As home to the Topeka church that has protested 250 military funerals in 42 states with repugnant signs such as "Thank God for IEDs," Kansas surely should have been the first state rather than the 33rd to put legal limits on those hurtful demonstrations. But at least such a limit is now law, with Gov. Kathleen Sebelius’ Thursday signing ceremony. "It’s unfortunate that this reprehensible practice has been exported to other states," Sebelius said. "It’s time that Kansas join the majority of states insulating families and loved ones from these hateful messages." The law, co-written by freshman state Rep. Raj Goyle, D-Wichita, is a relief for more than grieving military families — the Fred Phelps clan began its funeral protests in 1991, targeting families of those it thought to be homosexual.
Posted by Rhonda Holman
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/22
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/22
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/22
- RightAngle on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on ACORN stole election?
- thomaswitt on ACORN stole election?
- Daniel on Open thread 11/21
- Daniel on ACORN stole election?
- Phantom on Open thread 11/21
- Daniel on Open thread 11/21
150 Comments
Thank you God! I am so happy that this law has passed! I encountered the Phelps clan in my hometown long before I ever even thought of moving to KS. Once I moved here and found out they were from here I was in shock – thankfully I found out that most Kansans don’t even want to claim them!
I hope the law sticks. This bunch is disowned by everyone – left, right, Christian, non-Christian …
They’ve got KIDS out there holding these signs.
I’m not from the area, so I don’t have a voice. What they are doing is disgusting, but what are the freedom of speechers going to say? Has the ACLU chimed in on this one or is it so disgusting that even THEY won’t touch it.
What a bunch of idiots !!!!
I heard this morning on the news that Sebelius has asked Morrison to do kind of a test appeal (I’m sure those aren’t the right terms but I can’t remember exactly what they said) to make sure the law will stand. I hope it does and I hope that even the ACLU has enough brains not to argue for them…
The ACLU may well defend them. The defended the NAZI’s speech rights and Rush Limbaugh’s privacy. And, sad to say, they might be right. Just how DO we limit speech/expression?
I hope the law stands, but if it fails the constitutional test it’ll give me an excuse to hang out with other like-minded citizens in standing between the Phelps krewe and their victims.
You have a point Ben. My theory on the matter, which means nothing in this particular matter since I’m not a lawyer or legislator, is that we aren’t telling them that they can’t say that garbage but we’re telling them that they can’t say it during a four hour window right outside of the funeral. Maybe I’m just letting my emotions cloud the matter.
One legal issue in this matter is whether the distance restriction is reasonable, in light of the First Amendment right to “free speech”. IIRC, the new law has a 150 foot buffer zone; I believe in at least one other state, a 300 foot zone was declared unconstitutional.
Then, there is the time restriction; from one hour before to two hours after the service. Is this reasonable?
Finally, the place restriction. Is it reasonable to put limits on protests at funerals?
These are the issues to be litigated and determined by the courts. The ACLU might well represent the Phelps family and the Westboro Baptist Church in this matter; it would clearly be a “civil liberties” matter, much as the Nazi party marches, Mr. Limbaugh’s privacy, etc.
I wouldn’t be surprised to see the ACLU step up to defend the sicko Phelps. After all – they defended NAMBLA – how disgusting can they get?
At some point we have to say “enough already,” and mean it.
What surprises me is that the parent or sibling of a deceased soldier, in the throws of grief hasn’t put a bullet right between Fred’s eyes. I don’t advocate that – but I’m surprised it hasn’t happened.
I think it hurt Al Gore when he came to KS and had a photo op with Phelps.
The issue is the Phelp’s and the law.
It’s not the ACLU.
By the way, the ACLU wasn’t “defending NAMBLA” any more than they were defending Christianity when they helped defend a fundamentalist Christian church.
Here’s part of their press release:
“What the ACLU does advocate is robust freedom of speech for everyone. The lawsuit involved here, were it to succeed, would strike at the heart of freedom of speech. The case is based on a shocking murder. But the lawsuit says the crime is the responsibility not of those who committed the murder, but of someone who posted vile material on the Internet. The principle is as simple as it is central to true freedom of speech: those who do wrong are responsible for what they do; those who speak about it are not.”
They take cases and they don’t always win them.
Move on . . .
Phelps is a democrat.
Agree in different ways with all above. Freedon of speech is dear. But, can it be somehow limited? I don’t know.
That said, I’m glad there are those like raptor and snarky who stand between them.
When the NAZIs marched in Skokie I said everyone should line the streets – with their backs turned.
Does anyone know if a distressed family is suing the Phelps? It seems to me there ought to be a cause of action against the Phelps. Freedom of speech does not cover libel, for an example.
Any Judge or Jury would throw the book at that bunch.
Joe! Anyone can register in any party. The party cannot prevent it. We don’t claim him either; if he re-registered republican next week that would also be meaningless.
Cheap shot Joe.
More than just a registered Dem. He ran for office. Governer of Kansas none the less. He also was Gore’s deligate to the Democrat National Convention.
One thing to be registared and vote Democrat. But to be fully involved by running for office, fundraising for Dem candidates, and being a deligate, that is something. That shows your true party loyalty.
Not a cheap shot. Just facts the Dems got to live with. Phelps hates Republicans as much as Dems on this blog does. He’s on the same side as you Dems.
Would it be ok for me to call him a ‘rabid rabid’ Democrat?
As I’m not in the area, just what is the message in “Thank God for IEDs” ? What are they protesting?
Anyone can run for office too. Did he get the nomination? It is common for a trouble-maker to register and then run just to cause trouble. Any evidence that he has been embraced by the party?
He has picketed party functions. OUTSIDE, not inside.
