Substitute the word "soldiers" and put in "children" or "blacks" or "women"......... this group is all about hatred. They are a sad, sick cult and certainly NOT Christians. All you have to do is pick up a copy of the new testament, there is no reference to Jesus saying hate is good. He in fact promoted love and forgiveness. Hate groups are evil...period.

You are SO right!

It is irrelevent the message, even the KKK has the right to assemble, peacefully. These people are certainly un-patriotic disgusting excuses for American citizens but they are well within their rights.

Exactly right, I Love America. I absolutely hate what they are doing, and if it was at a funeral of someone I knew, I would physically hurt them...and get in trouble. But that's what the 1st Amendment is about. And...it scares the crap out of me that 87% of readers would stifle them because they disagree with their disgusting message. But it is Newsvine, after all....

These disgusting, hateful, ignorant, bigot,sub-human,slim balls, have a first amendment right; that is the only way the first amendment can survive, " I may hate you for what you say, but I will defend your right to say it"!

Sorry, but I can't get with the idea that the 1st Amendment protects any and all speech from public sanction. As most people realize there are limits on free speech. You can't shout fire in a theater, you cannot defame someone, etc.

It seems to me one should be able to bring a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress/outrage against this kind of scum. The 1st Amendment should not be a shield against that type of speech directed at private individuals as opposed to the government.

I'm surprised that someone with a terminal disease hasn't made it his personal mission to show up heavily armed to one of their protests, open fire, and proceed to wipe them off the face of the earth.

Personally, I wouldn't be able to blame the guy, either.

Some people take the words "right" and "freedom" as mentioned in our constitution to the extreme. As with everything in life we need to use our discretion when we exercise these rights.

Most importantly we should be able to RESPECT the PRIVACY of others, as we want them to respect ours. It's really a simple yet very effective concept

here's the difference between a conservative and everyone else --

if it were Kennedy or whoever liberal else the conservative would be yelling"freedom of speech!!!" at the top of their lungs! HYPOCRITES.

ANYONE WITH AN OUNCE OF DECENCY KNOWS THIS KIND OF PROTESTING IS SICK AND WRONG.

however, thus far it is protected... outcome will be interesting to say the least.

I'll be right there with you.

They charge people with terrorist threats for some of the things they write on their signs. I believe in freedom of speech but when you are threatening someone it becomes more than that. The one thing I really don't get about these weirdo's is the thing they are upset the most about is homosexuals. Why target Soldiers for this, do they really believe all Soldiers are Gay? Where's the Aclu or the Gay and Lesbian organizations? I would think the would be pretty upset about this. This isn't any church it's a cult filled with hate mongers. Thank God all the motorcycle riders are showing up to these funerals and drowning these weirdo's out.

These guys are twisted in their beliefs and are out of touch with normal standards and reality.

That being said so are all the Homo's marching and protesting their perverted belief system too.

There are actual moral standards that would guide this society but every little group of weirdo's continually want to live out side of those standards and be considered normal.

Sometimes in you just have to call a spade a spade and shun this and all the other types of strange behavior .... I mean if you act bazzaar don't be suprized and upset if you are treated as such?

Freedom when it works best allows one to do what they should... some idiot convinced alot of people freedom is to do what you want- and not what is right.

and that is where it all goes haywire.

AH YES, fascism raises it head. Who is to say what is right? You?

No one agrees with these people except for themselves. That being said, do you really want to start putting limitations on free speech? It's funny how so many of you are willing to toss away your own freedoms, your own rights just to silence a few gnats who consequentially mean nothing in the long term unless you allow them to mean something. At the most this guy has a case of emotional distress, which can over time become a medical issue that this church would be responsible for, his son died as a symbolic representation of standing for freedom and America, he should really find some other way to spin this suit or risk dishonoring his son's memory.

I find Phelps and his "church's" views to be abhorrent and they barely qualify to be called humans but their protests are protected by the free speech clause of the first amendment.

Attributed to Voltaire . "'I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

I'm never surprised at the depths of depravity to which some folks sink at times. That these "Christians" would choose to spread their particular brand of venom at a time when people are at the height of their vulnerability and heartache simply shows they have no soul. Free speech - or compassion for your fellow American at their time of sorrow...... Which is truly more important??

I am actually surprised to see how many here are actually supporting the protesters here. Personally I also believe that they are BOTH right and wrong at the same time. They are right in that they do indeed have the rights in this country to do what they are doing. But to a rational person, it is just sooooooo wrong.

And before any of you get all bent out of shape, I suggest that you actually read the WHOLE STORY. And pay attention while you are doing it. They did not protest at the funeral. They were so far away that the Father did not even know that they were there until after the service, when he turned on a TV and saw a news story about what they were doing.

In my opinion, these very non Christian, non Baptist idiots are only doing this to get themselves on the news. And unfortunately, the press is obliging them. If the press would stop giving them coverage, then very possibly we would get to see a small two paragraph note on page 57 of the local newspaper about a wacko congregation that has all committed ritual suicide so they can join the alien space ship that is coming to take all believers to the Andromeda galaxy.

