Some costs are too great. Protests at military funerals is one form of speech that ought to be barred.
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. — Voltaire…
"A sinister cabal of superior writers."
Congress Votes to Limit Hate Speech - Comments Page 2
Article comments
26 - Mark Adams
Isaiah:
The meaning of Romans 5:8 is clear. These "sinners" are they who were loved by God while they were yet sinners (the meaning of scripture is clear-what you might add to it is of no interest to me).
You do not know me nor have you made any effort to know me. Yet you presume that I hate God. But I am not moved. The pagans accused the early Christians of being God haters, so I am little concerned by your remark.
27 - Baronius
I just can't get past the idea that we're restricting unpopular religious speech. There are many restrictions on public assembly (permits and such). If there weren't any existing laws to block Phelps' people, then we are creating a law to allow a specific infringement. That always goes badly.
Further, the people we are targeting are "them". Democracies should never target "them". What really scares me is that I'd love to see this law upheld. I've been trying hard to agree with Dave's analysis, or any approach that would justify this law. And that's how we lose liberties.
Would this be a bigger story if it restricted Muslims? or anti-pollution groups? The homophobic Bible-thumper is the stock villain of our era. Every generation ends up issuing apologies to the prior generation's villain.
28 - Dave Nalle
Baronius, we're not restricting the speech, we're just restricting where it can be said.
Dave
29 - Bliffle
"If you don't believe, you are already condemned, so how about you get off of that maudlin "God loves everyone lie." God hates unbelieving and unrepentant sinners:
Romans 9:13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated."
I don't understand how you can worship a god who is capable of hatred, which is a sin of mere mortals: sinners all. Hatred IS a sin.
It simply makes NO sense that god would hate. Since the bible says he does, I conclude that the bible is wrong, therefore the bible is fallible and NOT gods word. How can one believe anything else that the bible says?
30 - Isaiah
When you say that the Holy Scripture is "deplorable words," then that is all I need to know about you.
Luke 6:45 A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is evil: for of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaketh.
You speak these evil words out of your dark evil heart. All we are doing is quoting you scripture. God is in control of all events (Amos 3:6), not just the ones you like. Therefore, God is in control of killing these soldiers of Iraq. And so, you must decide if this event is a blessing or a curse. If you think it is a blessing, then you have a very warped brain. So, a dead son/daughter/soldier is a curse. Why are these curses being bestowed upon America by God? I'll tell you: because America has sinned away her day of grace by setting up hundreds of thousands of false prophets all over the landscape, telling everyone the two greatest lies: "It's OK to be gay" and "God loves everyone." America is being cursed for not obeying the commandments of God.
Deuteronomy 11:26 Behold, I set before you this day a blessing and a curse;
27 A blessing, if ye obey the commandments of the LORD your God, which I command you this day:
28 And a curse, if ye will not obey the commandments of the LORD your God, but turn aside out of the way which I command you this day, to go after other gods, which ye have not known.
31 - Baronius
Luke 13: 1-5
There were present at that season some that told him of the Galilaeans, whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. And Jesus answering said unto them, Suppose ye that these Galilaeans were sinners above all the Galilaeans, because they suffered such things? I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish. Or those eighteen, upon whom the tower in Siloam fell, and slew them, think ye that they were sinners above all men that dwelt in Jerusalem? I tell you, Nay: but except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.
Isaiah, by what right do you claim to know the will of God, that you can identify those who have died under God's curse? Death came to man from Adam, and we all share in his sin. All men face death. The wheat and the tares grow side by side, and will only be separated at the harvest.
Phelps isn't disrupting the lives of the sinners. He's disrupting the funerals of people that you claim are victims of God's anger. After a demonstration outside a burial, he hasn't interfered with the lives of the people he blames. He's harassed innocents. Even if you have the ability to identify who dies for whose sins, you aren't even protesting against the sinners.
You're breaking God's commands, and doing so ineffectively.
