FSTDT Forums
Community => Politics and Government => Topic started by: ironbite on August 02, 2012, 06:54:08 pm
-
And you can already tell ol' Fred's gonna be bitching. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/02/veterans-bill-military-funerals_n_1733080.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000003)
Westboro Baptist Church protesters will soon be severely limited in their ability to disrupt military funerals, after Congress passed a sweeping veterans bill this week that includes restrictions on such demonstrations.
According to "The Honoring America’s Veterans and Caring for Camp Lejeune Families Act of 2012," which is now headed to President Barack Obama's desk, demonstrators will no longer be allowed to picket military funerals two hours before or after a service. The bill also requires protestors to be at least 300 feet away from grieving family members.
This aspect of the legislation was introduced by Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine), who, at the urging of a teenage constituent, proposed new limitations on military funeral demonstrations as a response to a 2011 Supreme Court case that ruled such actions were protected under the First Amendment.
Amazing that this was introduced by one of the few sane Republicans AND it got through. Simply amazing.
Ironbite-can't wait to see him spin this.
-
I think all funerals deserve to be picket-free, not just military ones. After the funeral is over and the mourners have had their time to grieve, the folks that took issue with the dearly departed can bitch and moan all they want. But during the funeral, the mourners need their peace.
-
But the Phelps family may just sue to overturn this law under the guise of free speech. Not sure if it'll actually pass muster in the courts, but I doubt they'll pass up the chance to sue the government on this issue.
-
This aspect of the legislation was introduced by Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine),
Fair is fair- good on her.
-
new limitations on military funeral demonstrations as a response to a 2011 Supreme Court case that ruled such actions were protected under the First Amendment.
As much as I'm in favor of this bill, that makes no sense. If their actions are protected by the Constitution, passing new legislation doesn't do anything except waste the Supreme Court's time.
-
new limitations on military funeral demonstrations as a response to a 2011 Supreme Court case that ruled such actions were protected under the First Amendment.
As much as I'm in favor of this bill, that makes no sense. If their actions are protected by the Constitution, passing new legislation doesn't do anything except waste the Supreme Court's time.
Pretty much covers it,
They'd need a constitutional measure to change it, and frankly it is unconstitutional. As prickish as it is, it's their right. Much like it's your right to call them pricks for it. Unlike most hategroups the phelps have largely avoided inciting violence(towards their targets), so there aren't crimes(they committed) to hold against them and revoke their rights.
-
They'd need a constitutional measure to change it, and frankly it is unconstitutional. As prickish as it is, it's their right.
I don’t feel they have any right to do so any more than anyone has to blast loud music at 1am as a form of free speech. Mourners at a funeral deserve their peace just as much as sleep-deprived neighbors.
Let’s face it, even free speech has its reasonable restrictions.
-
I don't consider picketing a funeral to be free speech. I consider it harassment of the people attending the funeral who are not being dicks. The people who organized the funeral have rights to the land for the duration of the ceremony, and they should have the right to decide who can and cannot attend. You have the right to free speech, but you don't have the right to intrude on a private ceremony or place and demand that people put up with you. If I ran a restaurant and some LaRouches came in and started interrupting meals and the general peace to spread their horsecrap, then I should have the right to refuse service to them and to throw them out. They might say it's "free speech," but in reality my restaurant is not a public place, but private. Technically speaking, the right to free speech only says that you cannot be legally punished or restricted by the government. ("Congress shall make no law...")
Non-governmental censorship would fall under other categories that are already illegal, such as intimidation, harassment, blackmail, etc.
-
I agree that this is one of the limits free speech should have. However, as long as SCOTUS believes otherwise, this bill is just a waste of everyone's time.
-
Blatantly unconstitutional. Yes, free speech has restrictions but the only thing this bill seeks to restrict is the time and place an unpopular viewpoint is allowed to be expressed. There is no valid public safety concern, there is no false advertising at play, accusing slander is questionable and we already have laws about that, and so long as they make appropriate arrangements with local authorities they're playing by the rules.
There is no right to not be offended. There are rights to free speech and peaceable assembly. The precedent this would set has the capacity to mondo bad.
-
I agree that this is one of the limits free speech should have. However, as long as SCOTUS believes otherwise, this bill is just a waste of everyone's time.
That it is, unfortunately.
There is no right to not be offended.
There is a difference between being offended and being harassed during an emotionally vulnerable time.
-
SCOTUS has generally upheld time-place-manner restrictions though (well, many of them anyway). It's been a while since I looked at the case law on this, but there is a possibility that it could withstand a constitutional challenge.
