You can purchase an autographed copy of Anything But Straight by sending a $35 check or money order to:
-------------------------
Wayne Besen
PO Box 25491
Brooklyn, NY 11202
States are rushing to limit when and where people may protest at funerals -- all because of a small fundamentalist Kansas church whose members picket soldiers' burials, arguing that Americans are dying for a country that harbors homosexuals.
During the 1990s, the Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kan., went around picketing the funerals of AIDS victims with protest signs that read, "God Hates Fags." But politicians began paying more attention recently when church members started showing up at the burials of soldiers and Marines killed in Afghanistan and Iraq. Legislation is being considered in at least 14 states, and several of the bills moving quickly, with backing from legislative leaders and governors.
Legislation against funeral protests was also introduced in West Virginia last month after a small knot of protesters from Westboro Baptist demonstrated outside a memorial for the 12 men killed in the Sago Mine disaster. The protesters held signs reading, "Thank God for Dead Miners," "God Hates Your Tears" and "Miners in Hell," arguing that the miners' deaths were a sign of God's wrath at America for tolerating gays.
First, it is disgraceful that none of these politicians gave a shit when Phelps was protesting gay funerals and those of AIDS victims.
Second, it is disgusting that we have to have this debate. What kind of sick, psychotic, sociopathic SOB would picket a funeral? Friends and family should be able to pay their last respects free from harassment.
This is an interesting challenge to absolute free speech. I'd be curious to what my readers think should be done about this dilemma. Should there be laws to bar people from picketing funerals?
25 Comments:
No, there should not be any laws that restrict the picketing of funerals, just as there shouldn't be laws prohibiting the picketing of abortion clinics. Unless a free speech exercise creates an impending danger, the fact that it outrages us in no way gives us license to prohibit it.
These laws are all about banning speech that is, indeed, grossly offensive. I do hope that these laws will be struck down, and if I were an attorney, I would personally defend Phelps' right to picket. Banning speech because of its incredible offense is unconstitutional.
posted by Chris L., at
2/14/2006 12:11 PM
These whackos were in our city (Lafayette, Indiana) two weeks ago picketing the funeral of a fallen soldier. It was an outrage to witness the further suffering this display caused the grieving family.
posted by John Kelly Metzinger, at
2/14/2006 12:47 PM
I usually agree with Chris L. In this case, these psychotic picketers create a dangerous situation. What could be more dangerous than an entire grieving family suddenly accosted by maniacs waving signs and screaming they're glad their loved ones are dead? Frankly, I'm surprised no one has flown into a grief and shock-induced rage and attacked these Phelps people!
posted by Anonymous, at
2/14/2006 1:02 PM
I think a distinction can -- and should -- be made between public speech and demonstrations (letters to the editors, protests in front of businesses or city hall, etc) and disruptions to private family gatherings. I don't agree with the sentiment that funerals are public forums. There is nothing more intimate than the death of a loved one. What Phelps is doing isn't free speech, it's assault.
And yes, I agree with Wayne. Where was all this concern when it was AIDS patients and gay-bashing victims?
posted by Jim Burroway, at
2/14/2006 1:07 PM
The problem is that the picketing that phelps and other sons of satan conduct not only in funerals, but in gay pride events and other venues, crosses the ine between free spech and hate speach. Hate speach conducts to hate crimes, so, in my opinion hate speach should be considered an intelectual and a co-factor in the hate crimes.
posted by Anonymous, at
2/14/2006 1:18 PM
It would only be a matter of time, if government is permitted to restrict Phelps' speech, that fundamentalists will claim that gays and lesbians who picket outside religious events would be accused of engaging in "hate speech" themselves. Conceivably, a Soulforce delegation protesting outside an ex-gay religious conference would be seen as perpetuating "hate speech" towards Christians.
What if the ex-gay conferences were held in churches, and some right-wingers passed a law saying that one cannot picket outside "houses of worship"? The "anti-funeral picketing" bill would already be on the books. All it would take would be a simple vote by a group of homophobic lawmakers, and "houses of worship" would be added to the list. We must not give a cretin like Fred Phelps the power to erode our most cherished freedoms.
posted by Chris L., at
2/14/2006 3:02 PM
Its a fine line for sure. If people such as Phelps picket any locale and the speech incites people to commit acts of violence towards, then I think the line has been crossed. Whether we like it or not, we have to accept freedom of speech for what it is, please or offend. His kind if speech though is hatred based which of course often leads to violence, the kind of hate speech that led to the untimely and tragic death of Matthew Shepard.