32 - Isaiah
The family, especially the parents, is to blame largely for that soldier's death because they refused to bring that child up in the admonition of the Lord. The majority of these parents of dead soldier's are divorced and remarried adulterers, and so are the soldier's themselves. That is all.
33 - Nancy
Isaiah, you condemn yourself as an unbeliever by your own statements: if you TRULY believed in the omnipotent God, you would also believe He's quite capable of handling His 'enemies' Himself, & He certainly doesn't need the likes of you to defend Him. He requires of you that you attend to your own sins (Christ's comment about casting stones), and let Him attend to settling the hash of others. But nutcase fundamentalists like you can never comprehend that & insist on adding your own twisted interpretations to suit your own agenda, not His. Oh well.
34 - Mark Adams
Isaiah:
Did you write: "The majority of these parents of dead soldier's are divorced and remarried adulterers, and so are the soldier's themselves. That is all."
The 'majority'?
Sounds as if you don't know who these people are at all. Can you prove you know the faith-let alone marital status of these soldiers? And then, what of the minority who are married and God-fearing? You actually thank God when these people are killed by IEDs?
Shocking, folks.
Given that God is in control of everything, how do you know why any given soldier dies? You say we have to decide for ourselves, but do you have some special pagan powers?
Isaiah, I don't normally debate with pagans but since you seem acquainted with scriptures-and cut and paste so well-I will continue this dialoge with you.
35 - Joanie
I've always found Phelps and his group to be more about hate than love and isn't Christianity supposed to be more about loving your fellow man than condemning him?
And there are many aspects to Phelps' "sermons" which serve to prove his unbalanced views are based on a gospel of his own making.
Restricting or limiting someone's ability to harass others isn't a limit on free speech, it's protecting people from verbal and visual assault.
I honestly don't understand how one man -- Phelps -- has been able to turn hate into such a "noble" calling.
36 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
I'm going to skip the Christianity arguments if it's okay with you guys. I just want to point out that that what Americans know as "free speech" is circumscrtibed considerably in other parts of the world parading as democracies, like the EU, the UK, Israel, etc.
I do not know the details of these things in the UK or Europe, but incitement to violence is a criminal offense in this country, as is insulting a civil servant. These offenses are usually used in a way that shuts the "right wing" up in this country. The "left wing" doesn't get hauled into court for such offenses at all and Arabs are rarely, if ever bothered with them, even though the most inciteful and vicious language usually comes out of Arabs at demos...
Americans still have considerably more free speech rights than others do around the world.
37 - Christopher Rose
There is a clear difference between freedom of speech when limited by a government or other ruling power to stifle philosophical, political or even religious dissent, which should never be allowed, and freedom of speech being used for incitement to hatred or worse, which should never be tolerated.
38 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
In the States, Chris, that is what the first amendment to the federal constitution is all about - it limits the action of the federal government, and the 14th amendment to the same constitution extends this restriction (through judicial interpretation of the federal supreme court) to the states and local governing authorities that are extensions of the states.
I do not know about the Kingdom of Spain or the United Kingdom, or the overriding authority of the EU, but laws against incitement are often used to restrict reasonable political speech in this country. While it is not truly acceptable for pigs like Phelps to be allowed free rein to spew hatred at people who at their weakest emotional state - at a funeral - it is easy for me to see how laws like this can slide down the slippery slope of judicial interpretation to restrict speech in far greater ways than they are presently intended.
39 - Richard Brodie
Chris says: There is a clear difference between freedom of speech when limited by a government or other ruling power to stifle philosophical, political or even religious dissent, which should never be allowed, and freedom of speech being used for incitement to hatred or worse, which should never be tolerated.
Christ "incited" people to hate evil. Hatred per se is not wrong. It is good and healthy when properly directed. You, Chris, are not free of hatred. Among other things you hate the idea of free speech being used "for incitement to hatred". Your statement quoted above is, in fact, an incitement for people to hate that which YOU consider worthy of hatred.
