you can't yell FAGGOT at a funeral. Why not? There is a logical reason why you cannot just yell fire in a theatre - lives would be put in jeopardy by such an act. Is shouting fagot at a funeral endangering someones life? Besides the dickhead from Westboro - and BTW - they WANT to be attacked. That's how they make their money.

Hawkgirl
07-20-2010, 12:15 AM
Why not? There is a logical reason why you cannot just yell fire in a theatre - lives would be put in jeopardy by such an act. Is shouting fagot at a funeral endangering someones life? Besides the dickhead from Westboro - and BTW - they WANT to be attacked. That's how they make their money.

Because you are infringing on the privacy of the family...you are causing them an emotional disturbance. That IS affecting other people. First Ammendment was not meant for the this purpose..and to suggest that is, again, absurd.

Odysseus
07-20-2010, 12:28 AM
agreed. And as long as they are saying it in a public venue - there is little that can be legally and properly done to stop them.

There is a reason that the Second Amendment follows the First Amendment. They are free to say whatever they like, and the families are free to own firearms. If that doesn't suggest a solution, what does?

PoliCon
07-20-2010, 12:59 AM
Because you are infringing on the privacy of the family...you are causing them an emotional disturbance. That IS affecting other people. First Ammendment was not meant for the this purpose..and to suggest that is, again, absurd.

any attempt by the government to silence them would be equally an abuse. I'm not saying I agree with what they do - but I want them to have their rights the same as I want mine.

Rockntractor
07-20-2010, 01:04 AM
any attempt by the government to silence them would be equally an abuse. I'm not saying I agree with what they do - but I want them to have their rights the same as I want mine.

You misunderstand your right to free speech.

They could go to a park a distance away and protest, but they don't have the right to disrupt a funeral.

PoliCon
07-20-2010, 01:30 AM
You misunderstand your right to free speech.

They could go to a park a distance away and protest, but they don't have the right to disrupt a funeral.Not at all. I fully understand the right to free speech. I do not say that they have the right to disrupt anything - but they do have the right to protest what ever they like - as long as they do so from public property and within the law. They cannot intrude on private services held in private places or private property. The government cannot and should not be involved in silencing these scumbags. Private citizens are another matter. ME - I'd get a nice high powered amplifier and drown them out by playing appropriate music while the family were in transit from building to vehicles, etc . . . .

fettpett
07-20-2010, 03:30 AM
You misunderstand your right to free speech.

They could go to a park a distance away and protest, but they don't have the right to disrupt a funeral.

actually their actions lead to several State laws that prohibit Protesting within 500+ yards of a Funeral and a Federal Law of similar distance. Which is fine with me. It is appropriate to have areas designated for protesting.

I absolutely LOATH Westbro and their stance. However they are entitled to their opinion and have the right to say it. I do agree with Odyessus, the 2nd Amendment gives me the right to protect myself and property, a little extra Target practice never hurt :D :p

Odysseus
07-20-2010, 11:05 AM
actually their actions lead to several State laws that prohibit Protesting within 500+ yards of a Funeral and a Federal Law of similar distance. Which is fine with me. It is appropriate to have areas designated for protesting.

I absolutely LOATH Westbro and their stance. However they are entitled to their opinion and have the right to say it. I do agree with Odyessus, the 2nd Amendment gives me the right to protect myself and property, a little extra Target practice never hurt :D :p

I'm thinking that if the media sees funerals as a legitimate place to protest, we ought to oblige them by protesting media personality funerals, especially those that have been anti-US or anti-military? It shouldn't be too hard to research the more controversial idiocies from some of these clowns and run their more outrageous quotes on the signs.

And, when the press expresses their outrage, we can cite their support for Westboro and demand to know why they aren't joining in.

fettpett
07-20-2010, 01:58 PM
I'm thinking that if the media sees funerals as a legitimate place to protest, we ought to oblige them by protesting media personality funerals, especially those that have been anti-US or anti-military? It shouldn't be too hard to research the more controversial idiocies from some of these clowns and run their more outrageous quotes on the signs.

