Skip to content

Posts categoriezed as Westboro Baptist Church

Freezepeaching the WBC

Freezepeaching the WBC published on 3 Comments on Freezepeaching the WBC

Stephanie Zvan at Almost Diamonds came up with an excellent t-shirt idea: an image of a peach, half-frozen in a block of ice, with the slogan “Freeze Peach! Not sure what it is, but it’s mine.” This is in reference to the continual shouting of “free speech” in order to defend speech which is not in fact “free”– objectionable speech made on private venues by people who participate in those venues but do not own them, are not in charge of them. Speech like Michael Brutsch aka Violentacrez posting bigotry and photos of scantily clad minors on Reddit. Speech like hassling feminist bloggers on Freethought Blogs and then complaining that the network doesn’t actually support freethought if it bans you. Speech like sexual harassment at conferences.

The defense is so common that the words run together after a while (hence “freeze peach”): “Free speech! We have the right to say these things, so there’s nothing wrong with saying them!” “Free speech! Preventing speech you don’t like promotes a hive mind mentality and squelches reasonable debate!” The answers to these, of course, being: 1. No, you don’t, not on someone else’s blog or forum or at someone else’s conference, and 2. No, it doesn’t– not when the speech in question amounts to harassment  Harassment has a silencing effect on other people, people who actually have something useful to say.

“Freeze peach” is not a condemnation of actual free speech, of course, but a mockery of how people who clearly are a bit fuzzy on how the concept works try to manipulate it in order to justify…well, being douchebags. Basically, that’s what it boils down to. It encapsulates two unfortunate but very common conclusions:
1. Free speech is the concept of people being able to say whatever they want, when and wherever they want. People have an obligation to let us– if they don’t, they oppose free speech.
2. The law is a direct reflection of our societal morality. If something is wrong, it should be illegal. If something is not illegal, it must be okay.

I don’t think it’s necessary to explain why these two unfortunately very common notions are mistaken. I do think they illustrate, however, why it’s important to see that the people who make “freeze peach” arguments using these assumptions are not anarchists as they may seem, but authoritarians. They look to an authority– the law, in this case– to dictate right and wrong, and assume that what they’re doing is right if the law doesn’t forbid it and in fact seems to advocate it (“that which is not forbidden is compulsory”). That if something is entrenched in law, it is not only up to the government but individual citizens (as in bloggers, forum moderators, conference organizers, etc.) to support and uphold it.

But really, requiring that such private individuals should uphold freedom of speech does as much for the concept as requiring that individual citizens should uphold the Fourth Amendment would do for private property– that is, it would destroy all meaning in the notion. Any “search and seizure” of one person’s property by another (without consent) would indeed be unreasonable, and any use of another person’s private ability to express him/herself (regardless of media) without consent would be a violation of that person’s own freedom of speech. If you want to claim freedom of speech to say something reprehensible,  you can find a sympathetic place to express such a thing, do it via your own means, or don’t do it at all. Those are your options. You do not get to pirate someone else’s platform in order to proclaim some sentiment they don’t agree with.

Freedom of speech does not entitle one individual to use another individual’s mouthpiece (whatever it may be) to speak. It prevents the government from deciding what that individual may or may not say, regardless of how brilliant and useful, or offensive and pointless, that individual’s speech may be. Regardless of the content of the expression, we may not be prohibited from expressing it in public– unless, that is, it violates one of the tightly conscribed laws in place to protect intellectual property and, in some cases, prevent the expression of outright obscenity (I’m not a fan of obscenity laws, but they do exist).

This is what free speech means. This is what I passionately defend. But because there are so many Americans who either don’t understand or don’t agree with this (or both), I’m reluctant to don a “freeze peach” shirt. I don’t want to mock the people who think free speech defends their ability to be offensive wherever they want by appearing to support some form of government crackdown on offensive speech. Not when there’s no shortage of people who support exactly that.