Sol, they contend that God is punishing the US for allowing homosexuality by killing our soldiers (thus the IEDs). They have children carrying signs with stick figures in homosexual positions. Signs that say “God hates f@gs.” And other disgusting things…
Christians like Phelps believe the IEDs used to kill our troops are a gift from God.
You’re making your cheap shot cheaper.
It’s called “defending a Cheap Shot.”
Joe! Are you a fellow Christian with Phelps?
Holy crap. Hey I tell you what, if we could give some of their Kool aid to the KKK and preach that equality is gooooood, equality is gooooood……
Phelps is a mental case. Another form of Charlie Manson.
There are Mental Institutions with better patients than he would make.
Raj Goyle is a former staff attorney for the ACLU.Goyle is trying to be on both sides of this issue.Goyle, when he worked for the ACLU in Maryland, was a staunch “free speach” advocate for the ACLU.I do hope that Goyle has had a change of heart.However, this seems politically inspired to me.
Actually Ed, I’d say a Vernon Howell type.
I didn’t know that. I hope this isn’t some kind of political move… What am I saying, he’s a politician…
Nope! I’m an atheist.
Ben! Are you a fellow war protester with Phelps?
Paul, a small Devil’s Advocate argument here: would it not be sensible for a “free speach” advocate to be involved in drafting a bill of this sort so as to give the same the best chance of a court finding the same constitutional?
No. But, like Phelps, I eat, drink, and breath. Do you?
Geez, should use Preview: “…so as to give the same the best chance of being found constitutional by a court?”
Good point Vaughn. I hope you’re right!
I have a lot to say on this topic, but instead, I’ll just post my testimony before the House Federal and State Affairs Committee in support of the bill Sebelius signed yesterday.
*******************************
Testimony in support of HB2020 and SB244Thomas Witt, Chair, Kansas Equality CoalitionBefore House Federal and State AffairsMarch 8, 2007
Good afternoon Chairman Siegfried and members of the committee.
I’m grateful for the opportunity to address you today. My name is Thomas Witt, state chair of the Kansas Equality Coalition. Our organization’s seven chapters and more than 600 members work for equal rights and fair treatment for gay and lesbian Kansans.
The two bills before you today seek to restrict protestors from demonstrating at funerals. The target of these bills, the membership of Topeka’s Westboro Baptist Church, has been well known to the families of gay and lesbian Kansans since the early 90s.
The Phelps clan has spent the past 15 years traveling to funerals around the state, the nation, and even other countries, spreading their message of hatred and intolerance. Their protests have targeted the grieving families of gay and lesbian Americans who have died of natural causes, of illnesses, of accidents. They have even targeted the funerals of gay Americans who have been murdered in vicious hate crimes, proclaiming to the world that these families and their loved ones somehow deserved such brutal treatment.
The Phelps campaign of bigotry goes well beyond funeral picketing. They have terrorized anyone who has the audacity to publicly disagree with their campaign, characterized by picket signs with the slogan “God hates fags.” They have spent the past 15 years picketing private homes, picketing businesses where gay and lesbian Kansans work or shop, picketing churches where our families worship, picketing anyone who takes a public stand for fairness and decency. They have spent 15 years filing frivolous lawsuit after frivolous lawsuit against any they believe stand in their way. They have spent the past 15 years flooding fax machines with revolting flyers and threats against all whom they believe support the “fag agenda.” We have spent the past 15 years learning how to endure and ignore them.
The families of gay and lesbian Kansans have endured much at the hands of the Phelps clan, and now the rest of America must endure them as well. Their latest pathetic attempts at hate-mongering are directed at our fallen soldiers for one reason: to draw attention to their campaign of intolerance. The Phelps clan has now decided that those who defend the rights of all Americans deserve condemnation for defending the rights of Americans they despise. The Phelps clan has asserted their First Amendment rights in an unrelenting attack on the rights of those whom the Constitution was written to protect, by heinously attacking the men and women who give their lives defending it. This is the darkest, most bitter kind of irony.
The Kansas Equality Coalition supports the intent of SB244 and HB2020. Coming to this position has been a struggle for some in our organization. We know that the First Amendment rights that allow me to stand here today are the same as those being asserted by the Phelps clan. However, unlike the funeral protesters, we believe that First Amendment rights should be exercised responsibly and respectfully.
We strongly encourage this body to take extraordinary care in crafting legislation that protects grieving family members – military and otherwise – from those who wish to harm them. We encourage you to draft a bill that also protects the Constitutional rights of people whose views are unpopular.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Well I obvisously don’t eat the crap that Phelps eats, or drink the cool-aid that Phelps drinks or breath the same vile air that he breaths. Sorry! I have nothing in common with that man or his clan. But it’s nice to know that you do and that you defend him. Since you relate so much with him.
At least I know where you stand. Being honest and true to you cause and conviction is a rare trait.
Does that mean you blame the war on Bush and the Gay community?
VT – I’ll go you one further. If he has studied the issue from the “left” then he might have a feel for what kind of restrictions might be acceptable to the “left”. Good points counselor.
Joe! You are unusually full of crap today – even for you! I find it very unlikely that you are able to avoid breathing the same air molecules as he does. And I have never defended that vile pile of ****. So just where do you claim that I stand you vile idiot?
“Does that mean you blame the war on Bush and the Gay community?” That question is even beneath you; and THAT takes some doing you vile cretin. But to answer it – NO to the second half.
Joe, you sure you haven’t had any of that Kool-Aid?!?!? First of all, in the months that I have been reading and responding on this blog I have NEVER seen Mr. Huie spout the crap that the Phelps clan does. Second of all, he didn’t say that he eats, drinks, or breathes the same things as the Phelps, just that he does the same actions as any human being including YOURSELF.
VaughnI saw Phelps carry a sign that said “FAG DOLE” and then hand that sign to a kid, back when Dole announced for President.
