The Supreme Court has decided to take a case that may change the boundaries for types of speech protected by the First Amendment.
The case was brought by a Maryland man whose son’s 2006 funeral was picketed by members of the Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka. Members of the “church” consist of “pastor” Fred W. Phelps Sr., and his family who preach a false doctrine that basically claims American soldiers are dying in combat because of this country’s increasingly tolerant attitude toward homosexuals. “Semper Fi F---” and “Thank God for dead soldiers” are two of the more outrageous signs displayed by members of the Westboro church at services for some of our war dead.
I put “pastor” and “church” in quotations on purpose. Others — one thinks especially of “pastors” who preached segregation and barred blacks from their “churches” at one time — have caused ridicule to be directed at believers in God, but the Phelps case may descend to an even lower level of evil.
The history of the case is this: A jury in Baltimore awarded Albert Snyder more than $10 million in damages. The amount was reduced on appeal and the case was eventually thrown out by the 4th Circuit Court in Richmond. That panel of three judges said the picket signs could not be reasonably understood to be referring directly to Snyder and his late son, Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew A. Snyder. The court said as distasteful as Phelps’ rhetoric is, the expressions are part of a national debate on homosexuality and so it is protected speech.
I called Nat Hentoff, who is regarded by many as an authority on the First Amendment and a fierce defender of all sorts of outrageous speech. Hentoff believes speech that might be construed as leading a person to act “is a clear disturbance of the peace at a religious or any kind of event” and thus “is not protected by the First Amendment.”
Hentoff is right. The venue for military funerals is not a college campus or a political rally. Very often it is a church or synagogue. Even if it is a secular venue, the sexual behavior or orientations of dead soldiers and their families are unknown to the Phelpses, who are using a family’s grief to advance a judgmental attitude that is rejected in the scripture in which they claim to believe. Someone should remind them that the devil could quote Scripture, too.
Several years ago, members of the Phelps family picketed a prayer breakfast in Topeka at which I was the main speaker. Sitting next to me was then-Kansas governor (now U.S. Health and Human Services secretary) Kathleen Sebelius. I was vaguely familiar with the Phelpses but had never seen them up close and I asked the governor about them. I recall her saying, “Oh, don’t worry about them. They picket everybody.” At first I found them faintly amusing, but upon reflection I consider them deeply offensive, un-American and anti-Christian.
My speech was not curtailed and neither was theirs. The big difference was that the event at which I spoke was quite different from a funeral. Suggesting that a member of the military died because God is judging America for the way it treats homosexuals is worse than outrageous. It is the moral equivalent of crying “fire” in a crowded theater when there is no fire, which by the way is not protected speech.
The Supreme Court was right to take this case. It should rule in favor of the Snyder family and put a stop to Fred Phelps and his spiritually corrupt family. They are by no decent standard serving God. In fact, quite a good case could be made that they are in service to God’s adversary.
— Cal Thomas is a columnist Tribune Media Services. tmseditors@tribune.com
Comments
LJWorld.com doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.
Hydra (Roger Ford) says…
Darn! I can't believe I actually agree with Cal!! 2012 hurry up and get here!
cait48 (anonymous) says…
What's interesting is that, depending on the outcome of this case, groups like Army of God and Operation Rescue could be affected. Maybe those poor women who are doing nothing but going into a clinic for a refill on their birth control or a pap smear appointment will finally get some peace. And maybe, just maybe, those women who are going in for an abortion won't have to face a wall of hate to exercise their legal choice in a matter that is no ones business but theirs.
grammaddy (anonymous) says…
@hydra-I know,right? It's more than a little scary!
geekin_topekan (anonymous) says…
The Phelpses believe that it is their God-imposed duty to exploit the deaths of soldiers to expand their cause and therefore such despicable behavior is not only a right but a privilege. This would be using God to justify the -unjustifiable, make the unacceptable seem acceptable and pass the burden of barbarism off onto the God of their choice.
This is not an new strategy and one that has been utilized throughout history. I believe that AL Queda used this strategy to justify murderous attacks both on and off our shores. It is used to justify genocide here in the US. I believe the term used is "Manifest Destiny".
