Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Fred Phelps Daughter said Hitler was doing God's work.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
patcox2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-07-05 11:46 AM
Original message
Fred Phelps Daughter said Hitler was doing God's work.
Edited on Fri Jan-07-05 11:49 AM by patcox2
Howard Stern had her on his show this morning, he ridicules her, and she said the most foul and disgusting thing I have ever heard said in public in my life. Howard asked her why God allowed the holocaust to happen. She responded by saying God wanted the holocaust to happen, that Hitler was doing God's work in punishing the jews for killing christ.

She'd be in jail for saying that in most european countries, and I agree with those laws. Blood libel should not be protected speech.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
wtmusic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-07-05 11:47 AM
Response to Original message
1. Now now
The true value of the First Amendment is in allowing people to dig their own graves
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
genieroze Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-07-05 01:11 PM
Response to Reply #1
42. Give them a shovel eh? lol eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Taxloss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-07-05 11:47 AM
Response to Original message
2. In the UK, she would have been arrested by now.
Thankfully.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dufaeth Donating Member (764 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-07-05 11:48 AM
Response to Original message
3. Free speech is Free speech
that said, I don't see how the Phelps can walk in day light and still come home in one peice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DS1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-07-05 11:51 AM
Response to Reply #3
5. Yeah, I'd laugh my f*ckin ass off if he was kidnapped and
suitably decapitated in Iraq

Definitely pay-per-view material
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TO Kid Donating Member (565 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-07-05 01:14 PM
Response to Reply #5
43. Actually, Iraqi militants would give medals
Hitler was a good friend of the more antisemitic Arab leaders and is still admired by many radical Islamists.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
patcox2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-07-05 11:54 AM
Response to Reply #3
6. Libel and slander are not protected if against an individual.
So why should they be protected if against an entire race? I mean that as a serious question. Free speech has never included the right to libel and slander. The jews have been the victim for centuries of what is called the "blood libel," originally that they killed christ or killed christian babys or poisoned wells. The blood libel has been used to foment violence and bigotry against jews for hundreds of years. Now there are newer variations, and they are blood libels all the same.

Why should the constitution protect the right to slander an entire race and support genocide, but not the right to slander one person, which to me is much less of an evil, much less of a crime?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dufaeth Donating Member (764 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-07-05 12:01 PM
Response to Reply #6
9. A good argument.
In individual case, damages are payed to the victim. How would it work with bigotry?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
patcox2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-07-05 12:05 PM
Response to Reply #9
12. Fines? Injunction?
If you feel imprisonment is too harsh, fines are basically damages paid to society at large, the injury is done to society at large.

Maybe some enterprising attorney could make new law with a class action on behalf of all jews? I could make plausible arguments on this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
genieroze Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-07-05 12:33 PM
Response to Reply #6
34. I respectfully disagree.
This person it a jerk and has the right to have and opinion. We have the right to our opinion which is this person is a psycho. Anyone who believes that God wants any race exterminated is either extremely brainwashed or a moron. Reich Wingers of all religions preach this intolerance crap. Just like Stern used to have on the KKK guy on, saying things like "Wake up white people", is a good thing. We get the see these nuts first hand, because the ones the hide behind good intentions are the dangerous ones. This sort of thing needs to be brought out so we know who we are dealing with. I don't know if Stern is doing this for social conscience of shock value. Maybe it's a little of both. After all isn't Stern Jewish? Robin is black and she used to laugh at the KKK guy because he was a idiot.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
patcox2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-07-05 02:11 PM
Response to Reply #34
53. There is defending stern for having her on, then there is defending her.
I do defend stern for having her on, for exactly the reason you state, he is educating people about just how dangerous and insane these people are.

