Rev. Erudite Redneck, B.S., B.S., M.A., M.Div.

Yay for the VFW motorcyclists! You may have the right to say whatever you want, but you don't have the right to make me listen to it. (And, by "you" I don't mean you, ER, I mean "you" as in the general population.) :)

I didn't get that first paragraph, either, or a couple other things in that second story. Looks like the editor wasn't paying attention when they put that one to bed, but still it was a good story.

How was your weekend?
 

Or you could just riot and burn down buildings in your own neighborhood; that should solve the problem.
 

There is another effective way to deal with hate speech: Turn a deaf ear and don't give the hate-mongers an audience. That apparently is effective in getting them to pack up and go home also.
 

Oh, and you don't understand that lead? It's crystal clear! The reporter is letting us know whose side God is on! Sheesh. (If you know me, you know that "sheesh" is aimed at the stupid reporter who would dare try to speak for God. I'm surprised the editor didn't do something akin to the famous Johnstown Flood editor who said "Forget the flood! Interview God!")

Also, the latest chapter in the Westboro story was written Sunday morning at the Southern Baptist Church in Del City where these people protested at the church of Oklahoma legislator Paul Wesselhoft who is filing legislation restricting funeral protests.

Hundreds (including the motorcycle brigade again) showed up at the First Baptist Church of Del City in Wesselhoft's defense but members of Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, KS, demonstrated that "God hates people."

The group of protestors believe God is attacking America for tolerating homosexuality and the group has protested at several funerals of soldiers.

Representative Wesselhoft said, "The demonstration should be at the Capitol but they've decided to target my church this morning ... I could've not come this morning but I figured that would've given them the victory and I'm not willing to give them any victories."

Wesselhoft will introduce the Oklahoma Funeral Protection Act, a measure taken to keep protestors from demonstrating at funerals.

The Funeral Protection Act will be introduced next legislative session. -30-

It didn't take long before the Kansas group slipped out in their cars, escorted up Sooner Road to I-35 by motorcycle police.

The only arrest made was when one of the Oklahoma supporters of Wesselhoft crossed the road trying to remove a flag being desecrated by the Kansas protestors. The Kansas group was taunting others by claiming loyalty to the flag was idolitry. I'm not sure why they bothered with that since they are convinced that God hates people, especially Americans, and it's now too late to repent or even pray.

Anyone know how they got hold of God's timetable to be so certain about that?
 

Are y'all not SEEIN' the post and pic below??? Not a peep? It's a great pic! "Sheesh," he added. ;-)

Oh, Trixie, I heard something on the TV last night about Westboro "Baptist" protesting a chu8rch in Oklahoma but didn't hear which one -- and was a mite afeared it mighta been the lefty church I've been a-goin' to -- and googled to see, and found only the Chelsea protest. Didn't know they were here, too.

Masn, whgat freaks. They are an insult to the concept of a "church," "Baptist" and, well, "the West" and boros!

Check out their Web page if y'all want to stir yalls' selves up good.

By the way, I think the "funeral protection act" is stupid, too. Somebody besides the kansas freak show should be raisin' hell over the attempt to stifle speech.

--ER
 

"I am not regulating content of speech," (Wesselhoft) said, (lying, or expressing his own delusion), adding that protesters can still exercise their First Amendment Rights, just not at a funeral.

Just not ... when it makes me or people like me uncomfortable.

Just not ... when it's in opposiiton to somethin' Amurrica is for.

Just not ... when the majority is against it.

Just not ... when the speech is UNPOPULAR.

Grrr. The whole reason for the First Amendment. Is the ACLU on top of this idjit bill? It should be.

Paul Wesselhlft also wants to outlaw pit bulls. And he's a Republican. Not a very conservative one, apparently, since he's awaful dang quick to wield the alw against stuff he doesn't like. (And I hate pit bulls.)

--ER
 

More about Wesselhoft. The freaks picked on the wrong dude.

http://www.okhouse.gov/Members/hd54.htm

Confusing, though. Appears conservative to the point of hawkishness. A chicken-fried Baptist his own self. Yet he wants to control speech. Eh. He has a socialist twitch -- and FOR THE WRONG REASON.