Phelps is such a dirt-bag I hope that all of us can unite against him.
I hope that you are right about Raj Goyle helping to see that this law would be constitutional. I will be the first to eat my words, should the ACLU rush to defend Phelps and should Goyle argue on behalf of this new law.However, Goyle’s past makes me wonder about his motives here:
http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/protest/11407prs20031007.html?s_src=RSS
http://www.aclu.org/prison/conditions/14646prs20030806.html?s_src=RSS
Now, neither of the above cases is exactly “on point” — but we all know that the ACLU has rushed to defend Phelps in the past.
“Mr. Goyle, prove me wrong. I think that you are simply innoculating yourself against your ACLU past, by signing on to this law.”
I hope that is not the case. I hope that Mr. Goyle performed a good-faith effort for all of us.
I am a firm believer in the right to free speech and while I don’t always support the causes the ACLU defends, I am glad they are there to do it.
I think where the Pheleps clan goes wrong is that their right to free speech does not trump the right of the family to have privacy to grieve and bury their loved ones. The right to privacy is also guaranteed in the constitution.
And one person’s rights end when it infringes on another person’s rights.
AFN – you are making a false assumption: that Joe! is human.
A delimma: Free Speech:
“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it” – attributed to Voltaire but actually invented by a latter author writing about Voltaire.
Beware the trolls. Litle green heads popping up here and there…
By your demeaning remarks and hateful reaction and how out of contol your temper is, I can only come up with the conclusion that you and Phelps are pretty much alike.
Well at least you use the same hate and demeaning tatic of speech.
Sometimes you need to look in the mirror before claiming superiority over everybody else.
Ben, I guess I was trying to give him the benefit of the doubt since I’ve never met him…
Sol, yeah I must have finally “arrived” as a blogger because I was just trolled big time on the Imus thread…
Isn’t the ACLU currently representing comedian Rush Limbaugh?
“This is no joke,” said Rajeev Goyle, the ACLU attorney representing the performer, Jerry Rowan. “By allowing speech to be banned solely because of its content, the City of Baltimore has transformed the public space of Inner Harbor into an area where only approved speech is permitted, in direct violation of the First Amendment.”
EconPaul–we know that you hate Goyle, and why should you not? He beat your radical right Republican like a drum.
This is what your link says. Note that the two cases are wholly different. This involves an unknown complaint against a popular street entertainer. The Phelps situation involves harassment against bereaved family members.
Free speech doesn’t mean freedom to harass people.
Duh.
AFN, don’t feed it. You have a typepad acct. Anyone can see the troll of the hover over your nic and look at the status bar at the bottom left….
Gee Joe; eprhaps you should read your OWN writing: “But it’s nice to know that you do and that you defend him. Since you relate so much with him.” Sorry Joe, I no NOT relate to him and you know that.
By the way Joe – I also defend YOU. At least as mush as I “defend” Phelps.
“Sometimes you need to look in the mirror before claiming superiority over everybody else” applies very well to you Joe!
OK, -just want to throw in a couple things. Raj Goyle didn’t”sign on” to this law. He’s the reason it happened. He promised during his campaign this bill would be his # 1 priority and he would use his skills to make sure that it passed the test of constitutionality. Be thankful that he worked for the ACLU, it’s the reason he knew how to do this right.
As for the ACLU, no one has to like the entities that the ACLU defends, but I’m betting you’re all fans of your own civil liberties, no? They’re for everyone, not just the people you agree with.
And Tom, big props to you. Big props.
I remember Phleps with his signs saying “Fag Democrats” here in Wichita. My reaction was “better here than at some family’s funeral”. As vile as he is I just don’t know what can be done without getting onto that “slippery slope.” In the case I was at he was picketing a political event. In that case he was entirely within his rights.
Joe! You should also feel free to picket a Democratic meeting if you like. See, I am defending you.
I remember Phleps with his signs saying “Fag Democrats” here in Wichita. My reaction was “better here than at some family’s funeral”. As vile as he is I just don’t know what can be done without getting onto that “slippery slope.” In the case I was at he was picketing a political event. In that case he was entirely within his rights.
Joe! You should also feel free to picket a Democratic meeting if you like. See, I am defending you.
CapnYou are wrong on this one, and it is obvious that your bias is clouding your logic.The ACLU HAS defended Phelps in the past.Goyle DID work for the ACLU.Are you having trouble connecting the dots???
Econ,
You missed the part where the ACLU is defending comedian Rush Limbaugh. Does that make the ACLU a bunch of radical right nutcases?
Yup, for being a “democrat” as Joe claims, the Phelps family has a funny way of showing it.
At a state-wide event last year, they held signs with a swastika over the word “Democrat.”
I think Phelps and his ilk are lowlife fools. I think they make a mockery of what they profess. I think they also have a right to do so. Now, if someone else should excerise their right to instruct them…..
I hope this law is judged to be constitutional. SInce they are not stopping thier speech, only where they excercise it, maybe it will stand
Paul – I defend your right to speak and to blog. That does not make us allies. It also does not make me a right-winger.
Surprised we haven’t seen that female attorney from Phelps clan pop in here to make a comment.
Ah yes … good point Republican! Where has she been lately?
David Duke ran for Gov Louisiana and was elected to the state house there as a Republican. Using Joe’s logic then all Republicans are in the KKK. OR use can use Ben’s hypothesis that political parties don’t have any control over who registered in their party or even if they chose to file for office.
Even more Tom – the Republicans CHOOSE David Duke to represent their party!
Paul – a question: If Phelps pickets a Pachyderm lunch or a Democratic lunch – within his rights? In my opinion YES. We should be fair game.
Phelps isn’t a democrat or republican issue. While we bloggers may fight like cats and dogs, most everyone here are basically decent folk (IMHO). Decent people agree that Phelps is a POS that deserves the special place in Hell that’s surely reserved for him.
