President Bush has signed a bill aimed at stopping anti-gay protestors from disrupting military funerals. Only in America, folks.
The AP reports that the measure specifically targets:
a Kansas church group that has staged protests at military funerals around the country. The group claimed the deaths symbolized God's anger at U.S. tolerance of homosexuals.
The protestors, of course, are the cult-like Westboro Baptist Church run by the Rev. Fred "God Hates Fags" Phelps.
Anti-gay marriage champion and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee, according to the Baptist Press, said the bill would "preserve the dignity of military funerals" because families "should never have to be harassed by protestors of any stripe as they bury their fallen warriors."
I tend to agree, but the ACLU, in opposing similar state laws and the new federal bill, supports Phelp's right to desecrate private funerals for our fallen military men and women. (Yes, I realize that the ACLU is arguably more or less consistent on free speech, supporting Nazis marching through Jewish neighborhoods and all).
A quick look at some of the leftwing blogs like Daily Kos seems to indicate their readers are more anti-Phelps than anti-Bush on this one (must have been a tough call!). Also, the One Veteran's Voice blog has some interesting thoughts.
More. But blogger Rick Sincere thinks the measure gives Phelps just what he wanted, national attention.
Still more. The father of a Marine whose funeral was picketed is suing the Westboro gang, claiming "You don't have a right to interrupt someone's private funeral."
25 Comments for “Those Anti-Gay Funeral Protests.”
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I am a veteran. On balance, I think that the various state and federal efforts to curtail Westboro’s protests are a bad idea.
The protests are odious, but are, in my view, protected exercises in free speech, albeit symbolic speech.
The United States is based on the principle that free debate of ideas is critical to democracy, so at least when it comes to political speech — that is, speech about ideas — every citizen should be allowed to say anything, however outrageous, with impunity.
I saw the protesters about seven months ago at a funeral in the area. It was, in a word, disgusting. It was not something I want to see again.
But I think free speech is a lot more important than dignity.
If we, as a country, curtail Fred Phelps’ speech, I think we diminish the speech of all citizens. And that, in the end, is an unacceptably high price.
I don’t think that this is a matter of “anti-Phelps” or “anti-Bush”, and I am surprised to see you characterize it in those terms. This is not a political issue; it is a constitutional issue. I think that Americans should dig deep into themselves and decide what they value — free speech or dignity.
I’m with the ACLU on this issue.
posted by AGJ on
I despise everything that Phelps stands for but I have to agree with Tom. I too am a veteran perhaps also like Tom (or not) am gay. Free speech is not to be sacrificed because we find the speaker to be vile. Of course the moment he steps over the line, nail his ass.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
The ACLU and the bikers have it exactly right: If you are offended by a demonstration, hold a counter-demonstration. Several years ago I drafted the following FAQ for the Gay and Lesbian Activists Alliance of Washington:
Question: What are you doing to shut down http://www.godhatesfags.com and similar sites that defame gay people?
Answer: Nothing. We believe that the proper response to hateful speech is more speech in response to it — not suppression of views with which we disagree, however offensive they may be.
Here is the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
The liberties outlined in the First Amendment belong to all Americans, not just people who agree with us. Freedom of speech means nothing if it does not mean the right of people to say things that offend us. In the words of Justice Robert Jackson in the 1943 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that no one may be forced to say or even stand for the Pledge of Allegiance: “Freedom to differ is not limited to things that do not matter much. That would be a mere shadow of freedom.”
Thomas Jefferson put it well in a statement on academic freedom at the University of Virginia, in a letter he wrote to William Roscoe in 1820:
“This institution will be based on the illimitable freedom of the human mind. For here we are not afraid to follow the truth wherever it may lead, nor to tolerate any error so long as reason is free to combat it.”
