Letters to the Editor
Free speech
February 1, 2006
Advertisement
To the editor:
A newspaper that favors laws that clamp down on free speech is no friend of the First Amendment. That's what a Journal-World editorial did in supporting laws to make it illegal to demonstrate within 500 feet of a funeral.
The target of such laws is Fred Phelps, who demonstrates at funerals of U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq. Phelps says God smites them to punish the United States for condoning homosexuality.
While I agree that Phelps' message is "disgusting," the Constitution prohibits government from banning messages that politicians don't like.
A law that keeps demonstrators nearly two football fields away from the target of their expression is intended to censor the message. Such laws open the door for public officials to banish critics to where they can't be heard. They could also stop striking workers from picketing a business or anti-war demonstrations at the Douglas County Courthouse.
The First Amendment protects all speech, even expression we find disgusting. Using law to silence Fred Phelps suggests that his message has power and that we fear it. In truth, people who see this man and his message learn that homophobia and racism are cut from the same ugly cloth. As one old adage put it, you never know what a skunk smells like until you get close to one.
Ted Frederickson,
Tonganoxie
More like this
- Phelps group abides by new Illinois law 1 comment / May 20, 2006
- Father vows to shut down church 18 comments / November 2, 2007
- Phelps defends funeral protests 170 comments / February 2, 2006
- Justices may take shot at speech 'restriction' August 20, 2002
- Committee endorses funeral picketing bill February 22, 2006
Top ads RSS
Marketplace
Arts & Entertainment · Bars · Theatres · Restaurants · Coffeehouses · Libraries · Antiques · Services
- Blog: Palin Book Could Be Your Cheapest Source For Winter Fuel November 20, 2009 · 88 comments
- Mangino's contract outlines probe November 21, 2009 · 72 comments
- Nation has right to ask ‘why?’ November 21, 2009 · 58 comments
- Blog: We Noticed November 19, 2009 · 126 comments
- Mangino denies validity of former player allegations November 19, 2009 · 158 comments
- Palin stirs feminist ambivalence November 21, 2009 · 29 comments
- Lawrence man charged in hit-and-run accident that killed bicyclist November 19, 2009 · 116 comments
- Wright’s role clarified November 21, 2009 · 18 comments
- Blog: Why Do People Repeat Falsehoods? November 20, 2009 · 58 comments
- Not-so-gentle reign November 19, 2009 · 133 comments
- Winter sports officially begin for city schools November 17, 2009
- Message warns students at Perry-Lecompton not to attend class today April 20, 2007
- The cowboy way: Williamstown church ministry draws unique following November 21, 2009
- No line at H1N1 immunization clinic November 21, 2009
- Lawrence couple excel in triathlons November 21, 2009
- Americans save more but earn less as interest rates fall November 21, 2009
- Four decades in crisis mode November 21, 2009
- Developers propose redesigned Boardwalk Apartments November 22, 2009
- Wright’s role clarified November 21, 2009
- Obesity activist crossing country to urge American Indians to embrace healthier diet November 20, 2009
1 February 2006
at 9:15 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Jamesaust (Anonymous) says…
“A law that keeps demonstrators nearly two football fields away from the target of their expression is intended to censor the message.”
No, a law that limits the time and place of speech for non-invitees is content neutral and is perfectly in tune with our constitutional scheme. Just because the only persons who would seek to demonstrate at inappropriate times are motivated by their own peculiar content does not transform such regulation, which on its face is content-neutral, into a message restriction. Phelps has no more right to demonstrate in the middle of a funeral than he does in the middle of the floor of Congress. This is particularly true when one set of speech conflicts in time and place with the free exercise of another's speech — the Constitution does not protect the 'heckler's veto.'
1 February 2006
at 10:09 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
bjohanning (Anonymous) says…
Phelps can say anything he wants, but we also have a the privilege of privacy and the right to not listen to his hate.
1 February 2006
at 10:20 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
KayCee (Anonymous) says…
First off Ted, this relates to 'illegal to demonstrate within 500 feet of a funeral.' Now any funeral is more respect for the family burying their dead, even if the corpse is of a criminal. A demonstration is aimed at the people present, in this case, unrelated.
Phelps' message is more than 'disgusting', it's completely unrelated to the event taking place. As James posted, “persons who would seek to demonstrate at inappropriate times are motivated by their own peculiar content “. I've never had any clear insight for their demos at most times where I was present.