The hardest thing to filter out here are the Constitutional Rights of someone. And what is happening is that so many are confusing that, with what they feel someone should be allowed to think and express publicly. And to me, that is even scarier than those that think that they should not be allowed to say these things. But to try to even control how someone else is allowed to think, that is truly frightening, and just plain wrong. Even when it is something as disturbing and bizarre as this.

In response to Get The Point. Don't lump all Conservatives together. Most of us are not the Right Wing fanatics you read about. Just like all Liberals are not the Left Wing wack jobs you read about. Do we have opposing viewpoints? Absolutley. However wrong is wrong. The 1st Amendment does not cover "intentional emotional destress", which this clearly is.

It doesn't matter who they are or what they have to say. Under the constitution they have the right to speak freely...and to the 86% who think they shouldn't be allowed to voice their opinion or carry signs...think again. This is one of the rights our young soldiers are fighting for in Iraq and Afganistan. Lets all hope they win and that those folks enjoy the same liberty and freedom of speech we take for granted. Keep in mind the argument isn't about what they said but rather do they have the right to say it. Two different arguments that shouldn't have the same conclusion. Emotional distress is irrelevant and will not make day two in a decent court. I'm a very conservative Vietnam vet and we got spit on when we arrived home. By comparison this is a tempest in a teapot...let it go.

@juli54 "it scares the crap out of me that 87% of readers would stifle them because they disagree with their disgusting message."

It scares the crap out of me that 13% of readers would let them get away scot-free with hate speech.

The First Amendment doesn't cover everything people! It does not cover perjury, slander, etc., and it does not cover this!

Everyone's talking about their right to free speech, but what about Albert Snyder's rights? He has a right to bury his dead soldier son without people telling him that he's going to hell.

I found the poll really hard to answer. My moral sense and my love of the constitution played a little tug of war. If there was a third option of "They are within their constitutional rights to peaceful assembly but they are being abusive and disrespectful" or some such similar answer, I would have taken that one.

They -are- acting within their rights. BUT....I think they are showing a distinct lack of common courtesy not to mention their actions fly in the face of the religion they "say" they profess.

I'll be glad to see them fade back into the woodwork.

I hope these $h*t bags' tax exempt status has been revoked. There is no way they qualify as a legitimate church!! They may have a right to be so ugly but I sure think the parents of a fallen Soldier or Marine have the right to sue for emotional distress!!!

One needs to understand the definition of "Freedom of Speech." Each individual has a right to voice their opinion openly; however, this right does not allow an individual to cause emotional, physical or spiritual harm or distress to another person, in order to exercise their rights. By doing so, you are impeding the other person's personal rights to life, liberty and personal freedoms. In a nutshell, this "Church Group" (and I use this term loosely) is causing personal distress to parents of deceased children and wreaking emotional havoc on a burial assembly via verbal battery and signage.

I don't know why half this country's attorneys aren't jumping on this lawsuit. It is a goldmine pure and simple; not only from a publicity point of view; but, from a slam dunk violation of personal liberties as well. I hope the father of this fallen soldier wreaks havoc on this group in court. People may have the right to assembly; however, the constitution is very clear - Your right to assembly cannot impede another person's personal rights. Plain and simple, Folks!

This is a sad day when stupid people can do this kinda crap at someones funeral. The people who stage this protest should be kicked out of this country and shipped to Somalia.

We all should stand up for the rights of these people having privacy during a funeral. These people doing this type of stuff are hateful humans!!! They should also be held for treason against the US. We are at war...

The Westboro Baptist Church is a collection of some of the stupidest, most backwards people in the entire world. But they have a right to speak their mind, asinine as it may be. Just remember that you have a right to shun them and make them social pariahs. You have the right to call them every (deserved) name in the book, and to let them know just how scummy they really are. They have their right to free speech, just remember that you do, too.

I agree. This person who calls himself a pastor is not teaching Biblical principles or true Christianity. He is obviously a cult leader and has gone off the deep end!

If it wasn't for our soldiers we wouldn't have rights, So does it really make sense to argue that "they have their rights" when they are protesting the ones who give and protect those rights? Isn't that hypocritical?

Therese in NV - You might want to be careful. Your showing that you read the manual and understand it, and that kind of common sense scares a lot of the people 'round here! ~_o

Phelps and his gang of... whatevers, do have the right to free speech, hateful or otherwise. (Though a lot of people here would be happy with the Orwellian 'Thought Police'.) BU-U-UT, if it is infringing on the personal rights of those he is "protesting", (and I use that term as loosely as humanly possible for these... whatevers.), take 'em to court and hit them in the pocket book! And if they have violated any crimal laws... Double Whammy! That's why we have the courts. Attorneys ought to be all over this like flies on fresh dog shn!t...