And, when the press expresses their outrage, we can cite their support for Westboro and demand to know why they aren't joining in.

sounds good to me....now we just need some of them to kick the bucket

Odysseus
07-20-2010, 03:24 PM
sounds good to me....now we just need some of them to kick the bucket

Yeah, we missed a bet with a few of them. Wearing a life preserver to Teddy Kennedy's funeral or burning a cross at Bobby Byrd's (and calling it his eternal flame) would have been nice touches.

JB
07-20-2010, 07:31 PM
Wearing a life preserver to Teddy Kennedy's funeral or burning a cross at Bobby Byrd's (and calling it his eternal flame) would have been nice touches.Exactly. Which is why Westboro gets to do what they do, in spite of certain feelings on here running to the contrary.

fettpett
07-20-2010, 07:32 PM
Yeah, we missed a bet with a few of them. Wearing a life preserver to Teddy Kennedy's funeral or burning a cross at Bobby Byrd's (and calling it his eternal flame) would have been nice touches.

LMFAO

JB
07-20-2010, 07:36 PM
It is appropriate to have areas designated for protesting. I would disagree. "Free Speech Zones" are not the answer either.

Odysseus
07-21-2010, 10:36 AM
Exactly. Which is why Westboro gets to do what they do, in spite of certain feelings on here running to the contrary.

I was being facetious. A funeral is a private function; state funerals, or funerals for public figures may be different, but if the funeral is being held privately, then there is an expectation of a right to privacy, and no one is arguing that these are not privately held funerals, rather than public spectacles. Protesting public policies at private events assumes that the families have no rights to their privacy, freedom of association or, if they so choose to exercise it, free speech. Phelps is violating the rights of the families of service members to gather and mourn their losses in order to impose his agenda on their event. The issue is not simply Phelps' right to free speech, but his infringement on the rights of families to conduct their own highly personal business without his interference.

PoliCon
07-21-2010, 11:09 AM
I was being facetious. A funeral is a private function; state funerals, or funerals for public figures may be different, but if the funeral is being held privately, then there is an expectation of a right to privacy, and no one is arguing that these are not privately held funerals, rather than public spectacles. Protesting public policies at private events assumes that the families have no rights to their privacy, freedom of association or, if they so choose to exercise it, free speech. Phelps is violating the rights of the families of service members to gather and mourn their losses in order to impose his agenda on their event. The issue is not simply Phelps' right to free speech, but his infringement on the rights of families to conduct their own highly personal business without his interference.

If you are trying to have a private funeral service in a public space - you have no right to privacy. They may show up out in front of the funeral home to protest on the public sidewalk - so you go out the back door. If there is no back door - drown them out and cover them up. Play appropriate music and hold up sheets on polls to hide them. There is more than one way to skin a cat.

Odysseus
07-21-2010, 12:43 PM
If you are trying to have a private funeral service in a public space - you have no right to privacy. They may show up out in front of the funeral home to protest on the public sidewalk - so you go out the back door. If there is no back door - drown them out and cover them up. Play appropriate music and hold up sheets on polls to hide them. There is more than one way to skin a cat.

A funeral home is private property. A military cemetary isn't, but there's no reason that the federal government cannot ban disruption of funerals at military cemetaries. Municipal cemetaries and the like would have to draft their own rules, but they don't have to stifle free speech. Simply limiting signage and noise during funerals would be legal, since they can pass sinage restrictions and noise ordinances for residential areas. And if public property is donated or leased to a private organization for its temporary use, then the protections of the private organization trump public use requirements.

The issue is not whether Phelps and his brood have rights, the question is whether anyone else does.

PoliCon
07-21-2010, 01:08 PM
noise ordinances are an excellent way to combat these assholes. :)

lacarnut
07-22-2010, 03:51 AM
noise ordinances are an excellent way to combat these assholes. :)

Getting rolling thunder to take them out is a better way.