Joe Williams, your post was mean-spirited and intended to stir up trouble.
How small of you.
EconP–
Goyle did an internship at the ACLU, yes.
That was how you tried to swift-boat him during the Bonnie Huy campaign.
How’d that work out for y’all?
As for the ACLU defending Phelps, I’d have to the see the case and the evidence.
Maybe he deserved to be defended in that case.
Phelps has changed his tactics over the years.
Also, Phelps DOES have a free speech right, just like all of us. However, he doesn’t have a right to harassment.
The examples of Goyle’s involvement with ACLU were defending free speech rights–not the right to harass.
Mental illness knows no party. People like Duke, Phelps, insert any crazy’s name here and you’ll find almost universal loathing. Tho I don’t advocate killing anybody, I think somebody upthread had an interesting idea (bullet).
Fred is old. His time is coming and he has a lot of explaining to do when he stands in judgment. We may not be able to shut him up, but we surely have the satisfaction of knowing where he’s going.
“Also, Phelps DOES have a free speech right, just like all of us. However, he doesn’t have a right to harassment.”
The trick is defining that line …
The phelps cult could do the entire world a favor if they would just line up and drink a gallon of jim jones cool aid.
Amen to that raptor. Meanwhile – to you and your Patriot Guard friends – bless you and your work.
How do the Phelps find out who is homosexual and who is not?
Wiseman,
Some of us don’t live the lie of the closet. That’s how.
That still does not answer the question.
“How do the Phelps find out who is homosexual and who is not?”
I believe he does it orally.
That still does not answer the question.Posted by: Wiseman | April 13, 2007 at 05:17 PM
::blank stare::
I have to agree with XXX on this one. Phelps is an embarassment to the human race.
Hank
Pardon the interjection, but Phelphs doesn’t care if they are gay or not. ALl Military deaths are GOds judgment on this country because it “harbors” (not my words, but a paraphraswe of his) homosexuals. So all Military funerals are subject to picket. The others, I suspect that if you read an obituary closely enough, you can figure it out
Wiseman, the soldiers themselves aren’t gay (or at least none of the stories that I’ve heard about were) so there is nothing to find out. They are using these soldiers as some kind of messed up symbol of God’s wrath.
Wiseman – in the case of the earlier funerals he was picketing AIDS victims’ funerals. Now he is picking fallen soldiers and simply blasting America for not seeking out and exterminating gays. He uses the soldiers as his vehicle for his hatred.
So they are lashing out at anything just to make a point.
BINGO!
Phelps is a democrat.
He is also a Christian, now do we really want to start such a moronic debate?(well I was convinced that there was some nic switching on Joe till I went back to some 2006 posts and it was the same e-mail as a I.D. Amazing! )
The ACLU should sue the state and get the law tossed. It is a violation of free speech and freedom requires that ALL people- even idiots- be allowed free speech.
I don;t think so. THe restriction is where and when, not what. I could be wrong, and it can be argued that any restriction is restriction, but I would like to see this one upheld.
I thought that we were only limited to the right to assemble and free speech on a public forum.
The government I guess can establish a designated public forum, but what does that entail? A buffer zone of a funeral procession or cemetary from a public sidwalk can be challenged.
I would like the Supreme Court to weigh in on this.
I think (and hope) that Joe is correct on this one. I think the restrictions will be found reasonable in this case.
I would conclude the opposite in the cases I posed to Paul – if they want to picket a political meeting THAT should be protected. (In fact, when they picketed us we went out and heckled them!)
My Dad used to tell me that my rights end where the next person’s nose begins.While I agree Phelps has a right to say what he wants to, I question his right to make those unwilling, listen.
The whole sleazy Phelps clan makes one long for a hot soapy shower.
If this law vindicates Bush’s “No Protest Zone”, then it should be overturned. If not, I’m all for it. Can it pass the Bush test?
It is a sad day when a law has to be written to tell people that one should not protest at the funeral of anyone; especially a soldier killed defending our personal freedoms. It is even sadder that this reprehensible activity is considered to be protected by the Constitution. I feel certain that the writers of the Constitution would add some exceptions to the freedom of speech issue if they could have foreseen how morality would become almost nonexistent through the centuries. Today, they would feel compelled to add exceptions of all types; displays of nudity, cursing, and sexual activity to name a few. During that time period, this was just a part of the rules for polite society. Freedom of speech was intended to allow citizens to make derogatory statements about government officials and the handling of government activities without fear of reprisal. It was not intended for individuals to be able to curse, talk about sexual activity, etc at all public places regardless if children are present or not. It was also not intended for the likes of Phelps and followers to attend private events and make reprehensible displays of their lack of upbringing. Shame on the parents of these individuals.
Sorry Lee, but so long as the Phelps are making a political statement, no matter the content, it’s free speech!
Let’s remove the Phelps for a minute and lets say, instead of a group of Democrat Religious Nuts like the Phelps, there was instead a group of Bush Hating War Protestors who protested dead freedom fighters and heros of our military at their funerals with picket signs saying “Bush killed your Son”.
Would that be more accepting to you?
Joe while I think the Phelps are as wrong as anyone has ever been, you are bringing up a good point. I just never thought of if that way before. It’s to bad we couldn’t appeal to their common decency and make this law unnecessary. I don’t think they have any of that. I have read a lot of the book one of the sons who seperated from the family wrote and this family is more disfunctional than any family you will ever run across.
So Joe, do you think the “No Anti-Bush protest zones, should be allowed?
Joe – if the target is a funeral I would support a law that would restrict Christian Religious Nuts like Phelps as well as anti-war protesters from the funeral area. and, as above, I would ALLOW both groups to protest at a political meeting.
ksgrm – I read some of the same stuff. SHUDDER!