Sheesh, I say again. Sheesh.

--ER
 

Phelps and his "God Hates Fags" cohorts seem to have the strangest understanding of the Bible I've ever seen. God hates? Sheesh!

Phelps hisself is the biggest loon I've ever met. People who follow him could be loonier.

So I don't like the things those idiots say, and I'm sickened they do it. But I'm glad they have the right to say their stupidity, and it gives the rest of us an avenue to witness such lunacy and recognize such.

If you have a mind to, just pray for 'em all. Phelps' folks need as much salvation as anyone when judgment day arrives. :-)
 

Re: Regulating speech

This is one of the few 'political areas' in which I am deeply conflicted within myself. On the one hand, I favor a strict interpretation of the Constitution (and Bill of Rights). Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech. That is a straight-forward statement and the constructionist side of me says that all speech is fair game. All.

Another part of me argues that the founding fathers never meant for crude, inappropriate language to be used whenever, wherever one liked. That is obviously not explicit in the First Amendment. The definition of crude and inappropriate speech is open for debate and not easily defined. What I consider inappropriate, another may not.

As I said, I am divided on this issue. The constuctionist in me usually wins out, but seldom without a fight.

So, what's to be done? I don't know. I do know that I do not envy the folks at the FCC. I think that most people can agree on what is or isn't appropriate for public airwaves (TV, radio). By allowing the FCC to censor things, however, they seem to be in violation of the Bill of Rights. Most opponents of censorship routinely say that if you don't like something, turn the channel. Often, you don't know what to expect until after the fact.

An example: I love baseball. Anymore, to watch baseball on a consistent basis, one must watch Fox Sports Net (FSN). FSN has a particular show entitled The Best Damn Sports Show Period. Many people use the word damn in their everyday speech and find it no more offensive than the word shucks. The general public has accepted its use. I have a two year old son. At this age, he is a human tape recorder. I try to be very selective in the programs I watch, because I do not want him to pick up on words like this. If all I had to do was avoid the show, I'd be OK. Since this show is promoted thoughout the ball game, I never know when I'll hear it. Because I do not want him to think that I would approve of such language, I stopped watching baseball.

It seems a shame. Simple decency would have allowed me to avoid this choice. Decency (and/or any other type of speech) should not be regulated. On the other hand, if it is not regulated, how will you ever have it?

The war within continues . . .
 

Well, I agree with you on the use of "Damn" in that sports show. It's gratuitous, and potentially offensive, and you can be you are not alone in quitting it.

But that raises a fine but important point:

Air waves -- broadcast, not cable -- are owned by the citizenry of the United States collectively, which is why they're called "public airwaves.' As such, their use is licensed by the federal government when it doles out access. That's why I have no real problem with regulating speech over the air -- it's not "free speech" in the first place. It is regulated government-licensed speech in the first place.

On most other forms of speech, I'm a lunatic freak. It should be as free as a bird, especially political speech -- and that's persactly what the Westboro "people" are uttering. No internal conflicts in my own self atall.

There are libel and slander laws, and other ways for people to seek redress for alleged harm after the fact of speech -- with a ver, very high bar, as it should be. Restraining speech, though, is a form of tyranny.

--ER
 

I agree that all speech must remain free and protected. There should be no laws restricting it. I even agreed with that as far as protecting those who choose to express themselves by burning the flag. No, that does not mean I agree with or like the idea of flag burning.
I just think it's the wrong social convention we're asking to deal with this. Let Miss Manners handle this - and Emily Post, and all the etiquette mavens. Let them handle the absolute social offense of protesting a soldier's funeral in the presence of his family and loved ones.
Just because you have the right to act like an ass doesn't mean you should.
Etiquette is the social convention that deals with offending others' sensibilities, not the law.

(Of course, it's hard for me to say these things when I really just want to pound the snot out of these Westboro people. Pray for me, so I can pray for them.)
 

At the risk of sounding trite, I am surprised that no one has yet mentioned the old "Shouting fire in a theatre" truism.