But I will not defend the right of a person to celebrate the holocaust and say it was a good thing because jews deserve to die. that is incitement to genocide.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
genieroze Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-07-05 04:58 PM
Response to Reply #53
68. It's a sticky subject because she can believe what she wants.
If she says I want all people who hate Jews and think they murdered Jesus to go out and crucify them and I have a hammer and some nails, let's go. Then you have a real verbal threat of physical violence. People like these are cockroaches, shine a light on them and stamp your feet and they run like hell. I love it when these people show their true colors. What real Christians need to do is show people we are not like these people, they are the lunatic fringe. I do see what you are saying and she comes very close to threatening physical violence. You can't yell fire in a theater. This could be taken as a terroristic threat, she better watch it. Stern does have her on tape saying it. I seem to remember a similar thing happening with the KKK. They weren't directly involved but they got sued because of their hate speech incited some nuts. If some Jew got the crap beat out of him because of what she or her fathers cult advocate, they could be held liable. I noticed after that suit the KKK settled down a bit. Hit em where it hurts, the pocket. That tends to shut people up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RaleighNCDUer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-07-05 02:32 PM
Response to Reply #34
55. Agree. One of the best ways to get a good look at the r-wingers
is to see people who say things like this agree with them on less inflamatory subjects. It indicates what is being not said by the more circumspect nazis, i.e., David Duke did not change his mind, only his method.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ThorsHammer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-07-05 12:02 PM
Response to Reply #3
10. Yes, even free speech has consequences
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Minstrel Boy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-07-05 12:13 PM
Response to Reply #3
22. Genocide was incited in Rwanda by free speech.
Edited on Fri Jan-07-05 12:14 PM by Minstrel Boy
Specifically, Hutu radio broadcasts.

In Canada, Phelps could be charged with a Hate Crime.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TO Kid Donating Member (565 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-07-05 01:32 PM
Response to Reply #22
47. Our "hate speech" law enforcement is pretty selective
Like any subjective law, the determination of what constitutes "hate speech" depends on who has more political clout. Hate speech against some groups (men, smokers, Christians) is not merely ignored by the government, it is often led by it. Most of the CBC's program schedule is hate speech.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bryant69 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-07-05 11:49 AM
Response to Original message
4. Reprehensible
Phelps is in the news a lot right now, which is good and bad. It puts a face on some ugly right wing views, and shoves the ugliest part right out front. On the other hand it lets thos problems become a Fred Phelps problem rather than a radical Christian right problem.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donkeyboy75 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-07-05 01:42 PM
Response to Reply #4
49. Then Dem leaders should tie him to all repubs
much like the Pukes do to the Dems with fringe lefties. Of course, Dem leadership has no cojones.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oneighty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-07-05 11:56 AM
Response to Original message
7. Yo Ms. Phelps
Jews are your friends. If they had not killed Christ you would have no standing in life, nothing to talk about.

You owe them for every breath you take.

It is so confusing.

180
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TWiley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-07-05 12:01 PM
Response to Original message
8. That asshole Phelps is part of the "Christian Identity Movement"
Many Christian Identity Members are Neo-Nazi, but their followers belong to all of the major "white power" groups like the Aryans or the Klan.

Fred is the new face of American Christianity. Folks like Jerry Fartwell and Pat Robertson are only a slightly milder form of the same old crap. Most "Christians" today agree with fred on his main complaint ..... he hates homosexuals.

Teach a group to hate another small group, and it becomes easier to teach them to hate yet another group. It never ends.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sinkingfeeling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-07-05 12:02 PM
Response to Original message
11. Isn't it nice that she repeats what Hitler said...he was just doing
God's work...just like *!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadHound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-07-05 12:05 PM
Response to Original message
13. Yo, Ms Phelps, read your bible
It wasn't the Jews who killed Christ, it was the Romans. This is plain as the nose on your face, yet you and millions like you throughout the ages insist that it was the Jews. I suppose any excuse for anti-Semitism in a storm eh?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
derby378 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-07-05 12:06 PM
Response to Original message
14. Any link to the sound file, etc.?
I'd be much obliged...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
smbolisnch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-07-05 12:07 PM
Response to Original message
15. Why people give them any airtime or crediblity at all is beyond me.
I don't care if he is ridiculing her. That family and those that agree with them are as reprehensible and despicible as can be. I wonder if people refuse to cover their charades and just ignore them, they wouldn't have any ground to stand on at all. Am I crazy?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
K-W Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-07-05 12:12 PM
Response to Reply #15
19. I think this is great, it forces the majority in this country who disagree
to confront the fact that these people have a scary movement.

