What the SC/Westboro protest decision REALLY means

[bucs90]

This decision was unfortunately the right one, but it does exactly what Westboro wants- piss more people off at them.

Here is what it REALLY means:

It has nothing to do with right, left, Dem, GOP. In my former job in law enforcement, I was unfortunate enough to have to protect these dirtbags at one of their protests. And here is their little secret: They are all lawyers.

Yep. In the pre-ops briefing, several command brass of local depts were on hand, and did in depth research on these Westboro scum. Part of the requirement of being a member of their "church" is that upon turning 18 one must enroll and complete law school at a nearby college. They are all lawyers, know the law VERY well, and keep updated on the law VERY well.

Their plot is to go city to city, trying to provoke people. They call in advance to the local city police dept. They request protection as they say "We know our free speech could draw violence towards us, thus, you must protect us". They make that request on public record, and then if ANYTHING happens to them, they sue the city and police dept for failing to protect them.

Police, in response, are allowed to assign them a protest location, HOWEVER, Westboro gets to request what general area. For example, they want to do a funeral, the police can only limit them to the closest public space to that funeral. So the police try to limit them to a location in which they'll have as little impact as possible. The police tell them "Due to limited manpower, we can only guarantee protection if you follow our ops-plan, so we can pre-plan this event and ensure the most protection possible. If you stray from our pre-planned ops plan, then we can't guarantee your safety.

So, Westboro does it. They follow the police plan. In fact, they distrust even the police. When they leave, they only leave in a rental car. And they have several rental cars parked throughout a county at public spaces. So as police escort them away from the site, they go about and seperate into several rented cars and scatter, until they are no longer being "escorted" by highway patrolmen. They then check into their undisclosed hotel (Courageous of them, right?)

And thats their plan. Provoke the people. Demand city protection. Then sue if anything happens.

They are all lawyers.

The message? Lawyers are ruining our country.

 

[bodecea]

This decision was unfortunately the right one, but it does exactly what Westboro wants- piss more people off at them.

Here is what it REALLY means:

It has nothing to do with right, left, Dem, GOP. In my former job in law enforcement, I was unfortunate enough to have to protect these dirtbags at one of their protests. And here is their little secret: They are all lawyers.

Yep. In the pre-ops briefing, several command brass of local depts were on hand, and did in depth research on these Westboro scum. Part of the requirement of being a member of their "church" is that upon turning 18 one must enroll and complete law school at a nearby college. They are all lawyers, know the law VERY well, and keep updated on the law VERY well.

Their plot is to go city to city, trying to provoke people. They call in advance to the local city police dept. They request protection as they say "We know our free speech could draw violence towards us, thus, you must protect us". They make that request on public record, and then if ANYTHING happens to them, they sue the city and police dept for failing to protect them.

Police, in response, are allowed to assign them a protest location, HOWEVER, Westboro gets to request what general area. For example, they want to do a funeral, the police can only limit them to the closest public space to that funeral. So the police try to limit them to a location in which they'll have as little impact as possible. The police tell them "Due to limited manpower, we can only guarantee protection if you follow our ops-plan, so we can pre-plan this event and ensure the most protection possible. If you stray from our pre-planned ops plan, then we can't guarantee your safety.

So, Westboro does it. They follow the police plan. In fact, they distrust even the police. When they leave, they only leave in a rental car. And they have several rental cars parked throughout a county at public spaces. So as police escort them away from the site, they go about and seperate into several rented cars and scatter, until they are no longer being "escorted" by highway patrolmen. They then check into their undisclosed hotel (Courageous of them, right?)

And thats their plan. Provoke the people. Demand city protection. Then sue if anything happens.

They are all lawyers.

The message? Lawyers are ruining our country.

Yes, they are scum and they are lawyers...but since you think lawyers are ruining our country, I'm sure you will never resort to using one.

 

[bucs90]

This decision was unfortunately the right one, but it does exactly what Westboro wants- piss more people off at them.

Here is what it REALLY means:

It has nothing to do with right, left, Dem, GOP. In my former job in law enforcement, I was unfortunate enough to have to protect these dirtbags at one of their protests. And here is their little secret: They are all lawyers.

