Left Wing Media Befriends Westboro Baptist Church

[chanel]

Ravi - do you ever add anything of substance to a conversation?

If the media wants to side with a hate group, they should be exposed for that. The same media that wants the tea party to pull the imaginary "membership cards" of bigots at a rally who are expressing their "free speech' Hmmm.

Yes goldcatt - I cannot debate constitutional law. But I can opine on the hypocrisy of the press and decency standards that most Americans would agree with. Hopefully justice will prevail.

 

[goldcatt]

Ravi - do you ever add anything of substance to a conversation?

If the media wants to side with a hate group, they should be exposed for that. The same media that wants the tea party to pull the imaginary "membership cards" of bigots at a rally who are expressing their "free speech' Hmmm.

Yes goldcatt - I cannot debate constitutional law. But I can opine on the hypocrisy of the press and decency standards that most Americans would agree with. Hopefully justice will prevail.

What you cannot comprehend is that when you get to this level and the Court starts soliciting and accepting briefs amici, the parties and their identities no longer really matter. Appeals rule on questions of law and only questions of law, period. The facts are peripheral at best. This is not rocket science.

I understand you know nothing about the subject of constitutional law and legal appeals, but then what was that saying about it being better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt?

 

[PatekPhilippe]

anyone who defends that church is also defending what they did to the families of our troops who gave thier lives for thier country. They need to have an ax handle put upside their heads.

 

[goldcatt]

anyone who defends that church is also defending what they did to the families of our troops who gave thier lives for thier country. They need to have an ax handle put upside their heads.

I agree with you there, Patek. WBC is scum. But the question here is one of speech, not of the WBC. Do you hate them enough to support curbs on free speech that will affect countless others just to kick their ass? Or is there a better way of opposing them?

Filing an amicus brief in this case is in support of speech, not of WBC. bfgrn posted a link to the actual court documents earlier in the thread, go see for yourself just how supportive they are of the con artists at WBC. However it's the principle that matters at this level, where wide-reaching precedent that will affect us all is made. Not the players.

Don't make the mistake chanel is making and let your hatred blind you to the real issues. You don't have to agree with me, you may think it's worth it. But you're not ignorant.

 

[chanel]

Sorry I goldcatt but this is a message board where people discuss controversial subjects that they feel strongly about. Welcome to the internet,

In fact, I'm going to try bumping this thread so as many people as possible will learn. The media has become the new ACLU. Reporting the news is secondary to advancing an agenda.

I'll look later to see how many of these "friends' have reported on their new friendship. Its certainly newsworthy.

 

[goldcatt]

Sorry I goldcatt but this is a message board where people discuss controversial subjects that they feel strongly about. Welcome to the internet,

In fact, I'm going to try bumping this thread so as many people as possible will learn. The media has become the new ACLU. Reporting the news is secondary to advancing an agenda.

I'll look later to see how many of these "friends' have reported on their new friendship. Its certainly newsworthy.

You do that.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No I haven't but a judge in a lower court ruled in the fathers favor. And the appeals court not only over ruled but is forcing him to pay legal costs which they did not need to do. It was not a "frivolous case" obviously if it is going to the Supreme Court. Those newspaper could have let the judges decide the case on its own merit. But they chose to assist the scumbags. That should be news, but of course that might damage their rep. You wanna side with hate - then own it.

There are limits to hate speech. As there should be. They can always take an ad out in the NYT I heard they need the money.

Were they advocating violence or criminal activity? If not, they did not violate any limits on free speech. Rolling Thunder will show up at any military funeral if they think WBC will be there, and the counter protests are much better attended than anything WBC is able to mount.

You are correct that the WBC are scumbags, but they also have the right to speak.

 

[Madeline]

No I haven't but a judge in a lower court ruled in the fathers favor. And the appeals court not only over ruled but is forcing him to pay legal costs which they did not need to do. It was not a "frivolous case" obviously if it is going to the Supreme Court. Those newspaper could have let the judges decide the case on its own merit. But they chose to assist the scumbags. That should be news, but of course that might damage their rep. You wanna side with hate - then own it.

There are limits to hate speech. As there should be. They can always take an ad out in the NYT I heard they need the money.

What "limits to hate speech" should there be, chanel, apart from the US constitution?