Manifest Destiny, Al Queda and Phred.
Nothing new to see here.
Carry on.
rbwaa (anonymous) says…
TomShewmon (Tom Shewmon) says…
Can the state order the Phelps's into a psychiatric unit at least for evaluation? Whether they can be rehabbed is questionable. They're nuts---plain and simple.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
They are not 'nuts' -- they are evil. I agree with Mr. Thomas: "...they are in service to God’s adversary."
AreUNorml (anonymous) says…
Imagine no religion....
jonas_opines (anonymous) says…
Logrithmic of the Right, is there anybody who does not qualify in your book as a PAD? I haven't figured out what that actually is to you, but it seems like you use it to define just about everybody?
Just curious.
RonHolzwarth (Ron Holzwarth) says…
I have had my posting removed for violation of the "Terms of Service" before.
For those of you who are not aware of what constitues a violation, let me educate you.
Mentioning the name of any website that Fred Phelps sponsors is a violation, and can get your comment deleted.
I am risking it yet again, for those who wish to learn more about Fred Phelps and his "mission", copy and paste this website very quickly, before it is deleted again. It is a very clear and concise reference of Fred Phelp's activities, philosophy, and actions. Even though it is concise about the beatings of his children and quite lengthy, it is concise. You can't really make a long story to short without losing its meaning:
The Fred Phelp's story:
http://blank.org/addict/
LarryNative (anonymous) says…
Phelps crew is not about religion, it is a cult using religion as its cover. It is well known that Fred has two gay sons and most likely, as in most cases, the person shouting out anti anything is most likely fighting repressed feelings. It will come out some day that Fred Phelps is a homosexual.
jonas_opines (anonymous) says…
"The key words in your observation is: "Just about everyone""
I take it, then, that you consider yourself above such things? Or are you just another PAD?
Thank you for providing me with the long form. Sated my curiosity.
foodboy (anonymous) says…
I wonder I Cal would be so full of righteous indignation about Fred etal if he was still just picketing gay funnerals.
mom_of_three (anonymous) says…
While we don't want any action from the court to hurt any group who is picketing legally and within the bounds of free speech (even though we may disagree with), I don't know anyone in the country who wants to hear what they have to say. They can spout their hatred and hide behind the first amendment. I am just afraid of what will happen if the court supports them.
RonHolzwarth (Ron Holzwarth) says…
Maybe the United States should do what Great Briton did - just ban them. They are all subject to arrest if they ever try to get into England again. Only thing they left out? Was how long they have to stay in prison if they try that again.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
If the Phelpses had confined their protests to funerals of openly gay people, Cal would likely have no objections.
weeslicket (anonymous) says…
i wonder if cal realizes he just invited the phelpses to picket him.
funny stuff.
RonHolzwarth (Ron Holzwarth) says…
Here is a copy and paste from Wikipedia:
On July 20, 1979, Phelps was permanently disbarred from practicing law in the state of Kansas,[23] but continued to practice in the Federal courts.
In 1985, nine Federal judges filed a disciplinary complaint against Phelps and five of his children, alleging false accusations against the judges. In 1989, the complaint was settled, with Phelps agreeing to stop practicing in Federal court permanently.
AreUNorml (anonymous) says…
you know, I don't like the Fred Phelps clan as much as anyone. But they are citizens of this country and are fully entitled to say what they want. We all have those rights and exercise them on a daily basis. How would any of you feel if what you were saying was horrifyingly offensive to someone else? Some things that you take for granted are probably offending someone right now.