Yep. In the pre-ops briefing, several command brass of local depts were on hand, and did in depth research on these Westboro scum. Part of the requirement of being a member of their "church" is that upon turning 18 one must enroll and complete law school at a nearby college. They are all lawyers, know the law VERY well, and keep updated on the law VERY well.

Their plot is to go city to city, trying to provoke people. They call in advance to the local city police dept. They request protection as they say "We know our free speech could draw violence towards us, thus, you must protect us". They make that request on public record, and then if ANYTHING happens to them, they sue the city and police dept for failing to protect them.

Police, in response, are allowed to assign them a protest location, HOWEVER, Westboro gets to request what general area. For example, they want to do a funeral, the police can only limit them to the closest public space to that funeral. So the police try to limit them to a location in which they'll have as little impact as possible. The police tell them "Due to limited manpower, we can only guarantee protection if you follow our ops-plan, so we can pre-plan this event and ensure the most protection possible. If you stray from our pre-planned ops plan, then we can't guarantee your safety.

So, Westboro does it. They follow the police plan. In fact, they distrust even the police. When they leave, they only leave in a rental car. And they have several rental cars parked throughout a county at public spaces. So as police escort them away from the site, they go about and seperate into several rented cars and scatter, until they are no longer being "escorted" by highway patrolmen. They then check into their undisclosed hotel (Courageous of them, right?)

And thats their plan. Provoke the people. Demand city protection. Then sue if anything happens.

They are all lawyers.

The message? Lawyers are ruining our country.

Yes, they are scum and they are lawyers...but since you think lawyers are ruining our country, I'm sure you will never resort to using one.

I hope not. And maybe I should clarify. Tort lawyers are ruining our country. Criminal prosecution and defense lawyers aren't nearly as bad. They exist solely because we must have them for our criminal justice system.

Ambulance chasers, tort lawyers, Westboro types who are hunting for a lawsuit....those types of dirt bags are ruining our country. They aren't right, left, Dem or GOP. They're just people with no souls. There is a special place in hell for people like Westboro.......and for people who kick puppies.

 

[Ravi]

If you can't blame the Joooooooos, blame the lawyers!

 

[Momanohedhunter]

This decision was unfortunately the right one, but it does exactly what Westboro wants- piss more people off at them.

Here is what it REALLY means:

It has nothing to do with right, left, Dem, GOP. In my former job in law enforcement, I was unfortunate enough to have to protect these dirtbags at one of their protests. And here is their little secret: They are all lawyers.

Yep. In the pre-ops briefing, several command brass of local depts were on hand, and did in depth research on these Westboro scum. Part of the requirement of being a member of their "church" is that upon turning 18 one must enroll and complete law school at a nearby college. They are all lawyers, know the law VERY well, and keep updated on the law VERY well.

Their plot is to go city to city, trying to provoke people. They call in advance to the local city police dept. They request protection as they say "We know our free speech could draw violence towards us, thus, you must protect us". They make that request on public record, and then if ANYTHING happens to them, they sue the city and police dept for failing to protect them.

Police, in response, are allowed to assign them a protest location, HOWEVER, Westboro gets to request what general area. For example, they want to do a funeral, the police can only limit them to the closest public space to that funeral. So the police try to limit them to a location in which they'll have as little impact as possible. The police tell them "Due to limited manpower, we can only guarantee protection if you follow our ops-plan, so we can pre-plan this event and ensure the most protection possible. If you stray from our pre-planned ops plan, then we can't guarantee your safety.

So, Westboro does it. They follow the police plan. In fact, they distrust even the police. When they leave, they only leave in a rental car. And they have several rental cars parked throughout a county at public spaces. So as police escort them away from the site, they go about and seperate into several rented cars and scatter, until they are no longer being "escorted" by highway patrolmen. They then check into their undisclosed hotel (Courageous of them, right?)

And thats their plan. Provoke the people. Demand city protection. Then sue if anything happens.

They are all lawyers.

The message? Lawyers are ruining our country.

They are evil geniuses for sure. That they carefully study the law is no surprise. I also find it curious that that call them selves a Baptist church. It looks like they dont post there Church bylaws. Thats odd considering most other churches do post them on line. The best thing to do is ignore them.