Good grief, you were wrong. Ain't the end of the world, woman...we have all got massive reaction to Fred Phelps and his minions. But canca just admit when you have made a mistake?

 

[Madeline]

Sorry I goldcatt but this is a message board where people discuss controversial subjects that they feel strongly about. Welcome to the internet,

In fact, I'm going to try bumping this thread so as many people as possible will learn. The media has become the new ACLU. Reporting the news is secondary to advancing an agenda.

I'll look later to see how many of these "friends' have reported on their new friendship. Its certainly newsworthy.

You do that.

For God's sake chanel, it's been all over the news for fuck's sake. Take your head outta your ass already. You are NOT ALONE in despising the WBC.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/09/us/09scotus.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=westboro&st=nyt

 

[chanel]

No I haven't but a judge in a lower court ruled in the fathers favor. And the appeals court not only over ruled but is forcing him to pay legal costs which they did not need to do. It was not a "frivolous case" obviously if it is going to the Supreme Court. Those newspaper could have let the judges decide the case on its own merit. But they chose to assist the scumbags. That should be news, but of course that might damage their rep. You wanna side with hate - then own it.

There are limits to hate speech. As there should be. They can always take an ad out in the NYT I heard they need the money.

What "limits to hate speech" should there be, chanel, apart from the US constitution?

Good grief, you were wrong. Ain't the end of the world, woman...we have all got massive reaction to Fred Phelps and his minions. But canca just admit when you have made a mistake?

I only made as big a mistake as the judge who ruled in his favor the first time. And it is doubtful that this will be a unanimous decision, so I am willing to be as "wrong" as the justices who will dissent. I have only made as big a mistake as the legislators who have voted almost unanimously to "limit their hate speech".

The limits could set a parameter outside the church and gravesite.

Free speech zones (also known as First Amendment Zones, Free speech cages, and Protest zones) are areas set aside in public places for political activists to exercise their right of free speech in the United States. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution states that "Congress shall make no law... abridging... the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." The existence of free speech zones is based on U.S. court decisions stipulating that the government may regulate the time, place, and manner—but not content—of expression.

Free speech zone - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In response to the protests conducted by Westboro members at Indiana funerals, a bill was introduced in the Indiana General Assembly that would make it a felony to protest within 500 feet (approximately 150 meters) of a funeral. The bill provides penalties of up to three years in prison and a $10,000 fine for those found to be in violation of the law. Shortly before this bill was signed members of the church had threatened to protest in Kokomo, Indiana, at a funeral service that was being held for a soldier who was killed in Iraq. On January 11, 2006 the bill unanimously (11–0) passed a committee vote,[67] and while members of the church had traveled to Kokomo to protest, they were not seen during or after the funeral service.

South Dakota adopted similar legislation. WBC has expressed its intention to contest such laws, and if victorious collect damages while the Phelps Chartered law firm collects attorney's fees under the Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Award Act of 1976.

On May 23, 2006 the state of Michigan banned any intentional disruption of funerals within 500 feet of the ceremony. Violating the statute would be a felony, punishable by up to two years in prison and a $5,000 fine for the first offense and up to four years in prison and a $10,000 fine for a subsequent offense.[68]

On May 17, 2006 the state of Illinois enacted Senate Bill 1144, the "Let Them Rest In Peace Act", to shield grieving military families from protests during funerals and memorial services of fallen soldiers. A first-time violation of the Act is a Class C misdemeanor, punishable by up to 30 days in jail and a $1,500 fine and a Class 4 felony for a second or subsequent offense, which is punishable by one to three years in state prison and a fine of up to $25,000.[69]

On May 29, 2006, President George W. Bush signed into law the Respect for America's Fallen Heroes Act (Pub.L. 109-228), prohibiting protests within 300 feet (90 m) of the entrance of any cemetery under control of the National Cemetery Administration from 60 minutes before to 60 minutes after a funeral.[70] Penalties for violating the act are up to $100,000 in fines and up to one year imprisonment.[70] The bill garnered overwhelming bipartisan support in Congress with a 408–3 vote in the House, with 21 not voting, and a unanimous vote in the Senate.[70]

On March 8, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in Snyder v. Phelps, (Docket No. 09-751, March 8, 2010).[91] On May 28, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, joined by 42 other Senators, filed an amicus brief in support of Snyder with the Supreme Court. On June 1, Kansas Attorney General Stephen Six filed a separate brief supporting Snyder. This brief was joined by the Attorneys General of 47 other states and the District of Columbia, with Maine and Virginia being the two exceptions.[92][93]

The federal government and 47 attorney generals are siding with the Snyders. The media is siding with WBBC. Despicable.