Like epistemologist wrote in post #1.14

Attributed to Voltaire . "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

I see there are some who still don't understand our Constitutional system. The 1st Amendment doesn't "grant" us the right to free speech, rather it prevents the federal government from passing laws curtailing the right to free speech that we, the people, enjoy. Oh, and for some on here...yes, the Constitution does protect even this speech...in the 9th and 10th Amendments that reserve the rights not specifically enumerated in the Constitution to the states, and to we, the people. That said, I loathe the message of this group, but I'll fight to the death their right to say it.

Jim Comfort

I live in Kansas and am saddly too familiar with this wack job Preacher's views. The zip code for Topeka starts 666 maybe a connection??????

They want to make noise and get attention, (me thinketh he doth protest too much, Shakespeare) his following is also shrinking, mostly family. They do NOT represent Christians, they may think being gay is sinful according to their biblical teachings but Jesus told them "LOVE your NEIGHBOR as YOURSELF." I think that covers everybody.

I arree with Mr. Snyder that the actions of the WBC are the equivalent of yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater. Free speech has limits and those who violate those limits should face consequences.

I am actually amazed that this so-called "church" is not being sued, class-action style, by gays, soldiers and military families, as a group, for libel. This cult is clearly defaming - making false statements presented publicly as facts that give the soldiers and gays a negative image - and as result are legally liable for their behavior. How do we legally prove their statements are false? They base their statements on "The Holy Bible," yet the Bible clearly states that God does not hate any man and that God alone may pass judgement, and therefore they cannot prove that the statements made about God hating soldiers and gays are true. The Bible also says that no man, other than Jesus, can presume to know God's mind, which means when they state "God Hates....<insert group here>," they are in direct violation of the directives of the Bible and must be making false statements. (They can't claim to be Christians and at the same time state that God punishes sinners because the entire foundation of Christianity is upon the belief that Jesus died so that ALL SINNERS would be forgiven as long as they accepted the gift of redemption given them, making the very principals of this particular "church" to be based upon falsehoods.)

So the folks being hurt by their behavior should beat them at their own game and sue them for libel every time they show up in public with a sign that states "God Hates..." or "God is your enemy" and is directed at any group or individual. They may have the right to free speech, but they do not have the right to commit libel in expressing their opinions as fact, which is exactly what a large number of the signs that they use when picketing do. In addition, several of the signs I've seen them use in videos and photographs are clearly traitorous in nature, and the folks carrying those signs with targets over symbols of the USA (flags, Uncle Sam, etc), should be prosecuted for treason.

I fully agree the father has a great civil lawsuit case but he does not have a constitutional law case because this group actually did everything they were supposed to do legally. They informed the authorities, they stayed x number of feet away...yadda yadda. So they toed the letter of constitutional law.

However, a lawsuit for emotional distress and what have you is definitely a good bet here. If you can't get at them one one, get at the another. Just ask OJ, right?

Actually, the emotional distress case is what the court over-turned, resulting in the father having to pay the church's legal fees. Emotional distress is very hard to prove due to the ambiguous nature of the complaint. However, libel is a clear case here and one for which a structure of damages is clearly defined in most states.

This group of religious pretenders has stepped over the line, there is no telling what it is they believe in but God's love is not on their agenda and kindness is not in their hearts. There are parameters for decency and protest, this word "civility" is not among any of them and obviously it will not work in their particular vocabulary.

They need to be kept at least 500 yards away if not more from any ceremony that offers respect.

We have young men and women dying to protect and preserve the very rights these people are "abusing"! I don't think they have a clue as to what God is all about! I suspect eternal damnation to the fires of hell is appropriate punishment for this rude behavior! What can we do to improve on that? They truly do have the right to give up their souls for their cause ... I'm certain it will put a smile on Satan's face to know he has hooked up another hate group! Are we still a Christian Nation? We'll see ...

Scyth...I hardly said they should get away scot free with their 'activities'. I think they should be caught in a dark alley and have the snot kicked out of them. That said, I don't remember hearing anyone having fits about the complete freakouts who protested with horrid signs at President Reagan's funeral....

Up @AnnoyMan07

No, we do not have our rights because of the troops. They're citizens like anyone else. Becoming a soldier doesn't give you superhuman status, and our country wasn't founded to be a military society upon which all rests on the fact that we have more soldiers than everyone else. Everyone has a constitutional right to say what they want. Even if they are idiots.

My son is a Marine, his job is to protect this idiots right to free speech. "I still think someone needs to kick the @!$%# out of him"

But as much as many of us do not like this group, there are millions of things in America that are a lot worse. For example, parents who drink, smoke, and curse in front of their children. Thousands are killed annually in drunk driving accidents . Why don't we put in our newspapers those who are killed by cancer and alcohol like we do the soldiers from the recent foreign wars? What about kids in the inner cities who die daily from a myriad of things? It seems that violence in America has escalated in psunami like proportions. Wait a minute, maybe these nuts are on to something!