 

[konradv]

What the decision REALLY means is that carefully crafted laws need to be written about what's permissible at a funeral to balance privacy and free speech rights. I heard that a big part of the decision involved the fact that there was no such law that the WBC had broken. Apparently, a law could be crafted that would pass Constitutional muster, like a buffer zone, for example. It's not like anyone's preventing the WBC from speaking, only where and when. It happens all the time and is permitted by the 1st Amendment in the "right of the people peaceably to assemble" clause, which has been interpreted to mean NOT that people may assemble wherever and whenever they please, but that the government has a vested interest in the logistics in the name of "peaceful assembly". IMO, a good case can be made for the WBC's "disturbing the peace", but first the law must be written.

 

[Momanohedhunter]

What the decision REALLY means is that carefully crafted laws need to be written about what's permissible at a funeral to balance privacy and free speech rights. I heard that a big part of the decision involved the fact that there was no such law that the WBC had broken. Apparently, a law could be crafted that would pass Constitutional muster, like a buffer zone, for example. It's not like anyone's preventing the WBC from speaking, only where and when. It happens all the time and is permitted by the 1st Amendment in the "right of the people peaceably to assemble" clause, which has been interpreted to mean NOT that people may assemble wherever and whenever they please, but that the government has a vested interest in the logistics in the name of "peaceful assembly". IMO, a good case can be made for the WBC's "disturbing the peace", but first the law must be written.

Doesn't the Govt do this for the President ?

 

[Ravi]

What the decision REALLY means is that carefully crafted laws need to be written about what's permissible at a funeral to balance privacy and free speech rights. I heard that a big part of the decision involved the fact that there was no such law that the WBC had broken. Apparently, a law could be crafted that would pass Constitutional muster, like a buffer zone, for example. It's not like anyone's preventing the WBC from speaking, only where and when. It happens all the time and is permitted by the 1st Amendment in the "right of the people peaceably to assemble" clause, which has been interpreted to mean NOT that people may assemble wherever and whenever they please, but that the government has a vested interest in the logistics in the name of "peaceful assembly". IMO, a good case can be made for the WBC's "disturbing the peace", but first the law must be written.

There is a buffer zone already...they are not allowed on private property without an invitation. They are allowed on public property however.

 

[Big Black Dog]

How anything that the Westboro Church is doing can be even remotely related to Christianity is beyond me.

 

[konradv]

What the decision REALLY means is that carefully crafted laws need to be written about what's permissible at a funeral to balance privacy and free speech rights. I heard that a big part of the decision involved the fact that there was no such law that the WBC had broken. Apparently, a law could be crafted that would pass Constitutional muster, like a buffer zone, for example. It's not like anyone's preventing the WBC from speaking, only where and when. It happens all the time and is permitted by the 1st Amendment in the "right of the people peaceably to assemble" clause, which has been interpreted to mean NOT that people may assemble wherever and whenever they please, but that the government has a vested interest in the logistics in the name of "peaceful assembly". IMO, a good case can be made for the WBC's "disturbing the peace", but first the law must be written.

There is a buffer zone already...they are not allowed on private property without an invitation. They are allowed on public property however.

Apparently not enough of one. The fact that they're on public property doesn't prevent a carefully crafted law from being paased that would remove them from public property adjacent to the ceremonies in question. It's done for the President and other dignitaries. All we need to do is include everyone else.

 

[Momanohedhunter]

What the decision REALLY means is that carefully crafted laws need to be written about what's permissible at a funeral to balance privacy and free speech rights. I heard that a big part of the decision involved the fact that there was no such law that the WBC had broken. Apparently, a law could be crafted that would pass Constitutional muster, like a buffer zone, for example. It's not like anyone's preventing the WBC from speaking, only where and when. It happens all the time and is permitted by the 1st Amendment in the "right of the people peaceably to assemble" clause, which has been interpreted to mean NOT that people may assemble wherever and whenever they please, but that the government has a vested interest in the logistics in the name of "peaceful assembly". IMO, a good case can be made for the WBC's "disturbing the peace", but first the law must be written.