Yes, the nexus between hate speech and hate violence should be explored, and there should be vigilance in monitoring hateful websites and broadcasts. The Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation specializes in this work. GLAAD’s website is at http://www.glaad.org. That being said, we believe that the wisest course, both politically and ethically, is to practice the tolerance we are preaching and respond to hateful speech with speech of our own. Attempts at suppression are distinctly illiberal, are unlikely to succeed in any case (gays are in the minority, remember), and tend to play into our enemies’ hands. Responding to hateful speech can be time-consuming and expensive, and requires imagination and skill, but it is the wisest course. There are no short-cuts to freedom.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I agree with Tom, Richard, and AGJ.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
I’m in agreement with everyone too. Quite a rare thing for us all to be in agreement!
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
Incidentally, it’s only after Phelps showed up at military funerals that they decided to “take action.” I guess it’s A-OK to “desecrate” the funerals of the non-politically-correct. . .
Statism, it’s the new thing.
posted by Ed Brown on
If the restriction on freedom of speech is content neutral then it could pass, as the USSC apparently has grown less weary of free speech rights.
posted by Avee on
The devil is in the details. If the protestors are shouting in a way that is disruptive to the funeral, then sorry, they do not have that "right." If their behavior is threatening and intimidating to those attending the funeral, they do no have that "right." This is clearly way beyond the protected expression of ideas. It’s unfortunate that the state has to step in to allow citizens to mourn their dead, but just because someone wants to be disruptive and call it "speech" doesn’t give them that right.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
I’m afraid I disagree that people have a “right” not to be offended. As long as Phelps isn’t trespassing, he should have the right to express his views.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Avee, police can and do keep demonstrators, including these demonstrators, a safe distance away. There has been no indication that their protests were actually disrupting services. So I think you are mistaken in jumping to that conclusion. This really is about free speech rights. Hooliganism, as distinct from speech, is not protected.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Avee: “The devil is in the details. If the protestors are shouting in a way that is disruptive to the funeral, then sorry, they do not have that “right.” If their behavior is threatening and intimidating to those attending the funeral, they do no have that “right.” This is clearly way beyond the protected expression of ideas. It’s unfortunate that the state has to step in to allow citizens to mourn their dead, but just because someone wants to be disruptive and call it “speech” doesn’t give them that right.”
As you say, the devil is in the details, and the details are the facts, not the “ifs” we conjure up. So I think that it is important to keep to the facts, rather than speculation, when considering something as important .
I saw the Westboro crowd at a funeral some months ago.
The Westboro group consisted of a dozen or so, men, women and children, standing across the street from the church in which the services were held, behind a barricade the police had put up.
A few police were standing between the Westboro group and the street, a few more were on our side of the street, keeping anyone from going over and taking the Westboro group on, I guess.
The Westboro group had lots of signs – “God Hates Fags”, “Thank God for Dead Soldiers” and “America is Doomed” are three I remember. I don’t remember them all. There seemed to be about three signs per protester.
A few people on our side of the street shouted insults at the Westboro group, and the Westboro group shouted slogans back. Most people just ignored them. The police stood silent, keeping order.
I went into the church, so I don’t pretend to have seen everything that happened.
After the funeral service, the casket was brought out, with a military honor guard in attendance, and people headed to the church parking lot to join the procession to the cemetary for graveside services.
I recall seeing the Westboro group outside the church after the funeral, but I was talking to the people I was with and didn’t take any special notice of them. I don’t think that they were doing anything other than standing around at that point.
From what I’ve read, what I saw is typical of what happens when the Westboro gang shows up at funerals.
Was it “disruptive”? Sure, I suppose.
People heading into the church were distracted from the thoughts they might otherwise have had, preparing to bury a dead serviceman, and people were talking about the Westboro group rather than focusing on the funeral. But people settled down inside the church, and the funeral service was not disrupted. It was dignified and very sad, as are all such funerals.
I doubt if anyone was “threatened” or “intimidated” by the Westboro group. Any half-decent bouncer at a gay bar would be about ten times more intimidating than that gang, even when you discount the children. If anyone was “threatened” or “intimidated”, they had no reason to be that I could see.
