The World's Largest Coalition of Nontheists and Nontheist Communities!

The Fred Phelps cult wins at SCOTUS

A bit surprised I haven't seen anything on this here, but for those who may not have heard, the Supreme Court has ruled that Fred Phelps and his Westboro "Baptist Church's" protests are allowed under the First Amendment:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110303/ap_on_re_us/us_supreme_court_fu...

My take: There's no doubt these people are idiots (and I'm being polite). Totally warped. No sense of decency at all.

But I also believe in TOTALLY free speech. That doesn't mean speech we agree with; it also means speech that we find disgusting. I think we can all agree that the Fred Phelps cult of hate perhaps shouldn't exist. But if we start banning them just because we find them and their views to be abhorrent, then we, as a nation, are no better than any other nation that suppresses ideas and thoughts.

Your thoughts and opinions, of course, are more than welcome.

0 members like this

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Binker on March 6, 2011 at 11:23am

So, with this new ruling, I can stand outside the White House gates with a sign that reads "Michelle Obama has a nasty pussy". How about I stand outside Justice Roberts house with a sign "Mrs. Roberts gives great head". Do you think I would be permitted to stand outside the capital with a sign "Obama is a nigger". If anyone tries to stop my displays, I can sue them and get rich. Only in America.

By the way, I had a queasy feeling just typing those nasty phrases but wanted to get my point across.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ashleigh Carter on March 8, 2011 at 1:20pm

Our local newspaper had a piece on this nonsense and unfortunately it is precisely because it wasn't a personal attack on the family, but a generalized picketing of soliders and gays, that it was protected under the second amendment. If it had been aimed at the soldier and his family personally, Phelps would have lost the case. At least, that's the impression I'm under.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Binker on March 8, 2011 at 3:00pm

The issue the father brought up before the SC was they had advertised the week prior to the funeral, using their son's name and picture in their ad. They argued it was an intentianal act which hurt them personally.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ashleigh Carter on March 9, 2011 at 4:18pm

Ok, now I'm concerned.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Brent Feeney on March 12, 2011 at 12:06pm

Westboro scheduled to show up today in O'Fallon, IL, at a military funeral. The usual fun and games, of course. Sooner or later you know they're going to overplay their hand, and I'm just glad I won't be the one who has to clean up the mess.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by TK on March 12, 2011 at 9:01pm

It has almost happened already. Not advocating that someone take such drastic action, but they have to realize the indecency of what they do and the time and place they choose to do it could lead someone to that action.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Goz on March 12, 2011 at 10:23pm

Do you mean the tire slashing,or something else?

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by TK on March 13, 2011 at 11:10pm

No. There was a military vet packing an M14 and a Glock along with some other firearms following them around. I'm sure he wasn't intending to have a rational discussion with those folks.