While we all agree the Phelps are dysfunctional. We do have to give it up to the Patriot Guard who stand up for the soliders.
But hasn’t Phelps clan been doing this even before the Iraq War?
I don’t think anyone should be bashing on the ACLU even if they chose to defend Phelps. Remember, they fight for everyone’s constitutional rights, and it is their job to defend rights the rest of us do not like.
Now that being said, I also hope this law stands. I do think it is starting to tread on dangerous grounds to start limiting one groups freedom of speech though, but I have to wonder how this could be extended to others.
They protest the funerals because they know it is outrageous. And remember, they’re all lawyers. The ACLU should spend their money defending those who can’t defend themselves. The phelps’s can certainly defend themselves in court.
And what really pisses me off is that nobody would pass this law when it was just homosexuals the Phelps’s targetted. Gee, why is that?
Yes Joe. Phelps was targeting funerals of people who had died of AIDS. I’m not sure but they might have also targeted the funeral of the young man who was beaten and tied to a fence to die up in Wyoming.
p-mom – good point.
I have been arrested for counter-protesting the Phelps outfit’s demonstration at a military funeral. The cops were obviously more concerned with Phelps’ free-speech rights than mine.
They dropped the charges against me and let me go. Good for them, because as I was sitting in the holding cell I contemplated hiring the Phelps law firm to defend me. Wonder how that might’ve worked out.
I’m about as liberal as you can get in Kansas (which makes me a moderate on any realist’s political spectrum), and I find Phred Felps repugnant. But even repugnancy is entitled to constitutional rights; that’s what they’re for.
I can’t imagine the anti-Phelps legislation passing constitutional muster. It strikes me as political grandstanding. For purely politcal reasons, legislators go to work every day in an effort to dream up new crimes. If I want to eat in a restaurant where no one is smoking, I’ll go to that restaraunt. If the owner wants to ban smoking, so much the better. If the owner doesn’t, I’ve got to decide whether I really, really want to eat there. If it’s really, really good barbeque — and the place reeks of hickory smoke anyway — I’ll put up with the smoldering Camel butt in the next booth. Or order take-out.
My gripe is all these people who shift the blame to “the government,” rather than making their own decisions. A “No Smoking” sign costs, what? A quarter? A contingent of anti-smoking cops costs about $3 Million in San Diego alone.
I am amazed that someone hasn’t put a bullet in Freddy’s head by now because of all the pain they cause…Hey,I guess it could still happen
Are you a vet williams? Or r u a yellow magnet patriot?
Joe Williams a vet? Har-de-har-har. Williams doesn’t have the stones.
The Phelps have protested more than just funerals of AIDS victims and American military personnel. For a short list of their activities, see my longish upthread post yesterday at 02:59 PM. For a fairly accurate and detailed account of the Phelps clan, there’s an even longer Wiki article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_Baptist_Church
To the nic switching graffiti artists–
Let me be the first to condemn your post-and-run tactics.
Agree or disagree with Joe.
Don’t cheap shot him.
Also, “nappy,” not only is your nic a despicable reference to Imus’s recent comment, but death threats violate the Blog code.
CapnGoyle, as an ACLU attorney, defended a “street performer” who made off color or tasteless jokes in a public area.A license or permit was required for this venue.The city in question denied the license renewal, due to past bad behavior.Goyle thought that licenses should not be granted based on content.
Goyle took that city to court.My guess is, the ACLU attorney, Goyle, would have supported this person even if he had said “God hates fags” or “Nappy headed HO” as part of his “comedy” routine.
I dont like what Phelps does.
I don’t like what the ACLU does.
In my opinion, both promote unhealthy divisions.
The city in question had every right to look for family oriented, non offensive street performers before it issued permits or licenses. Goyle thought otherwise, and won in court.What would you do if the Wichita City Council invited Don Imus or, much worse, David Duke, or Fred Phelps, in to speak at a public forum for entertainment purposes?
Lets be clear: the stated position of Goyle in the case I posted was that the City involved had NO right to judge content. NONE.
The anti-Phelps law Goyle just helped to pass makes a distinction, based on message content, or beliefs, between the funeral goers and the funeral protesters. I hope the Courts accept that distinction.
ANYBODY can claim harrassement. What is the legal definition of such a term?
I question Goyle’s consistency.
He is splitting a very, very fine hair.
AGAIN, I SINCERELY HOPE THAT I AM WRONG ABOUT GOYLE, AND I DEARLY PRAY THAT THE COURTS UPHOLD THE RESTRICTIONS ON PHELPS!
EconP.–
1. So the worst thing you can say about Raj is that he is doing the right thing for the wrong reason.
GASP!
2. “What would you do if the Wichita City Council invited Don Imus or, much worse, David Duke, or Fred Phelps, in to speak at a public forum for entertainment purposes?
What would I do? I’d lawfully protest in a public venue. And thanks to the ACLU, I’d be able to do that.
Cap your hiprocracy is showing.
“What would I do? I’d lawfully protest in a public venue. And thanks to the ACLU, I’d be able to do that.”
You have just negated Goyle’s conflicting positions. The Phelps are breaking no law, they are protesting something they don’t agree with, and thanks to the ACLU they are able to do that.
Cap you can’t have it both ways. Either Goyle was wrong in fighting for a street entertainer to stand in the middle of a public street and shout what the city thought were obsenities or he is wrong in drafting a bill that takes this right away from the Phelps.
Good post econ
The new law does NOT proscribe the right of the Phelps folks and others to protest at a funeral; it legislates restrictions on time (from one hour before to two hours after) in which the protest must occur within an area which is at least 150 feet (IIRC) from the site of the funeral, a restriction on place. It does not legislate restrictions against the content of the protest, nor does it require the obtaining of a license for the protest itself.