Not a bad thought, really, prender. Just don't deny them the right to say it. And hopefully it's a private citizen and not a soldier doing the !@#$ kicking. A more appropriate response, really, is to just call them a moron and socially ostracize them for the rest of their stupid existence.

you want to know something? my parents drank smoked and cursed in front of me. what the heck are you talking about?

Right, Lilninin, but the media is anti-Christian...oh so tolerant of anything BUT Christianity, and gleefully ready to utilize every opportunity to show them in a bad light.

Westboro Baptists are false Christians..."Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself...love worketh no ill to his neighbour.." They are certainly not led by the Holy Spirit.

The media is not anti-Christian; a huge portion of society is. The media are just whores trying to sell ad-space, and believe me, if stories about churches building homes for the needy sold ads, anchors across America would be reporting on it.

What the media reports is a reflection of society, not of the media's secret agenda to try manipulating what we believe.

You say tomato, I say tomahto...

excuse me "Westboro gives a bad impression of Christians" anyone who thinks he is a christian doesn't know what a christian is.

I have to agree with this answer. You have the right to walk down the street and say the most fowl, outlandish things. I have the right to be on the same street at the same time, and not put up with this filth. Where do your rights end and my rights begin?

Free speech is only protected when you do not infringe on another persons life, liberty and persuit of happiness.

Yes these insensitive bozos are covered by the right to free speech, as long as their protest is conducted within the scope of local laws. I also usually applaud the efforts of groups like the ACLU to protect everyone's rights, including the right to free speech. But when they successfully defended the right of a neo-Nazi group to march through Skokie, IL many years ago (chosen for their march because it was predominantly Jewish and there were death camp survivors living there), I exercised by right to un-join the ACLU. We all have limits what we can actively support. I cannot support cruelty toward others, especially under the guise of "free speech rights."

but then what doesnt interfere with someone's pirsuit of happiness?

I have refused to have anything to do with the ACLU because they are very choosy as to which rights they will fight for. An example is the verbal contortions they come up with when the 2nd amendment comes up for discussion.

The problem is, is that NOBODY is fighting AGAINST the 2nd Amendment. Gun laws are more lax under the Obama Administration than they were in any other time in recent history. The impression people (namely Right-wingers) have that their gun rights are at risk is irrational at best. The faux urgency is driven by the Right-wing media like cluster-Fox News, as it is one of the Right-wingers favorite "hot-button" topics, even though nobody is coming to get your guns.

You're @!$%#ing A right they aren't coming to get my guns, you @!$%#ing pinko commie @!$%#!!! Let them come and I will blow them away like lint.

People from this so called church should be stood up and shot for what they are doing to our military families at such a terrible time.

Donkey, that is only true because of the previous administration. It was under the Bush Administration that the assault weapons ban sunset. And the president shouldn't get any credit for a supreme court ruling. I won't go and say Obama is trying to take our guns, he hasn't and that continued line of rhetoric only hurts gun rights support, though I am a bit leery given the democrats history.

In reference to your and Donkey's comments...have any of you tried to buy ammunition lately? If you have not then you have no idea what the effect of the Obama administration has been on our 2nd amendment rights. This is one of those "constitutional" loop holes which is currently being exploited as we speak. "If we attack the supply chain then there can be no effective end product"

Navy Soliders Wife, You are so right. Plus Obama is trying to stop fishing as stupid as that sounds. No bullits no guns, no fishing, to save the environment. The list goes on and on and on.

Even Nancy Pelosi couldn't aswer this simple question asked by a psychiatrist. She asked how you determine if someone is mental. He said that that you ask a very simple question that everyone should know. She asked for an example. He asked her, "Capt. Cook sailed around the world three times and died on one of them. Which one?" She hesitated for a few minutes and asked for another question, saying she did not know a lot about history.

inspector......You have the RIGHT to ignore my comments but you do NOT have the RIGHT to hinder my offensive speech in ANY way. That is the price of FREEDOM and though I DESPISE Westboro they MUST be allowed to continue what they are doing because the alternative is to give up OUR 1st amendment rights!

dwar......Freedom of speech is ALWAYS protected as long as it doesn't advocate violence. Once again I find their speech absolutely VILE but it IS protected.

baby.......The ACLU defends the 1st amendment NOT the group/message. You should support the ACLU if you believe in the CRITICAL importance of the 1st.

rfaber........Are you aware that the ACLU has fought GUN RIGHTS cases?

Donkey........The REICH wing will ALWAYS use the 2nd amendment to try to attack the left even when they have to LIE to do so. The only thing the extreme right is interested in is their "Red Meat" God/Guns/Gays issues.

"Red Meat"

mmmmmm, steaks for dinner kids!

God

Let's bow our heads and say grace before we eat.....

Guns

Billy! I've told you a thousand times...no semi-automatics at the table! No put that away!

Gays

Well, you seem to be full of joy today!

Pass the tea dear....

Yes, I'm being sarcastic, lol. Lighten up a bit folks.