Silencing people is never the right option. She has a right to her opinion and a right to express it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
smbolisnch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-07-05 04:30 PM
Response to Reply #19
65. I never said she didn't have a right to express it.
All I am asking is, should we be giving her a captive audience of millions? Who is to say she isn't recruiting ore whackos in doing so?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
patcox2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-07-05 12:15 PM
Response to Reply #15
23. It might be good to give them enough rope. I was shocked, and I knew.
Seriously, I knew all about godhatesfags and all that insane evil. And I was still shocked, amazed that she is so clueless that she let that out on the air.

The thing is, homophobia is unfortunately widespread and tolerated in our society. So the Phelpses get away with their homo-bashing. But this anti-semitic support for the holocaust, this goes beyond almost everyone's pale, this is so outrageous it could show people that the homo-bashing is wrong too.

But anti-semitism is not tolerated, and supporting the holocaust is not tolerated. By publicly combining her message of homophobia with naziism and genocide, she may be doing our job for us.

After all, most conservatives would reject the notion that homophobia is as bad as anti-semitism, that it is equivalent to the holocaust. Yet here is america's most outspoken homo-hater, combining her message of hating homos with hating jews and supporting the holocaust. This actually underlines our message, that hating homos is as bad as anti-semitism.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
American Tragedy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-07-05 12:17 PM
Response to Reply #15
25. Actually, Howard Stern is doing a great thing
I didn't fully realize that people like this existed, until I started listening to his show years ago.

Furthermore, it's probably healthy for the individuals themselves to interact with a Jew and a black woman. Carver eventually admitted that he actually liked Robin, in spite of his prejudice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
two gun sid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-07-05 05:06 PM
Response to Reply #15
69. Give Alberto Gonzales some air time
He is a really dangerous motherfucker. And he will be the next AG. To hell with these inbred backward country-fucks like the Phelps clan. Put Gonzo on Howard Stern and get him to answer some questions on torture.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
goclark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-07-05 12:09 PM
Response to Original message
16. and Janet Jackson was blamed


and punished for showing a part of her that we could not even see that day.

That is the kind of free speech the FCC likes to uphold.

The reporting of the vote yesterday was a no no for the MSM.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
davidinalameda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-07-05 12:11 PM
Response to Original message
17. punishing the Jews for Christ?
whatever happened to Love your Neighbor?

did the Phelps skim over that part in the bible

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
K-W Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-07-05 12:13 PM
Response to Reply #17
21. They are too busy waiting for a new savior to care about the old one
Edited on Fri Jan-07-05 12:14 PM by K-W
They are waiting for Christ 2, the apocalyptic warrior christ who doesnt care how you act on this world cause hes taking all the 'true believers' to heaven and screwing the stupid liberals into hell.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
0007 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-07-05 12:11 PM
Response to Original message
18. Wow!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
American Tragedy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-07-05 12:12 PM
Response to Original message
20. Bullshit
The First Amendment, despite what people on both sides of the political spectrum might like to believe, also covers speech of which you don't necessarily approve.

Her moronic comment was a normative statement, not a threat. It did not imply specific intent of action.

The harsh judgment of those who hear her words is a far more powerful deterrant than any law enforcement. Leave government the fuck out of it. I think our virgin ears can handle it without thought-police storming in.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
patcox2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-07-05 12:17 PM
Response to Reply #20
24. Never said it should be punished as a threat, but as a libel.
Libel and slander have never been protected speech. Why should libel against an entire race be given greater protection than libel against an individual?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
K-W Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-07-05 12:18 PM
Response to Reply #24
27. Yes but to prove Libel you need to prove a metaphysical claim wrong
which is impossible.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
American Tragedy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-07-05 12:26 PM
Response to Reply #24
31. Slander and libel do not even apply that way to individuals
Like I said, she stated an opinion. She didn't make any absolutely falsifiable claim. It's far too subjective to make a legitimate lawsuit.

