Current Events

TOPICS:

Previous

PAGE: 

1 ... 

89 | 90 | 91 | 92 | 93

 ... 484

Next

Subrosa

Subrosa

San Francisco, CA
July 2004

AUG 11, 2007 11:18 AM

For once, those Westboro Baptist fucks are right about something.

A Kansas woman has asked a judge to declare Nebraska's flag mutilation statute unconstitutional.

Shirley Phelps-Roper, through her attorney, filed a motion in Sarpy County Court last week to strike down the statute as violating her right to free speech.

The Sarpy County attorney last month charged Phelps-Roper under the 1977 statute after she protested at a Bellevue soldier's funeral.

According to Bellevue Police, Phelps-Roper had her 10-year-old son stomp on an American flag at the June 5 protest.

Phelps-Roper, 49, of Topeka, was protesting with a group from Westboro Baptist Church. The church, founded by her father, has protested at the funerals of numerous soldiers, alleging that their deaths were God's retribution for America's toleration of homosexuality.

In addition to challenging the flag statute, Phelps-Roper's attorney filed a motion alleging that Sarpy County Attorney Lee Polikov's comments in the news media have "effectively polluted the jury pool," preventing a fair trial in Nebraska.

Polikov said Monday that the allegation amounted to "hypocrisy."

"This is an attempt to limit my free speech," he said. "The cornerstone of their case is free speech."



She's absolutely right about the flag desecration issue at least. It's curious that even after Texas v. Johnson, which 20 years ago held that anti-flag desecration laws violate the First Amendment, that the Nebraska prosecutors still decided to tack on the charge. Perhaps he thought that with the Court today that he had a shot at un-stare decisis-ing that opinion. Or he was just looking for leverage. Regardless, that charge should be tossed.

Hat tip: Trevor

FreakPirate

FreakPirate

Canada
November 2002

AUG 11, 2007 11:23 AM

All I could see on the board was "Fred Phelps' Daughter Fights For Her Right to" and I was praying that the rest of the headline was "Eat Some Pussy". Just because that is the only thing that would lead me to believe in a kind, loving god.

Or at least one with a sense of humor.

Zarth

zarth

Seattle, WA
December 2004

AUG 11, 2007 11:28 AM

Subrosa said:
Perhaps [the prosecutor] thought that with the Court today that he had a shot at un-stare decisis-ing that opinion.


I wish I could say that this was far-fetched.

Subrosa

Subrosa

San Francisco, CA
July 2004

AUG 11, 2007 12:37 PM

Zarth said:

Subrosa said:
Perhaps [the prosecutor] thought that with the Court today that he had a shot at un-stare decisis-ing that opinion.


I wish I could say that this was far-fetched.



Yeah, it's possible. At minimum, I think it's a ploy to attempt to re-re-re-re-open the Flag Burning issue.

Zarth

zarth

Seattle, WA
December 2004

AUG 11, 2007 12:42 PM

Subrosa said:

Zarth said:

Subrosa said:
Perhaps [the prosecutor] thought that with the Court today that he had a shot at un-stare decisis-ing that opinion.


I wish I could say that this was far-fetched.


Yeah, it's possible. At minimum, I think it's a ploy to attempt to re-re-re-re-open the Flag Burning issue.


I agree with you there.

It's my understanding that a lot of states already have flag-desecration laws on the books against the possibility that an amendment is eventually passed or, as may happen with a Supreme Court stocked with pseudocompetent reactionary extremists, the laws somehow pass judicial review.

It's not inconceivable to me that this Court might declare that flag-burning is an issue best left to states, though I'd be hard put to imagine their logic in such a decision.

Subrosa

Subrosa

San Francisco, CA
July 2004

AUG 11, 2007 12:49 PM

Well, if nothing else, we know they have absolutely zero respect for precedent. So nothing is out of the question.

Zarth

zarth

Seattle, WA
December 2004

AUG 11, 2007 12:58 PM

Exactly.

Postblank

Postblank

New Brunswick, NJ
June 2004

AUG 11, 2007 01:57 PM

I'd like to petition my right to fuck the entire Phelps family with a knife.

Regarding the actual topic, how many times does this whole desecrating the flag issue have to come up before people quit getting sand in their vagina about it? Burning flags, saying "nigger," calling your girlfriend a cunt and making 9-11 jokes only have as much power as the offended give it. The fact that a Phelps hatchling is doing it should be a prime example that flag desecration is a "hey look at me, I'm so controversial" move.

Zarth

zarth

Seattle, WA
December 2004

AUG 11, 2007 03:26 PM

bald_eagle said:
We keep hearing this crap about fighting for freedom. The biggest threat to freedom I see are the people who keep spouting the same.