Why not just post a link instead of this massive cut-and-paste?

I agree they are not god and have no right to judge these men that are risking their lives for us! How disrespectful. They have the right to think what they want and say what they want but in public not private funeral which they are clearly not welcome at. If I was mourning my child and someone showed up like that my whole family would have kicked their booty's to the curb. No matter what religion anyone is or isn't it's clear that we are all sinners and NONE of us are Perfect and NONE of us have a right to judge anyone elses lives. If the guy was gay -he wan't bothering them he was fighting for them that's what makes me mad. We should send them to iraq and let them fight for us.

We were sinners but once you repent, you are no longer sinners in the eyes of God. You are allowed to judge righteously.

Sorry Daniel, but you need to study that one out juuuuuust a little more.

Daniel you must be reading out of Phelps bible.

In so far as Phelps and his pathogens are concerned they are not Christian, but pure trash. Trust me, those idiotic signs they carry do not give much protection. While marching in the NYC Desert Storm parade a group of cowards bearing similar signs were waving them in our faces. Unable to break rank who shows up but some brother Vietnam Vets. I swear it was like Moses parting the Red Sea with all our supporters clearing the way for the Vietnam Vets to catch those idiots. Both the signs and the protesters received a beating. Oh the joy I felt as the sign was smashed over the protesters head! Thank you Brothers.

elvis your welcome ' ....airman mike.... nam' vet

I have trouble coping with the fact that the Baptist Convention lets them call themselves a Baptist church!

...and Phelps IS a greasy, mental maggot...he and I have had words before...I wanted to give him a big fat fistful of God's love right in his pasty nose. Thank heavens for the patience of the Lord...

WBC is not affiliated with any Baptist convention. I don't know of a convention that would have them.

Our rights should not be used to allow indecent or immoral actions or speech, . . and that is what this is about

....and who are you to say what is immoral? Free speech is protected so you can say stuff like you just said (you cannot yell "fire" in a crowded theater - for that might incur injury - but otherwise free speech protects us - when I hear neo-nazis the first thing I think of is "in how many other cvountries could these jerks say this junk" - and it makes me proud to be an American).

The free speech issue is an argument, however, can't these so called 'christians', though they are anything but, be accused of hate speech since their speech is only directed at the families of those who have served and died for their country? Not only that, they are actively seeking out funerals to cause as much distress as possible and interrupting a religous ceremony. A part of me thinks that this goes beyound the intended purpose of freedom of speech. Its one thing to protest, its quite another to cause major intentional distress to another human being.

Great answer. Although I notice one must be liberal part of the liberal agenda, to use this argument. If you are not of color, gay, Jewish or a Muslim they won't allow it.

jerry.........GREAT response.

Well said!

Freedom of speech is no longer that when it inflicts emotional distress on another. They not only caused emotional distress on this family, but on every soldier's family they spew their vile at. They go from funeral to funeral foaming at the mouth about hate and literally pour salt into open bleeding wounds. They even give me emotional distress and my son, thank God, did not give his life for one of these mongrels. This is not freedom of speech, it is hatred and if Al Sharpton won't accept it because words offend him and his race, why should anyone else have to be subjected to words that tear up a human soul?

I cant even believe people would call this freedom of speech...It's really freedom to hate.

yeah that's a "bit" totalitarian! Wow. Thinking like that is just plain scary

Why drag the peaceful stoners into this?

Nice, I like it!

I like it too. Why can't our Gov do something about them? why do we have to see it or listen to it.

Where were you when criminal arsonists bombed their church before they did any protesting and were peaceful, yet did little about it? Those same arsonists are back out there ready to target your home. Kansas owes them an apology for not catching them sooner and prosecuting them to the fullest extent of the law.

Well I hope you are willing to put your money where your mouth is. If you killed one of them then the argument could be made that the speech incites violence.

Yeah ! Right on man ! That sounds like an excellent idea !

Until of course someone on the other side of the country doesn't like what YOU are saying, and YOU are the one being dragged through the streets to be stoned to death.

Think about that , If you can that is.

Wow you didn't really pick up on the cynicism I see.

There is certainly nothing totalitarian about your views.

[sarcasm off]

I find the views and actions of Phelps and his family abhorrent but he has the right to spew them and I'll defend that right. The morality of his views or actions, and the place chosen to spread his hate is irrelevant. I am militantly agnostic and a 20 year member of the ACLU but if we don't defend his first amendment rights we don't believe in the freedom of speech. His morals and views are irrelevant to that right, until his words cause physical harm to another.

Their so-called "church" was never firebombed. Where did you get that? Here is the truth according to one of Phelps' sons that came to his senses and left WBC.

http://www.godhateshomophobes.com/homphelps.html

...and calling for the deaths of more of our soldiers is treasonous!

Sherry;

I agree with you 100%

Sherry;

Exactly Right! There is a time and place.

Wrong, wrong, and wrong!

