Bye Fred…

Rod Blaine
#1. April 6th, 2008, at 3:09 PM.

No tears from me. Phred crossed the line from “free speech” to “harassment” when he started picketing funerals.

A distinction, by the way, that explains why I have no problem with the state telling Klansmen (or stupid teenagers) to burn their crosses somewhere other than a Black family’s front lawn, or telling Frank Collin and his American Nazis to stage their march somewhere other than a suburb populated by Holocaust survivors… without swallowing the Illiberals’ line that “feeling offended” is enough to justify a permanent, semper et unique ban on the “hateful” speaker (not just the speech). Thoughts are free. But the time, place and manner of expressing them can be regulated.

Rod Blaine
#2. April 6th, 2008, at 3:12 PM.

By the way, the distinction I outlined (whether you go looking for a someone to “offend”, or whether the offendee/ victim comes looking for you) would seem to imply that, frex, TV stations should warrant greater free speech protections than billboards, and blogs even more than either. Makes sense? Where’s Colby Cosh?

christopher rivers
#3. April 6th, 2008, at 4:45 PM.

I suspect this will be a terrible blow to the anti-Christian left. Foul Fred was their poster boy when attempting to craft flimsy moral equivalence. And picketing military funerals? I won’t speculate on what dark impulse that satisfed for them.

christopher rivers
#4. April 6th, 2008, at 4:46 PM.

whoops “satisfied for them”

Sean
#5. April 6th, 2008, at 11:47 PM.

Er, you’re not going to defend his right to free speech, offensive as it may be?

I personally think that Phelps is a puckering sphincter, but I’m on his side on this one.

Holmwood
#6. April 7th, 2008, at 1:16 AM.

@Sean of course Fred Phelps, in the US, has a right to say things like “God Hates fags”. And sadly, he doesn’t mean cigarettes. (And Jeremiah Wright has the right to say “God Damn America”.)

And we have a right to think Phelps is a detestable human being for doing so.

I oppose government consequences for most speech. I don’t think Phelps should be investigated by tribunals, or jailed on hate speech charges for saying those things.

(Of course, as a matter of fact in law, Canadian laws differ, and here he would be).

However, I don’t oppose social consequences for hateful speech. I don’t oppose legal redress for tortious conduct, though I don’t support people frequently threatening litigation, especially over trivialities.

Jay’s quote doesn’t make it clear, but this is the outcome of a lawsuit filed against Phelp’s Church and Law center by the father of a deceased marine.

Not the government; a father.

Phelps and his people wrote truly vile things on their website about the family, and protested at the funeral. The lawsuit argued, they defamed the family, invaded privacy and inflicted intentional emotional distress.

The speech on the website was held to be protected under the first amendment. The speech — and actions — at the funeral were not, though it was not held to be defamatory.

Damages were awarded.

Phelps had a right to say hateful and vicious things on his website. No one took that from him.

Phelps even had the opportunity — without the government intervening — to disrupt a fallen marine’s funeral in a vile and hateful way.

The family, rightfully I think, sought redress in the courts.

(For what it’s worth, I oppose the laws that were passed making it a felony to come within 500m of a funeral to protest it).

I don’t shed one tear for Fred Phelps. He’s a racist homophobic anti-Semitic anti-Catholic anti-Muslim anti-American bigot.

I will continue to support his right to say what he wants on his website.

But like Jay, I’ll just smile when he is stuck facing the social and [tortious] legal consequences for his conduct.

Near universal social opprobrium and a ten million dollar debt. Works for me.

-Holmwood

Sean
#7. April 7th, 2008, at 4:38 AM.

Holmwood, lots of things can cause emotional distress. I’m a recovered alkie and I damn near break out in hives whenever I walk past a bar or see a beer ad on TV with the head of the beer rolling down the side of the glass. Do I get to sue, too?

I honestly believe that more people need to “suck it up”. That includes the parents of the dead marine, although they have my sympathies for the loss of their son.

What I truly think would have been appropriate would have been if the father and simply punched Phelps in the schnoz. Act like an asshole, get tuned up, end of story. No need for resource consuming lawsuits that nobody except the lawyers win.

Peter
#8. April 7th, 2008, at 4:41 AM.

I would like to say unequivocally that I am shocked, yes shocked, that Fred’s freedom of speech has been trampled on by the state and its judicial running dogs. If “Cheers” re-runs were’t showing tonight, I just might do something about it.

Holmwood
#10. April 9th, 2008, at 9:29 PM.

What Jay said. But in addition to that…
@Sean, first, congratulations on sobriety. I honor and respect a man who admits he has a problem and deals with it.

(And fwiw, I agree that lawsuits are overused.)

Now, please note that I said “inflicted intentional emotional distress.”

The key words being inflicted and, especially, intentional.

Advertisers for beer do not intend to inflict emotional distress on you. No one would credibly support that view. Well, other than maybe the CHRC.

Nor are they targeted at you personally.

The Phelps case was very different.

They clearly intended to trash the family’s memorial of their son.

In my view, if you want vigilante justice (and I don’t!) that deserves a lot more than a punch in the nose.

Far better to have a decidedly imperfect system of recognizing (and civilly punishing) tortious conduct.

@Jay interesting point on the exclusion zones. I still don’t think breaching them needs to be a felony though.

-Holmwood