The very best way to get back at Phelps & Co. is to ignore their insanity. Without the attention, they will either fade away or end up doing something that gets them arrested. either way, poof! they're gone.
ckennedy (christy kennedy) says…
Yes actually, though "nuts" may not be the right word, there is a lot of high "functioning" insanity going on in the Phelps compound. Fred is an abusive and delusional megalomaniac who rules his family and few followers through fear and manipulation. Some of them might recover if they got out of his cult-leader clutches. A few of his children have escaped and they are tortured souls. Search for Nate Phelps and read his story. Truly, truly nightmarish.
jonas_opines (anonymous) says…
Whoa, I saw Thomas and just automatically read the headling as Phelpses' speech should be protected. Now that I've read it correctly, I'm rather. . . surprised. Not incredibly surprised, just sort of that he would take such a non-BofR stance.
jonas_opines (anonymous) says…
But yeah, I expect that this is the crux of the matter:
"If the Phelpses had confined their protests to funerals of openly gay people, Cal would likely have no objections."
jonas_opines (anonymous) says…
/especially since it wouldn't be in front of the courts right now if they had
jumpin_catfish (anonymous) says…
bah bah bah bah no matter what the ruling phelps won't change, he's nuts and his family with him.
tomatogrower (anonymous) says…
weeslicket (anonymous) says…
i wonder if cal realizes he just invited the phelpses to picket him.
funny stuff.
I consider it an honor to be picketed by the creeps. It means you must have some humanity.
I guess it got a lot colder than I thought this winter. Old Cal and I finally agree on something.
jcstepmom28 (anonymous) says…
I hope all the liberals here knows that a ruling against Phelps here can have effects on other protest.
RonHolzwarth (Ron Holzwarth) says…
I'm so tempted to list Fred Phelp's eight website addresses. But that would be futile, because spelling out only one of them will get your posting deleted immediately. "Terms of Service", ya know.
I know that from experience, because I once listed his website about God and America. The posting lasted less than ten minutes before the staff removed it.
And meanwhile, the Phelps are going all the way to the Supreme Court, for "freedom of speech".
tomatogrower (anonymous) says…
jcstepmom28 (anonymous) says…
I hope all the liberals here knows that a ruling against Phelps here can have effects on other protest.
I have never, and would never protest at a funeral, even Phelps, as tempting at that would be. It's wrong and inhumane. Just call me a bleeding heart moral liberal, and proud of it.
lindseydoyle (anonymous) says…
All of these columnists, Will, Thomas, Pitt, etc, work for the mainstream media. One thing the MSM wants is a curtailment of our civil liberties including the freedom of speech. Notice how they never reported a word about the "hate speech" bill which was sneaked through Congress with the Military Appropriations bill. Notice how they are mum on the Patriot Act. I will be very surprised if the Supremes rule in favor of the Phelps. We are going to see the erosion of our civil liberties.
verity (anonymous) says…
"I hope all the liberals here knows that a ruling against Phelps here can have effects on other protest."
Geesh, some people will use anything to try to put down liberals. That is mighty weak.
I am a proud liberal---let me repeat that---I am a proud liberal. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
This has nothing to do with liberal or conservative. It is about freedom of speech.
What the Phelps do is repugnant to most people, even evil as some have said, but I am not sure about what kind of limitations should be put on it. I tend to agree with the person who said that we should just ignore them. I think they thrive on the attention rather than their supposed moral agenda. I was at a church once who reacted to a bunch of bused-in picketers by setting up a table and offering them drinks. Kind of took the wind out of their sails.
feeble (anonymous) says…
I really don't see the Roberts court ruling against Phelps, given their massive expansion of first amendment rights in Citizen United.
Did_I_say_that (DIST) says…
RonHolzwarth (anonymous) says…
"I'm so tempted to list Fred Phelp's eight website addresses. But that would be futile, because spelling out only one of them will get your posting deleted immediately. "Terms of Service", ya know. "
Ron, it is okay. Everyone here can Google "Phelps Westboro websites" and find any of his hate filled websites. Most people are aware that Phelps preaches that "God Hates (America, etc)".
I do believe that States should protect funerals from protests. The state can easily make the case for doing this. Unfortunately, I don't believe that the case before the SCOTUS is addressing the issue in this way. Regardless of the repulsiveness of Phelps, this case will probably go in his favor.
verity (anonymous) says…
Did_I_say_that, you state that "I do believe that States should protect funerals from protests. The state can easily make the case for doing this," but you don't say what that case is. I would like to hear what "the case" would be in your opinion.
Are you talking about funerals being a special case from any other kind of situation? I'm not disagreeing, I really want to know.
