Freedom of Speech vs. Freedom of Religion -- What's More Important?

Wired had an interesting take on the current SCOTUS case involving Fred Phelps' hate-mongering, protesting his anti-gay crusade at military funerals and what not:

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/03/funeral-flap-justices-weigh-religion-speech-rights/

They seem to make it sound like its an issue of freedom of speech vs. freedom of religion. When phrased that way, it really makes you think. What's more important? The right of people practicing their religion to hold a funeral in peace, or the right of political protesters picketing said funeral?

As much as I despise Phelps' hateful message, let alone his tactics, I think I'd have to side with defending his right to say it, and make an ass out of himself in the process. As distasteful as he is, I think free speech is ultimately more important than unhindered practice of religion. I hope the SCOTUS leaves the lower court's ruling alone.

Free speach protects one from criticising govt policy without fear of prosecution (if we have THAT is another question).

Free speach should not be used as a cover to allow people to harrass others in the quest for publicity.

He is saying that the governmental policies concerning gays is causing all these deaths. And he is saying it on public property. It falls under the first amendment. Just like you have the right to say what you what, obscenity laws not withstanding, on public property.

I would side with Phelps.

I'm a pretty big fan of Noam Chomsky, "If you believe in freedom of speech, you believe in freedom of speech for views you don't like. Stalin and Hitler, for example, were dictators in favor of freedom of speech for views they liked only. If you're in favor of freedom of speech, that means you're in favor of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise."

Phelps is a disgusting prick. But that doesn't mean he doesn't have rights under our constitution.

on the other hand, I would hope the cops could be sympathetic and not press charges when someone decks him for disturbing the funeral of a loved one.

edit - me no spel so gud

As the old saying goes, freedom of speech doesn't mean the freedom to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater. Similarly, you have a right to complain about your congressional representatives, your governor, your mayor, etc., but you don't have the right to drunkenly shout your complaints at the top of your lungs while wandering your neighborhood at 3AM. Freedom of speech clearly doesn't include endangering others or even unnecessarily harassing others when there are other effective options available for expressing yourself.

People conducting a funeral, be it a religious or a secular ceremony, certainly have a right to go about their business without being harassed. What Phelphs is doing is harrassment, not something that should be considered part of the realm of protected self-expression.

If they are just on the street picketing I don't see the problem with it, if they are actually participating in the funeral and getting in people's faces, then that might be a problem.

or just Phelps?

Nothing more or less for Phelps. From what I've seen of Phelps protests, and given the fact that, while there may be a message to the government in there that there's also a lot of personal vitriol direct or implied against private citizens, I don't think it's unfair to consider it harassment, in line with the kind of behavior that would earn an ex-spouse/boyfriend/girlfriend a restraining order.

the Phelps family is the dictionary definition of it.

Speech that consists of "fighting words" as defined in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942) is not protected, and even though the decision has been watered down over the years, this is not a criminal case, but a situation where someone is claiming civil damages over the Phelps' family's disgusting behavior. There's always a lower standard of harm when a civil case is tried, versus a criminal case.

If the SCOTUS ignores the reality of the extreme offensiveness of the hate speech, that leaves other means of 'justice' as the sole remedy here. When all the soldiers return from Iraq and Afghanistan, one or more of them will give the Phelps family their earthly 'payday'.

Street v. New York (you may say watered down, but Street protects the right to burn the flag) tells us that mere offensiveness is not enough to make something fighting words, and Cohen (again, a case that protects draft protesters so I don't think it is watering down) makes it clear that there needs to be something "personally abusive" in the speech for it to be fighting words. Neither of those seem to show that Phelps is not protected. Sure, he's a dick, but that's not enough to be able to shut him down. Hate speech is protected. White Aryan groups get to protest. Look at RAV v St Paul and Brandenburg v. Ohio (which came from the very liberal Warren court). We need to protect that kind of speech because if we don't, then when someone doesn't like what we have to say they can shut us down.

for a servicemember who died in the service of his/her country, that it was a punishment from a vengeful deity for the presence of "fags" in the country being served, is pretty damned "personally abusive", in my way of thinking.

