Total Posts:18|Showing Posts:1-18
Jump to topic:

Anti-Phellps Petition

lannan13
Posts: 23,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2012 7:23:53 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I'm starting a petition to ban the Phellps from Kansas/U.S.A. They go around picketing dead soldiers funerals and Say, "Thank God for dead soldiers." they also say, "Obama is the anti-Christ, God hates Faggs." and other horrible things. They even have children involved in doing this.
1. Lannan13
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

If the sky's the limit then why do we have footprints on the Moon? I'm shooting my aspirations for the stars.

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

Topics I want to debate. (http://tinyurl.com...)
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
lannan13
Posts: 23,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2012 7:28:04 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
But Freedom of speech goes to the extemt of offensive words. So it's prooven what the Phellps do is illegal.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

If the sky's the limit then why do we have footprints on the Moon? I'm shooting my aspirations for the stars.

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

Topics I want to debate. (http://tinyurl.com...)
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2012 7:29:48 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/16/2012 7:28:04 AM, lannan13 wrote:
But Freedom of speech goes to the extemt of offensive words. So it's prooven what the Phellps do is illegal.

LOL, that is completely false.

National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page.
This article needs additional citations for verification. (October 2010)
This article includes a list of references, related reading or external links, but its sources remain unclear because it lacks inline citations. (December 2009)
This article may contain original research. (October 2010)
National Socialist Party v. Skokie
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided June 14, 1977
Full case name National Socialist Party of America et al. v. Village of Skokie
Docket nos. 76-1786
Citations 432 U.S. 43 (more)
97 S. Ct. 2205; 53 L. Ed. 2d 96; 1977 U.S. LEXIS 113; 2 Media L. Rep. 1993
Holding
If a state seeks to impose an injunction in violation of First Amendment rights, it must provide strict procedural safeguards, including immediate appellate review. Absent such review, a stay must be granted.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Warren E. Burger
Associate Justices
William J. Brennan, Jr. · Potter Stewart
Byron White · Thurgood Marshall
Harry Blackmun · Lewis F. Powell, Jr.
William Rehnquist · John P. Stevens
Case opinions
Per curiam.
Concur/dissent White
Dissent Rehnquist, joined by Burger, Stewart
Laws applied
First Amendment of the United States Constitution

National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie, 432 U.S. 43 (1977) (also known as Smith v. Collin; sometimes referred to as the Skokie Affair), was a United States Supreme Court case dealing with freedom of assembly.
Contents

1 Purpose of the Case
2 Prior History
3 Effect of the Decision
4 See also
5 References
6 External links

Purpose of the Case

In 1977 the leader of National Socialist Party of America, Frank Collin announced the party's intention to march through the largely Jewish community of Skokie, Illinois where one in six residents was a Holocaust survivor. Originally, the NSPA had planned a political rally in Marquette Park in Chicago; however the Chicago authorities thwarted these plans, first, by requiring the NSPA post an onerous public-safety-insurance bond, then, by banning all political demonstrations in Marquette Park.

On behalf of the NSPA the ACLU challenged the injunction issued by the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois prohibiting marchers at the proposed Skokie rally from wearing Nazi uniforms or displaying swastikas. The ACLU was represented by civil rights attorney Burton Joseph.[1][2] The challengers argued that the injunction violated the First Amendment rights of the marchers to express themselves freely.
Prior History

Both the Illinois Appellate Court and the Illinois Supreme Court refused to stay the injunction. The case was then sent to the Supreme Court.

On June 14, 1977, the Supreme Court ordered Illinois to hold a hearing on their ruling against the National Socialist Party of America, emphasizing that "[i]f a State seeks to impose a restraint [on First Amendment rights], it must provide strict procedural safeguards, including immediate appellate review...Absent such review, the State must instead allow a stay. The order of the Illinois Supreme Court constituted a denial of that right." On remand, the Illinois Appellate Court eliminated the injunction against everything but the swastika, and the Illinois Supreme Court heard the case yet again, this time focusing on the First Amendment implications of the swastika. Skokie attorneys argued that for Holocaust survivors, seeing the swastika was just like being physically attacked.