There is a buffer zone already...they are not allowed on private property without an invitation. They are allowed on public property however.

GW Bush got an 800 foot buffer. Obama gets a 1200 foot buffer both on public property. There are all kinds of ways to shut them down that are legal. It will be up to the city and towns to deal with them.

 

[Ravi]

What the decision REALLY means is that carefully crafted laws need to be written about what's permissible at a funeral to balance privacy and free speech rights. I heard that a big part of the decision involved the fact that there was no such law that the WBC had broken. Apparently, a law could be crafted that would pass Constitutional muster, like a buffer zone, for example. It's not like anyone's preventing the WBC from speaking, only where and when. It happens all the time and is permitted by the 1st Amendment in the "right of the people peaceably to assemble" clause, which has been interpreted to mean NOT that people may assemble wherever and whenever they please, but that the government has a vested interest in the logistics in the name of "peaceful assembly". IMO, a good case can be made for the WBC's "disturbing the peace", but first the law must be written.

There is a buffer zone already...they are not allowed on private property without an invitation. They are allowed on public property however.

Apparently not enough of one. The fact that they're on public property doesn't prevent a carefully crafted law from being paased that would remove them from public property adjacent to the ceremonies in question. It's done for the President and other dignitaries. All we need to do is include everyone else.

Good luck with that. With the President it is a safety issue. Unless and until these dimwits are physically threatening anyone they are free to assemble and make ugly remarks.

 

[konradv]

There is a buffer zone already...they are not allowed on private property without an invitation. They are allowed on public property however.

Apparently not enough of one. The fact that they're on public property doesn't prevent a carefully crafted law from being paased that would remove them from public property adjacent to the ceremonies in question. It's done for the President and other dignitaries. All we need to do is include everyone else.

Good luck with that. With the President it is a safety issue. Unless and until these dimwits are physically threatening anyone they are free to assemble and make ugly remarks.

Not if there's a law backing them off. It's NOT a "free speech" issue. It's a "public safety" issue. They are free to speak at designated times and places, just like any other political organization. Can the Tea party hold a major rally without the proper permits being in order? We don't need luck, just legislators willing to introduce the legislstion. One big aspect of this whole discussion that's getting missed is that the SC left things open for just such a law.

 

[Momanohedhunter]

Apparently not enough of one. The fact that they're on public property doesn't prevent a carefully crafted law from being paased that would remove them from public property adjacent to the ceremonies in question. It's done for the President and other dignitaries. All we need to do is include everyone else.

Good luck with that. With the President it is a safety issue. Unless and until these dimwits are physically threatening anyone they are free to assemble and make ugly remarks.

Not if there's a law backing them off. It's NOT a "free speech" issue. It's a "public safety" issue. They are free to speak at designated times and places, just like any other political organization. Can the Tea party hold a major rally without the proper permits being in order? We don't need luck, just legislators willing to introduce the legislstion. One big aspect of this whole discussion that's getting missed is that the SC left things open for just such a law.

Couldn't cops or fire officials shut down or move back a gathering for "safety issues"?

 

[AquaAthena]

The Westboro Baptist Church (WBC) is an independent Baptist church known for its extreme stance against homosexuality [1] and its protest activities, which include picketing funerals and desecrating the American flag.[2] The church is widely described as a hate group [3] and is monitored as such by the Anti-Defamation League and Southern Poverty Law Center. It is headed by Fred Phelps and consists mostly of members of his large family;[4] in 2007, it had 71 members.[5] The church is headquartered in a residential neighborhood on the west side of Topeka about three miles west of the Kansas State Capitol at 3701 West 12th Street, Topeka, Kansas, United States. Its first public service was held on the afternoon of Sunday, November 27, 1955.[6]

The church has been actively involved in the anti-gay movement since at least 1991 when it sought a crackdown on homosexual activity at Gage Park about a mile northwest of the church.[7] In addition to anti-gay protests at military funerals, the organization pickets other celebrity funerals that are likely to get it media attention.[8]

The WBC is not affiliated with any known Baptist conventions or associations. The church describes itself as following Primitive Baptist and Calvinist principles,[9] though mainstream Primitive Baptists reject the WBC and Phelps.[10]

Westboro Baptist Church - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Ravi]

Apparently not enough of one. The fact that they're on public property doesn't prevent a carefully crafted law from being paased that would remove them from public property adjacent to the ceremonies in question. It's done for the President and other dignitaries. All we need to do is include everyone else.