While I think what the Phelps do is reprehensible, I am afraid that anything done to try to stop them just feeds the fire. They thrive on anger, controversy, disrepect and just flat getting in everybody's face. After all these years, I don't think that even they think that they will make any converts. That's why I think ignoring them is the way to go.
beatrice (anonymous) says…
Cal: "At first I found them faintly amusing, but upon reflection I consider them deeply offensive, un-American and anti-Christian."
Are you kidding me? It didn't strike Cal as obviously repugnant right off the bat? Nope. He actually had to "reflect" on their actions before coming to his conclusion. Pathetic.
jcstep: "I hope all the liberals here knows that a ruling against Phelps here can have effects on other protest."
And you hope that conservatives like Cal Thomas don't know this? Not sure what your point is, but yes, this ruling may prevent other forms of protest occuring at funerals, particularly those of fallen soldiers. What an obviously horrible erosion of our rights. Just terrible. Might as well throw the Constitution in the trash if we can't protest at someone's funeral!
On some issues, there is a right and wrong without shades of gray. This is one of those issues. I hope the court rules against Phelps.
Katara (anonymous) says…
TomShewmon (Tom Shewmon) says…
beoB, show me where R's shut down floor debate on such a huge, disastrous debacle of a 2700 page bill that puts the US government in control of 17% of the GDP.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
1995. Newt Gingrich & shutting down the government because Clinton would not pass the proposed Republican budget.
halm1 (anonymous) says…
i hope anyone who participates in what the phelps do burns in hell. they are horrible people and agreed with the comment below.. they should be tested in a psych ward... actually it should have happened years ago. they should not get away with what they do and what those poor families go through when they lay their loved ones to rest alone is bad enough... throw on the phelpses and how horrible.
mickeyrat (anonymous) says…
The whole Phred phenomenon makes me want to renounce my membership in the human race, but I, for one, do not think we should sacrifice the rights and freedoms so many Americans fought to earn and preserve just to silence a major troll, or even a dozen of them.
Sometimes it seems the more quick and pleasant solution to sacrifice our principles to solve a (relatively) temporary problem, but often the loss of liberties is permanent.
If there are other ways to sideline this circus, I'm all for it, but if it involves eroding the First Amendment... no thanks.
Did_I_say_that (DIST) says…
verity (anonymous) says…
"Did_I_say_that, you state that "I do believe that States should protect funerals from protests. The state can easily make the case for doing this," but you don't say what that case is. I would like to hear what "the case" would be in your opinion."
About 40 states have already enacted some type of legislation prohibiting protests by time, distance, or a combination of both. Challenges to the laws have typically been to no avail; judges ruling that the laws have been worded to be content neutral. Since the laws do not specifically prohibit the actual protest they do not necessarily limit speech but rather protect the time or place of the funeral.
Just to be clear, I am not in favor of limiting free speech. However, I do believe that the family of fallen soldiers have the right to express their grief and bury their dead unmolested.
ScottyMac (anonymous) says…
I guess I'm having trouble understanding why Cal objects to Fred's message.
Fred's argument is pretty basic: God hates fags, and any nation's acceptance of homosexuality invites his vengeance.
Cal himself has essentially made the same argument on more than one occasion:
"God designed norms for behavior that are in our best interests. When we act outside those norms—such as for premarital sex, adultery, or homosexual sex—we cause physical, emotional, and spiritual damage to ourselves and to our wider culture. The unpleasant consequences of divorce and sexually transmitted diseases are not the result of intolerant bigots seeking to denigrate others. They are the result of violating God's standards, which were made for our benefit." -Cal Thomas, 1997
"(Acceptance of homosexuality is) against the best interests of the people who practice it as well as the nations that accept it." -Cal Thomas, 2009
Cal has also defended inflammatory remarks about gays made by other self-proclaimed defenders of morality such as Jerry Falwell, whom Cal lionized in a 2007 column.
In other columns, Cal has described sexual orientation as a choice that can be "quit," just like smoking. Those who disagreed, he said, are either members of the "intolerant left" or have merely had their "PC feelings hurt" and advised them to seek solace "in the arms of Dr. Phil."