Furthermore, it would be virtually impossible to enforce laws against attacks upon races, organizations, ethnicities, nationalities, etc.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
K-W Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-07-05 12:34 PM
Response to Reply #31
35. Thats only partially true.
Yes the problem is that her claim isnt falsifiable.

Not it would not be difficult to enforce slander laws relating to groups, well, it would be difficult but no more difficult than proving alot of things in our justice system. That an issue is difficult is not a reason to not legislate it.

Free speech is not absolute, if the damage done by a speech is great enough it overrides the protection of speech.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RaleighNCDUer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-07-05 02:43 PM
Response to Reply #24
58. If you can prove that Jesus ever really existed, I will support
a libel suit against her.

This has as much validity as saying that gays were responsible for 9/11. It's just nuts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
K-W Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-07-05 12:17 PM
Response to Reply #20
26. Yah, just like German ears resisted it. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
American Tragedy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-07-05 12:32 PM
Response to Reply #26
33. That risk will always exist. It is the price of democracy and free speech.
Edited on Fri Jan-07-05 12:42 PM by American Tragedy
In any case, you're severely oversimplifying a complicated historical event.

The German government actually tried to silence Adolf Hitler after he emerged from Landsberg prison. Naturally, it failed. Moreover, the SA systematically removed any sources of opposition before consolidating power, both in the press and in local organizations. As long as those of us who know the truth are just as free to condemn the lies and distortions, the truth will almost always prevail. Remember this in the next four years.

To some extent, accusations and conspiracy theories are validated, when they are forcibly banned by the wealthy and powerful. Nothing pleases such people more than to characterize themselves as being martyrs of truth, oppressed by the establishment. I've known these people. I know how many of them think.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
K-W Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-07-05 12:37 PM
Response to Reply #33
36. So you put structural ideals ahead of human life? Some ethics you got.
Worship structures and ideas if you want.

Frankly id rather we make the world a better place to live in. Rights arent absolute. If the damage done to people by the speech is great enough it overides the free speech concerns.

You cant care more about free speech than you do about peoples well being.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
American Tragedy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-07-05 12:58 PM
Response to Reply #36
40. I don't want to live in a country where people are constantly sued because
an individual or collective entity has been 'offended' by something they said. I don't want to live in a country in which authors and musicians are fined or imprisoned because their material was found in the house of some kid who shot up his school.

Political correctness is bad enough as it is, for God's sake.

You do not appreciate how this would be abused. Libel and slander are difficult cases to pursue successfully in the United States, and with very good reason.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
K-W Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-07-05 01:39 PM
Response to Reply #40
48. ."political correctness"? You are joking right?
I thought this was a board for liberals, why are you using right wing propaganda terms?

Nobody is talking about jailing musicians. Stop exagerating and blowing this out of proportion. Stop arguing as if right now in America or ever in America free speech has been absolute.

You are being highly dishonest with your arguments. You are spinning the opposing arguments and arguing from false assumptions.

The point is that it has always been the case that protections of rights have to be weighed against the interests of the welfare of the people. Stop trying to pretend that this isnt the case so you can try and dismiss a perfectly reasonable discussion.

There has been unprotected speech in this country since the beginning, so your argument that adding another category would plunge us into some dystopia is without merit.

I am not even arguing for legal limits here, but it is a valid idea on the face.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
InvisibleBallots Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-07-05 12:20 PM
Response to Original message
28. yikes! Which is scarier, her or you?
"She'd be in jail for saying that in most european countries, and I agree with those laws. Blood libel should not be protected speech."

You are - MUCH scarier. No one takes what wingnuts like her says seriously, but I bet people take you a lot more seriously. Free speech is too much freedom for some people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
K-W Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-07-05 12:23 PM
Response to Reply #28
30. PEOPLE DO TAKE HER SERIOUSLY
What is wrong with you people, christian anti-semitism is not some wacky idea someone hatched and everyone knows it is crazy.