I see no conection to 'picketing' or 'demos at the courthouse'.
1 February 2006
at 11:55 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
moderationman (Anonymous) says…
You had best define a non-invitee as most funerals are public in nature. Since they are public, Phelps and his group can and likely will be considered “invitees.” Therefore, like it or not, you are restricting his right to free speech by limiting the right of the invitee to demonstrate. Your analogy to the floor of Congress is not applicable. The floor of Congress is not open to the public.
1 February 2006
at 1:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Jamesaust (Anonymous) says…
“You had best define a non-invitee as most funerals are public in nature.”
No. The lack of a 'guest list' does not transform an event into a public forum. No one is required to publish such a list in advance (although some do) and it may be changed at any time. Indeed, one may invite the whole world but exclude one person - that is still not “public in nature.” What you are saying is that you've never heard of a funeral where you knew there were people excluded.
Should you doubt this, I suggest you attend a funeral and attempt to disrupt it, exercising your “right to free speech.” (Just don't telephone me for bail money.)
What's more, even “public” places are subject to time and place speech restrictions. Those places just suffer more narrowly drawn restrictions. Try as you might to hold a parade down Massachusetts, as the Phelps clan wanted to several years ago - either before or right after some gay pride parade. Not only did they not have a permit, the City was not required to provide them a permit for just any time the Phelps crowd wanted (right before or right after the other parade). Indeed, as the Phelps crowd attempted to create a parade-like event - marching down the adjoining sidewalks with their signage - they were promptly ticketed for jaywalking when crossing the cross streets against the lights, unlike the parade personnel.
Again, the Constitution does not protect the 'heckler's veto.' You do not have an absolute right to exercise your speech at the same time and place as another. The Phelps crowd is perfectly free to protest in an enormous quantity of times and places - just not an infinite quantity of times and places. The First Amendment does not require more.
2 February 2006
at 5:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
classclown (Anonymous) says…
Picket Phelps church and protest his activities there.
7 February 2006
at 9:28 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
mjelsken (Anonymous) says…
Actually, seeing as non-military cemeteries are often owned by non-profit or for-profit corporations, the corporate entity could set rules which would prohibit protesting on the grounds of the cemetery. Military cemeteries have such restrictions, and you should note that Mr. Phelps and his crew target burials that are not at military cemeteries. To the extent that they try to protest funerals at facilities (whether they be military, for profit, or non-profit) with such restrictions, the “protests” have to occur off of cemetery grounds.
As a practical matter, actions like that proposed in Kansas and other states, which seek to prohibit protesting based on distance, merely play into Phelps's efforts to raise funds—that is, after all, the real purpose of these “protests” at funerals. His organization routinely “announces” where they going to “protest” and seeks to make those “announced protests” generate as much reaction as possible (no matter how few actually are going to “attend” the alleged protest). The purpose being to get attention from media outlets to find donors who would not ever show up at such a “protest” in person, but who are totally willing to send money to Mr. Phelps. The fight over a law of the type proposed merely widens and prolongs the fundraising pool.
A number of years ago the city of Oakland, California was facing a series of “neo-Nazi” (a misnomer if there ever was, as the people who claim to be “neo-Nazis” would probably have wet themselves if they ever had really come face to face with a true, dyed-in-the-wool Nazi) “protests” in the town. The news media “reported” these “protests” and the various attacks on people and property of the “targets” of the “protests.” It was amazing, these “neo-Nazis” had an almost endless reserve money to stay and “protest” in Oakland. Then a decision was made by a number of civic organizations representing the “targets” of the “protests” to ask that the media simply not cover the “protests” as they were not so much “news” as “fundraising exercises,” and the media outlets decided to stop the coverage. Gee, the money ran out, the “protesters” went away, and the attacks on “targets” stopped.
Want to really end the injury to families whose children have died in service to the Constitution of the United States? Don't try to pass a law which could be used to undermine the very constitutional principles for which these individuals died. Simply act to end the self-aggrandizing behavior of Mr. Phelps and his group. Tell the media outlets that you will cease using their service if they treat his fundraising activities as news; tell advertisers for the media that “cover” Mr. Phelps's “announcements” and “protests” that you will not buy their products and services. Act accordingly if an outlet continues to give Mr. Phelps any attention. The money will disappear, and Mr. Phelps will go back to Topeka and get a real job.
M. Elsken