Cardinal Fang, I agree with you. I have no doubt that the Phelpses are sincere. I think that if it were actually all a scam, it might not be as upsetting to me.
Sincerity always presents a moral conundrum. I recall when reading CS Lewis, many years back, his startling suggestion that the witch burnings in Salem were of course an atrocity --but to be reasonable we have to ask ourselves, what if the people that condemned the witches to death sincerely believed they were witches.
I am, however, less inclined to offer the cretans from Westborough the moral opportunity to invoke sincerity simply because I see no signs of their having compassion or empathy toward their victims and for this reason I see no sincerity, or so to speak no heart in them.
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. They are a horrific lesson to us all, but not in the way they suppose.
I think you can add defamation, revealing certain types of state secrets, fraud, intentional infliction of emotional distress, hate speech, all manner of privileged speech can be punished if revealed by someone other than the holder of the privilege, confidentiality agreements, severe verbal abuse of children (or the elderly or infirm), and probably a lot more can be thought of by people expert in legal issues pertaining to speech.
USA free speech is limited by sedition, incite to riot, and forceful over throw of the government. There is also the problem of conspiracy, and the attempt to do an illegal act.
I suspect it is the revulsion from the baseless accusations that Palin is responsible for the death that inhibits people from hearing criticsim that her inflamatory speech, and others like it from whatever direction, is excessive and potentially dangerous, Speaking only for myself, I find that two things can be true at once. In this instance, I think the two issues should be held separately.
The baseless accusations against Palin are reprehensible and inflammatory.
I agree that inflammatory speech is dangerous, from wherever it comes. I'm not sure what specific examples of inflammatory speech by Palin you might be referring to. But I am completely open to the possibility that you have examples that I would agree with wholeheartedly. My perception is that she is snarky, sometimes obnoxious. But I can't bring to mind anything truly inflammatory. Of course that may be because I'm not a fan or a hater and generally ignore Mrs. Palin.
For only me, I would say that the primary guiding principle of my life is that life is sacred. I'm pretty relaxed about a lot of things, but the taking of a life or accusing someone of participating in the taking of a life are things that disturb me to my core and I don't make light of them or use them politically. Other things, for sure, but that is MY personal line in the sand and the reason why I am so disturbed by the whole feeding frenzy. It's like my mother-in-law used to say that as an old school Italian American woman, hearing someone call another woman a bad mother was absolutely and utterly shocking and not to be taken lightly.
By the way, who saw Dershowitz's statement on the use of the term "blood libel?"
Cardinal Fang, I agree with you. I have no doubt that the Phelpses are sincere. I think that if it were actually all a scam, it might not be as upsetting to me.
The Westboro group is a great illustration of the point I have been trying to make for a while. Just because speech is protected by the First Amendment does not mean it is socially acceptable. Westboro's speech is protected legally by the First Amendment, although the time, place, and manner may be subject to regulation. The bottom line is that they cannot be stopped from spreading their hateful message by the government. Yet, we, who agree on very little, unanimously agree that their speech is vile and no decent person person would engage in it.
The wild political speech we have been debating is clearly legally protected. Yet, I think that most people here think that the political rhetoric of violence against the opposition is, at a minimum, over the top or probably not a good idea. Just saying that it is protected by the First Amendment, so "too bad" doesn't really address the issue of what is appropriate, only what is legal.
Many people here have rushed to Palin's defense because accusing her of causing this shooting with over the top rhetoric, when there is no proof that the shooter ever heard the rhetoric, is "inappropriate" or worse. Certainly, those accusations against Palin are protected speech and "legal" under the First Amendment, but perhaps underhanded or otherwise unacceptable.
I suspect it is the revulsion from the baseless accusations that Palin is responsible for the death that inhibits people from hearing criticsim that her inflamatory speech, and others like it from whatever direction, is excessive and potentially dangerous, in the way that any sort of fighting words are dangerous - especially words that disparage the patriotism, or love of country, of the opposition, or attribute the desire to destroy the country or its values to the other side. As I pointed out in an earlier post, Jehovah's Witnesses were lynched and killed over such accusations in the 40s.
They make money from lawsuits, but it's not a racket in the sense that they're doing it to make money, as far as I can tell.
You could imagine some scam artist who provoked people to anger, sued them, and then used the proceeds to fund expensive cars and vacations to Hawaii, something like that. But these guys, as far as I can tell, use the money they win to make more signs and picket more funerals. They believe in their vile message.
Zoos, The seven videos are the first seven parts of an eight part documentary. Bottom line, as Romani said, the entire "church" is pretty much just one extended family.
