Rev. Virginia Bergman asks a good question about Phelps and his hater brigade.
And my own response:
These people do not care about the teachings of Jesus. Nor do they care about the Constitution.
Except where they can use either or both to support the continuation of their harrasment and stalking of dead soldiers' families.
I never thought the day would come when I was in the Alito camp where a Supreme Court decision is concerned. But... here it is.
Big sigh.
Sickening that the other eight justices decided against the rights of a bereaved family, not to be harassed and stalked.
Blech. Bad taste in the mouth.
SYD
Posts
Agree, SYD. I do not understand why the Phelps family organization (it certainly is not a "church" for all intents and purposes) is given tax-exempt status. Nor do I understand why--given the hatred they flagrantly express toward specific groups--Phelps' "protests" aren't considered by the court to be a form of hate speech. I do not understand why the very nature of Phelps' so-called "protests" are not considered by the court to be tantamount to yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, and therefore outside the protection of the First Amendment, and punishable by law. One would think the court--hopefully still made up of rational, knowledgeable, experienced legal minds--could anticipate that the very nature of Phelps' "protests" could eventually incite a dangerous backlash. Seems perhaps that inciting this sort of backlash could possibly be Phelps' real motive. (IMO, it is perhaps also the motive of the paid demonstrators/agitators being bused in to states now trying to repair their budgets. The hate-filled rhetoric and physically intimidating tactics are scarily similar. BTW, Phelps is a known Obamacrat financial supporter.)
ReplyDelete"Our profound national commitment to free and open debate is not a license for the vicious verbal assault that occurred in this case," Alito said in remarks with his dissenting opinion. Agreed. Moreover, IMO, Phelps’ tactics appear deliberately geared to provoke chaos and perhaps even violence, which leads me to wonder, did the court even consider intent in this case? IMO, it’s one thing to “peaceably assemble” with the intent of expressing various viewpoints in the interest of peaceful, rational open debate. It seems quite another to assemble with the express, premeditated intent to deliberately, needlessly, maliciously, recklessly act to incite chaos and violence in order to foment anarchy. Thanks SYD.