Maybe you’ve seen other protests by the Westboro group, Avee, but based on what I saw, which I think is fairly typical, I don’t agree that “This is clearly way beyond the protected expression of ideas.”
The Westboro group’s message is odious, to be sure, and their choice of venue is disgusting. But speech it is, and I think that it should be protected.
By the way, Fred Phelps has a website page that has pictures of many of his recent protests — http://www.godhatesfags.com/photos/thisyear.html I went to see if I could find photos of the crowd at the funeral I attended, but didn’t find any.
But if you want to see what the protests looks like, go look.
We’ve got a gang of Phelps-like Christians in our area of Wisconsin (see http://www.pccmonroe.org/Homosexuality.htm), who show up at all sorts of public events with similar signs and slogans.
People just ignore them for the most part, as they should.
posted by dalea on
Looks like Fred has cleaned up his act. In the early and mid90\\’s I was at several events protested by Fred. This was in Topeka, where he has a large following. Or supporters in numbers anyway. At these events, Fred and co would block entrances, stick bullhorns in peoples\\’ ears while shouting, spit on people, use profanity and generally try to disrupt the event. Friends of mine attended an Episcopal Church where Fred demonstrated every Sunday, for a while. There the spitting, throwing of rotten vegetables, screaming obscenities was in full flower. Then the Phelpses would try to make enough noise outside to disrupt the mass. Just what I saw and heard.
posted by dalea on
Looks like Fred has cleaned up his act. In the early and mid90\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\’s I was at several events protested by Fred. This was in Topeka, where he has a large following. Or supporters in numbers anyway. At these events, Fred and co would block entrances, stick bullhorns in peoples\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\’ ears while shouting, spit on people, use profanity and generally try to disrupt the event. Friends of mine attended an Episcopal Church where Fred demonstrated every Sunday, for a while. There the spitting, throwing of rotten vegetables, screaming obscenities was in full flower. Then the Phelpses would try to make enough noise outside to disrupt the mass. Just what I saw and heard.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
datea: “Looks like Fred has cleaned up his act. In the early and mid90’s I was at several events protested by Fred. This was in Topeka, where he has a large following.”
I don’t doubt that the Westboro group has learned to be careful away from Topeka, particular given the small numbers — even Phelps seems capable of low animal cunning. It wouldn’t take much to start something, and around here, the protests are about as popular as warmed over pig manure, so if something got started, it would get real ugly real fast.
I don’t want to sound like the Westboro group was sweetness and light, however, or that the protest didn’t deeply offend everyone. The signs were odious and the slogan-chanting offensive. The use of children as a front constitutes child abuse, as far as I am concerned.
The use of children for protection seems to be a common tactic to homo-hating groups. Pligrim Covenant, our Wisconsin version of Phred’s gang, shows up all over the place and does it, too.
Last year, taking my friend Bob, who is in a wheelchair, to Pridefest in Milwaukee, I had to run the gauntlet outside the entrance. You haven’t lived until some ten-year-old mouths crap at you while you are trying to get a wheelchair down the sidewalk, with his fat-assed Christian mother standing right beside him, egging him on.
And to keep Phelps in perspective, the core messgage Phred and his rabble put out isn’t all that different, in content, than some of what we hear from the likes of Falwell and Robertson and Dobson. It is just rawer, delivered in ugly shouts rather than honey-dripped, holier-than-thou, preacher tones.
posted by raj on
Richard J. Rosendall | May 30, 2006, 8:38pm | #
The ACLU and the bikers have it exactly right: If you are offended by a demonstration, hold a counter-demonstration.
Not a bad idea. If memory serves, that is precisely what occurred during Matthew Shephard’s funeral.
Richard J. Rosendall | May 31, 2006, 1:00pm | #
This really is about free speech rights. Hooliganism, as distinct from speech, is not protected.