Not when they are signing petitions asking for that:

Users of the White House’s “We the People” digital petition platform have flooded the site in support of an effort to officially designate the Kansas-based Westboro Baptist Church as a hate group.
The most popular petition was submitted on Dec. 14, the same day as the school shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., an incident that Westboro responded to by announcing its intent to picket the funerals of the 26 victims, including 20 young children. This plan made them a prime target of hacktivist group Anonymous and eventually drew a well-attended counter-protest to block the church’s followers from disrupting the services.
The individual push has since received the support of nearly 250,000 signees, making it the most popular single petition ever created through the White House initiative. 

The thing is, there is no such thing as a federally recognized hate group. The Southern Poverty Law Center has a list of groups that it recognizes as hate groups, which is fine because– you can see this coming– it’s a private organization. But the government has no interested in determining whether a group is “hateful” or not– not officially, at least– because hate speech is not against the law. What they do have an interest in monitoring is possible terrorist tendencies, and WBC has bent over backwards to show that they have no interest in committing actual violence against anyone. They have succeeded in becoming almost a caricature of moronic spite, but that isn’t illegal. As a sad irony, one of the effects of Anonymous publishing the personal information of Westboro members online was that people took the opportunity to threaten them, which is illegal. And yes, I would say that threatening a hateful person (or who you assume to be a hateful person– not everyone who was threatened actually is a member of the WBC) with death is worse than being a hateful person.

Am I defending the WBC’s beliefs and actions? Not in the slightest. Not any more than the ACLU was defending white supremacy and antisemitism when they defended the right of neo-Nazis to march in Skokie IL in 1978, a move that cost them enormous support from people who confused the defense of freedom of expression with defense of the ideas expressed. It’s incredibly disturbing to see that when it comes to the WBC, at least a quarter of a million Americans are confused in just this way. Disturbing, but not surprising– it’s not at all uncommon to see people promote freedom only for those who are on their side, ideologically. Nor is it uncommon to see them go into authoritarian mode when an opportunity like this arises, asking the government to violate the rules it set for itself, so long ago, in order punish people they dislike. And no, it doesn’t matter whether that dislike is legitimate or not, or how fervently it’s held. It’s still called injustice when the law is violating someone’s freedom in your favor.

Their actions have been directed at many groups, including homosexuals, military, Jewish people and even other Christians. They pose a threat to the welfare and treatment of others and will not improve without some form of imposed regulation.

So people…stop demanding precisely that. You actually have more power than the government when it comes to the speech of hateful organizations, because you don’t have to allow them on your space. The government does, because its space is public. Its space is for all of us– including the morons and the bigots. If you don’t like it, take a deep breath and contemplate how many people would be happy to count you amongst the undesirables for your beliefs. Trust me, there are loads.

There are better ways to fight bigotry than by whittling away at the freedoms of bigots, because those are our freedoms as well. Let’s remember that.

*Yes, I did narrowly avoid titling this post “I could eat a freezepeach for hours” in honor of the worst Nicholas Cage movie ever.

Now that’s how you counter-protest

Now that’s how you counter-protest published on No Comments on Now that’s how you counter-protest

Confused? Here’s the context.

How not to counter-protest

How not to counter-protest published on No Comments on How not to counter-protest

Gawker reports that the Westboro Baptist Church were met in Mississippi by some people who decided to try and out-douchebag them. And succeeded:

The feel-good blog item of the day is the story of when the small town of Brandon, Mississippi successfully foiled Westboro Baptist Church’s plan to protest a Marine’s funeral. (Here is a video of the refreshingly protester-free road as Marine Staff Sgt. Jason Rogers is returned home on April 14.) How’d they do it? They sicced the police on them and beat them up.    Here is the story that is blowing up the blogosphere, which was originally posted on an Ole Miss sports message board:  

[Westboro Baptist Church] did show up, a few showed up a couple of days early.
 A couple of days before, one of them ran his mouth at a Brandon gas station and got his ass waxed. Police were called and the beaten man could not give much of a description of who beat him. When they canvassed the station and spoke to the large crowd that had gathered around, no one seemed to remember anything about what had happened.  

