Couldn’t Happen to Nicer Folks

Great news. Now, can we rescind their tax exemption too? This group has nothing to do with "charitable work."

Yeah, I live just an hour and a half from those loons. One of the contractors whose bodies were recently found lived in the same KC suburb I do. Yesterday's headline in the community newspaper said that the Phelps group had notified the police department that they planned on being present at his funeral. I haven't heard if he showed up yesterday or not.

I had a horrible thought.
Even if these ghoulish people lose everything they own, that can't really prevent them from continuing what they do.

Where are all the creative lawyers when you need them?
Maybe Yoo has an answer.

Those crazies will forever burn in hell.

I have mixed feelings about the Phelps brood.

On the one hand are immediate feelings that many of us have:
- A burning wish to see Fred become someones b@#$ in jail.
- A similar burning wish to see his witch daughter, Shirley, get slapped all the way to the penitentiary.
- An impulse to grab the tiny children, made to smile as they step on American flags on the edge of the roads, and give them into loving, tolerant homes. In my case I would make it a bonus by giving all the babies to gay couples.

On the other hand though, I'm a radical proponent of free speech, and though I feel nothing but satisfaction at the idea of this clan being harassed into the ground, I also feel an instinctive resistance to laws that limit free speech (even if their manner, message and timing is about as abhorrent as it gets). Also, I've seen lots of news stories about how these people inadvertently manage to unite communities overnight. I'll never forget the story about the gay young man who found his conservative community rallying around him in response to the Phelps coming to picket in their town (because the local pastor had decided not to kick the kid out of church).

The Phelps's free speech rights have certainly been upheld so far; that's why they've been able to keep going.

That, in a way, is why I can't be a racdical anything, becauw we have to grapple with conflicitng rights. Where does one person's rights cross over to impinge on
another's?
When does free shpeech morph into harassment, for example?
The lawsuit rightfully cites the right to privacy, that being another form of condlicting rights.

I agree that laws are tricky things. There is no way to predict how they will be applied and misapplied. But in a specific case, there should be guidelines for protecting one citizenfrom from being harmed by the rights of another. And it shouldn't require the expense of a lawsuit to to bring that point to bear.

I am baffled with the concept of Tax exempt organizations, particularly when they can use their government subsidy to promote political agendas.

I would prefer the elimination of all tax exemptions so that the financial burden of running our government can be shared as broadly as possible. Or at least having a more robust limitation on political involvement.

I certainly agree with runaism- there is a fine line in the rights of free speech. In Holly's posting the court case was about emotional distress and invasion of privacy. The judge ruled in favor of the plaintiffs... It's not a freedom of speech case.... Though that's the larger issue and unfortunately the Phelps are able to hide behind some of the First Amendment protections.

The funeral was for an average soldier, not a high profile politician. I think the family deserves to grieve in peace and the Phelps' gang should rot in hell. For chrissakes, the parents just lost a son in a war protecting our country. The article doesn't mention whether the solider was gay or not.... and it seems the Phelps gang was just protesting against the war, which they see is God's retribution on this country for supporting homosexuals. It doesn't matter (in Phelps eyes) who the troops are... anyone who fights the war supports homosexuals.

It strikes me that they are a "hate group". Why aren't they considered a terrorist group? They do advocate hate and violence against those they disagree with. Oh, never mind... I just figured it out.... The Phelps gang is primarily against homosexuals and in this country a lot of people still believe it is acceptable to advocate violence and hatred against homosexuals.... Maybe one day we'll have a President who has a sensible approach to these sorts of issues.

StockboySF, they are a hate group certainly, and considered as such. To be considred a terrorist group you need to actually plan or aid in the harm of a group. And no it's not enough to simply advocate the death of people. If that were the case the KKK would also be considered a terrorist organization. Hate speech becomes incitement (but still not terrorism) when it can be proved that a violent action has occurred as a result of speech that encouraged said action.

I've no sympathy for those twisted little dirtbags, but they aren't terrorists, at the moment. They are attention whores. They don't just picket soldiers funerals, they go wherever the cameras do. Remember the massacre of those 9 little Amish girls? They were going to go there with signs saying "your daughters are in hell". It was only prevented because a syndicated conservative radio host gave them 1 hour of his airtime to vomit their garbage in exchange for the promise to stay away. They really are the scum of the earth.

"...prevented because a syndicated conservative radio host gave them 1 hour of his airtime to vomit their garbage in exchange for the promise to stay away. "

But tisn't that bribery, even though not blackmail?
Should we start paying criminals not to burgle or kill?

I'm having a really bad time accepting that a civil society can't do better than this. in a common sense manner.

This isn't even like the free speech of white supremacist parades on public streets.. These are not general statements of beliefs. They direct their viriol at specific individuals, and that sounds like harassment to me.
I'm equally troubled when anti-abortion activists accost individual women in front of clinics. When the confrontation is personal, there should be a different level of protection, it seems to me.
Along with rights, comes resonsibility, so it is said.
Why is the responsibility to respect another's beliefs or privacy not part of this scenario?

I just remembered the circus in front of the hospice where Terry Schiavo was a patient. It was disruptive to the entire operation of the hospice. Many of its workers ended up in therapy, and I can just imagine the gauntlet the families of other patients had to run on their way in and out of the place.

There has to be some limit on how much some peoples's rights are allowed to damage tother's lives. The way things are may be legal, but it is not just.

Lynx, thanks.