It's one thing to consider the rights of the WBC, but why should their rights trump the rights of the mourners of fallen service members?
-
I think people should have the right to grieve without having protesters waving their signs around and telling little children that "Daddy's in Hell now." There's free speech, and then there's infringing on other people's rights to have a time to mourn and say goodbye to their loved ones.
-
I think people should have the right to grieve without having protesters waving their signs around and telling little children that "Daddy's in Hell now." There's free speech, and then there's infringing on other people's rights to have a time to mourn and say goodbye to their loved ones.
Which amendment is that?
-
It's one thing to consider the rights of the WBC, but why should their rights trump the rights of the mourners of fallen service members?
Because the right to free speech is the only right directly involved here. As much as I'd not particularly care to find out a gunman and rid the world of these people, there's no right involving funerary proceedings that I'm aware of. If it's harassment, charge them with it, if it's any crime, charge them with it, but legislating it to be a crime is in direct violation of freedom of speech.
-
I'm on the fence, but I can, actually, see how this is not an infringement on their freedom of speech. If I'm reading the article correctly, then if they really want to protest at a cemetery, they still can do that, just not during a military funeral or for two hours before and after services. They can still protest there, just not during those times.
An argument can be made that it isn't infringing on their freedom, but it is setting a time and place limit that basically robs them of their target audience.
-
I consider it harassment of the people attending the funeral who are not being dicks.
Harassment is defined statutorily, and WBC's actions do not fit the definition.
The people who organized the funeral have rights to the land for the duration of the ceremony,
And WBC is not on that land. They are on public property near the land, but not on the land itself. Also, funeral goers do not have an exclusive right to the land during the funeral. Other people can (and sometimes will) come into the cemetary for their own purposes, even with a funeral going on. Most of those people will avoid the funeral, but they have a right to be there.
You have the right to free speech, but you don't have the right to intrude on a private ceremony or place and demand that people put up with you.
Actually, that is what the right to free speech is about. You have every right to speak your mind (so long as you do not incite violence, make viable threats, or spew obscenities), so long as it is done in the proper time-place-manner. WBC complies with the time-place-manner restrictions when they do their protests, and they themselves do not incite violence. (Bystanders want to hurt them, but that is not the legal definition of inciting violence.)
If I ran a restaurant and some LaRouches came in and started interrupting meals and the general peace to spread their horsecrap, then I should have the right to refuse service to them and to throw them out.
Your resteraunt would be private property, whereas WBC protests on public property. Also, you could throw them out if they were doing something that meets the legal definition of "distrubing the peace" (which varies slightly from state to state), but if they were not on your property, there isn't much you could do.
There is a difference between being offended and being harassed during an emotionally vulnerable time.
But there is no right not to be harassed (other than general harassment laws, which WBC obviously does not break, else they would have already been arrested for it).
SCOTUS has generally upheld time-place-manner restrictions though (well, many of them anyway). It's been a while since I looked at the case law on this, but there is a possibility that it could withstand a constitutional challenge.
Time-place-manner restrictions mean there must be a viable time, place, and manner in which a protest can be carried out, the restriction must be content neutral, and it must be narrowly tailored to serve an important government interest. They are valid, if a protest could reasonably be conducted within them. For example, saying "no audible protests within 50 feet of the courthouse while court is in session" would be valid, since you could (1) protest audibly 51 feet away, or (2) protest silently within 50 feet. Saying "protests are allowed between 1AM and 4AM" would be too restrictive because the limitation isn't narrowly tailored.
I'm on the fence, but I can, actually, see how this is not an infringement on their freedom of speech. If I'm reading the article correctly, then if they really want to protest at a cemetery, they still can do that, just not during a military funeral or for two hours before and after services. They can still protest there, just not during those times.
An argument can be made that it isn't infringing on their freedom, but it is setting a time and place limit that basically robs them of their target audience.
It would be an interesting legal argument, and to be honest, I'm not sure how it would come out. On one hand, it does meet the time-place-manner limitation. As you said, they can protest whenever and wherever they want, so long as it isn't 2 hours before or after a funeral or within 300 feet of the mourners. The law is clearly content-neutral; just because it was written to address WBC does not mean only WBC would be affected. (Anyone who protested a military funeral for any reason within 2 hours or within 300 feet would be subject to the law.) But I am not sure about the narrow tailoring. Is this the least restrictive means available?
