3 ms·

Phelps is really in a class a part, as their speech serves no purpose except to harm people. Harm is not a collateral damage that must be tolerated, but the dir

by Evbn 14y ago

Phelps is really in a class a part, as their speech serves no purpose except to harm people. Harm is not a collateral damage that must be tolerated, but the direct intent of their actions, to no greater purpose even from their own point of view.

icebraining 14y ago
Not true, they claim to be warning people about "the wrath to come".
- drivebyacct2 14y ago
  Yeah, people think that they're just "haters" or whatever clearly know nothing about them. Go to their website and read about their beliefs and why they do what they do. They're far more consistent about their beliefs and their preaching than most Christian churches. In many ways, they're saying the same things as the more mild-mannered anti-gay people. (I actually love to see Christian people whining about the Phelps. I just shake my head and laugh, they have their interpretation of the Bible and you have yours.)
hawkharris 14y ago
Because the purpose and value of speech are subjective, speech must be protected even when it appears to have no purpose. That was the principle at stake in Synder vs. Phelps. Consider the facts of the case. Members of the Westboro Baptist Church protested on public property, over 1,000 yards away from the funeral of Matthew Snyder. Although the signs were certainly offensive, they did not mention members of the family by name so as to start a fight. And they did not urge people to commit acts of violence. In other words, the protest clearly did not meet the standards of fighting words or incitement to violence — categories of speech that are unprotected by the First Amendment. I agree that the protest was morally despicable. So did the justices. Still, Westboro members participated in a peaceful protest on public property. To ban that behavior would set a very dangerous precedent.

3 ms·

Phelps is really in a class a part, as their speech serves no purpose except to harm people. Harm is not a collateral damage that must be tolerated, but the dir

by Evbn 14y ago

icebraining 14y ago
Not true, they claim to be warning people about "the wrath to come".
- drivebyacct2 14y ago
  Yeah, people think that they're just "haters" or whatever clearly know nothing about them. Go to their website and read about their beliefs and why they do what they do. They're far more consistent about their beliefs and their preaching than most Christian churches. In many ways, they're saying the same things as the more mild-mannered anti-gay people. (I actually love to see Christian people whining about the Phelps. I just shake my head and laugh, they have their interpretation of the Bible and you have yours.)
hawkharris 14y ago
Because the purpose and value of speech are subjective, speech must be protected even when it appears to have no purpose. That was the principle at stake in Synder vs. Phelps. Consider the facts of the case. Members of the Westboro Baptist Church protested on public property, over 1,000 yards away from the funeral of Matthew Snyder. Although the signs were certainly offensive, they did not mention members of the family by name so as to start a fight. And they did not urge people to commit acts of violence. In other words, the protest clearly did not meet the standards of fighting words or incitement to violence — categories of speech that are unprotected by the First Amendment. I agree that the protest was morally despicable. So did the justices. Still, Westboro members participated in a peaceful protest on public property. To ban that behavior would set a very dangerous precedent.