The difference, I think, in shouting fire and protesting a funeral, is in whether somebody's life would be at risk.

Naturally, standing across the street while a funeral is in progress, holding signs and chanting offensive slogans doesn't put any one at risk, with the possible exception of the risk that the protestors themselves put themselves in from the wrath of the attendees of the funeral.

Therefore, they have every right to protest as loudly and obnoxiously as they please. They also have the right, as I am fond of repeating ad nauseum, to be stupid.
 

Mark, it is entirely proper to shout "fire" in a crowded theater if there is a fire. The phrase is "falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater." And since there is very little, if anything, about political speech that is "true" or "false" in the absolute sense the phrase cannot apply because the notion cannot apply.

For legitimste uses of prior restraint -- and there aren't but a couple -- go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater
 

How come we are so skeered of the thought of keeping someone or group away from a soldiers funeral who gave his life for our country. If these people from this so called church want to exercise their free speech, there are plenty of other places to do it, without disrespect to someones family.

We should be "free" in this country to pay respect for the dead without being forced to listen to other peoples speech at the same time.

They have the right to speak it, but they shouldn't have the right to speak it anywhere they want to.
 

Actually, yes, they should have the right to speak anyplace they want to, if where they want to is a public space, which includes the sidewalk and-or street in front of a church. Or my house. Or yours.

And, no, actually, grieving people do not have a right to grieve in peace, not in a public space. And thney do not have a right to a peaceful trip through a public space to get to their grieving place. They do have a reasonable expectation, but that is a different thing.

And the Westboro "church" members should, well, have their asses whupped. I do not have the right to do it.

But, you know, I'm thinking that if a bunch of non panty-waist Baptists, or others, started following the Westboro people around and just beatin' the hell out of 'em, it might make 'em think twice before spoutin' off. Isn't simple assault usually a misdemeanor? That'd make a fine ministry for somebody. I'm kidding. Sort of.

--ER
 

Well, here is a point, and perhaps not such a fine point about the right to disrupt a funeral like these people did. A cemetery is not a public place. You have to buy title to the land in which a body is buried. Seems to me that having to hold title to that land should, in fact, provide some measure of protection from the "public place" part of free speech.
You even have to buy the title to land on which human cremains are scattered. It cost me $600 per person to scatter my mom and brother in a rememberance garden at the cemetery in my home town. I own that piece of the garden now.
If a shopping mall can stop newspaper photographers from photographing the door of a state agency within its halls, I think truly a cemetery could limit access, especially during a funeral. I'm surprised someone didn't press that particular point of the issue.
 

Well, never mind that last post. I had been misinformed about that point. I thought the protestors also went to the cemetery but I don't think that was true now.
 

I am saying they shouldn't have the right and we should pass a law or amendment stating so.

I am not skeered of losing free speech on this or that other non-sense we talked about a few weeks ago.

If we as human beings created in Gods image don't have any better sense than to worship free speech of any and everything that comes out of our depraved minds over that which is common decency, then we will end up being destroyed by our own human stupidity.
 

The Rev. Fred is making himself look like a real pro again. Knowing how to pick your battles is a good indicator of sense...And he just doesn't have it.
He was just here, by the way, protesting at a local high school that was putting on "The Wyoming Project", a play about the death of Matthew Shepard, and the arrival of Rev. Fred and his funeral wreckers. So they protested a play in which they prominently figure, protesting.
I didn't get a chance to use my "You Are Not A Christian" sign on them; they left town too fast.
 

As to free speech issues, most often in my life, the ones doing the shushing have been indivduals with a chip on their shoulder from various freedom movements.
I.e. "You must refer to me and others like me as This, but never That". The reclaiming of words formerly used in hate has led to some interesting discussions. I don't use the word 'nigger' to describe my black friends but they can, for instance. I understand this one. It's different when I use it.
Nonetheless, it galls the hell out of me to hear grown adults on television who will not use it at all, even in the context of a discussion about the word itself. Hearing grown ups use the phrase 'the n-word' just nauseates me. It is still just a word, and what it does depends on context.
Then there was the whole college-era thing for me about how I was supposed to embrace the tenets of feminism, while at the same time being told that by virtue of my being a man at all, I could never truly be one. Or indeed, my thoughts on gender weren't welcome at all, causing me to think that the people involved weren't interested in equality, but hegemony. They didn't wanna hear that either, as you can imagine.
So I guess as always, my take is that you can say whatever you want to say, but be prepared to take responsibility for it. And be prepared to debate, debate, debate until the day you die.
 