-
What are the requirements for filing a restraining order? I assume you couldn't do it to just any ordinary joe schmoe without reason, or else there would be a lot more malicious displacements going on.
-
What are the requirements for filing a restraining order? I assume you couldn't do it to just any ordinary joe schmoe without reason, or else there would be a lot more malicious displacements going on.
Believe it or not, restraining orders aren't as easy to get as lots of people think. They have to genuinely believe that someone actually wants to hurt/kill them. At least, that's my experience with restraining orders up here in Canada. My sister and I both tried on separate occasions to obtain one, and we were denied because we didn't have any direct evidence that the people we were afraid of were actually intending on hurting us in any way.
So I don't think that would work against the WBC unfortunately.
-
Thanks, that's what I was wondering about.
-
While there may be no rights on the books protecting funerals, there really ought to be. There are certain times when people should not be allowed to intrude or protest, and a funeral is damn well one of those times. Say what you want about free speech and shit, but a grieving family should be protected from this horseshit, because they're fucking grieving, one of their loved ones is fucking dead, if you want to be an asshole, too god damned bad.
The WBC are utterly vile pieces of shit, and they really, really belong in fucking prison.
-
While there may be no rights on the books protecting funerals, there really ought to be. There are certain times when people should not be allowed to intrude or protest, and a funeral is damn well one of those times. Say what you want about free speech and shit, but a grieving family should be protected from this horseshit, because they're fucking grieving, one of their loved ones is fucking dead, if you want to be an asshole, too god damned bad.
The WBC are utterly vile pieces of shit, and they really, really belong in fucking prison.
QFT
-
Actually, that is what the right to free speech is about. You have every right to speak your mind (so long as you do not incite violence, make viable threats, or spew obscenities),
That's a fucking stupid standard. Unlike, say, deliberately disrupting a funeral, obscenities do not hurt anyone. The entire concept of an obscenity also makes no sense.
If the standard is- speak, unless you're hurting someone badly, obscenities are off. If the standard is- speak, but be 'civil', obviously the WBC is fucked.
-
While there may be no rights on the books protecting funerals, there really ought to be. There are certain times when people should not be allowed to intrude or protest, and a funeral is damn well one of those times. Say what you want about free speech and shit, but a grieving family should be protected from this horseshit, because they're fucking grieving, one of their loved ones is fucking dead, if you want to be an asshole, too god damned bad.
So...one of the very ideals that this country was founded on and through, something considered so important at our founding that it was the first item on the Bill of Rights, is shit? Freedom has to mean the right to be a raging dickbag, because no one likes a raging dickbag. If the raging dickbags have their free say, its a pretty good bet that everyone will.
The WBC are utterly vile pieces of shit, and they really, really belong in fucking prison.
Agreed on the first part, highly disagree on the second. They obey the law to the letter and take advantage of rights that everyone in this country is guaranteed. The only reason you're offering for them needing to be imprisoned is "they're assholes and I disagree with their philosophy". That's fucking dangerous mindset, yo.
I personally plan to, if I have the funds to do so comfortably, peacefully protest Fred's inevitable funeral. With a sign saying something like "Was all that time and vitriol worth it?" Unfortunately, I know what the Phelps Phamily's answer will be - yes.
Unlike, say, deliberately disrupting a funeral, obscenities do not hurt anyone.
I generally agree with your overall point. There was a fucking stupid case here in Michigan where a kayaker was prosecuted for cursing loudly after rolling his kayak on a lake (a family was also using the lake at the time) and obscenity when applied to porn is stupid (according to retired pornstar Katie Morgan, fisting is considered obscenity in USA-made porn - keep the thumb outta there and you're fine). However, it is dishonest to say that the WBC disrupts funerals because that makes it sound like they crash them or otherwise interfere with the proceedings. They don't, that would be blatantly illegal.
-
The WBC are utterly vile pieces of shit, and they really, really belong in fucking prison.
Agreed on the first part, highly disagree on the second. They obey the law to the letter and take advantage of rights that everyone in this country is guaranteed. The only reason you're offering for them needing to be imprisoned is "they're assholes and I disagree with their philosophy". That's fucking dangerous mindset, yo.
I personally plan to, if I have the funds to do so comfortably, peacefully protest Fred's inevitable funeral. With a sign saying something like "Was all that time and vitriol worth it?" Unfortunately, I know what the Phelps Phamily's answer will be - yes.