Westboro Baptist Church - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[daveman]

The case could be made that the media orgs are coming down on the side of free speech, nothing more...but I doubt they would do so for, say, a group of Young Republicans suing Berkeley.

 

[goldcatt]

I'm not surprised the best you can comprehend is a cherry-picked blurb from wiki, and consider it more valuable and meaningful than the actual documents from the court - which of course you probably still haven't read and couldn't understand if you did. They use multisyllabic words that don't drip with hate, fear and shame after all. Classic chanel.

The parties are aligning with their interests in the speech issue, as is usual in these cases. Government and law enforcement want more power and control over private speech, private entities want them to have less. It's the classic tension in a system such as ours, and exactly the kind of issue the court exists to address. This same scenario has been playing out with different players and facts for more than two centuries now, regardless of party or ideology. Unlike you, most people know there are principles bigger and more all-encompassing than snarking at the opposition through the bottom of the bottle.

The really sad part is, these same people are fighting for your right to speak as much as anyone else's. They know you hate, fear, and loathe them but they'll do it anyway. And you know what? So would I. Even though I despise the ignorance and hackery your posts stand for. Because it's about the principle, not the people. Something you will probably never comprehend.

Nice job, per usual. Keep on bumping. It's amusing.

 

[mudwhistle]

Gee, chanel, I have read up on this and all that seems to be fueling anyone is a desire to preserve the right to freedom of speech and freedom of association. That almost always means defending speech which is repugnant, and none of these groups is defending the message of the Westboro Church. The willingness of lefty organizations to step up and defend the rights of those they find utterly repulsive should be a reason to applaud them, not criticize them.

I think you have better critical thinking skills than this. Did you also think the whole ACLU supported the Nazis when they defended their rights?

The right to freedom of speech seems to be a great way for folks to rub shit in our faces.

The building of a mosque close to ground zero has been proposed. Sept 12th is Six Flags "Muslim Day". This is defended as freedom of speech.

The release of the existence of thousands of intelligence contractors with security clearances, their locations on a detailed map....etc.. Who needs spies when you have liberal journalists writing articles in effect exposing sensitive information for the whole world to see. Treason is now a passe term.

When I was in Kuwait years ago a Kuwaiti intelligence officer told me that our freedoms and our liberals would destroy this country. I think this is coming to fruition.

Libs tend to defend everyone's right to be an asshole. I think this must be preserved...but when those freedoms become damaging....when people get hurt as a result a line must be drawn somewhere.

 

[chanel]

The case could be made that the media orgs are coming down on the side of free speech, nothing more...but I doubt they would do so for, say, a group of Young Republicans suing Berkeley.

Of course not. And these are the same folks who have no problem with banning military recruiters at Harvard and as mud pointed out: giving the enemy troop locations in the name of "freedom of the press".

So it makes one wonder if this is really about free speech or something more sinister. Having no faith in the MSM, I will side with the decent people on the other side of the issue. The "wrong" ones.

 

[Smartt33]

Some people just can't see that it far more than a speech issue. If it were just that, then I would be able to go into the schools where I work and tell the kids about Jesus because I have free speech. According to the way this case is going, I should also win the case.

They can go somewhere else and say what they are saying, they are not just speaking, they are "behaving" in a way that is innappropriate. The speech issue is hiding the fact that these idiots are butting in n a very private part of people's lives, the funerals of a loved one.

These people need to keep their hate stuff on their website, or maybe in a protest somewhere where it does not interfere with the lves of people in a grieving situation. These people are just plain old sick, and the media plays on headlines, not truth, ot morality, or goo or facts. The media needs to just slam these people, not for their speech, but for their hateful behavrior.

If they win, I believe I can share the Gospel anywhere anytime because it is not about religion, it is about free speech!!!!!!!!!!!