And they're claiming neglegent child abuse? Why don't they just tattoo a number on her forehead and get it over with?


Freedom is a vague word, and it means different things to different people. A lot of conservatives seem to have little understanding of or support for it as a political or sociocultural concept, and think of it pretty much only in socioeconomic terms.

Postblank

Postblank

New Brunswick, NJ
June 2004

AUG 11, 2007 03:35 PM

bald_eagle said:
And they're claiming neglegent child abuse? Why don't they just tattoo a number on her forehead and get it over with?



Because the Phelpses pulling this shit all the time is one thing, but continuing to indoctrinate their children with illogical hatred just to provoke lawsuits should qualify as corrupting a minor and negligence. Try not to shed any baby crocodile tears for a family of sociopaths.

Postblank

Postblank

New Brunswick, NJ
June 2004

AUG 11, 2007 09:16 PM

bald_eagle said:

SkaRambo said:

bald_eagle said:
And they're claiming neglegent child abuse? Why don't they just tattoo a number on her forehead and get it over with?



Because the Phelpses pulling this shit all the time is one thing, but continuing to indoctrinate their children with illogical hatred just to provoke lawsuits should qualify as corrupting a minor and negligence. Try not to shed any baby crocodile tears for a family of sociopaths.


That's my point. Parents should be free to theach their children whatever values they want. Illogical hatred is part of the standard fundamentalist religion package.
The government shouldn't be in the business of dictating what socio-political opinions parents can foster in their children.


Granted, but they're reknowned for very disruptive displays of increasingly questionable legality. If what this "church" does crosses that line while encouraging their young to join in, that qualifies as what the charges allege.

Jennifer_

Jennifer_

Venezuela
November 2006

AUG 12, 2007 10:48 AM

Those Westboro Baptist people undoubtedly need a good kicking for many reasons, but I don't understand why people are offended by burning the flag, it's just another form of protest.

I'm a patriot and I love Britain, but honestly, do what you like to the Union Jack, fuck if I care. To ban flag burning is to put too much emphasis on the actual piece of material and not enough emphasis on what its supposed to represent - freedom of speech, liberty and progress.

Postblank

Postblank

New Brunswick, NJ
June 2004

AUG 12, 2007 11:10 AM

Jennifer_ said:
I'm a patriot and I love Britain, but honestly, do what you like to the Union Jack, fuck if I care. To ban flag burning is to put too much emphasis on the actual piece of material and not enough emphasis on what its supposed to represent - freedom of speech, liberty and progress.



No! Don't burn flags! Jesus is in those flags!

Postblank

Postblank

New Brunswick, NJ
June 2004

AUG 12, 2007 10:23 PM

bald_eagle said:

SkaRambo said:

bald_eagle said:

SkaRambo said:

bald_eagle said:
And they're claiming neglegent child abuse? Why don't they just tattoo a number on her forehead and get it over with?



Because the Phelpses pulling this shit all the time is one thing, but continuing to indoctrinate their children with illogical hatred just to provoke lawsuits should qualify as corrupting a minor and negligence. Try not to shed any baby crocodile tears for a family of sociopaths.


That's my point. Parents should be free to theach their children whatever values they want. Illogical hatred is part of the standard fundamentalist religion package.
The government shouldn't be in the business of dictating what socio-political opinions parents can foster in their children.


Granted, but they're reknowned for very disruptive displays of increasingly questionable legality. If what this "church" does crosses that line while encouraging their young to join in, that qualifies as what the charges allege.


Disruptive displays of questionable legality? Like the civil rights workers in the 60's? Freedom of expression has to include those with stupid views, and those we find offensive. Raising the kid to be obnoxious doesn't constitute neglect.


They're trying to incite violence and sue people that attack or otherwise silence them. The more they up the ante to get a reaction, the closer to the limit of legality they get. This is fair grounds for Child Protective Services to inspect a child's well-being in New Jersey, but I can't speak for the midwest. It's also fair to say that daughter Phelps might've picked up father Fred's penchant for beating his wife and children, which would be means for immediate substantiation and removal of the child.

All_Sewn_Up

All_Sewn_Up

Papua New Guinea
January 2007

AUG 12, 2007 10:51 PM

It'll be worth it to wind up in hell just to watch Falwell and Phelps buttsecks each other for all eternity while demons throw bologna at them.

Postblank

Postblank

New Brunswick, NJ
June 2004

AUG 14, 2007 04:40 PM

bald_eagle said:
But did this inquiry begin before the kid participated in unpopular political speech by defacing the flag? I'm not aware of any evidence that she physically mistreated him. Are you?


I'm not aware of any evidence that "god hates fags" and would resultantly cause any remotely unpleasant thing that happens on this planet because he hates queers so much.