When you can get people from the extremes of the left and the right equally offended that deeply, then maybe you've got a cause of action to sue someone in a civil court, for what is the equivalent of slander and/or libel, which are not Constitutionally protected.

This case is not about the government's ability to prosecute something it might not like, this is about the harm that one set of persons has caused another, for which they are civilly liable for under a statute adopted lawfully by a state. The SCOTUS is being asked to decide the Constitutionality of that statute.

May they make the right decision.

Really? So how are you going to prove that god didn't kill that person because of the fags? And it seems that God would be the one that would have to sue for the slander/libel since "he" is the actor. Or the "fags" would, but since nobody is specifically named, I don't think there is a suit there, either.

Personally abusive to be fighting words means it needs to be directed to a specific person. That's not the case here.

This case IS about the government protecting speech that people may not like. Just because someone is offended by something does not mean that it is not protected. What harm, other than being offended, has Phelps caused?

All that is necessary is to prove that there is maliciousness in what was being done. If the Phelps family had simply prayed in their little church, denouncing the Americans for defending the "fag" nation, there wouldn't have been any harm done. Getting in someone's face makes it different.

The specific person, or persons, if you will, are those who honor the memory of the deceased servicemember. That certainly includes the servicemember's family, but also includes the friends and acquaintances of the deceased.

I guess you'd have to have the Phelps family show up at the funeral of one of your loved ones to 'get it'. I can empathize enough with those mourning a dead soldier to consider how they have been damaged by these evil attention whores.

Someone who went to the school I teach at. It still doesn't make it libel or slander as you claimed it was. It isn't. It's offensive. I get it. But offensive speech is still protected. Thank goodness.

...he wants to say. I am not at all a fan of the notion of "hate speech" as an unprotected form of speech. The only restrictions I'd want to see limiting what Phelphs et all say or do are purely situational and very narrow.

Your right to get a good night's sleep means that Phelps can't stand in the public road in front of your home, even though it is a public road, at 3AM shouting "God hates fags!" Even if Phelps and his brood were silent, just standing in front of your house quietly waving signs, doing so at strange hours or repeatedly in front of your specific residence, especially if you are not yourself a public official, would likely be classified as harassment.

All I'd do against what Phelps has been doing is grant families and loved ones of the recently deceased, functioning in their roles as private citizens, suffering during an emotionally difficult time, a right to peacefully conduct a funeral which is on par with your right to peacefully get a good night's sleep.

go!!!!! yes they love the fact that they can preach such blatant hate and hide behind the 1st amendment. I'd like to see a larger, more obtrusive bunch of picketers going everywhere they go for a year: While they grocery shop, pick up dry-cleaning, have dinner, at church and all other places. And hold signs saying "god only hates the phelps" and "Shirley phelps is a closet fag" with photoshoped photos of the gang performing hardcore gay acts. I think that might get under their skin, maybe. These ass clowns were in my home town of long beach, ca last week right in front of my old high school. I feel so bad for the youngest members of the family who are obviously way to young to know what the hell they are doing.

First, it seems like it would violate stalking laws.
Second, your statements are personally abusive so they would probably be excluded from protection as fighting words.
Third, you would have libel/slander problems since you make claims about a specific person.

The best way to fight these people is to ignore them. You do know that they make most of their money by suing people that have ideas like yours, right? They may be ass clowns, but they aren't stupid.

I just like the idea of it.

Speech is a reality, religion is a fantasy.

That's actually what the first amendment protects.

you wouldn't have freedom of religion. Where government is concerned I am more concerned with freedom from religion.

If there is a conflict here, then the question is how can the conflict be resolved with minimal interference with either right. This may be answered by specifying some general parameters with how far one can go in exercising one right in such a way that it interferes with someone else's exercise of the other right. But, my best guess is that most cases will probably fall outside those parameters and decisions will have to be made in individual cases.