The issues presented to a court are whether the restrictions on time and place are “reasonable”, and thus constitutional. The act of protesting itself is not banned, which would clearly be violative of the First Amendment.
Vaughn Tolle is correct as to the legislative intent of the bill, which was reflected in the substance of the testimony in favor of it.
Grm–
There is no contradiction.
EconP. said that the street performer uttered “profanities.” I didn’t see that in the articles I read.
Besides, the court found in favor of the entertainer. So whatever the basis the ACLU used to argue the case, the court agreed.
As for the Phelps’, free speech is protected under the constitution. Repugnant, despicable speech is protected under the constitution.
Harassment is not protected.
If what the Phelps’ do can be defined as harassment, then it can be limited. If it does not meet the court’s definition of harassment, then it should be protected speech.
Whether you like or dislike, agree or disagree with the message is not what defines something as “protected free speech.”
Stalin allowed unlimited “free speech” for people who said what he AGREED with.
VT – thank you for the reasoned explanation counselor.
Cap that is exactly what I am saying. Because we disagree with the Phelps clan – does that give us the right to take away their forum? They think rightly or wrongly that this is where their message can achieve the ‘most good’. Afterall it does get national attention.
I know being critical of Goyle isn’t popular with you but econ is right is saying he is trying to walk both side of a narrow line. As with all politicians we should look at all of his work and not just the most recent.
Capn, what the Phelps and their followers do seems to me to not be harassment, notwithstanding the content and selection of time and place of uttering same. I, however, am not a court and am not looking at any case law or statutes as I post this, so there may be something out there which so defines their conduct; I don’t think so, but cannot say for sure.
VT I don’t disagree with the intent of the law. I am no Phelps fan. But I do wonder if this bill will stand the light of day if challenged. By putting rescritions on where they may have their free speech are we not taking away their forum? If a crowd has gathered and this is where they want to protest by restricting this protest isn’t this a violation of free speech rights?
UMKC has a fair description of “time, place and manner” restrictions on speech, with links to opinions SCOTUS has issued.
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/timeplacemanner.htm
The most relevant case to this discussion is probably Madsen v Women’s Health Center.
ksgrm, I am not prescient, and thus decline to say what a court may do. However, there may be restrictions on speech; such restrictions must be reasonable restrictions on time, place and manner. What I do know that at least in one state, the 300 foot buffer zone was deemed an unreasonable restriction, and thus the statute therefor providing was declared unconstitutional.
Note that if the Phelps’ should wish to protest directly in front of the church, e.g., they may do so up to one hour before the services, at which time they, under the new law, are required to move at least 150 feet away; and, once two hours have passed from the end of the services, they may, should they so wish, move back.
As you may be aware, at the Republican Convention in 2004, to use a recent example, a “free speech zone” was set up for protestors; this zone was some distance from the building in which the Convention was being held. Memory fails on whether the challenge to this failed or not; I believe it did fail, but I do not recall clearly. I would submit that this “free speech zone”, being connected with a clearly political activity, would be more likely to fail a court challenge than the current funeral picketing law enacted in Kansas.
And, if the “free speech zone” did withstand a court challenge, it did so under the reasonableness tests, with the need for security of the President and Vice President, inter alia, one of the many and varied factors to be considered in determining the reasonableness of the restriction.
Tom I fully agree with what you are saying. I wish we could ship them out of Kansas. But do they create an atmosphere of violence? Other than inciting those of us who disagree with them to want to choke them are they promoting crowd anger?
Maybe the group that acts as a buffer between them and the mourners is the best we can manage. I’m sure this will be challenged since this is a family of lawyers. I am waiting to see their response.
I think the thing that galls me almost as much as their protesting is that three of them are on the state payroll.
I know, I can’t stand that one of them works for the same dept as my husband.
Vaughn I am not disagreeing with the law as written. Having watched the Phelps in the past I am sure they will protest it. One of the points they might make is that this was tailored to target them and no others.
The convention challenge was made on the premise that the crowd might not be controllable because of the size and location of the demonstration. Law enforcement would then have been rendered helpless. I do think it failed but couldn’t find a quick answer on it.
Pmom I don’t know that I could handle that everyday. I tend to be a little outspoken and would probably have my head handed to me. Everyone always says that they do their jobs well and bring none of their bias to work with them.
Tom, thanks for the UMKC link; I agree that the Madsen case is the closest one to the issues presented by the new Kansas law.
I think ksgrm’s comment “trying to walk both side of a narrow line” – I think that is where many of us are. I abhor Phelps but … he has rights. On the other hand I think we should be able to protect a family’s “peaceful enjoyment” (or whatever the words are).
I have heard it said that “bad situations create bad law.” I don’t know if that is the case here.
On the other side of that “line” I supported Sunflower Action’s picketing of Kolb’s home. In that case I saw him as a public official. But again, it is a fine line.
The whole notion of “free speech zones” is disturbing and repugnant. Last time I checked, this NATION is a free speech zone.
Ksgrm, supposedly the Phelps that have state jobs never bring their viciousness to work with them. But I wouldn’t be surprised if anyone who works with them is thoroughly intimidated. The Phelps have protested not just funerals, but private homes, churches (during worship services!), businesses, and schools. No one wants them on their doorstep.
I’ll add that they don’t just wave their nasty signs around. They scream and yell obscenities at passersby, whether those passing are the target of the protests or not. They trample American flags on the ground, and at one event where I and my organization were protested, Shirley Phelps-Roper stood right in front of me and rubbed her crotch with one. It was disgusting and obscene.