Actually, I think that if some family member were confronted by this nutjob, and were to snap and haul out his semi-automatic rifle (that he had a carry permit for so he could safely get his mochaccino at Starbucks) and mow down the mob from Westboro, he'd have a really good defense.

"I was burying my only son/daughter that was proudly serving their country when they were killed in the line of duty, and that nutcase started saying my son was gay! I snapped..."

It might be safer if they just stopped doing this ludicrous practice

Common human decency should be enough at a funeral where people have lost their son or daughter, husband or wife, mother or father. Sometimes I think we go to far in what we allow under the guise of "Free Speech"

It also states that noone or any government shall not infringe on life, liberty and the persuit of happiness. And that everyone is entiltled to the right to privacy.

There is nothing peaceful about their assembly. It is highly provocative and they know it. This type of emotional assault is not at all constitutional and is certainly not what the signers of the Constitution had in mind.

"Petition the government..." Sure, but disrupt a funeral - not even of a politician. That goes too far. Is this group really a religion - listed as such somewhere other than in their own heads? I think they are very suspect as to how they operate anyway, and they should be investigated. Also, calling for the death of our military personnel must be treason - if they called for the death of Madam Pain Pelosi, they would be arrested.

They go to far, and our government does not go far enough to protect our real rights and to preserve what this country once was.

well when all this is allowed....turns into a"socialist statement"

So nobody should have a problem if an individual or group pickets outside the Westboro church with signs saying "Westboro church members are the children of Satan", or "God hates Westboro church members", or "Treat Westboro church members like the classless sub-humans they are", etc. This could be interesting.

There's a difference between free speech and harrassment -- this was harrassment during a very trying time for this family. Their son died for the freedoms that this so-called Christian (and I use the word loosely) group uses. It's ridiculous, and I don't think our Founding Fathers would have agreed to this as being considered part of what they planned when they wrote the Constitution.

I think the government should just no longer acknowledge them as a church. No more tax free status for those traitors.

As the father of a soldier and a professed Christian, I find the behavior uncivil and regrettable. However, according to the constitution they are within their rights as citizens. As a father I would not want to endure the loss and the anguish this man & his family have. My son knows he serves to protect & defend even those in this Nation who stoop to the lowest levels most find despicable. As a Christian "by their fruits you shall know them"resounds loudly. We forget that on this earth there are only two kinds of people, those in Adam and those in Christ. one eternally damned and the other eternally saved, in the end God is the final authority....

whats 'peaceable' about what they are doing ???? please don't tell me your so stupid that you can't understand that simple yet necessary human trait called dignity!!!!

BryceTex, Thanks for putting the 1st Amendment up there. Read it folks. It says congress shall make no law...........abridging the freedom of speech, etc. Make no law, therefore there is no law to enforce. All of the first 10 Amendments protect us from the federal government and really any other government entity. Nothing in the Constitution protects any of us from someone else. Local ordinances and State laws are the only legal deterrents to administering gross bodily harm (commonly known as a major a*s kickin') upon their persons. In other words, the Federal government, and any State or local government in adhering to it, cannot tell anyone to shut up (except for that guy in the theater). But anyone, you or I, can tell anyone else to shut up, as long as we're willing to suffer whatever consequences the loud mouth dishes out, which would put them in the position of possibly explaining things to a judge. So please, lay off the freedom of speech noise. It is not an issue and has nothing to do with these creeps. To say I couldn't tell them to f^*k off and get out of dodge or I'd alter their lifestyle, would be violating my rights to free speech.

Donkey said,

"So nobody should have a problem if an individual or group pickets outside the Westboro church with signs saying "Westboro church members are the children of Satan", or "God hates Westboro church members", or "Treat Westboro church members like the classless sub-humans they are", etc. This could be interesting."

There is nothing in your statement that comes close to a first amendment violation. Go for it.

Donkey-

Where do I sign up?

I think you are right on this one. It is about time the government take care of the law-abiding, legal, country loving citizens and quit pandering to the kooks and others who would abuse all that was fought for back in the 1700's and since. High time - or there could just be another revolution. It happened once, and I think the spirits of the leaders of that revolution would do all possible to protect what they created.

Worse, they are lawyers : )

Daffy......Yes you are.

They do deserve the constitutional rights that we all have. What they do not deserve are rights over and above what the rest of us enjoy. What they are doing falls into the realm of diseased delusion and is not protected under the Constitution. They are grotesque parodies of true Christians and, while they have the right to believe as they wish, they do not have the right to harm others with those beliefs.

nope...their speech is NOT harming anyone. You guys just can't make the Constitution something it isn't - or pretend it says something it doesn't - or pretend to know what the Framers had in mind. The Constitution is what it is.

There's nothing "Christian" in the Constitution - just the opposite (separation of church and state as it is). Deal with these things or change the Constitution - but don't confuse your particular likes and dislikes as being constitutional or unconstitutional.

The Constitution is NOT a moral document - it is a legal document.

