Weston is about 20 miles northwest of where I live, it's a neat old historic river town and it has just made the national news.

One of their own was killed in Afghanistan and the "Reverend" Fred Phelps and his gang of a-holes decided to picket the funeral, but the good people of Weston may have finally figured out a tactic to effectively neutralize the protests of the Westboro Baptist Church.

http://www.indyposted.com/125020/westboro-baptist-church-blocked-from-missouri-funeral-by-mourners/

HOT DAMN!!!!!

It's very admirable that these people were able to do this, but honestly, this is one "freedom" that shouldn't even be an issue to begin with.

Free speech has rational limits.  Funeral protests should be one of those limits.

HOT DAMN!!!!!


My sentiments exactly!  It's about frikkin' time...and they did it the right way: With nonviolence.  

Here is a toast to the good people of Weston M-O!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/14/occasion14.gif


It's very admirable that these people were able to do this, but honestly, this is one "freedom" that shouldn't even be an issue to begin with.

Free speech has rational limits.  Funeral protests should be one of those limits.


Rational?  Those a-holes?  I'm extremely reluctant to restrict free speech, but the preservation of said "free speech" requires citizens to exercise a smidgen of compassion and human decency.  Phelps is severely lacking in both.  He and his sicko circus harassing the funerals of fallen soldiers is downright cruel.  I'm a First Amendment stalwart, but I've always said, if the Westboro hate clan* waved signs captioned "God hates n gg rs," somebody would have done something about Phelps long ago!  The continued presence of the Wesboro hate clan in the media reflects America's tolerance for homophobia. 
>:(

* I can't call Phelps' band of scumbags a "Baptist Church."  I just can't.  I see nothing Christian about them.

There is nothing Christian about them.  Phelps and his cohorts need to go away.


Did the Freedom Riders show up?  They are a great deterrent as well.  When one of the members of my church was killed in Iraq, Westboro threatened to show up so the Freedom Riders did.  It was amazing to see them all lined up on either side of the road to my church.  Westboro never showed up, thankfully.

Rational?  Those a-holes?  I'm extremely reluctant to restrict free speech, but the preservation of said "free speech" requires citizens to exercise a smidgen of compassion and human decency.  Phelps is severely lacking in both.  He and his sicko circus harassing the funerals of fallen soldiers is downright cruel.  I'm a First Amendment stalwart, but I've always said, if the Westboro hate clan* waved signs captioned "God hates n gg rs," somebody would have done something about Phelps long ago!  The continued presence of the Wesboro hate clan in the media reflects America's tolerance for homophobia. 
>:(

* I can't call Phelps' band of scumbags a "Baptist Church."  I just can't.  I see nothing Christian about them.



Max, that was my point.  It would be most rational to ban them from doing this stuff.  A reasonable society would not allow this sort of thing.

Max, that was my point.  It would be most rational to ban them from doing this stuff.  A reasonable society would not allow this sort of thing.


You don't fight offensive speech with censorship.  You fight their speech - offensive or not - with your speech - offensive or not.

You don't fight trolls with cops and lawsuits.  You fight trolls by ignoring them. 

WBC are more trollish than frea speach: their business model is to sue people who take a swing (physically or legally) at 'em.  Don't feed the troll.  Ignore 'em on the Internet, and if you want to protect the people at an event, do so by lawfully assembling yourselves between the troll and the funeral-goers.  The Freedom Riders (and these guys in Weston) are doing it right.

^ Elaborating on the above.

Neo-Nazis are illegal in Germany.  Their government can shut down organizations they deem as such and subject their memberships to legal sanctions, including prison.  Otherwise, present-day Germany is very liberal about speech...just not neo-Nazi/white supremacist speech  However, the German constitution does not have the American First Amendment.  Our First Amendment -- especially the way the courts have interpreted it in the past 80 years -- makes it extremely difficult for the government restrain speech, even obviously devoid of social good.  In other words, if the WBC showed up and the county sheriff brought the cops down and made them shut up under threat of arrest, the WBC lawyers would take 'em to court and win faster than you can say "prior restraint." 