Ben, it’s almost always a “fine line” when Constitutional issues, especially First Amendment ones, arise. Like many attorneys, I have a surpressed deire to be a Constitutional scholar; it goes with the territory. Thus, my postings on this thread on the issue at hand, an attempt to clarify the issues involved in the new law as perceived by me.
IMHO, it is not just Rep. Goyle walking a narrow line here; the same applies to anyone attempting to draft legislation of this type.
Ben, I completely disagree with your comment about Sunflower. Private homes should never be the target of protests, unless there is some egregious violation of law happening on the premises. Protesting a public official at his residence is nothing but media grandstanding. He has an office, in an office building open to the public. It’s not like the protesters didn’t have access in more legitimate ways.
Ben I agree with Tom on this one. I was glad that Schlapp was reelected councilperson for dist. 2 because she is very available and has helped us with several eyesores or public health issues in our own neighborhood.
I felt that the protesting should have been at city hall and directed more at Carl Brewer who as their councilman had done absolutely nothing for several years.
Kolbs wife had absolutely no say or action in the entire episode and shouldn’t have been frightened by these people.
ksgrm, Tom – I fully appreciate your position. I did not come to support Sunflower lightly and I definitely have reservations. As said, a fine line.
I think VT put it well.
Ben,
I didn’t find my position lightly, either. One of the people arrested is a friend of mine, and my first reaction was “how dare they arrest someone for exercising their 1st Amendment rights??” But further reflection brought me to my current view.
VaughnNot to distract from the thread theme. However, if “political speech” is to be more highly respected than non-political speech, how do you explain the court’s weird split on “McCain-Feingold” campaign finance gag rules?I am not sure such a distinction really exists anymore, if it ever did. If it does exist, political speech appears to have LESS protection now.
No I think you misunderstood Grm. My husband doesn’t work directly with the Phelps. Just in the same department. They both work for the KDOC.
Paul, I’m not able to explain the Court’s split on McCain-Feingold to my own, let alone any third party’s, satisfaction.
I don’t agree with your conclusion that political speech has less protection now; anonymous political speech, perhaps, but not political speech itself.
As I have posted before, on more than one occasion, I have no issue with any “natural person” making monetary contributions to any campaign in any amounts he/she desires. What I want is immediate (no more than 24 hours) disclosures of the identities of the contributors and the amounts contributed on a publicly accessible web site, say one set up and maintained by FEC.
I also want repeal of section 527 of the Internal Revenue Code (not that such will happen), and tighter regulations on nonprofit, tax exempt entities on the use of funds raised by the same for political purposes. As you can see from my emphasis on “natural person”, I’m not in favor of PACs, whether operated by labor, business, or any other ‘group’. I see no issue with limiting the ability of corporations, LLCs, etc. as an entity to make political contributions; the individuals who make up these entities, whether officers, directors, shareholders, members, et al, should, however, have the right to make political contributions using the individual’s own funds in such amounts and to which campaigns each individual wishes.
VT
I have an honest question:
As a person who watches 1st Amendment issues closely, I have some unusual solutiions for some of our perenial 1st Amendment arguements.
Where flag burning is concerned, I think local governments should be encouraged to pass safety rules and require permits. The permit could, reasonably, require purchase of said flag, by requiring a receipt, or require a notarized statement of ownership from the permit applicant.Also, we could, I think, require a fire extinguisher or a garden hose be close at hand and require a statement of liability, on the part of the flag burner, for any property damage or personal injury.None of these things would prohibit the speech, in question.All of my restrictions would serve a complelling public purpose, discouraging theft and vandalism and protecting the public.
Likewise, I believe that we could come to some comprimises on the Christmas and 10 Commandment issues with the “lease” or “permit” concept.The City of Wichita, for instance, is free to lease Century II to any religious group that wishes to use the facilities.Why can’t the City also “lease” areas for Christmas displays?Likewise, why can’t any local courthouse “lease” property to organizations which purport to uphold principles of law and order?The display of the 10 Commandments could even be comparitive, between different books of the Bible, the Torah, Eastern Orthodox, Catholic and Protestent versions.(There really isnt much difference, but the differences would be educational, none the less.)Anyway, permits could be seasonal or put up to public bid.The charities, or churches, which participate could be asked to donate money or time to a favorite charity, or go pick up trash on the Court House lawn or parking lot or the highway.A simple requirement that the message could not be intentionally demeaning to any segment of society would prevent the Phelps clan from outbidding everyone else for sheer spite.Or, instead, the local unit of government could specify that part of the “rent” for these locations would go towards English as a Second Language classes, AID’s treatment and other worthwhile programs. This would prevent skin-heads and Phelps types from deliberate sabatoge of a good idea.Anyway, I think you get my point.
I would respect the ACLU more if they respected ALL speech. They clearly don’t, as they try to censor some Speech whil supporting other speech.
There are ways to thread these needles, but nobody seems to try very hard. Maybe Left and Right want to fight over these things forever?
More to the point, why cant local governments “declare” an automatic “parade permit” exists for any funeral or burial, and declare that the privacy rights of the decendant and family require time and place restrictions be placed on those who are not a party to said parade?
After all, I can’t march in a Gay Rights parade if the organizers of that Parade dont want me involved in it, can I?
VTSorryMy question:”Dont you think we can solve some of these 1st Amendment disputes more creatively?”
Hey Econ,
If you want to march in our Pride parade, we’d be happy to have you. It’s June 24; lineup starts at 1:30pm, and the parade moves at 2:00. We just ask that you be respectful.
Parade spectators aren’t subject to any kind of limits on their attendance. So you can stand on the curb and holler anything you want :)
Paul, IMHO, the “leasing” concept you promote (not the one day a week leasing of CII) is violative of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
There’s got to be some way to resolve these First Amendment issues without the seemingly endless litigation.
To make my position clear, I’ve no problem with public religious displays on private property; I do have issues with the same on governmentally owned property.
