Free Speech: Court Reverses $5 Million Ruling Against Gay, Jew, and Soldier-Hating Westboro Baptist Church
A federal appeals court reversed a $5 million judgment (originally an $11 million judgment, which was reduced) against Fred Phelps' Westboro Baptist Church, ruling that the church's protest outside the funeral of an Iraq veteran was free speech:
"The ruling from the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va., held that the signs and writings of the Westboro Baptist Church, which included anti-gay and anti-military messages, are protected by the First Amendment. The Topeka-based congregation has protested at military funerals across the country."
The dead Marine's father says he will appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
In related news, the WBC has begun an assault on New York City, targeting Brooklyn Tech because the school says "it’s OK to be gay."
They'll also target Jewish temples:
"The bigots will protest on Saturday in front of Congregation Beth Elohim on Eighth Avenue in Park Slope at 9:45 am, at Union Temple on Eastern Parkway in Prospect Heights at 10 am and the Kane Street Synagogue in Cobble Hill at 12:30 pm on the eve of Yom Kippur, the holiest day on the Jewish calendar. On Wednesday, church spokeswoman Shirley Phelps-Roper said the rallies were not anti-Jewish or anti-gay. 'How about we call it an ‘Obey your God’ rally?' she said. 'You Jews and gays have got to put away your false gods, your idols and your filthy way of life.' She added that 'God hates the disobedient.' ... 'We picked these weekends because these are the high holidays,' she said. 'You Jews broke the covenant with God. The beast is going to bring the nations to march upon Jerusalem. Your houses will be destroyed and your women ravaged. It’s going to make the Holocaust, the Babylonian captivity and the destruction of the Temple look like a tea party.'"
A video of the group outside Jewish Theological Seminary yesterday, singing "Hava Nagila", AFTER THE JUMP...
The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va is considered THE MOST!!! conservative court in the USA = a right wing religious fundie's wet dream
http://www.anusha.com/circuit4.htm
This ruling is not the most conservative court in the nation holding up free speach but rather the most conservative court in the US upholding the anti-gay and anti Jew message
The message is what this (the most conservative court in the US) set of activist judges are protecting not the right to free speach
UGHHHHH!
Posted by: jimmyboyo | Sep 25, 2009 9:18:17 AM
andy, i think WBC has all of 28 members. it seems to me that you give an inordinate amount of coverage to them. they are a mere skid mark on the underwear of society. what is your obsession with them?
Posted by: nic | Sep 25, 2009 9:24:39 AM
Jimmyboyo,
Yes, the 4th Circuit is one of the most conservative appeals courts. Probably the most conservative. But this decision was written by Judge King, a Clinton appointee. The ACLU filed briefs supporting the Phelps. Do you think the ACLU did this because it wanted to uphold anti-gay and antisemitic messages? There are free speech principles involved here that protect even -- maybe even especially - odious vermin like the Phelps.
Posted by: Glenn | Sep 25, 2009 9:35:07 AM
Gotta agree with Glenn. The Courts have done everything they can to keep these people at bay short of silencing them, and just because you find the speech repugnant doesn't mean they don't have the right to speak it. Get a permit, counter protest, join the vets who provide buffer zones (akin to the Silent Witnesses at Pride events), but smacking them with 5 million because they protested? that really is just a way to shut them up.
Posted by: DR | Sep 25, 2009 9:47:29 AM
What's especially disheartening is seeing that kid in the picture holding those signs of hate. Sad that he was taught to hate like that.
Posted by: Terry | Sep 25, 2009 9:48:30 AM
Nic: we ALL ought to be "obsessed" with hate speech like this, whether it's by 28 people or 2800. they have the right to assemble and 'speechify' like this, and WE have the right to KNOW they are going to be there and to do something about it. THAT's why it's important, no NECESSARY to cover these bigots and hate mongerers. what's YOUR motivation for keeping them a secret? are you going to make their ranks swell to 29?
Posted by: casey | Sep 25, 2009 9:53:28 AM
What is the point of this church? Clearly they are the ones who have a lesson to learn.
*God points finger at Westboro, bolt of lightning shoots out, blows them off planet*
Posted by: darian zam | Sep 25, 2009 9:56:10 AM
I agree. Towleroad you give them too much attention. They are clearly insane and everyone knows it and can see it without us pointing more fingers at them. It's exactly what they want us to do...to perpetuate their hatred. The have every right be crazy in public but I don't feel the need to engage or acknowledge it...just like I wouldn't go after a lunatic on the street corner. We should pick our battles better
Posted by: hall | Sep 25, 2009 10:00:35 AM
Interestingly there had been a ruling a couple of days ago in Germany about something similar.
The NAZI party (NPD) is spreading their propaganda all the time and the party members insist it is free speech and opinion.
Well as long it does not incite or foment hatred it is allowed as free speech otherwise it is not. The NAZIs were ordered to shut up by the Supreme Court in Karlsruhe.
Posted by: Martin | Sep 25, 2009 10:03:34 AM
Who wouldn't find their speech repugnant, DR? And they should be smacked with all kinds of things. But I agree that they should also have the right to exercise their insane venom, whether it's against vets or us. When they came to VT recently--to protest the day our marriage equality bill went into effect--there was much discussion on how to deal with them. They crave attention and counter-protests where they--knowing the rules very well--try to anger counter-protesters into getting arrested.
So, there were creative and peaceful counter-protests instead of direct engagement (with a few exceptions) and, better yet, an ingenious fundraising scheme organized on Facebook where people contributed to pro-gay causes for every minute the crazies ranted. It was a great success. Otherwise, ignoring them is best way to deal with them, because they hate that. And even most homophobes find them repellent so ultimately their brand of obvious hate probably helps us more than hurts us.