I don't see it as speech vs. religion, because not every funeral is a religious one and Phelp's message is itself religious.

Ultimately, I think people doing nonpolitical things like attending a funeral or entering a reproductive health clinic have a right to do so without being dragged into the public spotlight. Phelps isn't just speaking. He's actively harassing people at the time they most want privacy. Instead of grieving for their loved one, they are forced to think about these assholes.

Phelps' protests constantly ride the line of harassment, assault (they are VERY threatening), and hate speech. But they only ever RIDE the line, they don't cross it, at least not legally.

I think these people are actually smarter than we give them credit for. (Not most of the protesters, just the organizers.) You see, through their ridiculous actions, they are daring a court to rule that their protests are hate speech.

What happens then, you ask? Well, assuming the cards play out in their favor on appeal, there would be federal precedent stating that religious speech, no matter how hateful or vile, is ALWAYS protected due to the fact that these people have a right to free exercise. THEN they'll have a club with which to fight against all protections for sexual orientation in hate crime legislation.

Of course, I could be giving this ginormous douchebag way too much credit...

that's a strategic decision by the lawyers, not necessarily a call for the Court to rule that one trumps the other. Seems to me it would be odd if at no Justice questions that line of thinking. But, I'm not a lawyer, and all that's just my guessing.

There is, however, a clear distinction between harassment and speech. Keeping Phelps a certain distance away from the funerals, as abortion protestors are kept from clinics, may address it to some extent, but I'm guessing the Court wants to clarify it further.

and awarded damages to the bereaved. So wouldn't you mean you hope the SCOTUS overturns that ruling, if you think his distasteful speech should nonetheless be protected? (Which I agree with; I'm just confused.)

Whatever happened to that posse of big biker guys who use to show up at all Phelps-protested funerals, to counter-protest and shield the family from having to see/hear any of their nonsense? Honestly, I think that's the best response to these crazy fucks. Well, that, and a 24/7 counter-protest outside their homes...

From the article:



I still remember fondly that Awful Truth (or was it TV Nation?) episode that Michael Moore did, when he drove the Sodomobile (or whatever it was called) -- his RV -- to a Phelps rally, made them run real quick.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2005/06/australia-pastor-prefers-jail-over-apology.html
The case was the first to be heard by VCAT since the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act took effect in Victoria at the start of 2002.
Outside the tribunal, Danny Nalliah – one of the pastors taken to VCAT by the Islamic Council – described himself as a martyr and said he would go to jail before apologizing.
the following video explains what the Aussie Pastor was trying to say.. this is part 3 of a series on Jihad in Nigeria. the first half covers personal stories.. the second half starting when the play bar is just above the "L" in the word 'FLAG' underneath the play bar. this is what the pastor was arrested for explaining..and threatened with 2 years in prison for elaborating on. he was prevented from reading his evidence by the Muslim Lawyer.. he was stooped from reading the Koran into evidence..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IEbvxaqCEg0&feature=channel
"snip...some of the Funyellang Tarok Langtang Plateau State Nigeria people are christians and are targeted by muslim fundamentalist, the al qaeda in Nigeria. this is their voice calling for help to people across the globe They need you to shout their massage please.." this is a not being covered by the media..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IEbvxaqCEg0&feature=channel

read Nonie Darwish's book .. http://www.amazon.com/Cruel-Usual-Punishment-Terrifying-Implications/dp/1595551611/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1268443072&sr=8-1
she lived under Sharia Law for 30 years, the war in Nigeria and Jihad in general is about imposing Sharia law on people who don't wish it on them.

under Sharia law it can be a death sentence to ask a question about the Koran, also to say anything that puts islam in a bad light, or transmits to non-believers a weakness of islam. other places in the world islam is seen more as a Political and legal system. Islam means "Submission" ..submission to to the laws of islam and the self appointed Representatives of Islam

what Australia did to allow Sharia law to be imposed on a Democratic society.

i believe what is most important is... Freedom FROM RELIGION.!!