It is an idea with in incredibally long history in christianity and an idea that has proven itself persuasive many times.

Its as weve warped into a world where Nazi germany didnt happen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
InvisibleBallots Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-07-05 12:29 PM
Response to Reply #30
32. no, we are in a world where Nazi Germany did happen
also, the Soviet Union happened. The 20th century was bloody and violent and hundreds of millions were murdered. Some of the first things the Nazis and Soviets did was ban free speech like you want to do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Minstrel Boy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-07-05 12:39 PM
Response to Reply #32
37. If the Weimar Republic had banned hate speech
Edited on Fri Jan-07-05 12:44 PM by Minstrel Boy
Hitler would never have risen, nor whipped Germany into such a frenzy the Holocaust could be conceivable.

If the Hutu radio transmitters had been shut down, the Tutsi genocide would never have occurred.

Words carry weight, and consequence.

Untrammelled Hate Speech in America will bear bloody fruit one day.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TO Kid Donating Member (565 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-07-05 01:27 PM
Response to Reply #37
45. Or if the Nazis hadn't
You conveniently forget that prior to becoming Chancellor, Hitler never had the support of the majority of the German people. That's why one of his first acts was to censor the press and ban public assembly- he knew he'd never stay in power otherwise. Even as late as 1938 the opposition saw a good opportunity to depose him if Britain stood firm on Czechoslovakia, even though all media by then was pro-Nazi.

As for the Hutu radio transmissions, those broadcasts were incitement which is not protected by the First Amendment. Even so, the radio broadcasts were the least of the causes of that genocide; shutting them down wouldn't have made any difference. If Bill Clinton had simply threatened to back General Dallaire or if the UN gave him extra troops instead of cutting back, the Hutus would've backed off.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
K-W Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-07-05 12:42 PM
Response to Reply #32
38. Nobody has suggested banning free speach, but thanks for the straw man.
Edited on Fri Jan-07-05 12:42 PM by K-W
Free speech has NEVER been absolute.

The question is, does the danger to people from the speech outweigh the importance of protecting speech in this instance.

The welfare of people is paramount, not a construct of rights.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
InvisibleBallots Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-07-05 12:57 PM
Response to Reply #38
39. no, you most certainly did suggest banning free speech
In fact you were pretty explicit about it, you wanted to put someone in jail for making a general statement.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
K-W Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-07-05 01:44 PM
Response to Reply #39
50. Actually I said nothing of the sort.
Edited on Fri Jan-07-05 01:48 PM by K-W
Its funny that you think I was pretty explicit about something I never actually said.

I am arguing that on the face a case that a type of speech is so harmful to the welfare of people that it should be restricted is completely valid and completely in line with American legal tradition and the constitution.

If you had read the whole constitution you would know that rights are not absolute in that document.

Now I dont think the speech in this thread should be limited. I dont think it meets the standard, but you are arguing that such a standard does not exist when it very clearly does.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onenote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-07-05 02:29 PM
Response to Reply #38
54. slippery slippery slope
How many comments made on this board do you think might be actionable? A lot of name calling goes on here. Some folks might call a lot of it opinion, but others might claim that there are false statements of fact. I get nervous any time someone wants the government to judge speech...and given who the government is these days, I get really nervous.

onenote
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
K-W Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-07-05 02:32 PM
Response to Reply #54
56. It isnt a slippery slope unless you make it one.
Edited on Fri Jan-07-05 02:34 PM by K-W
As long as the restriction is legally justified and well defined it isnt anymore a slippery slope than libel laws or laws against incitement.