I think they're almost all descended from or otherwise related to Fred Phelps. Unfortunately, they brainwash their kids to believe in their tripe, which is why you often see small children holding "God Hates Fags" signs at their demonstrations.
A lot of them, particularly Fred's daughter (I forget her name) are lawyers; they try to make money by provoking assaults and then suing. In that sense, it's a racket. I'm afraid that they believe what they're saying, though.
I didn't know that romani. Maybe the interbreed so much that there is some sort of brain damage. I am definitely going to check out the things posted by CardinalFang.
@zoose- I know at least a good chunk of them are all from the same family, so many of them don't know anything else. I can't say for sure why anyone would willing convert to something like this.
And what normal, decent person would picket a funeral, even the funeral of someone they detested?
I can't imagine.
I would really like to know who these people are. Not the group, but the individuals. What possible life experience would allow anyone to do something like this?
In simpler times, people who chose to indulge their loathsome tendencies under the guise of religion ran head first into majority disapproval. These days, there simply isn't anything so abhorrent that it can't be successfully defended in court, I'm afraid.
In simpler times, many of the loathsome practices were those of organized religion - burning heretics, torturing heretics before burning them, subordinating women, warring over religious dogma. I hope that the court is the bulwark against the tyranny of the majority, not simply the rubber stamp of the majority.
It goes way to far to say that "there simply isn't anything so abhorrent that it can't be successfully defended in court." It is true that any suit can be filed, but if completely frivolous, they are terminated by motions before a jury can hear them. Abhorrent positions that manage to make it to a jury typically lose because jurors are drawn from the community at large and tend to represent community values. If jurors blow it, the trial judge can declare a mistrial, or appellate judges can review the verdict.
I believe the Westboro folks either made it to the Supreme Court recently, or are on their way there, because of the First Amendment issues raised by their conduct. They test the mettle of First Amendment absolutists who want no restrictions on speech by the government. Their abhorrent conduct is arguably protected by powerful and fundamental constitutional concerns. As I noted before, I think there is a way for reasonable accomodation of the right to communicate a vile message, and the right of mourners to mourn undisturbed by lunatics. However, those concerned about slippery slopes when it comes to regulating speech would argue that society has to put up with these knaves and their message will go bankrupt in the marketplace of ideas.
Another reason that there is an argument for Westborough is that one persons's vile speech is another person's inspirational slogan, and the government does not get to decide which is which. For example, Palin's calls to arms and references to Obama's middle name to whip up her crowds can be viewed either way, but the only way to curb it is through the power of public opinion.
-- Edited by Bogney on Wednesday 12th of January 2011 12:05:48 PM
-- Edited by Bogney on Wednesday 12th of January 2011 12:07:00 PM
The First Amendment right to speech is subject to time, place, and manner restrictions in a number of different contexts, and funerals should be one of them. There is no way that this church should be able to deliver their "message" to the grief stricken. They can do it across town, after the funeral has disbanded, or in some other time, place, and manner. While the grief stricken may choose not to hear it, so what. The message is not really to them anyway, the grieving are being used for publicity for a sick religion. If the Supreme Court cannot get this one right, it would be pathetic.
I don't wish for people's deaths, even the deaths of those creeps. On the other hand, if a semi had to go through some group of people, that would be the group to pick.
I think it's safe to say that the Westboro creeps run into majority disapproval. In fact, I suspect the only people who approve of what they're doing are themselves. I guess I hold my nose and defend their right to protest outside a school where several students have committed suicide, but approve? Who actually approves of these slimemolds?
In simpler times, people who chose to indulge their loathsome tendencies under the guise of religion ran head first into majority disapproval. These days, there simply isn't anything so abhorrent that it can't be successfully defended in court, I'm afraid.
Arizona legislators have just passed a law banning picketing at funerals.
I'm of two minds. On the one hand, free speech is important and I hate to see these ad-hoc restrictions.
On the other hand, the Westboro "Church" is so awful, so loathsome, so vile and despicable, that keeping them away from funerals is a public service. And what normal, decent person would picket a funeral, even the funeral of someone they detested?
The Westboro Baptist "Church"- bringing together left and right. They traffic in human misery. As an atheist, I have to keep reminding myself not to hold Westboro against organized religion, because they inspire universal revulsion in everyone who is not them.
These guys are a boil on the butt of the body of Christ.
They are the best argument against the "preacher owned" church.
With no denominational authority to reign in excesses, they just run amuck.
Note that since there is no central "Baptist" authority the way there is for Lutherans, Catholics, Methodists, etc., any nutcase that wants to can found their own Baptist Church.
I think that I agreed with Geeps once!