Rankin County handled this thing perfectly. There were many things that were put into place that most will never know about and at great expense to the county. Most of the morons never made it out of their hotel parking lot. It seems that certain Rankin county pickup trucks were parked directly behind any car that had Kansas plates in the hotel parking lot and the drivers mysteriously disappeared until after the funeral was over.   

Police were called but their wrecker service was running behind and it was going to be a few hours before they could tow the trucks so the Kansas plated cars could get out. A few made it to the funeral but were ushered away to be questioned about a crime they might have possibly been involved in. Turns out, after a few hours of questioning, that they were not involved and they were allowed to go on about their business.   

Ranking [sic] deserves a hand in how they handled this situation.        

As much as we despise the Westboro Baptist Church, it seems like police illegally detaining people in order to squelch atrocious and unpopular but constitutionally-protected free speech, is not something we should encourage! Although the part about parking cars behind them was pretty good.

No, it wasn’t. That’s also against the law, I’m pretty sure, and even if it wasn’t it would still be a horrible way of attempting to combat people whose views you don’t like.  Is it really so hard to grasp that the way to protest speech is with more speech?  That actually attacking people or blocking their cars into a parking lot so they can’t drive anywhere just makes you the bad guy?  The glee with which this post describes the effort by a mob of people who don’t like the WBC to threaten, silence, and physically attack them is disgusting. “What they say is hateful, so we’re entitled to take any action we want against them.” No, you’re not. You’re entitled to speak back, and to ostracize them if you want. That’s it.

The WBC has announced that they will be protesting at ReasonFest, a gathering for atheists and agnostics at the University of Kansas on May 6th, and it sounds like a counter-protest is planned.  I’m betting that means people will show up in support of ReasonFest, of the right to be an atheist or agnostic, and to repudiate everything the WBC stands for. And I’m betting that means they will hold signs, shout things, and attempt to have conversations with WBC protesters if possible, which is what a counter-protest is supposed to be: the use of free speech to condemn the content of someone else’s free speech.

Palin clarifies– that she still doesn’t understand freedom of speech

Palin clarifies– that she still doesn’t understand freedom of speech published on No Comments on Palin clarifies– that she still doesn’t understand freedom of speech

From The Daily Caller:

Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin clarified remarks posted on Twitter this week in response to a Supreme Court ruling in favor of a church that demonstrates at military funerals, saying she was making a point about a double standard on free speech, not that the group shouldn’t have the right to protest.Her quote was interpreted by many news outlets, including The Daily Caller, to mean that she disagreed with the Supreme Court’s ruling, although in a new statement exclusive to TheDC, Palin said she agreed with the ruling in favor of the church.

“Obviously my comment meant that when we’re told we can’t say ‘God bless you’ in graduation speeches or pray before a local football game but these wackos can invoke God’s name in their hate speech while picketing our military funerals, it shows ridiculous inconsistency,” Palin told TheDC. “I wasn’t calling for any limit on free speech, and it’s a shame some folks tried to twist my comment in that way. I was simply pointing out the irony of an often selective interpretation of free speech rights.”

Oh, of course. Obviously when she said that “common sense and decency” were absent on the occasion of the SCOTUS ruling, that didn’t mean she disagreed with the ruling.  How silly of us to think that.  No, Sarah Palin doesn’t want to limit free speech– she wants more of it!  You know, the kind of free speech that allows public school officials to speak on behalf of students to express their religious convictions, whether the students actually hold those convictions or not.  But only Christian convictions, I assume– not to put words in Palin’s mouth, but I would tentatively guess that she wouldn’t be so enthusiastic about school officials offering Muslim prayers at graduation or before a football game.