Oh, and when Fred's daughter talked to reporters while here, what did she say about the play?
"I don't think people should be talking about this."
There y' go.
 

Kris has demonstrated the exact reason, and need, for the First Amendment. Get yer petition started, dude. 'Cause you have to change the Constitution itself if what you want to do is get rid of speech you don't like, because it makes you uncomfortable.

I'm saddened, and amazed, that you would so easily piss away the main freedom our fightin' men, and women, have fought and died to keep. :-)

Ironic as hell that a supposed right-winger is puttin' me in a position whewre danged if I don't have to defend the free-speech rights of an even more extreme right-winger. Them's the breaks.

--ER
 

Yeah, but them fancy-pants lawyers wouldn't be involved in a local prosecutor's decision to charge somebody with Open Container -- as in openin' up a can of whup-ass -- on the creeps.

Looks like 10 or a dozen times in row of some of them getting the s--- kicked out of 'em, maybe they'd go away and do something else.

Probably not, though. Besides that, then the fancyt-pants lawyers would sue the ass-whuppers. You know what, though? Civil suits go to juries, too -- and I'm thinkin' a jury might think a good ass-whuppin' was called for, and might side with the defense in a case like that.

--ER
 

I think in a private family ceremony, such as a funeral, wedding, or baptism, EVEN if it's being held in a public place (such as a graveyard or a church), the family has a right to determine what they will and will not accept. Had a group done something similar at my Dad's funeral, I'd probably be in jail, because I would have had to hurt someone.

This is not free speech; it's harassment, pure and simple. Those Westboro people didn't know that soldier or his family and shouldn't be allowed to make a horrible time worse.
 

WHO in HELL said I was a RIGHT WINGER!

You have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to me. You just assume from your arrogant position of "free" speech is sacred above all else that I must be right wing because I oppose the speech of child molesting porn and oppose speech around grieving americans who should have the right to go down public places without having to be forced to listen to idiots while paying respect to their family and friends. The two politcal parties assigned places for protestors during there conventions. For goodness sakes why can't we do the same for grieveing families?

I am not a right-winger or left-winger. I am a commonsenseokiefied-winger who can't figure out why we have to be skeered of the boogyman of "free speech anywhere or we will lose all freedom of speech" mantra.
 

Jodie, I agree this is harrassment, and, unfortunately, it's harrassment that's protected by the Constitution. It's sad that people like the Westboro idiots take advantage of the law to harrass in this manner.

Kris, ER's stance on your backwards comments aren't arrogant. His comments are commonsenseokiefied. Yes, I would love for a muzzle to be put over Phelps and his crew's mouths, but at the cost of free speech? That's just plain ignorant.

When and if I make suggestions for officials to do something that shouldn't, couldn't and won't be done, I hope someone calls me on it, too. What you suggested won't happen, shouldn't happen and can't happen -- think about it. Right wing, left wing, whichever. It ain't common sense.

ER, when I read your ass-whuppin' suggestion, I was prepared to be the first in line with fists at the ready to punch ol' Fred square in the nose. Them folks, who spread hatred in the supposed name of God, deserve it more than most.

But should we squeeze their heads like zits, we're expressing our hatred in a similar and equally disruptive way.

That's why I suggest we pray for their souls, because they'll never get to know the heaven they supposedly seek. People who act like that on earth have no place in heaven.

All, screw it. Let's arrange a posse and head to Topeka for an ass-whuppin' party. We can buy Powerball tickets along the way.
 