The Illinois Supreme Court allowed the National Socialist Party of America to march when it ruled that the use of the swastika is a symbolic form of free speech entitled to First Amendment protections and determined that the swastika itself did not constitute "fighting words."[3]
Effect of the Decision

Ultimately NSPA failed to carry through its intention (at the last minute, Chicago relented and they marched there instead). In the summer of 1978 in response to the Supreme Court's decision, some Holocaust survivors set up a museum on Main Street to commemorate those who had died in the concentration camps.

In the 1980 comedy, The Blues Brothers, there is a reference to the "Illinois Nazis" demonstrating after winning their court case. Elwood Blues then runs the group off a bridge, adding them to the ever widening circle of enemies that he and Jake gather throughout the movie.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2012 7:31:30 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that a grieving father's pain over mocking protests at his Marine son's funeral must yield to First Amendment protections for free speech. All but one justice sided with a fundamentalist church that has stirred outrage with raucous demonstrations contending God is punishing the military for the nation's tolerance of homosexuality.

The 8-1 decision in favor of the Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kan., was the latest in a line of court rulings that, as Chief Justice John Roberts said in his opinion for the court, protects "even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate."

The decision ended a lawsuit by Albert Snyder, who sued church members for the emotional pain they caused by showing up at his son Matthew's funeral. As they have at hundreds of other funerals, the Westboro members held signs with provocative messages, including "Thank God for dead soldiers," `'You're Going to Hell," `'God Hates the USA/Thank God for 9/11," and one that combined the U.S. Marine Corps motto, Semper Fi, with a slur against gay men.

Justice Samuel Alito, the lone dissenter, said Snyder wanted only to "bury his son in peace." Instead, Alito said, the protesters "brutally attacked" Matthew Snyder to attract public attention. "Our profound national commitment to free and open debate is not a license for the vicious verbal assault that occurred in this case," he said.

The ruling, though, was in line with many earlier court decisions that said the First Amendment exists to protect robust debate on public issues and free expression, no matter how distasteful. A year ago, the justices struck down a federal ban on videos that show graphic violence against animals. In 1988, the court unanimously overturned a verdict for the Rev. Jerry Falwell in his libel lawsuit against Hustler magazine founder Larry Flynt over a raunchy parody ad.

What might have made this case different was that the Snyders are not celebrities or public officials but private citizens. Both Roberts and Alito agreed that the Snyders were the innocent victims of the long-running campaign by the church's pastor, the Rev. Fred Phelps, and his family members who make up most of the Westboro Baptist Church. Roberts said there was no doubt the protesters added to Albert Snyder's "already incalculable grief."

But Roberts said the frequency of the protests – and the church's practice of demonstrating against Catholics, Jews and many other groups – is an indication that Phelps and his flock were not mounting a personal attack against Snyder but expressing deeply held views on public topics.

Indeed, Matthew Snyder was not gay. But "Westboro believes that God is killing American soldiers as punishment for the nation's sinful policies," Roberts said.

"Speech is powerful. It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and – as it did here – inflict great pain. On the facts before us, we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker," Roberts said.

Snyder's reaction, at a news conference in York, Pa.: "My first thought was, eight justices don't have the common sense God gave a goat." He added, "We found out today we can no longer bury our dead in this country with dignity."

He said it was possible he would have to pay the Phelpses around $100,000, which they are seeking in legal fees, since he lost the lawsuit. The money would, in effect, finance more of the same activity he fought against, Snyder said.

Margie Phelps, a daughter of the minister and a lawyer who argued the case at the Supreme Court, said she expected the outcome. "The only surprise is that Justice Alito did not feel compelled to follow his oath," Phelps said. "We read the law. We follow the law. The only way for a different ruling is to shred the First Amendment."

She also offered her church's view of the decision. "I think it's pretty self-explanatory, but here's the core point: the wrath of God is pouring onto this land. Rather than trying to shut us up, use your platforms to tell this nation to mourn for your sins."