Ah, and therein lies the key. Different people have different ideas of what is or is not worthy of being hated. The European solution to this dilemma is the Napoleanic, dictatorial one. The ruling elite (king, prime minister, parliament, whatever) will make this decision and impose it upon all who disagree.
America, on the other hand, takes the higher, individual freedom road. A simple, clear distinction is drawn between SPEECH and ACTION. With regard to the former, citizens are free to make up their own minds what to hate, and free to express themselves as to both what it is they hate, and why they hate it. And this includes both hatred for ideas (policies, laws, religions, philosophies, etc.) as well as hatred for people (individuals all the way from the president of the country down to a next door neighbor, and groups such as legislatures, races, etc.)
But when it comes to actions, if they THEMSELVES (not somebody else who MIGHT have been "influenced" by them) cause injury to some particular OBJECT of their hatred - which includes property as well as persons - they will be prosecuted to the full extent of the criminal law.
40 - Christopher Rose
Well, we'll have to disagree, Richard.
If you come round to my house and exercise your freedom of speech to make hateful or threatening remarks to me and my loved ones, to such a degree that we feel intimidated, I'm going to stop you, whatever it takes.
If I can do it legally fine but if not, you better have better weapons than me and the will to use 'em, cos otherwise you're going down.
I believe most people can see that not all aggression or violence is physical, as you so naively believe, and have wisely taken reasonable steps to limit people's ability to harm others.
41 - Bliffle
I'm having a hard time reconciling the title of this article, which is about limiting SPEECH, with the rationalizations which seem to legitimize that based on ACTIONS.
Sorry to be so stupid.
42 - IgnatiusReilly
This ruling sounds just like not allowing people to yell "Fire" in a crowded movie house.
It is amusing to watch "Christians" arguing with each other over the Bible. Unfortunately, when they cease to exist they will be unaware that there is no heaven or hell.
43 - Dave Nalle
Bliff, the interpretation of the first amendment doesn't draw much of a distinction between speech and actions equivalent to speech - like burning a flag.
Dave
44 - Mark Adams
IgnatiusReilly,
It may sound as if the ruling is about not allowing people to yell "fire" in a movie house, but I do not think that is the issue. In this case, the matter concerns overstepping the bounds of common decency. I think this case is extraordinary. Normally, I would oppose such a ruling, but these demonstrations border on harassment. There is a line and I think Phelps stepped over it.
45 - Richard Brodie
the interpretation of the first amendment doesn't draw much of a distinction between speech and actions equivalent to speech - like burning a flag.
Well, Dave, speech itself is a "action". I think the term action in this context means setting in motion other parts of the body besides one's vocal chords, tongue, and lips, with the intent to try and inflict physical injury. That's the distinction. Burning a flag lacks such intent.
Chris: we'll have to disagree, Richard.
We may not be as far apart as you think. My comments were not meant as a justification of Phelps' behavior. And in the case of your hypothetical obnoxious neighbor, his crime is violating your property rights - essentially tresspassing with unwanted sound (Phelps is tresspassing on the cemetary's property.)
He still has the right to express his hatred towards you in a non-physically-threatening manner, should he encounter you in a public place. This can have the healthy effect of getting one's feelings out into the open where they have a chance of being resolved, rather than bottling them up and seething until there is some kind of a violent explosion. He also has the right to talk about his feelings in conversation with other neighbors, either in person or on the internet, provided he does not say anything slanderous.
What worries me about the hate speech legislation advocates is that they seek to outlaw speech that is not directed against any particular individual, and even against speech that is inaccurately labelled as hateful. For example, I am a diversity preservation advocate who believes that it is even more important in the case of the homo sapiens species than it is for species of birds, fish, and insects, to set aside habitat preserves conducive to the preservation of diverse specie varieties.