Cal's objections to Fred therefore can't stem from the content of Fred's message.
Nor can his objections stem from a pure respect for the families of soldier's who have died in the line of duty. Google "cal thomas liberal porno film" to see how Cal manages to belittle the life of one soldier while insulting a grieving mother.
I can't help but notice too that Cal only objects to protests at soldier's funerals where the sexual orientation is unknown, but he remains silent on protests made at other funerals.
It seems to me that the primary difference between Fred Phelps and Cal Thomas is their medium of choice. Fred prefers to place punchy slogans on picket signs and wave it in the faces of those he's deemed sinners. Cal Thomas prefers to deliver his message through newspaper columns and sleazy comments on Fox News.
To me, it's all the same.
Just_Human (anonymous) says…
Hate Crimes~Crimes against Humanity
beatrice (anonymous) says…
ScottyMac just hit a grand slam folks! Well done.
This helps explain why Cal had to "reflect" for a time on the actions of the Phelps clan before finding them offensive. I'm sure had they never protested at the funerals of heterosexual soldiers but had kept it to just protesting at gay funerals, Cal would never have seen anything wrong in their actions nor written a column denouncing them.
Jaylee (anonymous) says…
So all douchebaggery towards others aside, does anyone think it is legitimately twisted and messed up that any children the Phelpses raise will be brought up to hate fags... or anyone?
yourworstnightmare (anonymous) says…
Fred Phelps is as much a christian as anyone else. He is a pastor, and his pit of hatred is indeed a christian church. He goes farther than most fundies, but he says what many of them believe but are too afraid to say.
Phelps is in the long tradition of christian liars, slavers, inquisitors, persecutors, and violent criminals.
Saying he is not christian is just silly and again speaks to the insecurity of most christians about the robustness of their beliefs and dogmas.
yourworstnightmare (anonymous) says…
Nailed it, scottymac. Precisely.
Agnostick (anonymous) says…
Cal Thomas misses the point. So does everyone else, from what I've read so far.
Maybe this is the one point where the Founding Fathers screwed up. Maybe because they lived with a concept that was so common, so ingrained into the people of the 18th Century, that they couldn't possibly fathom it would become so forgotten and overlooked two centuries later.
It's a concept that is easily summed up by a single word--a word that, so far has not been mentioned in this thread. So, I'll gladly do the honors.
Responsibility.
jonas_opines (anonymous) says…
A very good post, scottymac, indeed.
Agnostick (anonymous) says…
This case has nothing to do with "rights." Based on what I've read about the case, Albert Snyder has never, ever questioned the First Amendment rights of Fred Phelps, his family, his church, or anyone else, for that matter.
The issue at hand goes to responsibility. Another word might be "accountability."
What happens when, as someone is exercising their First Amendment rights, they harm someone, or they infringe on the rights of someone else? Can they be held accountable for that harm? Are they bound, by law, to take responsibility for their speech, or actions?
The concept is not altogether foreign. Right below the First Amendment is the all-hallowed and endlessly glorified Second Amendment. If someone is enjoying and exercising their Second Amendment rights, and in the process, they injure or even kill someone. Can they be held accountable?
Of course they can. Reckless endangerment, assault, involuntary manslaughter, murder--all of these are crimes that have often (though not always) involved the use of firearms. People are held accountable, taken to court... tried... often convicted... and eventually imprisoned or even executed.
Do these imprisonments and executions have a "dampening" or "chilling effect" on the Second Amendment? They don't seem to. Plenty of people still go hunting, enjoy target and skeet shooting, firearms collecting, and even defend themselves and their families against criminals.
If the Phelps were truly held accountable, and they were forced to pay up the original settlement amount, would it prevent them from exercising their First Amendment rights? Would it prevent other people from exercising their First Amendment rights?
Responsibility. Accountability. I believe those are the real issues that will be put before the Supreme Court.