If I might digress a bit, the fact that so many states want to ban same-sex marriage by adding an amendment to the constitution could in turn be construed as legislated hate speech by denying an entire group of people their basic civil rights. The constitution is conflicted and written by men, overwhelmingly heterosexual ones at that.
I believe most of the laws that are being considered require that protests be a certain distance from the funeral. I think this is a good balance. The cruel, sickos can still have their free speech while people grieving a loved one can be spared the added pain of having these whack jobs in their face.
posted by Steve, at
2/14/2006 6:56 PM
I have 2 straight friends from Canada who are retired, they were members of Pflag,their Son is gay, we were talking last week about Phelps, they said that Phelps tried to enter Canada and was stopped and forbided to enter, It would be great if somehow he went to another Country to picket and when tring to get back into the U.S. he could'nt get back in? I don't know if this is still considerd free speach,I just had the idea as to how to get rid of him & his group.
I don't understand why someone would choose to protest a funeral. If a public offical was an evil bastard full of hate, the time to hold demonstrations is while they are alive, while policy is being crafted.
Phelps is protesting funerals of private citizens, that is so beyond tasteless I think they should pass legislation to arrest them.
If you wait for someone to die to make a point, then you waited too long. The only protests I would support in regards to funerals, would be having a BIG party when people like Phelps finally kick the bucket. But NOT at his funeral site, besides you can always sneak in later after everyone left, and piss on his grave.
posted by Rob7534, at
2/15/2006 1:46 AM
I can't wait until we get to picket Fred Phelps's funeral. The day can't come soon enough.
posted by Anonymous, at
2/15/2006 3:30 AM
-- A Favorite Voltaire Quote:
"I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: "O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous." And God granted it."
-- But more famously wrote:
"Monsieur l'abbé, I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write."
Voltaire, letter to M. le Riche, February 6, 1770 French author, humanist, rationalist, & satirist (1694 - 1778)
Which has been misquoted as:
"I do not agree with what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it"
(Attributed); originated in "The Friends of Voltaire", 1906, by S. G. Tallentyre (Evelyn Beatrice Hall)
--
As heinous as Phelps and his band of bigoted misfits are ... we must defend the First Amendment and their right to Free Speech ...
As US citizens they ARE entitled to their opinion and their right to voice it in the public square. However misguided and rancorous it may be ... we should be the last one's jumping aboard the *burn-it* *ban-it* mentality.
Com'on - do you really want to support legislation that begins to limit who can express their opinion where? and when?
Are we willing to go down that road? ... Because Hold on folks ... the next stop will be ... a group like the AFA will decide that Gay Pride parades are to "offensive and mock christian beliefs" and therefore we should pass laws forbidding them all together.
We have to make a principled stand on this topic and never give in to the idea that it is ever OK to criminalize Free Speech and Thought. (and for the record ... I have to tell you that I am against *all* legislation that purports to address thought crime - yes, even Hate Crimes against Gays. I believe people should be punished for their actions and not their thoughts)
WWMLKACD? (what would MLK and Coretta do?) The African-American community has long had to bite the bullet when in mostly southern cities throughout the south the modern day KKK requests and is granted (and rightfully so) a permit to hold a rally, protest or whatever these kooks may feel the need to *say*. Most recently the KKK marched in Austin Texas in support of TX Gov Perry's Anti-Gay State constitutional Amendment Legislation defining Marriage as man/women.
Yes, as much as it burned the right-wing neocons to publically admit it ... they were on the same-side as the KKK on the issue of Gay marriage.
The way to defeat these groups is not by banning them. WWMLKACD?
If I live to see when Fred Phelps kicks the bucket, I would not picket his funral, I would hope to organize a full scale joyious Gay pride Parade and also convert his Church in Kansas into a GLBT comunity center.
There is speech that will inflame and outrage deliberately or not.
There are people whose sole interest in life is to not only inflame, but to deliberately hurt, and harass if not threaten.
We are responsible for what sails out of our mouths and when someone like Phelps chooses specific occasions, like funerals, where the participants are emotionally vulnerable, his actions speak to a specific form of harassment and the spirit of his speech is to hurt.
No one has a 'right' to deliberately hurt or provoke in ways that bring harm to someone.
When believers continue to say that gay people are an abomination, a danger, a menace or unproductive to society, and that speech results in actual harm to a gay person, there is cause for restriction.
In the case of Phelps-he wants to provoke and hurt. He is a career harasser to people who he has no personal interest in or who have hurt HIM in any way.
He's not protesting a political person or action that's hurt his life, he's simply a man abusing someone and his own freedom.