I gotta disagree with you Kit. While yes, they do obey the letter of the law, their words can and do have an impact (especially on very emotionally vulnerable people) and I wouldn't be surprised if I found out that someone who was at one of the funerals did something regretful because of their words. They don't do it for any possible semblance of a good reason, they literally admit to doing it just to make people miserable and wish to die.
-
I realize that supporting free speech while seeming to support removing it from people I don't like is hypocritical. The thing is, I'm not removing their right to say their vile, hateful shit, just making it so they can't prey on innocent, grieving people. They can protest any-fucking-where they want, but funerals should be off-fucking-limits for any kind of protest or demonstration, not just the WBC bullshit.
A funeral is a time to gather, a time to grieve, and a time to be with the ones you love. It is not a time to further your religious, political, economic, or social ideals. What they're doing is pissing on that family's memory of their dead loved one, let me repeat that, they are pissing on a family's memory of their dead loved one. I get pissed when "psychics" do it, I get pissed when religious fuckwads do it, I get pissed when fucking anyone does it, because, once someone is dead, all you fucking have are your memories of them.
They're vile, hateful bastards, and I feel no fucking sympathy for them. I don't give a shit if saying they shouldn't be allowed to picket funerals makes me some anti-free speech asshole. No one has a right to picket a god damned funeral.
-
Actually, that is what the right to free speech is about. You have every right to speak your mind (so long as you do not incite violence, make viable threats, or spew obscenities),
That's a fucking stupid standard. Unlike, say, deliberately disrupting a funeral, obscenities do not hurt anyone. The entire concept of an obscenity also makes no sense.
I didn't explain my comment well. To be obscene beyond free speech is a pretty high standard. I don't remember the exact legal definition off the top of my head, but it pretty much comes down to "sexual" and "far beyond what is acceptable in the community." It also pretty much only pertains to publications, not spoken words.
Agreed on the first part, highly disagree on the second. They obey the law to the letter and take advantage of rights that everyone in this country is guaranteed. The only reason you're offering for them needing to be imprisoned is "they're assholes and I disagree with their philosophy". That's fucking dangerous mindset, yo.
I gotta disagree with you Kit. While yes, they do obey the letter of the law, their words can and do have an impact (especially on very emotionally vulnerable people)
Those people do not matter. The legal standard is "a reasonable person." It does not matter how emotionally vulnerable a person is, they are judged against what a reasonable person would do.
and I wouldn't be surprised if I found out that someone who was at one of the funerals did something regretful because of their words.
Words alone are never sufficient to provoke a reasonable person to violence. (Legally, anyway.) It does not matter what the circumstances are, as long as WBC sticks to words (and they do), anyone who attacks them is at fault as the initial aggressor.
I realize that supporting free speech while seeming to support removing it from people I don't like is hypocritical. The thing is, I'm not removing their right to say their vile, hateful shit, just making it so they can't prey on innocent, grieving people. They can protest any-fucking-where they want, but funerals should be off-fucking-limits for any kind of protest or demonstration, not just the WBC bullshit.
Where do you want to draw the line? If we cannot protests funerals, what else do you want to be off-limits to protesting?
That's the problem with saying "well, this time, it's OK." It sets a precedent (and our legal system is all about precedent). One little step leads to another, and another. You may say "well, that will never happen. Funerals are it." But someone will come along at some point and say "weddings are emotional times. They shouldn't be picketed either." And the court will say "that makes sense. Weddings and funerals cannot be picketed." And then someone else will say "what about seeing the caskets of killed servicemembers. That's emotional for the family." And so on, and so on...
It is not a time to further your religious, political, economic, or social ideals.[/qu What they're doing is pissing on that family's memory of their dead loved one, let me repeat that, they are pissing on a family's memory of their dead loved one. I get pissed when "psychics" do it, I get pissed when religious fuckwads do it, I get pissed when fucking anyone does it, because, once someone is dead, all you fucking have are your memories of them.
They're vile, hateful bastards, and I feel no fucking sympathy for them. I don't give a shit if saying they shouldn't be allowed to picket funerals makes me some anti-free speech asshole. No one has a right to picket a god damned funeral.
As Kit said, if you want to have the right to free speech, you have to be willing to allow others - even those you disagree with - to have that right.
I, personally, look forward to going to the giant protest at Fred Phellps's funeral. ;)
-
Freedom of speech is not absolute, we all know this. I don't think any persons rights of expression trumps a persons right to grieve for their dead. The WBC and everyone else can express their thoughts somewhere else, or at another time.