Tedi,

You need to read exactly what I say before you make your comments. I did not say that ER was arrogant for making comments on my so called "backward comments".
I said he was arrogant for labeling me right-wing, thats all.

And I ain't advocating "muzzling" Fred Phelps and his followers. They have a right to say whatever they just shouldn't have to right to say it anywhere anytime. We need to use some sense here and think about the rights of other people who shouldn't have to listen to crap while giving respect to their families, without violating the right of freddie phelps or teditor or ER or Kris.
 

Kris and Teditor, re-read E.R.'s comment -- he was referring to Phelps, not Kris.
 

Jodie, re: "EVEN if it's being held in a public place (such as a graveyard or a church), the family has a right to determine what they will and will not accept."

A graveyard, if owned by a non-government, is not a public place, in the sense I mean. Nor is a church. So, I agree.

A street, widewalk, city park, median of a highway, the parking lot and grounds of a government buildng -- those are public places. And no one inside a church house, which is a private place, has a right to not be made uncomfortable by the spoken or written words of others on the street or sidewalk outside, on their way in. And that, I'm pretty sure, is what the Westboro "church" folks did.

Kris, simmer down. If yer not a right-wiger, I'm sorry. I will pleade no lo contendre to making an assumption, but not arrogance. Gee whiz. Every time you've jumped my shit, it's been from the right. So soddy. BTW, the political parties are, ironically, private organizations; within their own space, owned or rented, they can mark off places where detractors can detract, just like I can keep a jerk at a party at my house in the back room, or scoot him out the door, if I don't like what he's saying. :)

Teditor, gracias.

Nick, glad to see ya hereabouts.

:-)

--ER
 

ER apology accepted! and I ain't boilin or simmerin. My apologies for big cappin some of my words to make it look that way.

I guess I don't need to tell trixie to re-read you answered that one for me.

As for the conventions I "think" you may not have it quite right. They were not allowed on the "public" sidewalks around the buildings I think they were assigned a place almost a block away.

I will say it one more time. How is it violating them peoples free speech not letting them protest in front of the church while the funeral is takin place? We got to have some reasoning here for others not to have to be forced listen to what they don't want to, while attending a simple funeral... even in public.

It ain't stoppin "free" speech to make em have respect around a funeral. They can say what they want down the street or in the newspaper or in their church or even @ http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=7869981&postID=112956097512623212
 

I think you're right, Kris. But it was the cities, then, grabbed by the cajones by the parties, that corraled the protesters.

And so goes the debate over what, persactly, "free speech" mean.

P.S.: Go Cards.

--ER
 

Oh and I agree with you nick. most likely they are all kinfolk and those kids are ones who are being deceived and exploited.
 

Sorry Kris, the way I read it I thought E.R. was talking about defending Phelps free speech rights.
 

Go Astros, or anybody else that ain't a Cardinal. OK, that's just fer you, ER.
 

It is apparent that not everyone who has commented has read the entire story. The commentators here are saying the issue is about Phelps and his family/congregation protesting the funeral but look at the story:

"...Westboro Baptist Church members who were allowed to protest from 1-1:30 p.m. before the 2 p.m. funeral services for Staff Sgt. John Glen Doles.

The protesters were escorted by police from the Chelsea Police Station to and from the protest site at the corner of Sixth and Vine streets a half block away. They left immediately after the protest..."

They did not technically disrupt the funeral service. They were positioned half a block away and the protest ended before the funeral began.

This is more a case of the news building a mountain out of a milehill. Very likely, the protest didn't amount to much more than an opportunity for the reporters to get a scoop.
 

Mark, the "issue" here is what anybody who comments here wants to make it.

My issue was the lawmaker who wants a law passed to put even more limitations on offensive speech than already exists wants more than the First Amendment suggests is allowable.

And the "story" here is that a bunch of VFW bikers took action on their own to respond to the Westboro idiots protest.

Just because you don't think it deserves to be written about doesn't mean it's not newsworthy -- and makes me glad yer not a newsman.

Scoop, my butt. Get off the media or quit relying on them so much for yer own blog fodder.

Nerve touched.