The students, of course, retain their freedom to pray to whomever and invoke whichever god’s name they want on these occasions.  So yes, I suppose you could call that a “selective interpretation”– it selects in favor of the freedom of students rather than the “freedom” of government representatives (which is what public school officials are) to speak on their behalf.  It’s a pretty clear distinction, one would think.  But I guess we shouldn’t be surprised that Palin doesn’t quite get it, considering that she said Dr. Laura Schlessinger’s cancellation of her own radio show meant that Schlessinger’s First Amendment rights had “ceased to exist.”

So, for those keeping score– criticizing someone’s speech means that their right to free speech has ceased to exist.  Unless you’re Sarah Palin criticizing someone, in which case you are exercising your freedom of speech to question why there isn’t more freedom, including the freedom of governmental officials to make religious pronouncements on behalf of children, which for some reason is the same as “invoking God’s name in the public square.” Got it?

Memo to Sarah Palin…

Memo to Sarah Palin… published on No Comments on Memo to Sarah Palin…

Umm, both your and Westboro’s wacko pronouncements in the public square (such as, for example, this very tweet) invoke God’s name on a regular basis.  They got sued for it; you didn’t.  It appears their liberty to be religious in public is more in danger than yours is.

First Amendment and irony comprehension fail.  But you have to love someone who complains that they’re not allowed to do something as they’re doing it.

The fallacy being applied by this particular politician is….. *drumroll*….. equivocation, combined with a bit of false analogy.  First of all, simply invoking God’s name in the public square hasn’t gotten either the WBC or Sarah Palin in any kind of trouble.   In fact, doing so is pretty much a requirement for both churches and conservative politicians alike, hmm?  Oh, I’m sorry– “church,” in scare quotes, says the woman whose own church invited a witch hunter to come and bless her.  Second, for Sarah Palin the word “can’t” means that somebody, somewhere, will have a negative opinion of her for doing something.  For Westboro, regardless of how you might view their beliefs and practices, it means they might be out $5 million.   A tiny bit of a difference, there?  Perhaps.

SCOTUS rules in favor of Westboro on funeral protests

SCOTUS rules in favor of Westboro on funeral protests published on No Comments on SCOTUS rules in favor of Westboro on funeral protests

The Supreme Court ruling on Snyder v. Phelps was issued this morning– 8-1 in favor of Phelps, saying that the First Amendment protected the WBC’s right to protest the military funeral.  I couldn’t have imagined it going any other way, but there was still a niggling worry that it might.  The opinion, authored by Roberts with Breyer concurring, notes that the protest was taking place on public land, roughly a thousand feet from the church (as instructed by police), and none of the protesters entered the cemetery.  None of them interfered in the funeral in any way, and the plaintiff was not even able to read what their signs read until that evening when he saw them on a news broadcast.  The lone dissenter to the opinion, Justice Alito, disagreed mainly on the grounds that the protest took place at a time and location geared to garner maximal attention.  Which…isn’t that what protesters always do?

I’m very glad that this case went to the Supreme Court, and that this was the decision they delivered.  That doesn’t mean I have a shred of sympathy for Westboro or their supposed cause, but I do think that delivering a $5 million dollar judgment against a group protesting on public grounds without any violence or even cursing would set a very, very bad precedent in terms of freedom of speech.  From the opinion:

Given that Westboro’s speech was at a public place on a matter of public concern, that speech is entitled to “special protection” under the First Amendment.  Such speech cannot be restricted simply because it is upsetting or arouses contempt.  “If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.” Texas v. Johnson, 491 U. S. 397, 414 (1989).  Indeed, “the point of all speech protection . . .is to shield just those choices of content that in someone’s eyes are misguided, or even hurtful.”  Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston, Inc., 515 U. S. 557, 574 (1995).   The jury here was instructed that it could hold Westboro liable for intentional infliction of emotional distress based on a finding that Westboro’s picketing was “outrageous.” “Outrageousness,” however, is a highly malleable standard with “an inherent subjectiveness about it  which  would allow a jury to impose liability on the basis of the jurors’ tastes or views, or perhaps on the basis of their dislike of a particular expression.” Hustler, 485 U. S., at 55 (internal quotation marks omitted).  In a case such as this, a jury is “unlikely to be neutral with respect to the content of [the] speech,” posing “a real danger of becoming an instrument for the suppression of . . . ‘vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasan[t]’ ” expression.  Bose Corp., 466 U. S., at 510 (quoting New York Times, 376 U. S., at 270).  Such a risk is unacceptable; “in public debate [we] must tolerate insulting, and even outrageous, speech in order to provide adequate ‘breathing space’ to the freedoms protected by the First Amendment.” Boos v. Barry, 485 U. S. 312, 322 (1988) (some internal quotation marks omitted).   What Westboro said, in the whole context of how and where it chose to say it, is entitled to “special protection” under the First Amendment, and that protection cannot be overcome by a jury finding that the picketing was outrageous. 

Their conclusion:

Westboro believes that America is morally flawed; many Americans might feel the same about Westboro. Westboro’s funeral picketing is certainly hurtful and its contribution to public discourse may be negligible. But Westboro addressed matters of public import on public property, in a peaceful manner, in full compliance with the guidance of local officials. The speech was indeed planned to coincide with Matthew Snyder’s funeral, but did not itself disrupt that funeral, and Westboro’s choice to conduct its picketing at that time and place did not alter the nature of its speech. Speech is powerful. It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and—as it did here—inflict great pain. On the facts before us, we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker. As a Nation we have chosen a different course—to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate. That choice requires that we shield Westboro from tort liability for its picketing in this case.

ETA: Fred Phelps’ estranged son Nate, an LGBT activist who lives in Canada, does not support the decision.  I find that disappointing but not surprising.  

So, the Anonymous thing was apparently a hoax.

So, the Anonymous thing was apparently a hoax. published on No Comments on So, the Anonymous thing was apparently a hoax.

*Blush*

Guess I can stop defending the free speech rights of scoundrels.  Well, at least these scoundrels.  For now.

Anonymous threatens Westboro Baptist

Anonymous threatens Westboro Baptist published on No Comments on Anonymous threatens Westboro Baptist

“Aggressive proponents of free speech,” my arse.   I would wonder how it’s possible for them to claim that label while simultaneously threatening to shut down a group’s website due to ideological differences with a straight face, but they’re Anonymous– there’s no face to see.

Note: this response is not because of any love lost between me and the WBC.  That’s definitely not the case.  I just fervently believe that trying to silence a group is not the way to go about combating their ideas.

Martin Robbins at The Guardian elaborates:

Anonymous have succeeded in generating yet more publicity for an organization which thrives on attention and frankly, like the BNP in the UK, gets far more media coverage than it really merits or deserves.
Meanwhile, their actions will have little impact on a collection of people who live together, protest at real world events, and use shock value to get mainstream media attention. It is naive to believe that hacking some websites can bring down this sort of group. The best thing anyone can do is ask the media to shut the fuck up about them.
And finally there’s the sheer hypocrisy of it. Anonymous make a big deal about freedom of speech, calling themselves variously “the Voice of Free Speech”, or “aggressive proponents for the Freedom of Speech.” Which would be great, if they were, but are they?
Well no, compare and contrast with: “the propaganda & detestable doctrine that you promote will be eradicated […] we will not relent until you cease the conduction & promotion of all your bigoted operations & doctrines.” The self-appointed defenders of free speech want to shut down people’s websites. Bang goes another irony meter.

(Hat tip to Tracy King for the link)

Real-life trolls

Real-life trolls published on No Comments on Real-life trolls

Westboro Baptist Church to Protest at Elizabeth Edwards’ Funeral

As Elizabeth Edwards’ family makes the final preparations for her funeral, members of a controversial church known for picketing at the memorials of fallen soldiers, says they will protest outside her funeral.