There is no right to abuse another human being verbally. It's called verbal battery and is actionable in the law. His cow of a lawyer daughter should know that.
posted by Regan, at
2/15/2006 10:58 AM
I agree that Phelps and his cronies create a literal physical danger doing what they do. Years ago, while sick with a high fever (and I attribute being sick at that time to a serious emotional distress over being bi, which I couldn't accept, and had just been up crying all night about being a "freak",) I was driving to the doctor when a small group of picketers were standing In The Middle Of The Street! with God Hates Fags signs. I don't know if it was Phelps, or just a copycat group. Those stupid people positioned themselves where they weren't visible until drivers rounded a corner going 40MPH. So it was completely sudden when I was face to face with them, and when I saw what their signs said I started panicking and sobbing behind the wheel, because I had just been up all night crying about being a "freak," then there were these people trying to hurt me, and in a panic, I nearly ran over a woman standing in the street with a God Hates Fags sign in her hands. I managed to see her through tears and swerved to the right, but then I ended up driving along the sidewalk for a few yards, til I bounced back over the curb. That happened, I think, because in my hysteria, I tried to hit the brakes but hit the accelerator instead. I had to find a parking lot to pull over and compose myself.
I am SO glad I didn't hurt one of the idiots, because then I suppose I would have been legally responsible. But it's my opinion that these IDIOTS are trying to cause disaster and pain, and that THEY are the ones who ought to be held responsible for their words and actions. I can't even IMAGINE what it would be like to encounter these people at a family member's funeral. And another thing - I didn't know funerals were considered public? I thought they were private affairs for the family and friends of the deceased. I am surprised to learn they are considered public, and that it's acceptable to harass the mourners.
Susie, as public affairs, usually funerals are given their do as occasions of dignity. And most people 'pay their respects' when there is a bier. One takes off their hat, nods to the mourners, acknowleges the dead.
This ritual of public respect at funerals is ages old. It's only Phelps who uses them to do otherwise. It's bad enough when he showed up at funerals for AIDS deaths.
But the brutal murder of a harmless young man like Matt Shepard? That was lower than low.
Phelps relishes these deaths. HE enjoys other's pain. The epitomy of schadenfreud and evil.
posted by Regan, at
2/15/2006 11:23 PM
Peace disturbance laws can be used to arrest these people. A funeral is a private affair. Just as someone cannot stand in front of a private home and carry signs and yell they cannot do it at a funeral. Your rights stop in the next persons face. I think these folks are allowed to go to extremes so the public will get tired of them and pass laws that will eventually end up taking away all free speech rights.
posted by Anonymous, at
2/17/2006 1:46 AM
Phelps is not alone in this. There are numerous groups of evangelical Christians who do similar things. In Denver one anti-abortion group regularly picketed the homes of people living with AIDS.
The laws that seem to work here do not address free speech. They limit the decible level allowed, which applies to the protestors, vehicles and audio systems. They can still protest but must remain within an range of sound. This serves to cut off the volume. Which does work.
Then there are limits on hours of picketing. Again, in Denver, such groups used to picket in residential areas all night. They were restricted to reasonable daylight hours. And strongly limited to public venues.
When Fred first began this campaign of his, there was an ad in the Topeka papers denouncing it. A majority of the clergy in Topeka refused to sign. Which gave Fred legitimacy in the eyes of some people. Here is where I always get in trouble but it is my honest opinion based on first hand experience of Fred.
Fred Phelps and his vast number of imitators exist because very very few evangelical Christians ever spoke about his crusade in the beginning. And have never done much since. Other than to assure gays that Fred is an isolated instance. Had this energy gone into isolating Fred within the eC and cutting off his funding, things would be different now.
Instead, eC's tacitly defended and indirectly endorsed Fred by not speaking out against him. I saw this with my own eyes at the time. Which is part of why I have such a low opinion of the whole conservative church.
A grieving family's right to privacy is violated when some wacko decides to picket a funeral. It's a shame anyone even has to worry about such things. Free speech should not be a license to bring further pain to an already hurting family.
posted by DeronR, at
2/19/2006 1:20 PM
i coming from Singapore,To a person 團體制服here. I was an excellent credit咖啡 staff.Many well-known in the credit 徵信社company to work, and excellent credit 徵信performance. I love this job;I work brought endless fun.I hope that the formal減肥I appreciated the boss .I hope to continue to work in the credit徵信. I work seriously,Peaceful coexistence with colleagues.The company has no particular request, 徵信社I can only hope that the wisdom I 燈光音響play.
posted by Anonymous, at
5/19/2008 11:00 PM