In plain language I am in favor of segregation. Not a segregation based on hatred of other varieties (races)- but rather one based on a respect for every race to be able to take pride in it's own characteristics, and experience a desire to see itself perpetuated rather than annihilated.
This as you know is not considered a "politically correct" position to take, and those in the PC mainstream will be desirous of using government power to silence me, by arbitrarily designating such a position "hate speech". The concept of hate speech thus becomes simply a disingenuous artifice (to put it politely) to make sure that YOUR postion is the only one allowed to be heard.
46 - Christopher Rose
I'm afraid I have to maintain my disagreement with you, Richard.
If someone follows me round in public places expressing hostile remarks to me and my family in a civil manner, which would actually be creepier than having them angry, I'm not going to tolerate it.
Richard, your subsequent subtly worded position would be respectable and even sane were it not for the fact that it is a pile of racist pseudo-scientific nonsense.
There is only one race, the human race. Sure, there are some slight DNA coding differences for those who live in areas of particularly high or low solar radiation, normal stuff like that but nothing to support your risible little thesis.
If you want to preserve the classic Nordic blonde stereotype for example, simply haul you and your family as far North as you can and let Nature work its magic.
We call this "hate speech" because you are in fact taking minor, normal genetic variation within a single species and somehow trying to argue that it is in some way "special", to elevate it above other humans in some way. It's so wilfully stupid that there seems no other possible explanation to explain your laughable position.
47 - Richard Brodie
Chris, you have a dictatorial mentality in the pure tradition of Napoleanic law (everything is forbidden except what is explicitly permitted) and as such are a traitor to the opposite, English common law tradition (everything is permitted except what is explicitly forbidden) which formed the foundation of the American republic.
Nowhere did I state that any form of human variety is more deserving of being preserved than any other. No single race has a monopoly on being "special" or "elevated" above other races. In fact every race has its own special characteristics, making all races, cultures, and ethnicities worthy of being preserved.
And you are being hypocritically inconsistent. Without actually using the word "hate", you are are, by using hostile terms like "stupid" and "laughable" acting in precisely the same manner towards me that you claim you would not tolerate your neighbor acting toward you!
Be thankful that I am the type of a person who defends you right to speak hatefully towards my position, and that I would never try to get the government to muzzle you, the way you favor having the government muzzle me.
48 - Christopher Rose
Richard, we don't live in a museum, no particular DNA set is worth preserving if it doesn't survive naturally.
I think you're just having a tantrum because blondes are now an endangered species. I'd have thought as a good American and a capitalist, you would have understood the pointlessness of protectionism.
The rest of your remarks about dictatorship et cetera are so deluded I'm simply going to ignore most of them. I'll just point out that you seem to think all ideas should be treated with equal respect. It is, however, neither hypocritical or hateful to describe ideas as either stupid or laughable when they actually are...
49 - Richard Brodie
no particular DNA set is worth preserving if it doesn't survive naturally.
Please do me a favor, Chris, and pass this little tidbit of wisdom along to the Sierra Club environmentalist freakazoids. Maybe they'll stop wasting so many precious resources of land and money trying to artificially preserve every last variety of bird, fish, and insect species that "doesn't survive naturally."
Unless of course you meant it to be restricted only to the human species.
50 - Mark Adams
Belligerence is not protected speech. The aim of the First Amendment is to foster the exchange of ideas, not give some one or some group the right to harass people with distasteful signs. In a democratic society, citizens are able to determine what speech is offensive. The bill, which Bush recently signed, does not prevent the Phelps from expressing his views, only from harassing mourning families.
That said, I would not be surprised if in court action the Supreme Court overturned the bill, though I hope they do not. I think a rational argument can be made in favor of it, that also protects speech.
BTW: Joanie's link in comment #35 is revealing. What a devil that man is. Some are offended that he calls himself a Christian. Others that he says he's an American. I'm offended that he sees himself as a human being.
