The idiots at Westboro plan to protest at Steve Jobs funeral

[szh]

Again, the idiots at Westboro find ways to make themselves look stupider and sillier than ever.

http://thestir.cafemom.com/in_the_news/ ... ses_iphone

Just unbelievably amazingly stupid.

Z

[mattblancarte]

Yeah saw this yesterday during the initial rush of Steve Jobs news. They are just whoring for attention.

No doubt there will be a big party at her funeral.

[stebo0728]

I saw this too, and fervently looked for some evidence that it was a hoax but it seems legit. I'm a christian and I detest these folks. I wish their mothership would pick them up already!

[IBCoupe]

We had a lengthy discussion about them in my free speech class, and I'm beginning to entertain the notion that the First Amendment isn't as broad as we make it out to be (or oughtn't be interpreted that way, I should say). There's a view of free speech that only speech that contributes to social utility is to be protected, and that the government is free to criminalize certain other forms of expression on the basis of their content.

Not sure I'm on that bandwagon just yet, but it's an interesting notion.

[Encryptshun]

Sounds like a widening of the "you can't yell 'Fire!' in a crowded theater" argument. I'm all for free speech without limits. If it's going to be free, it should be free. That includes censorship (though any business has the right to censor itself or its product without restriction too).

I'm surprised none of you pointed out the simple irony that the WBC tweets came from an iPhone. When questioned, Queen Dingbat said something like "God created the iPhone so we could protest Jobs' funeral." lolwut

[mattblancarte]

I'm surprised none of you pointed out the simple irony that the WBC tweets came from an iPhone.

It was in the article's title.

[szh]

I'm surprised none of you pointed out the simple irony that the WBC tweets came from an iPhone.

It was in the article's title.

Yup ... Which is why I did not mention it specifically.

When questioned, Queen Dingbat said something like "God created the iPhone so we could protest Jobs' funeral." lolwut

That was an absolutely hilarious statement! She is completely off her rocker.

Z

[AppleBonker]

No doubt there will be a big party at her funeral.

I honestly hope there isn't. What better way to show them that they are completely unimportant that avoiding bringing any attention to one of their funerals.

I'm a christian and I detest these folks.

What is the point of the part I italicized? You're Christian, they claim to be Christian. Why do you feel the need to distance yourself from them? Being completely bat-s*** crazy has nothing to do with religion. Craziness exists across all religions (and non-religions). Because they're crazy and claim to be a member of one group doesn't make you crazy for belonging to the same group. Please don't feel the need to distance yourself from them. I don't personally care what your religion is, and regardless of it I've never had even a slight thought that you would agree with WBC. Let the extremists in any category distance themselves from the remainder of that group.

[stebo0728]

Well, theres been some discussion here, both ways, as to whether we should expect mainstream muslims to distance themselves from their extremists. I'm sortof of the opinion they shouldnt be expected to, but should want to. In the same spirit I want to distance myself from the extremists wearing the mantle of my religion. Regardless of how rational people view things, mainstream folks most definitely associate moderates with extremists within the same sect unless the moderates openly reject the extremists. Thats all I'm doing. I dont feel belittled by these fools, I just want folks to be sure that I dont affiliate with them, I dont hold their same views, and I dont agree with their actions.

[BusyBadger]

There's a view of free speech that only speech that contributes to social utility is to be protected, and that the government is free to criminalize certain other forms of expression on the basis of their content.

Not sure I'm on that bandwagon just yet, but it's an interesting notion.

Yeah, interesting in the same way as "If you're not guilty then you don't have anything to hide" is in regards to The Fourth Amendment.

[AppleBonker]

Regardless of how rational people view things, mainstream folks most definitely associate moderates with extremists...

So mainstream folks = irrational? I lolled.

Though I get what you're saying. I was just hoping that of the people who comment here, none require you to do so. What religion you belong to is your own deal (and matters not to this discussion). Being affiliated with that organization does not automatically assign you to the subset that belongs to said organizations but, more importantly, also belongs to the subset of completely insane people.

Given the outpouring of love and support for Jobs's family/friends, I doubt they'll care much what WBC does (as it has been entirely overshadowed).

[IBCoupe]

Yeah, interesting in the same way as "If you're not guilty then you don't have anything to hide" is in regards to The Fourth Amendment.

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.

They're not claiming to be exercising their religion, they're free to speak not at funerals, they're not assembling peaceably, and they're not petitioning the government. There are a number of philosophical justifications to the vague protections offered to us by the First Amendment, and not all of them protect Phelps.