Pretty much true (definitely true as to the latter), but I believe that one needs to recognize that one does not have an unlimited right to “speech” whenever, wherever, or at what decibel level one might want. Neither you nor I have the right to parade through Back Bay Boston at 3AM in the morning screeching through a megaphone at 3000 decibels, regardless of what we might be saying. Governments can impose reasonable time, place & manner restrictions on speech, as long as the restrictions are content neutral. The text of the actual legislation regarding the military funerals is not clear (there were some postings over at GayPatriot.net, but they are inconsistent), it appears likely that the restrictions would probably pass constitutional muster.
NB: hooliganism can largely be dealt with by laws regarding assault&battery and destruction of property. Speech isn’t an issue.
Regarding the post, why am I not surprised at Stephen’s swipe at the ACLU in the American Nazi’s Skokie IL case? Apparently, Stevie hasn’t read his copy of the US Constitution, or the jurisprudence under the 1st amendment. The ACLU was exactly correct, from a legal standpoint. What the onlookers apparently failed to recognize was that what the AmNazis wanted was the notariety that would arise from the counter-protest, and that’s exactly what was what was broadcast on national news. If those who might have been counter-protesters had instead ignored the whole incident, there would have been no notariety, and, if they do that more than a few times, the AmNazis would have whithered. Cynics such as I wonder whether the AmNazis paid the counter-protesters to counter-protest, just to get the notariety.
posted by Georgiy on
Pro-Boy Scouts for freedom of association but Anti-ACLU when it comes to free speech. Yeah, whatever, Steve – you always look for the partisan dig and the wedge issue – not to mention First Amendment selectivity.
posted by Bobby on
What about private property and respect for the dead? Does that mean nothing?
We don\\’t have the freedom to smoke cigarrettes where we want, but we do have the freedom to hurt mourners and disgrace the dead?
Phelps hasn\\’t cleaned up his act at all, he\\’s just realize that him hating gays is an old story, but if he hates America, the military, and carries signs like \\”Thank God for Dead Soldiers\\” and \\”God bless IED\\’\\” He\\’ll get publicity once again.
Phelps has simply become the homophobic version of michael moore,
he\\’s a media whore, nothing more.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
“What about private property and respect for the dead?”
My understanding is that Phelps doesn’t trespass on private property, but rather conducts his demonstrations in public areas.
As for “respect for the dead,” that’s neither a legal nor constitutional principle.
“Phelps has simply become the homophobic version of michael moore”
I’m no fan of Moore, but comments like this are simply over-the-top hyperbole.
posted by Bobby on
Public areas right next to the cemetery, in public view of the mourners. In New York they won’t even allow a porn store to be in close proximity to a school. In advertising, you can’t put a billboard selling cigs or booze near a school. So explain to me why should Phelps get special rights?
I don’t know you, but if you were a liberal, you’d probably tell me that commercial speech doesn’t have the same protections as free speech. Gee, never mind that the first amendment doesn’t draw such distinction. In fact, why should saying “Bush sucks” be more constitutionally protected than “Come to Maronee Honda and get a 2006 Honda Accord for 0% APR + $1000 cash back.”
I mean, Phelps must be a really special guy. He has more rights than tobaco companies, booze compainies, porn companies, private enterprise, and kids who post hateful comments on myspace.com
http://techdirt.com/articles/20060303/0140223.shtml
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
“Public areas right next to the cemetery, in public view of the mourners. In New York they won’t even allow a porn store to be in close proximity to a school. In advertising, you can’t put a billboard selling cigs or booze near a school. So explain to me why should Phelps get special rights?”
You’re assuming that I agree with New York’s unconstitutional censorship laws. I don’t, nor do I believe the exercise of free speech is a “special right.” It’s a right which all people should (and do) have.
“you’d probably tell me that commercial speech doesn’t have the same protections as free speech”
Don’t cross your wires already. I’m not a conservative, nor am I a liberal. I don’t believe in all the restrictions and regulations which you old-party folks are constantly trying to impose on every segment of society in virtually every area (including speech and expression).