Members of the Westboro Baptist Church are planning to disrupt Edwards’ funeral Saturday, saying the wife of former Senator John Edwards is “going to hell” because she admitted to doubting her faith when her oldest son died in 1996.

Edwards, a political spouse who became a staunch advocate for affordable healthcare, died of complications from breast cancer Tuesday. She was 61.
The funeral is planned for Saturday at Edenton Street United Methodist Church in Raleigh, N.C. She is then expected to be buried at Oakwood Cemetery alongside her son Wade, who died in a car accident when he was 16.

“God heard self-absorbed Elizabeth as she rode the talk show circuit spewing blasphemy,” Westboro said in a statement.

I just…these people are a joke. It’s hard to believe that they actually believe what they’re saying, the reasons they say they’re protesting, and if they do, they’re insane. Normal Christians do not protest the funerals of people they believe are going to hell, and not just because they don’t have the spare time and money for transportation.

A troll, in online parlance, is a person who says things to get a reaction.  They may be sincere or they may have adopted a false persona, but their intent is to stir people up, usually in anger.  The general understanding is that you should not feed the trolls– you shouldn’t give them what they want, because that will just encourage them.  I think that this is half true, to the same extent both online and in real life.  Ignore them if you’re inclined to take them seriously– if you are the type of person or in a frame of mind that will cause you to get stirred up by what they say and do, then pay them no mind at all.  If you are capable of mocking them, however, and desire to do so, well….go ahead.  Ridiculous ideas should be ridiculed.  That’s what the marketplace of ideas is all about– freedom of speech entails and requires the freedom of criticism, lest anyone reach the conclusion that absurd, insane beliefs should be treated as credible. 

A lurker is a person who observes an online conversation without commenting.  Sometimes people engage trolls in those conversations “for the sake of the lurkers”– not because they personally feel the need to engage the arguments of the troll, but to demonstrate for those observing why what the troll is saying is at best not worth taking seriously, and at worst actively harmful.  When people say that the proper response to hateful speech is more speech, they’re talking about speaking for the sake of the lurkers– allowing those who harbor hateful or ridiculous thoughts to voice them out loud, and then publically repudiating them for the benefit of those who might otherwise not understand why they ought to be repudiated.  I think that’s a good thing.  That’s why I am what some would call a free speech extremist, though I’m not a free speech absolutist.  There are some areas that should clearly be out-of-bounds– copyright infringement, libel, incitement to violence– but those are tightly circumscribed, pertaining to speech which causes direct harm to people, not just speech which offends, regardless of how much it does so and for what reason.  I want the people to always be the ones deciding which speech is objectionable, and voicing their objections to it loudly and clearly– not the government trying to silence it.

Disabled vet stalks WBC members, invites heckler’s veto

Disabled vet stalks WBC members, invites heckler’s veto published on No Comments on Disabled vet stalks WBC members, invites heckler’s veto

A disabled Afghanistan veteran was arrested today in my hometown of Wichita Kansas on charges of stalking members of the Westboro Baptist Church:

Prosecutors charged [Ryan] Newell, 26, with five misdemeanors Thursday, including stalking and three counts of criminal use of a firearm in an incident involving the Phelps family of Topeka’s Westboro Baptist Church. He also was charged with false impersonation of a law enforcement officer. . .

Sedgwick County sheriff’s detectives arrested Newell mid-morning Tuesday in the Wichita City Hall parking lot after a detective saw him following a van that carried Westboro church members.

The church members were meeting in City Hall with police officials. Detectives found Newell in a vehicle backed into a parking space. In the vehicle, investigators found two handguns, a rifle and more than 90 rounds of ammunition, sources have said.

The stalking charge accuses Newell of actions targeted at Westboro members and putting them in fear for their safety.

The weapons charges accuse him of unlawfully carrying and concealing or possessing with “intent to use” an M4 rifle, .45-caliber Glock handgun and .38-caliber Smith and Wesson handgun.