Veterans groups reacted to the ruling with dismay. Veterans of Foreign Wars national commander Richard L. Eubank said, "The Westboro Baptist Church may think they have won, but the VFW will continue to support community efforts to ensure no one hears their voice, because the right to free speech does not trump a family's right to mourn in private."

The picketers obeyed police instructions and stood about 1,000 feet from the Catholic church in Westminster, Md., where the funeral took place in March of 2006.

The protesters drew counter-demonstrators, as well as media coverage and a heavy police presence to maintain order. The result was a spectacle that led to altering the route of the funeral procession.

Several weeks later, Albert Snyder was surfing the Internet for tributes to his son from other soldiers and strangers when he came upon a poem on the church's website that assailed Matthew's parents for the way they brought up their son.

Soon after, Snyder filed a lawsuit accusing the Phelpses of intentionally inflicting emotional distress. He won $11 million at trial, later reduced by a judge to $5 million.

The federal appeals court in Richmond, Va., threw out the verdict and said the Constitution shielded the church members from liability. The Supreme Court agreed.

Forty-eight states, 42 U.S. senators and veterans groups had sided with Snyder, asking the court to shield funerals from the Phelps family's "psychological terrorism."

While distancing themselves from the church's message, media organizations, including The Associated Press, urged the court to side with the Phelps family because of concerns that a victory for Snyder could erode speech rights.

Roberts described the court's holding as narrow, and in a separate opinion Justice Stephen Breyer suggested that in other circumstances governments would not be "powerless to provide private individuals with necessary protection."

But in this case, Breyer said, it would be wrong to "punish Westboro for seeking to communicate its views on matters of public concern."
lannan13
Posts: 23,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2012 7:37:44 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I never knew who won that case. But no matter they were banned from the UK why do they have to be such @$$holes to us. There are two major limits on the rights to freedom of speech. First, you may not say anything that will incite violence or endanger the lives and safety of others (as someone said above, the example of crying "fire!' in a crowded movie house when none exists). Two, you may not say something knowingly false about an individual that will harm his/her reputation professionally or privately (this constitutes libel).
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

If the sky's the limit then why do we have footprints on the Moon? I'm shooting my aspirations for the stars.

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

Topics I want to debate. (http://tinyurl.com...)
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2012 7:42:12 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/16/2012 7:37:44 AM, lannan13 wrote:
I never knew who won that case. But no matter they were banned from the UK why do they have to be such @$$holes to us. There are two major limits on the rights to freedom of speech. First, you may not say anything that will incite violence or endanger the lives and safety of others (as someone said above, the example of crying "fire!' in a crowded movie house when none exists).
The Phelps family is not deliberately inciting violence, so this doesn't apply.
Two, you may not say something knowingly false about an individual that will harm his/her reputation professionally or privately (this constitutes libel).
Libel is written, and slander is spoken. The standards for convicting people for these crimes are strict. First, the statements must be false. Second, you must know that they are false. Third, they must be distributed with intent to harm the reputation of the individual.

We don't know if God hates homosexuals, but we do know that the Bible is against homosexuality. Therefore we cannot convict them because of standards 1 and 2.
lannan13
Posts: 23,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2012 7:49:51 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Phelps family is not deliberately inciting violence, so this doesn't apply.
Sure they are when they go out and insult somebody and their kids/nation/religon then they've gone too far.

Libel is written, and slander is spoken. The standards for convicting people for these crimes are strict. First, the statements must be false. Second, you must know that they are false. Third, they must be distributed with intent to harm the reputation of the individual.

We don't know if God hates homosexuals, but we do know that the Bible is against homosexuality. Therefore we cannot convict them because of standards 1 and 2.

Do we know that God was behind 9-11, no it was Al-Queda. Is Obama the anti-christ, we'd like to think so, but the Anit-christ is suppose to come out of Asia. (Putin)
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

If the sky's the limit then why do we have footprints on the Moon? I'm shooting my aspirations for the stars.