I believe speech does not need to be done in places where harm is caused, period.

 

[Care4all]

Chanel/smart, etc.

This is NOT more than a free speech issue for the RIGHT WING and LEFT WING media that are objecting to this original ruling.

The father filing this suit, NEVER HEARD OR SAW Fred Phelps/westboro Baptist Church members protesting or saying all of those evil things while the funeral service for his son was going on....they had their funeral service and burial in PEACE.

The father and family of this poor dead soldier was not disturbed at all by this group during their personal moment of burying their son, according to the Father and the father's suit.

(Please Read the DETAILS of this case)

the Father, AFTER SEEING media reports about the scumbag Phelps being there is when the Father found out about the Phelps shenanigans at his son's burial....and is when he then googled this Phelps jerk on the internet and found out the disgusting things the westboro Baptist church members were saying.

Phelps and his minions were 100 yards away, out of sight and hearing of the family burying their son....the legal distance that the permit for protesting he got from the town required.

The concern of BOTH the right wing and left wing Press, is the precedence that the lower court's decision would set....which would involve the press's ability to report on actual happenings of negative consequence....by being limited in their free press/first amendment rights to report on people like Fred Phelps....since it was ONLY the reporting of such incidence, that made the Father file suit, AND NOT from the Father being disturbed at his son's burial.

This precedence and ruling, would affect all future cases of reporting and essentially prevent any reporting in the future.....it would limit the the press from reporting any type of similar instance of actual disturbances that are taking place....THIS BREAKS their constitutional rights, to a free press without government interference.

Care

 

[Care4all]

the Hearst corporation, the scripps company, bloomberg news and perhaps even the AP who are paid by both left and right wing news media ARE NOT LEFT WING????

The lies from your right wing media source, are influencing your wrong view of the truth....

 

[chanel]

Wrong view of the truth? C'mon care. Are 47 states filing an amicus brief on behalf of the Snyders because they hate free speech or simply like to side with "wrong"?

Being "right" on a message board is far less important to me than being on the right side of decency. In fact, being "right" by the standards here, are of no consequence to me whatsoever.

The MSM has become more about ideology than journalism and smart business.They are becoming irrelevant. No wonder Fox News is #1.

 

[Care4all]

Wrong view of the truth? C'mon care. Are 47 states filing an amicus brief on behalf of the Snyders because they hate free speech or simply like to side with "wrong"?

Being "right" on a message board is far less important to me than being on the right side of decency. In fact, being "right" by the standards here, are of no consequence to me whatsoever.

The MSM has become more about ideology than journalism and smart business.They are becoming irrelevant. No wonder Fox News is #1.

Chanel, why IGNORE the facts that I posted right above my last post on this thread? What are you trying to GAIN by ignoring the fact that westboro baptsist were NEVER SCENE OR HEARD by the man filing this lawsuit? And ignore the FACT that these RIGHT WING MEDIA SOURCES FOR THE MOST PART, are only fighting for the Press's right to publish what they see.

the father of this man, ONLY SAW the westboro baptists from the news media that covered them, NEVER SAW THEM at his son's funeral.....so this means he and his family were able to lay their son to rest in PEACE.

Keeping the media from reporting on what goes on, is breaking their right to a free press....and THIS IS THE RESULT of the lawsuit's decision in their opinion.

the right wing Bloomberg, Hearst corp, Scripps Company etc ALL DISAGREE with the actions of westboro Baptsit Church and Fred Phelps, but they are fighting for their constitutional right of the free press, to be able to REPORT was asses like fred phelps do.

YOU are SO OFF BASE on this it isn't even funny...

And ALL for political posturing? Shame on you. shame on you for saying this was the liberal press, shame on YOU for making up lies and saying it was the liberal press that just hates the Military doing this....!!!

FOR GOODNESS SAKES girl!!!! Holy Moly, mother of God!!!!

READ THE CASE, inform your self, instead of mouthing off these partisan bits of pure garbage!

Care

 

[chanel]

Why has there been almost unanimous support for the Snyders from the federal government and the states? Have they not read the case? (Of course that's entirely possible...)

OMG! Someone is wrong on the internet!!! I'll own that. Just as hate group supporters should own that too.