Your concept of use of public property to display the Ten Commandments as an educational exercise to illustrate the differences in various “versions” thereof is again, IMHO, violative of the Establishment Clause, as the same seems to promote the Judeo-Christian religions. If, however, you wish to display the Ten Commandments together with the Code of Hammurabi, Lex Romana, and other examples of the genesis of legal codes to educate the public on the seminal bases of Anglo-American Law, I’ve no issue with this.
My “gut” on your parade permit idea for a funeral service is unneeded, again IMHO.
As is perhaps clear from this overly-long post, I want government to be “religiously neutral”, while allowing individuals to believe as they wish and worship in their church, synagogue, temple, or other building (or no building), displaying nativity scenes, the Ten Coomandments, or other physical examples representing their belief on their own privately owned property.
Screw you Capt Nobody, my name comes from Napster the music downloads and I never threatend anyone…I just wondered why so stuff it.
VT – I come down on the opposite side from you. As long as the City would lease “even-handedly” then why can’t they? Christmas lease at fair market to a church; Passover to a Synagogue; Ramadan to a Mosque etc.
I guess there could be problems when a Santaria sect wants to lease to kill chickens or something …
Government agencies already lease out ad space on transit systems (buses, trains, etc). KTA has little Progressive Insurance ads on all their toll booths now.
“There’s got to be some way to resolve these First Amendment issues without the seemingly endless litigation.”Posted by: Vaughn Tolle | April 14, 2007 at 01:58 PM
I have an idea Vaughn, but it involves deportation of lawyers to the Antarctic. :)
Republican,
If you did that, who would represent comedian Rush Limbaugh in his prescription drug defense?
Republican, that’s not quite as hostile an environment as others have suggested. :-)
Ben, I read Paul’s leasing suggestion as being something more than seasonal, and more of a perpetual lease, if I may put words into his mouth. On your idea of a rotating “lease”, I’m lukewarm to this, but won’t reject this out of hand right now.
VT – I guess my theory is that if we could get a group of people together “in good faith” that we could come up with policies that would work. I’m an agnostic, Paul (I think) a Catholic, one of my attorneys a Jew, a colleague a Muslim, another a Hindu …
I would think if we could develop it it might pass muster as not “establishing”.
Excuse my ignorance on Constitutional Law, but wasn’t the reason of the First Amendment was to protect the Free Speech of Individuals and forbid suppression by the Government?
The precedents passed by the various Supreme Court decisions appeared to skewed the original intent.
VTI believe that the SCOTUS has displayed the 10 Commandments in the format that your suggest, within and ON their own building.
Exactly, Paul; should have pointed that out, though.
And, in fact, this was unsuccessfully challenged by someone, IIRC, in the past.
Note that it isn’t the Ten Commandments separate from the other origins of the law; it is a part of a general tableau of various sources of our laws, and as I said, it’s my opinion that sort of a display (with the other sources) is highly appropriate; not, however, the Ten Commandments standing by themselves.
Sorry, Fred. You should have stuck with protesting gay funerals, because nobody was going to do anything at all about that.
Joe, It is my belief that any type of protest at the funeral of anyone would be an infringement of the right to privacy for the family and friends of the deceased. I do not feel that anyone has been granted the right to go to a funeral for anyone and be disrespectful. A funeral is a time that everyone should be respectful of others.
I would also like to point out that Phelps is mentally deranged and his views have nothing to do with party lines. This should be obvious in light of the fact that the Democratic Party takes a much more reasonable view of homosexuality. The Republican Party and their so called moral majority are the ones overly concerned about the personal sex lives of consenting adults and want to regulate these activities with laws. It is my belief that too much focus is placed on sexual matters and other than rape, incest, public solicitation and child molestation have no place in politics.
I am not in favor of Bush and his policies but I do support our troops. They are dedicated individuals out doing a job just like other responsible adults do everyday. I think that most Americans agree with this. I have not heard of any incidents where people are protesting the war at the funerals of soldiers. But as I pointed out earlier, the right to Freedom of Speech was designed to allow citizens to speak out about the government officials and their activities. I have no problem with people protesting the war at government buildings and functions. Decent, respectful people understand that a funeral is not a public function.
Joe, It is my belief that any type of protest at the funeral of anyone would be an infringement of the right to privacy for the family and friends of the deceased. I do not feel that anyone has been granted the right to go to a funeral for anyone and be disrespectful. A funeral is a time that everyone should be respectful of others.
I would also like to point out that Phelps is mentally deranged and his views have nothing to do with party lines. This should be obvious in light of the fact that the Democratic Party takes a much more reasonable view of homosexuality. The Republican Party and their so called moral majority are the ones overly concerned about the personal sex lives of consenting adults and want to regulate these activities with laws. It is my belief that too much focus is placed on sexual matters and other than rape, incest, public solicitation and child molestation have no place in politics.
I am not in favor of Bush and his policies but I do support our troops. They are dedicated individuals out doing a job just like other responsible adults do everyday. I think that most Americans agree with this. I have not heard of any incidents where people are protesting the war at the funerals of soldiers. But as I pointed out earlier, the right to Freedom of Speech was designed to allow citizens to speak out about the government officials and their activities. I have no problem with people protesting the war at government buildings and functions. Decent, respectful people understand that a funeral is not a public function.
Well said, Lee. What Phelps and his followers do is harass more than protest. I’d love to see some of the families of our fallen soldiers file lawsuits against him and his clan. Let Fred spend his money defending himself in court.
A sympathetic jury could bankrupt Phelps.
TomThanks for the “invite” but I haven’t a thing to wear!LOL;)All in good humor of course.Haven fun and I wish you well.
Kudos to Raj Goyle for encouraging common sense and dignity to prevail in Kansas.