Also, I think it is ironic that he puts a cartoon of men engaging in sex on his website. Doesn't he oppose that sort of thing?
51 - Christopher Rose
Richard, you're really going for advanced buffoonery today.
It's completely intellectually dishonest to switch the topic to environmental protection but, following your feint, the reason these precious and limited natural riches are under threat is because of the uncontrolled over-consumption and abuse of these strictly limited resources by humanity.
Devoting some of our resources to trying to protect the environment which makes all life possible doesn't seem like a bad idea to me and certainly has nothing to do with your original specious argument. I don't think the effort to protect such biodiversity can be considered in the same light as your racist arguments.
As to Mr Adams original point, he seems to be trying to suggest that Phelps is wrong but the religious impulses he draws upon are not. I could not, of course, agree with such a visionary interpretation.
52 - Mark Adams
Christopher Rose:
Phelps is wrong, and his religious impulse are wrong. He does have the right to speak, but not to harass. That's my point. Congress and the president were right to limit these demonstrations.
53 - Al Barger
I'm REAL skeptical of any new law on this topic, particularly as it would be specifying certain types of speech for banning. Seems like there should be plenty enough legal grounds for minimal control of this idiot just based on common laws against personal harassment.
Beyond that, some of these Patriot Guard Riders ought to just severally and severely beat this fool down the next time he gets up in some grieving mother's face. Which wins out, Phelps desire for attention, or his desire not to be beaten bloody? I'd rather lean on the good sense of a jury to refuse to convict someone under such circumstances than to start passing more laws.
As they say, making laws in response to specific bad cases makes for bad laws.
54 - Mark Adams
Al Barger,
I hear you man. I'm doubtful on many points, but we've always assumed that there are some limits to speech. I would not go so far as to prohibit hate speech outright, but when the intent is to harass, a line has been crossed. I'm far more comfortable with the law considering the circumstances. Check out their website and look at the photos; they are freaking insane.
P.S. To anyone who thinks they can defend what they are doing, I'll take you down (I'm ready for you). I'm not talking about arguing over their right to protest, but the intellectual and spiritual content of the material itself.
55 - Isaiah
Your duty to your fellow man is to warn them if they don't repent they are going to Hell. That is how you love your neighbour:
Leviticus 19:17 Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him.
18 Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.
1st of all, yes, we do know a lot about these soldiers, by reading an article or two.
2nd of all, you only need one piece of evidence to know that no matter what his alleged religion is, he is in Hell: HE IS DEAD. Repeatedly in Jeremiah, it says that if you serve God, you will have long life:
Proverbs 3:1 ¶ My son, forget not my law; but let thine heart keep my commandments:
2 For length of days, and long life, and peace, shall they add to thee.
If you say we are harassing people going into the funerals while on PUBLIC PROPERTY, then words cease to have meaning. The Patriot Gaurd Riders, or Biker Chicks as they are more appropriately called, stand on the actual funeral home property. So, it's not about disrupting a funeral, because those counter protestors rev their bycicle engines. It isn't even about protesting the funeral at all; it's about what the words are. The Biker Chicks say God loves the dead soldiers cursed of God, and we say the soldier is in Hell. I know for a fact that you hate God because of your extreme ignorance towards the scriptures and you willingness to believe the lie your priest told you that God loves everyone. If you care about your never dying soul, you will open the Bible for once in your miserable life and read the words that are written there, and you will pretty quickly see the wrath of God over and over and over in the Bible. You will also see these three words or words like it over and over and over: Keep my commandments. In Revelation, which tells of the return of Christ, it is not very loving at all. In fact, it is about God's wrath and all of the blood that will be spilt by Christ.
You are Bible-illiterate and Hell-bound. You all should go to www.thesignsofthetimes.net to see some really good videos.
I'm done with this, because you are never going to understand this, because God has hardened your heart so that you cannot repent and be healed.