Good luck with that. With the President it is a safety issue. Unless and until these dimwits are physically threatening anyone they are free to assemble and make ugly remarks.

Not if there's a law backing them off. It's NOT a "free speech" issue. It's a "public safety" issue. They are free to speak at designated times and places, just like any other political organization. Can the Tea party hold a major rally without the proper permits being in order? We don't need luck, just legislators willing to introduce the legislstion. One big aspect of this whole discussion that's getting missed is that the SC left things open for just such a law.

I don't see it as a public safety issue..they are not committing any violence and they are not committing any crimes. Any ordinance that would restrict their ability would also restrict everyone's ability.

Unless there is a compelling reason to suspend some group's rights then there should be no suspension of rights.

Being offensive to the majority is NOT a compelling reason.

 

[Care4all]

Mr Snyder DID NOT SEE OR HEAR the scummy protesters at his son's funeral.

You all know this, don't you? Mr. Snyder only knew they were there and what they said, because he saw it on the News, covering it.....he saw it on tv, later that evening when someone called him and told him to watch it.

repeat: He did not see one protester or hear one protester at the funeral.


Soooo, this being the case....what is the true complaint? Not to have the News Channels cover the story so their protest can't be viewed on the News?

 

[konradv]

Good luck with that. With the President it is a safety issue. Unless and until these dimwits are physically threatening anyone they are free to assemble and make ugly remarks.

Not if there's a law backing them off. It's NOT a "free speech" issue. It's a "public safety" issue. They are free to speak at designated times and places, just like any other political organization. Can the Tea party hold a major rally without the proper permits being in order? We don't need luck, just legislators willing to introduce the legislstion. One big aspect of this whole discussion that's getting missed is that the SC left things open for just such a law.

I don't see it as a public safety issue..they are not committing any violence and they are not committing any crimes. Any ordinance that would restrict their ability would also restrict everyone's ability.

Unless there is a compelling reason to suspend some group's rights then there should be no suspension of rights.

Being offensive to the majority is NOT a compelling reason.

Then what's the compelling reason for any politcal rally be it Dems, Reps, Nazis or Commies to be forced to apply for permits and follow local safety regulations? When it's put on that stance and construed narrowly and specifically, I don't see how 1st amendment would apply, if it didn't also apply to the aforementioned parties. Their freedom of speech isn't being violated, anymore than limting where and when someone may hold a generic political rally.

 

[dilloduck]

How anything that the Westboro Church is doing can be even remotely related to Christianity is beyond me.

CINOs---there are a lot of them.

 

[Care4all]

Not if there's a law backing them off. It's NOT a "free speech" issue. It's a "public safety" issue. They are free to speak at designated times and places, just like any other political organization. Can the Tea party hold a major rally without the proper permits being in order? We don't need luck, just legislators willing to introduce the legislstion. One big aspect of this whole discussion that's getting missed is that the SC left things open for just such a law.

I don't see it as a public safety issue..they are not committing any violence and they are not committing any crimes. Any ordinance that would restrict their ability would also restrict everyone's ability.

Unless there is a compelling reason to suspend some group's rights then there should be no suspension of rights.

Being offensive to the majority is NOT a compelling reason.

Then what's the compelling reason for any politcal rally be it Dems, Reps, Nazis or Commies to be forced to apply for permits and follow local safety regulations? When it's put on that stance and construed narrowly and specifically, I don't see how 1st amendment would apply, if it didn't also apply to the aforementioned parties. Their freedom of speech isn't being violated, anymore than limting where and when someone may hold a generic political rally.

Kon...

the local gvt DID LIMIT the location of the scummy protesters....they positioned them in a place where NO ONE at the funeral even knew they were there....no one at the funeral saw them or heard them.....

What more do you want the local authorities to do, that they did not do?