Vigilantism is a terrible prescription for dealing with hate groups.  It's tempting to say, "Okay, if the cops and the courts won't do anything about WBC, we'll round up a posse and shoot the f**kers down ourselves!"  From there three bad things happen:

1. Hate groups sue vigilantes who attack them, as Foo Bar mentioned.
2. Hate groups assemble their own traveling goon squads and fight back, which is sort of how the SS got started under Hitler.
3. Members of hate groups who get beat up or killed by vigilantes become martyrs to the hate group's cause.  "Remember Joe Schmoe" and "The Podunkville Massacre" become rallying cries to inflame the passions of the hate group's chapters to go and do more of the same only worse!

Thus, organized nonviolence is the best way to handle groups such as the WBC.  Ring the parameters with disciplined objectors.  Let the other guys commit the assaults and get arrested if they want to.  It worked in Weston, MO.

One caveat to the foregoing --

When the government takes the side of the hate group or is the hate group, it REALLY sucks.  Think Bull Connor.  Even in the civil rights struggles of the 1950s and 1960s, Martin Luther King's nonviolence still accomplished more than Malcolm X and the later Black Panthers, who were willing to to meet violence with violence. 

You don't fight offensive speech with censorship.  You fight their speech - offensive or not - with your speech - offensive or not.

You don't fight trolls with cops and lawsuits.  You fight trolls by ignoring them. 

WBC are more trollish than frea speach: their business model is to sue people who take a swing (physically or legally) at 'em.  Don't feed the troll.  Ignore 'em on the Internet, and if you want to protect the people at an event, do so by lawfully assembling yourselves between the troll and the funeral-goers.  The Freedom Riders (and these guys in Weston) are doing it right.


Freedom of Assembly was never intended to include funeral protests, therefore, I don't see why we include that as part of the scope of this right.

It's like how people twist the definition of the 2nd Amendment.

There are just some things no reasonable society can allow -- constitutionally or not.  I guess I have a more Canadian view on rights than an American one.

organized nonviolence is the best way to handle groups such as the WBC.  Ring the parameters with disciplined objectors.  Let the other guys commit the assaults and get arrested if they want to.  It worked in Weston, MO. 


I understand what you're saying, but I'm not a libertarian.  I'm a utilitarian.  I believe whatever can be assessed as a net positive for society should be promoted.

I also believe that the American system's focus on the Constitution is antiquated.  While I understand the historical significance of the Constitution and the context for why it was created, I believe times have changed enough since then that societies in general should operate in a purely logical, utilitarian way.  Secular humanism and pragmatism mean far more to me than the Constitution.

I also believe that the American system's focus on the Constitution is antiquated.  


Contrary to what the Tea Party dopes would have us believe, the Framers recognized the Constitution would become antiquated if left immutable.  Thus, Congress can amend the Constitution.  For instance, our Founding Fathers had no intention of giving women the vote; however, in 1920 Congress passed the Nineteenth Amendment granting women's suffrage --

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

BTW, I don't know where you are getting the notion that funerals are exempted from freedom of assembly.

BTW, I don't know where you are getting the notion that funerals are exempted from freedom of assembly.


As far as I understand it, the freedom of assembly is mostly just there to protect speech against the government.  It's like free speech is aimed for that as well.

Here's an analogy to explain my viewpoint on this....

The First Amendment protects most speech on public and state property, but it doesn't have any bearing on private property.  Whether you're standing in someone's yard or posting on a private forum, the First Amendment doesn't apply.

So, to me, funeral protests are like standing in someone's house or church and yelling at people.  That's not protected speech.  A funeral is a private affair, and even if the cemetery involved is public, local governments should have the ability to enact ordinances that prohibit protests like this as a matter of states' rights.

Frak you, Fred Phelps and the horse you rode in on!

>:(

Here's a song dedication, to Mr. Phelps!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WT1LXhgXPWs

Frak you, Fred Phelps and the horse you rode in on!


http://i373.photobucket.com/albums/oo172/hvigilla/WTF/wat.jpg

Seriously, isn't Phelps' horse having a bad enough day?

