solipsistnation: (ha bloody ha)
[personal profile] solipsistnation
Ready to be pissed off?

Matthew Shepard's town upset by pastor's plan

Park monument would denounce murdered man


DAMN, people.

At least the townspeople are up in arms about it, to the point of moving another monument in order to give them precedent to refuse this one.

(no subject)

Date: 2003-10-20 10:27 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] shogunhb.livejournal.com
"Someone would knock it down the next day," he said. "And the police might just turn their heads."

Go Wyoming!

Free speech test.

Date: 2003-10-20 10:33 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] kadath.livejournal.com
This is precisely the sort of speech to which the First Amendment *must* apply. Even the most odious opinion must be protected, or the guarantee of free speech is meaningless.

On another note, the fact that Fred Phelps continues to draw breath is just one more reason not to believe in a benevolent god. Whew, what a waste of skin that man is.

Re: Free speech test.

Date: 2003-10-20 10:46 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] z-gryphon.livejournal.com
Even the most odious opinion must be protected, or the guarantee of free speech is meaningless.

Fine, let the bastard rant all he will.

But a granite monument denouncing a murdered man's lifestyle as "abomination"?

That's not speech, that's mindless defamation.

Re: Free speech test.

Date: 2003-10-20 10:52 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] awfief.livejournal.com
I agree -- Phelps has gone every year to "celebrate" Shephard's death, and pour salt in the wounds of a Wyoming community. There's no need for him to waste his money on a monument, although knowing him he'd set up video cameras and prosecute the hell out of anyone destroying the statue.

Re: Free speech test.

Date: 2003-10-20 10:58 am (UTC)
ext_8707: Taken in front of Carnegie Hall (evil)
From: [identity profile] ronebofh.livejournal.com
Maybe the community could sue him for slander.

(no subject)

Date: 2003-10-20 10:59 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] shadow27.livejournal.com
I agree it's more defimation then speech. I'm used to these kinds of stunts though. I grew up in Cincinnati. Where Christmas meant the Christmas trees, menorahs and the KKK's cross on Fountain Square.

Private monuments on public property never made sense to me in the in the first place.

Re: Free speech test.

Date: 2003-10-20 11:02 am (UTC)
mangosteen: (Default)
From: [personal profile] mangosteen
Fair enough.
The momument will be installed.
That being said, communities have a funny way of dealing things they don't want.

I give it a week. There will be no witnesses. Guaranteed.

Re: Free speech test.

Date: 2003-10-20 11:04 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] kadath.livejournal.com
I believe the legal principle is that when the town allowed one form of religious speech by permitting a 10 Commandments monument on public land, they opened the door to anyone with a religious position and the money to erect a monument. The goverment has no legal standing to refuse the Phelps monument unless they also refuse the 10 Commandments one, unless there is a hate-speech statute they can apply. But since it doesn't seem that the proposed text of the Phelps monument incites to violence or makes any kind of threat, they may be out of luck there, too. Unless the town is rather ahead of the national curve, sexual orientation is generally not as protected under the law as things like race or religion. Possibly they could refuse to allow monuments funded by non-local groups, and since Phelps is based out of Kansas, that could conceivably get rid of him. Legally, also, one cannot defame the dead, so there is no libel case.

I want Phelps to shut the hell up and drop off the face of the Earth, but I will never condone any action that forces him out of a public forum, whether taken by governments or individuals. I'll speak for him now, because one day I might need someone to speak for me.

Re: Free speech test.

Date: 2003-10-20 11:07 am (UTC)
mangosteen: (Default)
From: [personal profile] mangosteen
Another option is to have some non-governmental entity buy the land underneath the 10 commandments monument, and lease it back to the city in perpetuity for a dollar or somesuch. Presto! No public-land issues.

Re: Free speech test.

Date: 2003-10-20 11:11 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] thirdson.livejournal.com
I was going to post my opinion, but you beat me to it.

Re: Free speech test.

Date: 2003-10-20 11:18 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] solipsistnation.livejournal.com

That's why they were talking about moving the 10 commandments thingy to private land...

Re: Free speech test.

Date: 2003-10-20 11:19 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] kadath.livejournal.com
Yeah, there's a lot they can do, but I was looking solely at options that would keep the land public, allow the 10 Commandments monument, and disallow the Phelps monument, which seems to be what the town wants.

The story (possibly apocryphal) I like is the one where the KKK won a court battle to sponsor a section of highway in the Adopt a Highway program. So the Highway Department took their money, put up their sign, and renamed that road the Rosa Parks Memorial Freeway.

Re: Free speech test.

Date: 2003-10-20 11:27 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] londo.livejournal.com
On another note, the fact that Fred Phelps continues to draw breath is just one more reason not to believe in a benevolent god. Whew, what a waste of skin that man is.

I continue to regret that I did not deck the man when I had the chance.

Granted, I was fifteen and even scrawnier then than I am now, but it's the principle of the thing...

Re: Free speech test.

Date: 2003-10-20 11:32 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] meranthi.livejournal.com
I believe that one is actually true. From about 5 years ago...

Re: Free speech test.

Date: 2003-10-20 11:50 am (UTC)
ext_267559: (I have a Clue)
From: [identity profile] mr-teem.livejournal.com
True--it was in Missouri, near St. Louis. It is also true that the KKK basically reneged on the obligations of the program (i.e., actually cleaning the highway) after the courts finished their work and was last seen looking for another highway to sponsor.

Re: Free speech test.

Date: 2003-10-20 12:08 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] saintnobody.livejournal.com
the problem is that no matter how hard you kicked him in the beanbag, it would only convince him that the devil has more of a hold on society, and he would fight harder. you'd have to put him in a coma, at the very least.

let's see if we can have him declared an enemy combatant.

(no subject)

Date: 2003-10-20 04:04 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] bonisagus.livejournal.com
I can only pity that man. He is truly like his idol Leviticus, a twisted, hateful, misogynistic bigot. It is my sincere hope to live just long enough to see three things happen, one that gay people will have the same rights as everyone else, two he pass on into obscurity and three the president who signs the legislation granting equal rights to all people does it on the day that bastard dies.

Re: Free speech test.

Date: 2003-10-20 04:06 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] bonisagus.livejournal.com
And that would make him a martyr. I think a heart-attack or a stroke on the anniversary of Matthew Shepard's death would be far more fitting. Since his kind think so much in signs then they might take it as sign from God to shut the hell up.

(no subject)

Date: 2003-10-20 05:19 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] zonereyrie.livejournal.com
Phelps is totally twisted by hate.

I bet the cops would manage to be somewhere else if somethere were to happen to the monument.

(no subject)

Date: 2003-10-20 05:20 pm (UTC)
ext_137509: (Default)
From: [identity profile] usagijer.livejournal.com
uhhh...

We call the book Leviticus, from the Septuagint, because it contains the laws and ordinances of the levitical priesthood (as it is called, Heb. vii. 11), and the ministrations of it.


from Matthew Henry's _Commentary on the Whole Bible

(no subject)

Date: 2003-10-20 05:47 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] bonisagus.livejournal.com
Forgive my incomplete recollection of the Old Testament. In any case, if one where to take the book out of it's religious framework, a good deal of it could be construed as misogynistic and intolerant in the present day. One must also remember that back in the day, the priests such as they were, were attempting to increase their flock's size by any means necessary. It is also important to remember that Christianty threw out all the parts that form the basis of kosher law because it did not suit them.

(no subject)

Date: 2003-10-21 07:41 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] z-gryphon.livejournal.com
I bet the cops would happen to the monument.