So does the author below have it right below? Is yelling these horrible and ugly words harassment to the people mourning our fallen soldiers. As much as I would enjoy dunking these sick so called believers of god in water up side down for a few hours we cant start picking and choosing what freedom of speech we like and dislike. The minute ANY side decides what speech is good or no good we begin the slippery slope of losing those freedoms to communicate what we believe. As long as they are on public property these disgusting people should be allowed to yell and say what they please. I mean this is the whole reason our soldiers gave their lives for. Does not mean if I was the parent of one of those fallen soldiers I would not walk up to the leader of that group and make sure he didnt leave without a busted nose or missing tooth.
So what do you think?
Today's lead editorial in The New York Times laments what it defends as Rev. Fred Phelps's right to stage anti-gay protests at military funerals as the right of free speech. As journalists, we all try to put up a unified front on free-speech issues, but in this case, I strongly disagree. This is not free speech. It's harassment.
The Times likens Phelps's protests to the Nazi Party's right to march or Hustler Magazine's right to publish pornography. But this is an inaccurate comparison. If Phelps were standing in his Westboro Baptist Church yelling "God hates ****s" at the top of his lungs, I would defend his right to do so. If he wanted to publish those remarks in a Nazi porn magazine, I would defend his right to do so. But he is deliberately trying to desecrate military funeral processions to make his statement, essentially forcing law-abiding people to reroute their trip to bury fallen soldiers in order to avoid these deliberate insults. There's a fundamental difference between this and free speech.
When my brother and I were kids, we played a really annoying game. He would hold his fingers menacingly about two inches from my eyes. No matter where I turned my head, his fingers would stay right in front of my eyes so I couldn't see. I would yell at him to stop, or try to get my Mom to make him stop. But he would always respond with something like, "Hey, I'm not doing anything. You don't own the air. I'm not touching you."
http://dallasmorningviewsblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2010/10/fred-phelps-and.html
So what do you think?
Today's lead editorial in The New York Times laments what it defends as Rev. Fred Phelps's right to stage anti-gay protests at military funerals as the right of free speech. As journalists, we all try to put up a unified front on free-speech issues, but in this case, I strongly disagree. This is not free speech. It's harassment.
The Times likens Phelps's protests to the Nazi Party's right to march or Hustler Magazine's right to publish pornography. But this is an inaccurate comparison. If Phelps were standing in his Westboro Baptist Church yelling "God hates ****s" at the top of his lungs, I would defend his right to do so. If he wanted to publish those remarks in a Nazi porn magazine, I would defend his right to do so. But he is deliberately trying to desecrate military funeral processions to make his statement, essentially forcing law-abiding people to reroute their trip to bury fallen soldiers in order to avoid these deliberate insults. There's a fundamental difference between this and free speech.
When my brother and I were kids, we played a really annoying game. He would hold his fingers menacingly about two inches from my eyes. No matter where I turned my head, his fingers would stay right in front of my eyes so I couldn't see. I would yell at him to stop, or try to get my Mom to make him stop. But he would always respond with something like, "Hey, I'm not doing anything. You don't own the air. I'm not touching you."
http://dallasmorningviewsblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2010/10/fred-phelps-and.html