What happen to common courtesy?

jerry, your right it is not a moral document. However, the case can easily be made that those paritioners are violating the mournings right to peacefully assemble for their religous assembly. Their speech should not be protected.

I believe in freedom of speech but, what about the freedom and rights of the family who were being bothered? These people need to realize there is a time and place for their protesting. It shows how dumb they are protesting at a funeral and the guy isn't even gay. I agree that we need to draw the line somewhere-maybe our country to too nice allowing this kind of stuff to take place. America has freedom but we shouldn't be stupid either. We are starting to make fools out of ourselves there may be a reason why the rest of the whole world doesn't allow freedom of speech. It's nice to have but really I think it just protects the idiots out there with crazy opinions.

jerry - "nope...their speech is NOT harming anyone. You guys just can't make the Constitution something it isn't - or pretend it says something it doesn't - or pretend to know what the Framers had in mind. The Constitution is what it is."

I beg to differ - their speech is inflicting emotional distress on innocent people and is therefore unconstitutional..........

Emotional distress as a way of controlling the constitutional right to free speech is a very slippery slope my friend. I don't really think you want to start rolling down it.

This isn't about emotional distress, it's about libel. Sue them for defamation repeatedly until they have nothing left to fund their bad behavior. They cannot back any of their so-called factual statements about what God thinks, because even the Bible they base their "faith" on contradicts them.

If it weren't for our brave men and women who serve and give their lives for our freedom, these people couldn't do what they are doing. They are religious fanatics and should be looked upon and treated as terrorists.

that's nonsense

Oran's Dictionary of the Law (1983) defines treason as "...[a]...citizen's actions to help a foreign government overthrow, make war against, or seriously injure the [parent nation]." In many nations, it is also often considered treason to attempt or conspire to overthrow the government, even if no foreign country is aided or involved by such an endeavour.

Advocating the continued deaths of our soldiers fits this definition...

The liberal democrats also fall into that description.

Canttakenomore-then what do you call it when an institution contributes to the overall demoralization of our troops (when this is the kind of treatment they and their families can expect of they die in combat-and believe me, they DO think about this kind of thing), which in turn affects the overall quality and cohesiveness of the unit, which may sabotage entire operations..?

Can you please think about cause and effect here? Like, outside of the box? Just for a second? Thank you kindly.

They do get permits and they follow the rules to avoid legal trouble. Technically, all religions are cults. Fred Phelps is sick, twisted diseased maggot fodder, but well within his rights and well within the requirements of the law. They may say awful things, and they may be protesting in high profile venues, but they have not interrupted a service or, apparently, even been seen by the mourners until after the fact. If today we tell him he cannot speak freely, then next year it could be traditional marriage groups or homosexual rights groups who are silenced, or any group with whom another group takes offense or finds abhorrent. People fought and died to found this nation, not because they wanted to be able to dominate everyone else, but because they wanted all groups to be free from the persecution that sent them here in the first place. I think we often forget this simple truth.

dwharies,

"Free speech is only protected when it does not interupt, or infringe on tohers rights and harmony. "

That is not correct. As much as I dispise the clowns form the Westboro Wh*rehouse, what they are doing IS protected speach. The US Constitution does NOT say that speaach that interrupts other's harmony is illegal. Whether we like it or not they were on PUBLIC property and had police permission (and the police would have had NO right to deny them permission.)

Now the idea that the media should simply stop covering them is a valid one. They are NOT entitled to press coverage.

"These people wonder why they are getting sued? Lets say this if was my son, they would not have a place to worship or even live in."

Although I understand your view (and might well contribute to your defense fund if you or others took action against them) what you are talking about IS illegal, and if you engaged in such activity, a legal and valid jury should find you guilty of criminal conduct if you were caught. Now if some members of the Hell's Angels decided to drive by them and mow them down with machine =guns, I would probably cheer, and might even contribute to thier defense funds, but they would still be committing crimes and should be willing to face their criminal punishment for committing such acts.

"As to the people who think this is free speech violation, how would you like if i went to your families' funeral and say old people dont deserve to be cared for?"

IF you (or they) entered the private property of the cemetary you (and they) would be subject to arrest. But if you were on public land, on the side of the road, and not specifically blocking traffic (whcih is what Phelps and his wh*res do), i might find you a worhtless piece of garbage, but you would have the right engage in such sleazy activities.

As for those who condemn the ACLU, you obviously only care about the US Constitution whne it is convenient to you. My father, a practicing Jew, a constitutional scholar, and a decorated veteran who fought the Nazis in WWI and saw what happened in the camps, said that although he hated what American Nazis were doing with thier marches, that as long as they remained peaceful, that they had the right to march and say what they said, and the the ACLU were heroes for doing the unpopular thing in defending thier right to march. As he said, he fought for our Constitution and if he denied them the right march then he had fought for nothing.

I comend your Father for his faith and his beliefs. The Times are not what they were. I do believe The ACLU is trashing our country, all beliefs. I want IN God WE Trust, I want Prayer back in schools, I want scum like that to be told to get moveing or be arrested, But because of The ACLU thats not going to Happen.