56 - Bliffle
Isaiah"...it is about God's wrath and all of the blood that will be spilt by Christ."
You are really bloodthirsty, aren't you?
57 - Mark Adams
As it is my duty to warn my "fellow man" that if he doesn't repent, he will go to hell, I will begin with you.
How can you defend Fred Phelps, a known pornographer? I visited his sites and I am sickened. (It's painful for me to describe, but I will be succinct.) On his websites (including the one you told me to visit!) are images of two men engaged in a homosexual act! Even more egregiously, one of the sites portrays a CHILD WITNESSING THE ACT!
About a year ago, I e-mailed Phelps warning him that not only was the image offensive, but that they were sinful. Instead of heeding my warning, Phelps continues to display that pornographic image, publishing it name of Christ!
Further, Phelps and his followers REPRODUCE it and DISPLAY IT PUBLICALLY!
If I were a sheriff in a community and such a banner was displayed, I would arrest Fred Phelps for obscenity. But you, my friend, condone and even support the spreading of pornographic images. Phelps "claims" he is opposed to homosexuality, but he displays images of it?
"A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things." (Matthew 13:25)
You also, my friend, are a pornographer, for you refer people to websites with pornographic images.
REPENT! I say. REPENT!
"Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things. But we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth against them which commit such things." (Romans 2:1-2)
Isaiah, your soul is in peril. I command you NOT to visit pornographic sites. I command you to repudiate any connection you have with the sinner Fred Phelps. Repent!
You also write:
"2nd of all, you only need one piece of evidence to know that no matter what his alleged religion is, he is in Hell: HE IS DEAD. Repeatedly in Jeremiah, it says that if you serve God, you will have long life:"
Are you serious? So anyone who dies young is going to hell? My savior Jesus Christ died in his early 30s. Is he in hell? REPENT! REPENT! REPENT!
Postscript: To all others, I'm just giving it as it is given.
58 - Isaiah
I think you are refering to stick figures.
59 - Mark Adams
Isaiah:
Stick figures depicting homosexual acts? You actually defend these?
That's pornography plain and simple.
60 - -E
Congrats! This article has been selected as one of this week’s Editors’ Picks.
61 - Baronius
"You only need one piece of evidence to know that no matter what his alleged religion is, he is in Hell: HE IS DEAD. Repeatedly in Jeremiah, it says that if you serve God, you will have long life."
Really, that's what you're going to use? I had hoped for a smarter argument than that. Were Job's children evil? Is Hugh Hefner pious? The average lifespan in India has skyrocketed in the past 50 years: does that mean that Hinduism is now approved by Christ?
As I pointed out earlier, Luke 13 condemns exactly this kind of cause-effect thinking. Similarly, Jesus made strong statements against the rich, which would seem to contradict the Old Testament view of wealth as reward. There is no contradiction in Scripture, so you should re-examine the conclusions you're drawing. Holiness isn't expressed in units of currency or years.
If you want to enlighten people, you have to engage them. Paul debated the Greeks. He didn't confuse people by picketing outside funerals. You'll find that you don't persuade anyone by telling them that they hate God. The disciple who walks into town and shakes the dust off his feet isn't a disciple. He's a dust-shaker.
62 - Dave Nalle
Is Isaiah Amish? He seems to think that bicycles have engines.
Dave
63 - Dave Nalle
And why is he referring us to a 7th day adventist parenting group site?
Last I checked Christ actually prohibited the spilling of blood and certainly didn't do it himself, but then that's in the Bible, and I doubt Isaiah is familiar with that obscure work.
dave
64 - Mark Adams
Isaiah,
If you are still following this thread, are you a member of Westboro Baptist Church? Visit my blog (see URL) if you want to contact by e-mail.
65 - Adam Beck
Congress has no right to abridge speech. Having said that, if you look closely, there is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits a State from abridging speech. States could pass laws prohibiting hate speech at funerals unless that State's constitution prohibits it.