Court allows (Phelps) group to picket soldiers' funerals

[sabra]

Source: ChicagoTrib Swamp Politics Blog

A federal appeals court Thursday sided with a Kansas woman who believes that God’s hatred of homosexuality requires her to picket funerals for American soldiers holding signs that read “Thank God for Dead Soldiers” and “God Blew Up the Troops.”

Shirley Phelps-Roper is part of a Topeka, Kan. church that contends God is punishing the United States for permitting homosexuality by killing soldiers. In response to a August 2005 protest by Phelps-Roper and other members of her church at the funeral of Army Spc. Edward Lee Myers in St. Joseph, Mo., the Missouri legislature passed a par of laws that prohibited picketing near a funeral location or procession.

Phelps-Roper sued the state of Missouri and asked for an injunction against the enforcement of the provisions, claiming they were unconstitutional. The federal trial court denied Phelps-Roper her injunction and she appealed that denial to the federal appeals court in St. Louis.

Thursday, a three-judge panel of the Eighth Circuit granted Phelps-Roper the injunction, pending a full hearing on the merits of her claim. Typically, an injunction is granted if the petitioner can prove she is likely to prevail on her lawsuit. In this case, the panel found that Missouri’s law was likely unconstitutional because “any interest the state has in protecting funeral mourners from unwanted speech is outweighed by the First Amendment right to free speech.”

Read more: http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2007/12/court_allows_group_to_picket_s.html

[BrotherBuzz]

1. That judge should also order Shirley Phelps-Roper held for 72 hours

for psychiatric observations.

[Mend]

15. why do we have to get stuck with her? I don't want her on my unit...make

her go to a Cracker Barrel for 72 hours...why do you think they call it "Cracker"...it is the place to be locked up in if you are homophobic, crazy, and a starch junkie. All those carbs and old-fashioned crap should make her head explode and then everyone can see the broken springs pop out. That is as valid a head exam as she needs.

[sakabatou]

2. The people who brought this up will

probably bring this back in court on appeal :S

[MadHound]

3. As much as this sucks, enabling the Phelps clan

It is still a victory for free speech. That's what comes with the territory when you allow freedom of speech, it includes all speech, even that which you find offensive and don't agree with.

[pdefalla]

4. Just make Phelps-Roger conduct her protest

In a "Free Speech" zone conveniently located out of sight/earshot. Apparently that's legal.....

[VWolf]

6. Very good idea nt

[VWolf]

7. Very good idea nt

(Apparently so good that I recommended it twice!)

[Miss Chybil]

22. Great idea! nt

[HuffleClaw]

24. good idea!

whats good for the goose...

[flamingyouth]

5. They were here last weekend.

They were at the funeral of a fallen soldier and were supposed to stay for an hour. They were, um, not exactly met with open arms, to put it mildly. They left after less than 20 minutes.

I have to say, it warmed my heart a little to see GLBT activists and conservatives united against those assholes, though.

I cannot fathom the sickness of someone who could stand outside a funeral and yell things like, "I pray that more of your children will die."

[proud2BlibKansan]

8. Good

I don't want to lose my free speech rights. And if I have them so does Phelps.

[Telly Savalas]

17. Then let me know when they plan to protest a funeral around here.

If they have the unfettered right to pull their shit at a funeral (a point which I'd contest), then I equally have the right to stand with my nose 2 inches from one of their noses, screaming at the top of my lungs what I feel about them. And I'll skip brushing my teeth that morning.

Death threats and sexual harassment towards them are OK, yes? All forms of speech are protected, are they not?

If our society is going to adopt a bullshit libertarian jungle concept of what constitutes free expression, then it'll have to cut both ways.

[proud2BlibKansan]

19. They were at a church up the street from my house not long ago

And we did the best thing you can do in regards to Phelps. We ignored them. No media, no counter protesters. Since he thrives on attention, it was great to see him get none.

Our protest group was contacted by a local attorney and we agreed to sign on to a challenge of the law in Missouri. And we have counter protested Phleps in Topeka a couple times. But the MO law is bad. It says you can't protest anything within 300 yards of a church on the day of a funeral. Both places we hold our weekly protests are within 300 yards of a church.

Free speech is free speech. I will stand up for Phelps' rights because I want to preserve my own. I am not an attorney but I think it seems smarter to attack his message than his right to deliver it.

[boricua79]

9. she has a right to free speech, even bad one

but, I'll let you know one thing. If it was a funeral from a family member of mine, I'd find the way to let the Phelps know they made a huge mistake. THey have the right to free speech...and then they have to face reality afterwards.

Their little traveling show will end the day they get the shock of their lives at the hands of a mourner who just plainly does not give a fuck. THey're lucky they've been picketing the funerals of some tame mourners, because if it were anyone I'd know, the Phelps would be in the emergency room. Nuff said.