[Cold_Zero]

I'm a christian and I detest these folks.

What is the point of the part I italicized? You're Christian, they claim to be Christian. Why do you feel the need to distance yourself from them?

Because Stebo like any good Christian is heeding the advice of the Bible and distancing himself from a group that teaches false teachings. I am not necessarily talking about their politically incorrect shock value rhetoric, but what Fred Phelps teaches/preaches from the pulpit. They have deviated from historical Christian orthodoxy by using the Law not as a mirror, curb or guide, but as a club to beat people into submission to garner attention and what I presume justice for the transgressions against God that have been committed by this country. They preach the Law without the Gospel, they spit on objective Justification for the whole world and they take the doctrine of election far beyond mainstream Calvinism. I think it is pretty safe to stay that these guys have deviated far beyond being a sect of Christianity, to being a cult.

These guys came to Indianapolis to protest a local high school play of the “Laramie Project.” A local internet radio host went down there to interview the protesters and I was shocked as how his basic questions about Christianity could not be answered by the protesters. I mean my 6 year old daughter could answer these softball style questions on how a person is saved.

[bigbadberry3]

He was kind of a jerk ...

[IBCoupe]

He was kind of a jerk ...

But do people have a right to protest a private funeral? What if it was some more obscure jerk, like Greg? I kid.

[BusyBadger]

They're not claiming to be exercising their religion, they're free to speak not at funerals, they're not assembling peaceably, and they're not petitioning the government. There are a number of philosophical justifications to the vague protections offered to us by the First Amendment, and not all of them protect Phelps.

But do people have a right to protest a private funeral?

First, they weren't speaking at the funeral and second, I'm curious why you're questioning WBC's peaceable assembly...by all accounts of Phelps' previous high profile endeavour (funeral of LCpl Snyder) Westboro complied completely with local ordinances. Snyder's father himself admitted that although he glimpsed the tops of the signs from the funeral procession, he didn't even see their content until he watched a news program on television later that day. He also indicated that he found the WBC's statements about his son on their webpage from a Google search, not from any immediate exposure. It's not like WBC is dancing on the grave and heckling those in attendance, the picket was held in a location cordoned off by the police, approximately 1000 feet from the church.

As far as having a right to do it he First Amendment seems to have established it. Your implications that the First Amendment offers "vague protections" is ludicrous. I find it amusing that you're so turgid over the entire OWS movement that hinders people getting to to and from their jobs and others going about their daily routine but think that while the OWS movement is protected by the First Amendment, despite their interference in the lives of others that Phelps & Co. somehow are not. Just because you may not agree with the message doesn't mean someone doesn't have a right to say it, popular speech has never needed protection.

I'll just leave you with this little tidbit form the Supreme Court a little over 20 years ago...

At the heart of the First Amendment is the recognition of the fundamental importance of the free flow of ideas and opinions on matters of public interest and concern. The freedom to speak one's mind is not only an aspect of individual liberty – and thus a good unto itself – but also is essential to the common quest for truth and the vitality of society as a whole. We have therefore been particularly vigilant to ensure that individual expressions of ideas remain free from governmentally imposed sanctions." The First Amendment envisions that the sort of robust political debate that takes place in a democracy will occasionally yield speech critical of public figures who are "intimately involved in the resolution of important public questions or, by reason of their fame, shape events in areas of concern to society at large".

[Cold_Zero]

It is my understanding that there are a few lawyers in the Phelps family and they make their money by suing state and local municipalities when they are denied the ability to protest or arrested. I am sure they teach their protesters how to comply with the law and push it just enough to bait law enforcement so that they can sue and recover fees/damages.

[IBCoupe]

I'm well aware of the particulars of the recent Phelps case. But you're appealing to the particular facts of the case in question. That the father didn't see them says nothing about the First Amendment's protections; that has a lot more to do with the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress. But there's a famous line in law school: bad facts make bad law. I don't doubt that the court would agree with you on the protection of Phelps's demonstrations. I'm just saying that the First Amendment doesn't necessarily need to be read that way, and even at the time it was written, there was disagreement on what level of government interference would cross the line into speech that was not free.

Steve Jobs is probably a sufficiently famous person as to make him a bad example, but Phelps has protested people whose only fame has been the local paper's obituary page. They're private citizens, who can't very well bury their son in their living room. What part of the First Amendment says that a town cannot fine someone who protests an entirely private function?

And I don't think I've said much about the OWS's First Amendment implications.