FYJIMO (anonymous) says…
Have anyone of you been subjected to Fred Phelps and his little band of terrorist?I took my Pops to the V,A, in Topeka a few years before he died.The anti-christ(Fred Phelps)and his minions were blocking the entry,with posters to evil to repeat.My Pops cried and said please don't let them do this at my funeral.He was a prisoner of war in world war 2,medal of honor,purple heart,and many more.Had two toes frozen and cut off,in Ausuwitz.Ate cabbage soup with maggots in it to stay alive.When he passed I took his rifle with me to see him off.So glad the evil empire didn't show up.What they are doing isn't freedom of speech!It's invasion of privacy.What happened to separation of church and state?How do cults get awaywith this in the name of GOD?
Slowponder (anonymous) says…
This case is not just about Free Speech. It is about the right to be left alone, which Justice Brandeis recognized as just as important as the enumerated rights spelled out the Bill of Rights. The Court must balance the right of Phelps to spew his venom with the right of the Snyder family to be left alone. It would not even be a close call if Lance Cpl was openly gay (In the face of Don't ask, Don't tell - doh!). The balance of these rights will be found in the access to medical clinics cases that the court has already decided.
Liberty275 (anonymous) says…
I can think of less than half a dozen types of speech that I don't think should be protected by the first amendment. Fred Phelps isn't anywhere close to being in the ballpark. As long as he is on public property, has the permits for the number of people gathered his rights are just as protected as any other loon such as cindy shehan or micheal moore.
That isn't to say he isn't dumb. He's as dumb as any idiot that carries around a sign and chants. Or that goes to stupid candlelight vigils.
Graczyk (anonymous) says…
Cal's comments are outrageously wrong. It is clear that Cal is judging Phelpes based on his emotional response to the action and theology rather than the tenets of free speech. Cal's use of phrases like "spiritually corrupt" tip his hand and show his real objections. I don't agree with Phelpes either. I think it is distasteful and lacking in compassion, but I still want his speech to be free.
Hydra (Roger Ford) says…
I've said it before, but I guss once more won't hurt (or help)!
The framers of the constitution were great for check and balances. When they put freedom
of speech in the constitution I doubt if they ever dreamed that people would lose the right to defend their honor by dueling.
Grammaton (anonymous) says…
Whatever happened to pipe bombs and snipers? Phelps should have been dead by now. Sheesh.
RonHolzwarth (Ron Holzwarth) says…
Verity posted: "After all these years, I don't think that even they think that they will make any converts."
This shows a complete misunderstanding of Fred Phelp's theology. He believes in the doctrine of the elect, which means, you can NOT be converted, you are going to go to Hell no matter what you do.
Faith, actions, works, charity, that all means nothing, you are going to go to Hell. So give up!
The Reverend believes his duty is to inform us that we are all going to Hell, and there is nothing we can do about it, except envy the Reverend and his family, for Paradise is reserved for only them, and them alone.
For a further explaination of this theology, visit the website GodHatesTheWorld.com.
Of course, there are other opinions on the subject.
RonHolzwarth (Ron Holzwarth) says…
I had some trouble linking to GodHatesTheWorld.com on AOL.com, they seem to have censured that website. But you can get to it using Firefox.
And, I gave a very poor explaination of predestination and the doctrine of the elect. I could go on about those topics, but it's best to just leave it at this: No organized church has believed such for hundreds of years. If you want to know more, a web search will explain it all.
Liberty275 (anonymous) says…
""I had some trouble linking to GodHatesTheWorld.com on AOL.com"
If you put"127.0.0.1 aol.com" in you hosts file, AOL won't be giving you any more problems.
(Note: if you don't know what this does, don't do it)
75x55 (anonymous) says…
"I guess I'm having trouble understanding why Cal objects to Fred's message."
I'm having trouble why so many people agree with you.
You're equating a person's actions (acts, behavior) with the person themselves - which is the same essential error that Ph*lps and his vile nest make. Ph*lps' primary flaw is that he proclaims a judgment that is in complete opposition with the scripture he claims to follow - that God hates anyone based on their behavior/acts. Cal observes the destructive nature of many of these behaviors. Not defending him in all cases, as I'm not familiar with all of Cal's statements or past.
It's simplistic and rather trite, but far more accurate and useful a maxim than most of the stuff that one hears these days: 'Hate the sin, love the sinner'.