-
Freedom of speech is not absolute, we all know this. I don't think any persons rights of expression trumps a persons right to grieve for their dead. The WBC and everyone else can express their thoughts somewhere else, or at another time.
I think the point right now is that there is no legal right of mourning. If you want to grant that, then there's a much large implication to it than just telling the WBC to fuck off.
-
Words alone are never sufficient to provoke a reasonable person to violence. (Legally, anyway.) It does not matter what the circumstances are, as long as WBC sticks to words (and they do), anyone who attacks them is at fault as the initial aggressor.
Well, fighting words doctrine still exists so not "never". Well, fighting words doctrine doesn't excuse the violence but it allows authorities to curtail speech. However, that doctrine has been narrowed to a ridiculously fine point over the years.
Where do you want to draw the line? If we cannot protests funerals, what else do you want to be off-limits to protesting?
And there's the important question. Because once the legal inch is given, you then have to try to define how much of the mile is OK to take.
Freedom of speech is not absolute, we all know this. I don't think any persons rights of expression trumps a persons right to grieve for their dead. The WBC and everyone else can express their thoughts somewhere else, or at another time.
Except the the right to grieve for your dead is a subjective moral right while the Freedom of Speech is a legal one. And how do you define the right to grieve? I'm sure that Jeho's and Mormons have at least occaisonally knocked on the door of someone Sitting Shiva, are they infringing? Politicians kind-of hijacked Pat Tillman's funeral to make themselves look good, was that infringing? I plan to quietly and peacefully protest Fred Phelps' inevitable funeral, is that fringing?
That latter standard is also a potentially dangerous precedent, since any protest tied to an event could be held somewhere and somewhen else. "Look, you can still protest Presiden Romney's policies, just not outside where he's making a speech while he's making the speech. Go somewhere else."
I get pissed when "psychics" do it, I get pissed when religious fuckwads do it, I get pissed when fucking anyone does it, because, once someone is dead, all you fucking have are your memories of them.
So do I. I just don't want people thrown in jail over it.
They're vile, hateful bastards, and I feel no fucking sympathy for them. I don't give a shit if saying they shouldn't be allowed to picket funerals makes me some anti-free speech asshole. No one has a right to picket a god damned funeral.
And yet the Bill of Rights and Supreme Court disagree with you.
They don't do it for any possible semblance of a good reason, they literally admit to doing it just to make people miserable and wish to die.
Well, they have their constitutionally protected religious reasons for doing, but you're right. However, that's not one of the reasons the court allows the government to curtail free speech, so its a moot point. Again, freedom means the right to be an asshole.
-
I think the point right now is that there is no legal right of mourning. If you want to grant that, then there's a much large implication to it than just telling the WBC to fuck off.
Your right, but maybe there should be that right to mourning, or at least the right to have a funeral and service without protesters.
-
and I wouldn't be surprised if I found out that someone who was at one of the funerals did something regretful because of their words.
Words alone are never sufficient to provoke a reasonable person to violence. (Legally, anyway.) It does not matter what the circumstances are, as long as WBC sticks to words (and they do), anyone who attacks them is at fault as the initial aggressor.
I wasn't talking about someone becoming aggressive with the WBC, I was talking about the person committing suicide.
-
I wasn't talking about someone becoming aggressive with the WBC, I was talking about the person committing suicide.
You can't curtail someone's free speech because someone somewhere might hear them and decide to commit suicide over it if they happen to be in a state of mind conducive to suicidal thoughts. As a matter of fact, the "someone somewhere might be spurred to violent action over it, maybe" school of restriction has not held up well a couple of times IIRC.
-
Cheap political grandstanding intended to gain favor with the rubes. It is the legal and moral equivalent of a law regulating disapproval of apple pie. Civilized behavior is most often a matter of basic human decency. The Phelpses are unfamiliar with such a concept.
-
I wasn't talking about someone becoming aggressive with the WBC, I was talking about the person committing suicide.
You can't curtail someone's free speech because someone somewhere might hear them and decide to commit suicide over it if they happen to be in a state of mind conducive to suicidal thoughts. As a matter of fact, the "someone somewhere might be spurred to violent action over it, maybe" school of restriction has not held up well a couple of times IIRC.
By that logic, verbal bullying shouldn't be stopped.
-
By that logic, verbal bullying shouldn't be stopped
In what context to you mean? Because in the case of schools, the Supreme Court has ruled that they do have the right to curtail free speech that is actively disruptive to the purpose of the school (I.E, the safety and education of its students). Verbal bullying in a school context falls directly under that. However, that has everything to do with the fact that school administrators are acting in loco parentis (legalese for "in the place of a parent") over a group of minors. This would not apply to the wider world.