“He has more rights than tobaco companies, booze compainies, porn companies, private enterprise, and kids who post hateful comments on myspace.com”
Mostly because you conservatives are fighting with other liberals over which segments of society should be silenced through government force — while Libertarians believe in free speech for everyone.
posted by Scott on
I love how the “northeast libertarian” always refers to the GOP and Dems as the “old” parties. I guess we could call the Libertarians the “non” or “also ran” party. And yes, my friend, you are a member of a P-A-R-T-Y. Whether old, new or in this case laughable, you’re a party man.
posted by Bobby on
“Mostly because you conservatives are fighting with other liberals over which segments of society should be silenced through government force — while Libertarians believe in free speech for everyone.”
—Well, I do want free speech for everyone. If I say horrible things against other people, that’s just my own exercize of free speech, something many liberals don’t understand nor support.
“you old-party folks are constantly trying to impose on every segment of society in virtually every area (including speech and expression).”
—It’s a vicious cycle, the liberals do us wrong, we take revenge by doing them wrong. Liberals control the media, we control the government (to an extent). Liberals control the trial lawyers which can destroy corporations, hurt free speech, and ruin people. We control the military which can destroy entire countries if we want.
That’s why politics is so aggresive and disgusting. That’s why there’s so much mudslinging. It’s the only way to get elected.
What do you want us to do? Be nice to one another? Can you compromise with people that don’t know when to stop? Gays are a great example, yesterday they wanted to come out at work, today they want to force other employees into sensitivity training compulsory meetings.
That is why conservatives hate anyone from the left. They’re never satisfied.
We can only oppose them and put obstacles in their way.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
“I love how the “northeast libertarian” always refers to the GOP and Dems as the “old” parties.”
One strong bit of evidence of the lack of real analysis in the old parties these days is their focus on language and propaganda rather than argument. Scott couldn’t take rational issue with any of the things I brought up, so his entire argument boils down to an attack on vocabulary using classic propaganda techniques, and a “you do it too!” response. . . along with dollops of the faux-bravado unjustified arrogance that we’ve come to expect from neoconservatives for a decade now.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
“the liberals do us wrong, we take revenge by doing them wrong”
The irony, of course, is that both “the liberals” and your neoconservative band are not only doing each other wrong, but doing the entire country wrong.
And our constitutional rights wither under your persistent assaults and mudslinging against each other as you destroy every foundation of our free society in order to gain power for yourselves.
I’m of the mind that the American people have probably had about enough. And the low approval ratings for both old parties and the Presidency/Congress alike confirm my suspicions.
Redeem yourself by being an American first rather than a Republican/Democrat first.
posted by Lori Heine on
One of the best bumper-stickers I’ve ever seen says, “Don’t complain. You elected them.” It brings home the fact that the reason all these bozos are in Washington screwing things up is because an awful lot of us pulled the lever for them.
One constructive thing we can all do is to make a point of hearing what the political underdogs have to say. They’re usually more interesting to listen to, anyway, than the big-money boys and girls, because they actually have to rely upon their wits and their communication skills to get any hearing with the public at all.
I try to give this sort of consideration not only to Libertarian candidates, but even to the small-money Republicans and Democrats who dare to brave the fight.
Personally, I wish that Ernie Hancock would run for President. He’s a local boy from Arizona, and for some time he had his own talk-radio show. He’s the sort who runs for every office and never wins, but he’s usually smarter than all the other candidates put together.
“Anytime you want me to kick the living crap out of you in a debate,” he tells his opponents, “I’ll gladly oblige you.” Of course they never do. The big-money candidates only stand to lose by telling us what they really stand for and what their real plans are once elected.
I don’t think Ernie has run for President yet. He couldn’t do any worse than he has in any other election. And if were to keep it up and run every time, building recognition each election cycle, who knows? He’s still a relatively young man.
Big money only matters as much as it does because people don’t choose to pay attention to small-budget candidates. That’s something we the people can change, if we have the will to.