Posted by: Ernie | Sep 25, 2009 10:06:31 AM
Um why don;t WE Protest them. Everyday. Every Night. Where they live. Wherever they are?
Posted by: Wolfie | Sep 25, 2009 10:20:54 AM
'God hates the disobedient," says Shirley Phelps Roper. I think you're in deep shit with the divine then, Shirl. You're clearly disobeying "Judge not lest ye be judged" (Matthew 7:1) and "Love thy neighbor as thy self. There is no greater commandment than this." (Mark 12:31) Throw the Bible back in the faces of demented fuckwits like the WBC and more "moderate" religious conservatives ("love the sinner but hate the sin") every chance you get. It strips away the holy veneer they're trying to put on their bigotry and lays it out as the ugly hatred it really is.
Posted by: MikeMick | Sep 25, 2009 10:20:56 AM
The Phelps don't bother me so much. First of all, they do have their right to free speech, even though they choose to use it in a repugnant manner, it is still their right to free speech.
The other reason is they drag down the debate on the other side by their insanity. Sane people, even if they are against gay rights by misguided and misinformed reasons don't want gay people dead. When you have people in your camp yelling "ALL FAGS SHOULD DIE" it really serves to make the ant-gay side seem, well, a bit too extreme for a lot of people.
Posted by: John M | Sep 25, 2009 10:26:38 AM
"Well as long it does not incite or foment hatred it is allowed as free speech otherwise it is not."
Thank you Martin.
Some day, these lunatics are going to protest the wrong soldier's funeral and someone is really going to get hurt.
I wonder where they get all this money to travel all over the country. They're supposed to be a church, right? Granted, it's really nothing more than an inbred and interrelated family with one batshit crazy grampa, but still. Where does all the money come from?
Great Britain had the right idea when it banned them from entry a while back. It would be nice if we could round them up and put them on a barge and let them float out to that Great Floating Garbage Patch in the Pacific Ocean.
Alas, we are a 'civilized' nation of laws (for some) and privilege (for some).
Posted by: MikeinSanJose | Sep 25, 2009 10:32:26 AM
Well at least we know what the Signorille show will be about today.....
Posted by: Beefandfur | Sep 25, 2009 10:39:19 AM
What's sad is that this geeky cult has the gumption to zip all over the place to protest, yet not one gay in NYC could bother to protest the team of homophobic dictators visiting the U.N.
Posted by: JT | Sep 25, 2009 10:59:47 AM
no, CASEY, we should not. giving this minuscule part of the population a forum serves us in no way, yet gives them a platform. i wonder, however, about andy's attraction to these very few extremists. andy, were you threatened by these crazies?
Posted by: nic | Sep 25, 2009 11:00:32 AM
I've said this for a long time, the best way to defeat the anti-gay people is to boil their view points down to the most repugnant, extremes. The Phelps help do that.
Same thing with gay marriage, let's take them to task. NOM keep saying that we should preserve "traditional marriage" for the benefit of children. So, let's ask them what they want as far as that goal goes. Do they want to take children away from single parents? Single gay biological parents? Do they want these children in orphanages? Do they want gay and single people to not be able to naturally conceive children? If you are a single gay parent, do you want it to be illegal for you do be in a relationship? All of these positions fit with what they are saying and are pretty awful and it would be difficult to get a majority of people agree with them. So, if you won't want any of those, what do you want and how does denying gays marriage further that goal?
It's a very difficult position to argue without saying you don't want any of those other things.
Posted by: John | Sep 25, 2009 11:06:27 AM
Isn't there some Mental Treatment Act which allows them to be detained if they are a danger to themselves or to others ?
I mean, the learned American Psychological Association once defined homosexuals as suffering from a mental illness, couldn't we get the learned Association to issue a determination on the mental health of these pathetic ill people ?
Maybe they don't have health insurance to seek help for themselves.....and need the "charity" intervention advocated by Senator Cantor. are you listening Mr.Cantor ?
Posted by: JackFknTwist | Sep 25, 2009 12:50:52 PM
Almost twenty years ago I turned the sprinklers on them but damn it, they didn't melt.
Posted by: kansastock | Sep 25, 2009 2:35:31 PM
The Phelps have unintentionally been one of the GLBT movement's best friends. If there wasn't so much evidence to the contrary, I'd suspect the Phelps clan was some sort of double-agent pro-gay performance group that pushes things to such an extreme that homophobia is stripped of any pretense of polite debate. I mean picketing soldier's funerals? Yammering on outside Jewish temples about the holocaust? Their whole goal in life seems to be making every man, woman, and child in the country hate their guts. By being so linked with homophobia, they reveal it as vile as it really is, even to people who previously might have dismissed homophobia as nonexistent or harmless. The GLBT rights movement couldn't ask for a more helpful enemy. I say give 'em all the free speech they want.
Posted by: bobbyjoe | Sep 25, 2009 3:15:38 PM
@bobbyJoe : great point.
Posted by: JackFknTwist | Sep 25, 2009 4:03:51 PM
wtf is wrong with America, sometimes I wonder if the world would be a better place if it was nuked to hell. Christ almighty.
Posted by: IhatetheUS | Sep 25, 2009 4:05:31 PM
What's a bitch burger?
Posted by: Rob | Sep 25, 2009 4:06:03 PM
Their freedom of speech is not the issue, in my opinion, but their being responsible for their actions. Anyone with half a brain knows that to protest this way at anyone's funeral would cause harm to the grieving. At least the harmed should be allowed redress. There are after all, reasonable restraints to free speech! I hope the supreme court decides to protect the REAL victim(s) here.
Posted by: jtaskw | Sep 25, 2009 4:30:21 PM