--ER
 

That's pretty much the final straw for me, Mark. I'll be staying at my own blog. Y'all are welcome to come visit, but I've had enough of this for a while.
 

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
 

I don't know if you'd call it a "good argument," but since the posts from the right on this topic aren't impressing you, the classic essay from the left for regulating expression is Herbert Marcuse's "Repressive Tolerance."
 

Thank you, TStockman. Printing it off now.

--ER
 

Geeeez, I'm sorry. I didn't mean for it to sound like an attack on any media. You're right ER, When I said issue, i meant story.

And I also didn't mean to imply that the media shouldn't have found it newsworthy. Certainly anytime a lunatic fringe group like Phelp's does some outrageous thing the public should know about it.

My whole point was that in this case, the actual protest didn't disrupt the funeral. I am unclear about the circumstances of how the motorcyclists became involved, and when. If indeed, the motorcyclist drowned out the protestors, while the funeral was going on, wouldn't they have added to the disruption?
 

Inflamatory signs, outrageous T-shirts, well timed (and protected)entrances and exits,pre-positioning of TV reporters and cameras, attacting "motorcylce types with beards and bikes". Bro. Phelps is well versed in what he is doing. He picks a soldier's funeral to protest knowing that the outrageousness of such an act will assure him Statewide coverage, and maybe something National as well. He is counting on the ire and disgust of the audience. Reminds me of he Miltonian quote where Satan says, "It is better to reign on earth than to serve in Heaven."
Bro. Phelps is getting some of what he wants but not all. What he really needs is for some dumb bunny to attack the group in some way or for the officials of the "city" or whatever to deprive him of his rights. That way he can attract the ACLU and National attention or file a lawsuit. He can also expect that he will begin to receive "offerings" from supporters who will defend his "free speech" or his message of America's doom.
If he does not attract the unreasonable opposition he needs, he may very well create it for himself in the near future.
It is about Ego, Power, and Money for Bro. Phelps. That he would abuse the privilage of our right to free speech to feed those needs is abhorant. But it is his right as well. Bad manners and poor taste are not illegal, thank God.
That soldier, whose funeral he desecrated for personal gain, had sworn an oath upon enlistment to: "protect and defend the constitution of the United States.." Free Speech is gaurded in that oath. That soldier swore he would die and kill to protect that right. To deny Phelps his free speech is to dishonor that soldier even more than Phelps did.
But free speech is the proverbial two edged sword. Shining a light on his true intent, calling attention to his profit in all of this would be more effective than spitting in his face (but maybe not a satisfing).
 

Milton's quote I got wrong I think : " Better to reign in hell that serve in Heaven".
 

The only legitimate argument for speech codes is the same as that for dress codes: in certain circumstances, e.g. on a campus, the authorities have the responsibility to establish what constitutes acceptable behavior, and to enforce such rules. So, I am okay with rules that ban, for instance, racial slurs in the classroom.

Also, as Trixie and Rem said, there's a difference between what one has the *right* to do and what is right to do. Hence, yes, one has the right to swear, or to be a racist bigot, or to be an asshole; that doesn't, and shouldn't constitute an excuse for doing so--which is why I am really pretty much behind the idea that racist comments are grounds for firing football coaches, for example. You can't go to jail for it; but that doesn't make it okay.
 

Which, btw, is why I would argue that Toad's comment at the top of the thread is obnoxious.
 

Ah, consequences for speech, yes. That's one thing. As in getting tossed from a class -- but really, actually, for being an ass, not just for use of words. Coach getting fired, I suppose if a weasel college president or board of regents makes such a call -- although I'd prefer something less dire. Both remedies are still extreme. And it's still the proverbial slippery slope.

By the first standard, I my own self could've gotten tossed, today, for what I said in that "Women in American History" class back in the day. I meant it to be provocative, which some would see as obnoxious.

Naaah. Err on the side of freedom -- even for jerks. Rules for conduct in a classroom are nothing new, though. It's the other crap, having to do with non-classroom political and organizational activities on campus, that ain't right. Let speech freedom, uh, "reign."

--ER