If you mean in the adult world, that too is a little complex. There is the Fighting Words Doctrine of limiting free speech, which the WBC has run up against before, has been generally held to narrowly apply to personal speech. So if a WBCer walked directly up to a grieving military family member and told them "your loved one is burning hell for supporting this fag enabling government", they could be arrested (pursuant to local ordinance) because those are words that could spur a reasonable person to punch you in the mouth. If they stand on a street corner outside a military funeral with signs relaying a message to that effect, that's protected because that is a public example of speech. Incidentally, these limits were first defined during the sixties, over Flag Burning and a vest that said "Fuck The Draft".
An argument can be made, and indeed was made by Samuel Alito when the WBC faced the Supremes, that Phelps and Phriends' protest signs rise to the level of fighting words. The rest of the Court, the current and oft times split down lines of political ideology incarnation of the Supreme Court, disagreed.
-
By that logic, verbal bullying shouldn't be stopped
In what context to you mean?
If you mean in the adult world, that too is a little complex. There is the Fighting Words Doctrine of limiting free speech, which the WBC has run up against before, has been generally held to narrowly apply to personal speech. So if a WBCer walked directly up to a grieving military family member and told them "your loved one is burning hell for supporting this fag enabling government", they could be arrested (pursuant to local ordinance) because those are words that could spur a reasonable person to punch you in the mouth. If they stand on a street corner outside a military funeral with signs relaying a message to that effect, that's protected because that is a public example of speech. Incidentally, these limits were first defined during the sixties, over Flag Burning and a vest that said "Fuck The Draft".
An argument can be made, and indeed was made by Samuel Alito when the WBC faced the Supremes, that Phelps and Phriends' protest signs rise to the level of fighting words. The rest of the Court, the current and oft times split down lines of political ideology incarnation of the Supreme Court, disagreed.
The second part you did is what I meant. I still don't agree with the idea that distance should protect them when the message is still the same.
On another note, the part I bolded made me giggle for some reason.
-
The second part you did is what I meant. I still don't agree with the idea that distance should protect them when the message is still the same.
On another note, the part I bolded made me giggle for some reason.
It's not distance, it's venue and scope. A face to face comment directed personally at you vs. general commentary on the metaphysical disposition of dead soldiers. The Supremes felt, and I agree, that the act of making a point (no matter how vile that point) in a public space for the public to view renders it impersonal enough to not count as fighting words. I think I'm making my point poorly, so here's a hypothetical: It's the difference between walking up to a U.S. soldier and saying "Hey pal, quit killing innocent civilians for me, ok?" and standing outside a West Point graduation with a sign saying "Quit Killing Civilians!". Both would be offensive to the people viewing them, but only one is a directly personal attack.
And thanks!
Incidentally, this podcast (http://smodcast.com/episodes/the-phabulous-phelps-phamily-phuntime-hour/) has a pair of reformed Phelps kids on it, talking at length about their family. I honestly can't remember when they come in, but it is damned fascinating stuff. One of them is the son of Shirley Phelps-Roper, family spokeswoman, if I recall correctly.
-
The second part you did is what I meant. I still don't agree with the idea that distance should protect them when the message is still the same.
On another note, the part I bolded made me giggle for some reason.
It's not distance, it's venue and scope. A face to face comment directed personally at you vs. general commentary on the metaphysical disposition of dead soldiers. The Supremes felt, and I agree, that the act of making a point (no matter how vile that point) in a public space for the public to view renders it impersonal enough to not count as fighting words. I think I'm making my point poorly, so here's a hypothetical: It's the difference between walking up to a U.S. soldier and saying "Hey pal, quit killing innocent civilians for me, ok?" and standing outside a West Point graduation with a sign saying "Quit Killing Civilians!". Both would be offensive to the people viewing them, but only one is a directly personal attack.
And thanks!
Incidentally, this podcast (http://smodcast.com/episodes/the-phabulous-phelps-phamily-phuntime-hour/) has a pair of reformed Phelps kids on it, talking at length about their family. I honestly can't remember when they come in, but it is damned fascinating stuff. One of them is the son of Shirley Phelps-Roper, family spokeswoman, if I recall correctly.
Fair enough, doesn't make them less scum of the earth.
Yeah, I've heard that podcast before. I'm pretty sure the only fascination I had with it was bile fascination though.