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

Topics I want to debate. (http://tinyurl.com...)
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2012 7:52:06 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/16/2012 7:49:51 AM, lannan13 wrote:
The Phelps family is not deliberately inciting violence, so this doesn't apply.
Sure they are when they go out and insult somebody and their kids/nation/religon then they've gone too far.

Insulting religion/nation is not equivalent to deliberately inciting violence. How many violent incidents have occurred as a result of their speeches? Did they reasonably expect that violence would occur if any violent incidences did occur?
Libel is written, and slander is spoken. The standards for convicting people for these crimes are strict. First, the statements must be false. Second, you must know that they are false. Third, they must be distributed with intent to harm the reputation of the individual.

We don't know if God hates homosexuals, but we do know that the Bible is against homosexuality. Therefore we cannot convict them because of standards 1 and 2.

Do we know that God was behind 9-11, no it was Al-Queda. Is Obama the anti-christ, we'd like to think so, but the Anit-christ is suppose to come out of Asia. (Putin)

What does this have to do with slander?
lannan13
Posts: 23,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2012 7:59:26 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
yes several times living in Topeka. I have seen them get egged, hit with air soft shots, and even they burned down the baptist church next to mine. Would you find it offensive if they said RP is the anti-christ, or thank RP for 9-11
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

If the sky's the limit then why do we have footprints on the Moon? I'm shooting my aspirations for the stars.

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

Topics I want to debate. (http://tinyurl.com...)
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2012 8:01:12 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/16/2012 7:59:26 AM, lannan13 wrote:
yes several times living in Topeka. I have seen them get egged, hit with air soft shots, and even they burned down the baptist church next to mine.
I think the standard is supposed to prevent riots, but can you please provide evidence that the Phelps caused these? I'd love to see the links.
Would you find it offensive if they said RP is the anti-christ, or thank RP for 9-11

Sure, but that doesn't mean I have a right to restrict their speech.
lannan13
Posts: 23,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2012 8:13:04 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
http://www.topix.com...
Fred Phelps. ... every denomination, have denounced
him as a producer of anti-gay propaganda and violence-inspiring hate speech.
http://fredphelps.com...
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

If the sky's the limit then why do we have footprints on the Moon? I'm shooting my aspirations for the stars.

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

Topics I want to debate. (http://tinyurl.com...)
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2012 8:23:23 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/16/2012 8:13:04 AM, lannan13 wrote:
http://www.topix.com...
Fred Phelps. ... every denomination, have denounced
him as a producer of anti-gay propaganda and violence-inspiring hate speech.
http://fredphelps.com...

I'm sure people have denounced him. That doesn't mean he is inciting violence on purpose.
lannan13
Posts: 23,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2012 8:28:55 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Remember on ICarly when Feddy denounced Fred. The ICarly crew was extreemly hated. (Just like Inferno) However if I dennounce you I'd get a wave of DDOers against me and a Shita load of vote bombs.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

If the sky's the limit then why do we have footprints on the Moon? I'm shooting my aspirations for the stars.

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

Topics I want to debate. (http://tinyurl.com...)
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2012 2:22:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/16/2012 8:28:55 AM, lannan13 wrote:
Remember on ICarly when Feddy denounced Fred. The ICarly crew was extreemly hated. (Just like Inferno) However if I dennounce you I'd get a wave of DDOers against me and a Shita load of vote bombs.

No, you're allowed to insult people. What the violence clause means is you can't threaten someone's life. I can insult whoever I like as long as I am not committing slander/libel.

It only counts as inciting violence is what is being said must result in a violent reaction. Such as if I told you I kidnapped your parents and I was holding them in location x, that would cause a violent and provoked reaction to you as you attempted to in someway save your parents. If I just call your mother a fagg it doesn't apply.
1dustpelt
Posts: 1,970
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2012 5:32:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
But Micheal Phelps is awesome screw Lochte
Wall of LOL
"Infanticide is justified as long as the infants are below two" ~ RoyalPaladin
"Promoting female superiority is the only way to establish equality." ~ RoyalPaladin
"Jury trials should be banned. They're nothing more than opportunities for racists to destroy lives." ~ RoyalPaladin after the Zimmerman Trial.