In the Agora: Ill-Advised Law Against Vile Protests

« Sticking Up for the NCPA | Main | In Memoriam: Rosa Parks »

October 25, 2005

Ill-Advised Law Against Vile Protests

Josh Claybourn passes along this link about a proposed law in Indiana that would make protesting at a military funeral a felony. There's some background required to understand it though. It involves the infamous Rev. Fred Phelps and his Westboro Baptist Church, the cretins behind God Hates Fags. You will find no more loathsome people on the face of this planet than Phelps and his followers, most of whom are members of his own family. In the last couple years, Phelps' cult of idiocy has been protesting at funerals of soldiers who died in Iraq, claiming that they were killed as God's punishment for protecting a nation that tolerates gays. This has prompted Indiana State Sen. Brent Steele to propose changing the law to make such protests at a military funeral a felony. It's an ill-advised law in more than one respect.

First, one has to wonder where these folks have been. Phelps has been doing this for well over a decade, protesting outside the funerals of gay people dozens of times. His followers carry signs that says that the deceased deserved to die because they're a faggot and God hates fags, and they do so right outside the funeral home where people are grieving the loss of a loved one. I've never heard a politician suggest a law to stop them, but now that it involves military funerals, suddenly it's an outrage? Soldiers aren't worth any more as human beings than gay civilians are.

Second, as horrible and disgusting as these people are, they have a constitutional right to protest as long as they don't trespass in the process. I know that's terribly hurtful to the families. It makes my blood boil too. I'll say this, though. We have a very narrowly drawn exception to the first amendment called the "fighting words" exception. When someone's speech will inevitably cause a breach of the peace through its timing and manner, we make very narrow exceptions to the first amendment. But we can't do this as a matter of prior restraint, only in hindsight. And in this circumstance, I think it applies.

I surely would not charge someone else with assault if they took a shot at these folks for protesting at the funeral of a loved one claiming that they deserved it. In fact, let me make it more personal than that. If these evil people had shown up to protest the funeral of my uncle, who died of AIDS, with signs saying he deserved to die...well, there would likely have been more funerals soon afterward. And I might well have gone to jail, but there's no way I would have been able to stop myself. And I think this sort of situation is probably narrowly drawn enough that it's justifiable for a jury, at least, to refuse to convict someone for reacting violently.

The government may not be able to punish them, but I sure as hell would. I'm not a violent man. I haven't hit anyone since the 8th grade, and that was in self-defense. But that's a line that, once crossed, would only result in bloodshed. Judge that however you'd like, I don't much care. I'm just being honest.

Posted by at October 25, 2005 02:59 PM

Comments

You will find no more loathsome people on the face of this planet than Phelps and his followers, most of whom are members of his own family.

That is hardly a statement I agree with. As misguided as Phelps may be, I could list people for hours on end that would rank higher than him as "most loathsome". I understand the purpose in the strong words, but it's over the top.

Posted by: Joshua Claybourn at October 25, 2005 03:12 PM | permalink

Josh-

Well perhaps it's a bit exaggerated. But aside from murderers and rapists and the like, I consider Phelps to be about as vile as it gets. If there is such a place as hell, he will surely find himself in it.

Posted by: Ed Brayton at October 25, 2005 03:25 PM | permalink

Josh,

It is true. Ignoring things makes them go away. But it doesn't mean you know what your talking about.

Posted by: Michael at October 25, 2005 04:04 PM | permalink

Michael-

Where the hell did that come from and what did it have to do with anything that Josh said?

Posted by: Ed Brayton at October 25, 2005 04:06 PM | permalink

Describing Phelps as "misguided" is a gross understatement. He is nasty, hateful, bigoted, ignorant and a non-believer and/or heretic posing as a pastor -- a pretty good friend to Satan, even if there are people who are more loathsome.

Posted by: Joel Thomas at October 25, 2005 04:15 PM | permalink

Ed, please don't feed the trolls.

Posted by: Joshua Claybourn at October 25, 2005 04:20 PM | permalink

Joel,

I think your point is important. Some would like to portray Phelps as a Christian (which then condemns, in a certain manner, Christianity.) However, regardless of whether one claims to be X, if the substance of one's discourse is not-X, it belies the claim. Phelps is not a Christian.

Posted by: David Heddle at October 25, 2005 04:29 PM | permalink

David-

I agree with you. There is a certain type of fanatical extremist that can be found in every religion, and they all function as perversions of those religions. Fred Phelps has far more in common with Osama Bin Laden than with normal Christians, just as Bin Laden has far more in common with Phelps or a Torquemada than he does with the average Muslim. Fanaticism is the enemy of all decent people, regardless of what category they may otherwise be placed in.

Posted by: Ed Brayton at October 25, 2005 04:35 PM | permalink

I surely would not charge someone else with assault if they took a shot at these folks for protesting at the funeral of a loved one claiming that they deserved it.

Hmm... If by "taking a shot" you mean with one's fists, I tend to agree. However, I have to disagree that assault with a deadly weapon is in any way justified or excused by a peaceful protest...no matter how foul. If someone shot and killed Phelps or one of his followers, I can see them being charged with voluntary manslaughter rather than murder one, but no less.

Posted by: Eric Seymour at October 25, 2005 05:53 PM | permalink

Eric-

Yes, I meant with one's fists. I wouldn't trust myself with a gun. I've never shot one and would be as likely to injure myself with one than someone else. Which is probably just as well.