“I just can’t imagine him wanting to hurt anybody,” his grandmother, Bonnie Crosby, said.

Agents with the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives went to Newell’s home, and his wife turned over items — including firearms — to law enforcement, said a source close to the investigation.

Newell, who appeared in the courtroom through a video connection with the Sedgwick County Jail, was seated in a wheelchair and was wearing an orange jail jumpsuit. He was ordered to have no contact with members of the Westboro Baptist Church or the Phelps family.

Two lawyers appeared in court offering to represent Newell, who grew up in Goddard. He told Judge Ben Burgess that he had also received offers from a number of other lawyers.

Burgess quipped, “The more the merrier, I suppose.”

Newell remains in jail on $500,000 bond.

I’ve already seen sentiments along the lines that the police should’ve looked the other way and allowed him to shoot some people, that the WBC’s protests should be banned on the grounds that they will provoke this kind of reaction, even that the members of Westboro should have their children taken away because their protests are subjecting them to violence.  Probably no body of people comes as close to being universally reviled in the United States as the WBC, but even so the idea that this justifies murdering them is too insane for me to contemplate.  I can’t even giggle sarcastically about the idea, though I fully understand people’s reasons for loathing the group.

I’ve been aware of the WBC before most people outside of Kansas, probably, given that they showed up at my brother’s 1995 law school graduation at the University of Kansas in Lawrence.  Guess they thought someone gay was graduating?  I was in high school at the time and wanted to confront them, but my mom said it would be a really bad idea.  They’ve gained steadily in notoriety over the years, first rocketing into it in 1998 with their protest of Matthew Shepherd’s funeral and subsequent funerals of gays waving signs declaring that God hates fags, and then in 2005 when they started protesting funerals of soldiers who had died in Afghanistan and Iraq on the grounds that their deaths are punishments from the Lord for the country’s moral decline.  I think pretty much everyone knows who their patriarch Fred Phelps is by now.  He’s a former civil rights attorney who attended the same law school as my father (though not at the same time) but was disbarred and apparently went a bit insane.  He has thirteen children, four of whom are estranged from the family, and I believe the rest have been trained up as diligent sign-waving homophobes.  People make parties out of counter-protesting them now– they show up in crazy costumes waving signs of their own, usually vastly out-number the WBC crowd (not a big church population), and have a grand time.  But the WBC’s practice of protesting the funerals of soldiers has infuriated people to the point that the Supreme Court is currently trying to decide whether they have the right to do so. 

That being the case…with these claims that their right to protest in general should be taken away, and even that their children should be taken from them, I’m hearing “Ground Zero mosque! OMG!” all over again.  It’s the heckler’s veto— the argument that we can restrict people’s freedom of speech on the grounds that it may provoke violence.  Effectively, it allows people who are willing to be violent to restrict the rights of those whose speech they would use as justification for violence, by punishing the speech rather than the violent response.  We cannot do that, whether the speech in question is admirable or despicable.  Hecklers are people who prevent the speech of others by drowning them out.  Violence attempts to silence others by frightening them, physically incapacitating them, or in the case of a heckler’s veto by getting the government to outlaw certain kinds of speech in the name of their own protection.  It really disturbs me that, hated as the WBC is, people would leap to this conclusion upon hearing that a potential candidate has stepped up to the plate.  Contributing to this man’s defense or expressing “wry” disappointment that he didn’t actually kill anyone, to my eyes, looks like an expression of sympathy for his actions and gratitude that someone (not us, of course) was willing to show up and do the dirty work.  Rather like the remarks at various points between half-hearted condemnation and whole-hearted support that came from various pro-life activists when Scott Roeder murdered Dr. George Tiller last year, also in Wichita.

Everything about that is wrong to me.  I can’t be that kind of cheerleader, no matter who the gun is aimed at.  And I can’t use the fact that someone else is willing to aim the gun as justification for legally preventing his target from doing whatever is angering him (and maybe me) so badly.