So, to me, funeral protests are like standing in someone's house or church and yelling at people.  That's not protected speech.  A funeral is a private affair, and even if the cemetery involved is public, local governments should have the ability to enact ordinances that prohibit protests like this as a matter of states' rights.


I hold my nose when I say it, but I stick with the "antiquated" (I guess I have a more American 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness' view on things than Canada - land of 'peace, order, and good government' does :) First Amendment.

If a local government owns a cemetery (or the roads leading to the cemetary) says it can ban peaceable assemblies that say (The stuff that Phelps says), then it can also ban peacable assemblies that say "The King/Mayor/Prez is a Fink!".  Free Speech Zones suck. 

http://i512.photobucket.com/albums/t330/macadamnut/get-back-into-your-free-speech-zone.jpg

(Actually, free speech zones kick ass.  It's just that I (admittedely, coming from a more libertarian than utilitarian perspective) believe that the entire United States of America is one really big Free Speech Zone.)

As long as the asshats are on public property, they can say whatever the hell they want.  But as long as the government can't stop them from being asshats, it also can't stop the rest of us from peacably assembling between the asshats and the funeralgoers.  As long as the conflict involves words (instead of fists, sticks, knives, or guns) I believe that the only place the government has in this debate is making sure that it remains a conflict of words.

^  I agree.

It is distressing to have hate groups such as WBC disrupting funerals; however, I would rather take the risk of a dirtbag like Phelps making now and again than give the government more latitude in determining what shall and shall not be deemed "free speech."

According to my earlier point, if the KKK held a rally in Amherst,* the cops would have to break up a riot.  The self-righteous liberals who dominate this town would panic and try and shout down the Klansmen.  Then some kid would throw a rock or a bottle at the rally and all hell would break loose.  The riot would give the Klan the martyrdom and national publicity with which they get their rocks off.

I would love to see a Klan rally in which everybody ignored them.  Just went about their daily business as if the Klan wasn't even there.  The cameras would catch such a scene and it would be a great embarrassment for the KKK.

* The town of Amherst would refuse the KKK a permit in the first place, so the Klan would have to take it directly to court.
:)

I would love to see a Klan rally in which everybody ignored them.  Just went about their daily business as if the Klan wasn't even there.  The cameras would catch such a scene and it would be a great embarrassment for the KKK.



I don't think that's likely. Maybe the Klan might not resort to violence, but who's to say some neo-Nazi skinhead types wouldn't show up and start busting heads?  :-\\

I don't think that's likely. Maybe the Klan might not resort to violence, but who's to say some neo-Nazi skinhead types wouldn't show up and start busting heads?  :-\\


Then you arrest them for assault, same as you would any other bunch of asshats who show up and start unlawfully busting heads.

Government has a monopoly on the initiation of force: that's what it's for.  We delegate a monopoly on the initiation of force to the government.  Where we differ is that I believe that that governmental force should only be employed to prevent others from unlawfully initiating force on third parties.

Practical definition:  A neo-Nazi busting heads is initiating force against a third party:  I gladly pay cops - to whom I've delegated a monopoly on the initiation of force - to be responsible for putting an end to that sort of thing.  McDonald's putting platic toys in Happy Meals to make them more appealing to children (to pick a recent local example), on the other hand, is not the initiation of force, and it's none of any government's damn business.

Then you arrest them for assault, same as you would any other bunch of asshats who show up and start unlawfully busting heads.

Government has a monopoly on the initiation of force: that's what it's for.  We delegate a monopoly on the initiation of force to the government.  Where we differ is that I believe that that governmental force should only be employed to prevent others from unlawfully initiating force on third parties.

Practical definition:  A neo-Nazi busting heads is initiating force against a third party:  I gladly pay cops - to whom I've delegated a monopoly on the initiation of force - to be responsible for putting an end to that sort of thing.  McDonald's putting platic toys in Happy Meals to make them more appealing to children (to pick a recent local example), on the other hand, is not the initiation of force, and it's none of any government's damn business.


Well said sir!
:)