[kestrel91316]

10. I won't say what I think should be done to that vile excuse for a woman.

[frogcycle]

11. freedom of speech

should not mean one is free to say whatever, wherever

people should not be imprisoned for expressing themselves, but that should not have to mean they can "disturb the peace"

if I started screaming "god hates flags" in the middle of the night, I would be arrested for the disruption, not for the message. cannot these people's actions be seen as disrupting a solemn occasion - one that people should be as entitled to as they are a quiet time to sleep? Is that not an acceptable societal norm? Cannot we as a society have a modicum of compassion for our fellow ciizens, and protect them in a vulnerable time from assault by zealots? Why does a citizen's right to express their views without being imprisoned have to mean that they have to be allowed to express them obnoxiously to people with no involvement in their issue, rubbing salt in someone else's wounds?

[Telly Savalas]

16. Bingo.

There's a pretty big grey area in defining the difference between free speech and harassment and disturbing the peace. If you get too aggressive in protecting the peace, then you risk stifling free expression. In contrast if you get too carried away declaring every form of expression as protected, then you open the door for allowing me to stand outside your house at 3 AM with a megaphone screaming racial epithets at you. A line has to be drawn somewhere.

In my opinion, a person should have the right to grieve the loss of a loved one at a funeral without some asshole disrupting the proceeding by yelling "God hates fags". If enforcing this right unjustly stifles free speech, then doesn't hauling me and my megaphone off at 3 AM also stifle free speech?

[izquierdista]

12. All to be moot soon

They still have to pay off on that civil case for the intentional infliction of emotional distress. What better way to deal with a bunch of right-wing assholes than to take away their money?

[proud2BlibKansan]

20. I am sure they will appeal it to the highest court they can

but I agree that going after them financially is the smart way to deal with Phelps.

Wasn't there a white supremacist group that was sued and basically put out of business after a couple large lawsuits they lost?

[Danger Mouse]

13. I cannot in words express the degree of my loathing for Phelps and his wretched ilk.

However, these foul and disgusting people have the same right to free speech as we do.

[MasonJar]

14. No matter how insidiously misguided this verdict is, it is at least

upholding the Constitutional right to free speech. Now when she bites the dust, it is imperative that those of you who are left standing picket her funeral because of her former depraved reasoning. Or better still, let's let her know of our future intention just so she can get a feel for how such stupidity affects innocent mourners.

[rockybelt]

18. That court should

be hanged!
Do they know who Phelps is? He is a hate mongering dipshit that claims to be the leader of a church. His "congregation" consists of only his family members of which I would guess that about 100% have some inbreeding in them. This clown usually stands across from the capitol building in Topeka, Ks. with his hate signs displayed. People go by him without even noticing him anymore because the locals know what a fucking hate monger he is.
To give this ass-hole any credence whatsoever galls me to no end and these ass-holes that let him do this to these people that are suffering so much deserve to be ridden out of town on a rail. Hypocritical bastards!

[proud2BlibKansan]

21. You are threatening a court because they upheld the first amendment?

Dude, chill out and think about what you are saying here.

Free speech is free speech. Thankfully we all have it, not only those of us whose message we agree with.

[rockybelt]

23. No

What I am saying is that what this guy does, if you haven't heard about him, is prey upon people that have lost someone in this war. He also has preyed on the grief of other individuals as well. He preys upon them to spread his hatred and intolerance. He has no particular religion per se, he only uses religion as a guise to spread his hatred and intolerance.

Free speech and what this guy does is two entirely different things. He, like some others, abuse the first amendment to further their own agenda of hate.

Keep in mind that this guy has a long history of this kind of conduct and has been shut down by almost every other judge and court from doing this sort of thing.

Free speech has a responsibility to be born by the speaker. That responsibility includes that their speech not be subversive and against the freedoms of everyone else. Just because you are entitled to free speech does not mean that you can trample on the freedoms of anyone else. No matter if that freedom is to grieve or to celebrate. Nor does the first amendment give you the right to prey on these people.

The supreme court ruled against "rev." Phelps on a 6-3 decision against him for just such behavior. You cannot use your insanely biased issues to threaten people. Simple as that.

If that ruling against "Rev." Phelps is unconstitutional, I will kiss your rosy red rectum.

[proud2BlibKansan]

25. I live in Kansas and I bet I know more about Phelps than most DUers do

I also have no idea what Supreme Court ruling you are talking about. Got a link? What 6-3 ruling?

[rockybelt]

26. I will try to find that link again for you.

[Javaman]

27. Freedom of speech is now only for the religious, didn't you know that? nt