God did hate many things and certain people and nations. Look it up yourselves. He hated Esau, didn't He. He hates all who hates Israel.

Suzanne,

"The Times are not what they were."

That does NOT change the Constitution.

"I do believe The ACLU is trashing our country, all beliefs."

Then you obviously know very little about them.

"I want IN God WE Trust,"

Except that not all of us trust or even believe in God.

"I want Prayer back in schools,"

YOU are not prevented from personal prayer in school. It is just official spoonsorted prayer that is NOT allowed, and the ACLU was not at the forefront of that arguement. The overwhelming majority of believing practicng Christians and Jews that I know oppose school sponsored prayer.

"But because of The ACLU thats not going to Happen."

No, it is because of the US Constitution.

As i myself an a very decorated veteran, Most people do not know why we have a military. I myself have read and studied the cinstitution. And to what people say and do the Constitution states and how it is interpted is another. The law of the land needs and has always been revised. The bill of rights and laws always interfer with each other.

The main context is that no one or anything tpe of government shall or not inpeed on anothers' right to life, liberty, and persuit of happiness.

The seperation of chuch and state is suppose to protect another from influence from each other. You have the right to believe in what you want but, when you infringe on others rights and harmony it is un constitutional.

The ACLU may protect there right but, they dont protect them from a liberal suit or even retribution. SO this is right for someone to go off and tamper a persons fiinal farewell?

The ACLU does not protect freedoms as they do as will. IF that was the case then The southern Poverty law group Violates certain groups right all the time, but yet when certain groups form they are told no and go away. I am not tring to say neo-nazi or even clan groups are right but when they want to march they are told no, but yet this group is saying slanderous material but yet aloud to do this?

The law is there for interpitation and that is how it is.

dwharies,

"As i myself an a very decorated veteran,"

Thank you for your service to our country.

"Most people do not know why we have a military."

Which is not relevant to the case at hand.

"The main context is that no one or anything tpe of government shall or not inpeed on anothers' right to life, liberty, and persuit of happiness."

The problem is that that that context is subject to interpreatiton and the courts are the sole interpretters.

"You have the right to believe in what you want but, when you infringe on others rights and harmony it is un constitutional."

That depends. Since waht they are doing IS purely a speech issue, wrapped up in man-made beliefs, it is still protected if done according to the law, and unfortuantely, it appears that they are within the law and the Constitution.

"The ACLU may protect there right but, they dont protect them from a liberal suit or even retribution."

No one has said that the ACLU would do so.

" SO this is right for someone to go off and tamper a persons fiinal farewell?"

As long as those maggots (and I apologize to harmless maggots for smearing their species by comparing Phelps and his wh*res to maggots) are on pubic land and not impeding the funeral (which they are not doing), then they have not violated the US Constitution.

"The ACLU does not protect freedoms as they do as will."

Actually they do.

"IF that was the case then The southern Poverty law group Violates certain groups right all the time, but yet when certain groups form they are told no and go away. I am not tring to say neo-nazi or even clan groups are right but when they want to march they are told no, but yet this group is saying slanderous material but yet aloud to do this?"

The neo-Nazis, the KKK and other groups HAVE been granted parade permits. Also, the SPLC and the ACLU are not the same group and the ACLU HAS opposed the SPLC in certain cases. The SPLC has not tried to stsop the groups from marching. What is does is keep tabs on them and therii members and helps tie those groups to acts of violence and terror, as well as exposing the members fo those groups to the public.

"The law is there for interpitation and that is how it is."
The courts are doing that interpretation, but like it or not, the Supreme Court will likely rule that the Westboro Wh*res are staying just within the 1st Amemndment.

The simple fact is that solution to this is for the press to refuse to cover this groups.

"I consider this to be little different from shouting fire in a movie theater."

Then you do not understand what the Supreme Court meant in that distinction. They can shout to their imaginary deity all they want, it put no one in physical harms way, which shouting fire does. IF they also said that people shold attack gays, attack soldiers and US citizens, ie, incitement to riot, THEN their speech is NOT protected. But just because what they say makes our blood boil, is NOT the same thing as incitement.

"We have freedom of speech if it does not cause unnecessary harm to others."

You are wrong. See above.

"Ditto freedom of religion."

Your fredom of religion stops at my fornt door and my physical being. Also it stops at the law. You CANNOT make a law based on religion, or primarily based on religion.

"I also construe this as freedom from religion"

"These people are not Christians."

Actually given the vile comments against gays coming frm the pulpits of some churches, they seem to be of the same basic cloth.

"They have the right to proclaim whatever perversion they believe where it does not harm others. This does not even remotely fall under that right."

Sorry, you are wrong. I understand what you are saying ans truly wish that you were correct, but as someone who does understand the US Constitution and values it s that MOST sacred and important document to the US, I am pretty sure that you are wrong.