Therien lies the problem, categorizing such restricitions in a way that only effects speech that meets the standard, and not other related speech.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onenote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-07-05 03:32 PM
Response to Reply #56
63. too risky for me
I think there is a difference between cases of individual libel and actions alleging a "group libel". If someone goes on the radio and says that Joe Smith, their next door neighbor, is a Nazi, Joe Smith could bring an action and I'm not that concerned about the government's influence on the outcome. If someone goes on the radio and says "Republicans are Nazis" -- well, I'm a bit more concerned if that lawsuit gets brought the pressure will be for a particular outcome --- to say nothing of the fact that there are tens of millions of potential complainants as compared to one.

onenote

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
patcox2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-07-05 02:08 PM
Response to Reply #28
52. You can consider Europe a laboratory and observe the result.
Many european countries have laws which restrict this kind of hate speech. You think such laws are horrible because, as best as I can tell, you think its a slippery slope and all freedom of speech would be destroyed.

Well, I have been to europe where these laws are in effect and all I can say is that free speech is alive and well. There is a much greater diversity of opinion in public and in publications in every place I have been in europe than there is here in the US. The only place comparable in the US is on the internet, where people seem to feel safe enough to exercise their rights because of the anonymity. But the fact is the US celebrates freedom of speech more symbolically that actually. The permissable range of free expression here is laughable. Look at what happened to the dixie chicks. Interestingly, they said what they did in Europe, they must have gotten used to the greater actual freedom there (as opposed to symbolic freedom here) and forgotten themselves.

Anyway, as I say, theories are fine, but reality is what you observe. Such laws are in effect in europe. And I don't think anyone would argue that there isn't much more freedom of expression in europe than here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rockholm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-07-05 02:55 PM
Response to Reply #52
59. I totally agree with you patcox2....
Publicly broadcast hate speech will be the downfall of this country one day. Rush, Hannity, O'Reilly, Coulter, etal are DESTROYING this country. They are creating public opinion and massaging those opinions in order to divide this country. In my opinion, the are the same as OBL and his band of terrorists.

Rush Limbaugh=TERRORIST
Ann Coulter=TERRORIST
Bill O'Reilly=TERRORIST
Sean Hannity=TERRORIST

I am sure there are more. We know who they are.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
princehal Donating Member (341 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-07-05 03:24 PM
Response to Reply #59
62. Republican Terroists
I like it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onenote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-07-05 03:46 PM
Response to Reply #59
64. illustration of the problem
I'm appalled at what comes out of the mouth of Limpdick, ManCoulter, and the rest of those jerks. But you're message illustrates the problem in regulating speech. They could just as go after you for labelling them terrorists is libel or hate speech as you or I could go after them for the crap that they spew. And frankly, given who controls the government these days, they're more likely to suceed than we will.

onenote
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
K-W Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-07-05 03:09 PM
Response to Reply #52
60. The luxery of a population that isnt dellusional about thier government.
Edited on Fri Jan-07-05 03:13 PM by K-W
The problem with America is that there is not enough responsible informed oversight of the government by the people.

This is of course a condition largely created by the government.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
genieroze Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-07-05 12:20 PM
Response to Original message
29. Stern always has nut bags on, hubby likes him, I think he's gross
but I defend his right to be gross.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kweerwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-07-05 01:05 PM
Response to Original message
41. The only problem I have with the Phelpes ...
Is that they are so far out on the extreme they make homophobes like Falwell, Roberts, Dobson, et al. look almost "normal" by comparison. Having folks like Fred Phelps and his little inbred congregation around gives other homophobes a free pass. They can sit back and smugly tell themselves 'well, I'm nothing like THAT' and feel like opposing equal rights for gays and lesbians is OK since they personally have never picketed an AIDS funeral or carried signs claiming God hates fags.

Personally, I think the scumdamentalists are glad there are folks like Phelps around. They can sit back and mouth platitudes like 'we love the sinner, but hate the sin' and make it sound like such sentiments are not only reasonable, but in some way noble.

Don't get me wrong ... I will make the pilgrimage to Topeka to piss on Phelps' grave when the asshole dies. But in focusing so much on what the Phelpses say, let's not lose sight of the fact that there are other homophobic fundies out there who are even more dangerous because the attention paid the Phelps keeps them under the radar.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
atommom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-07-05 01:16 PM
Response to Original message
44. I'm sure Fred & Co. are happy these days.
They're getting a lot of attention from the national press. The local press doesn't pay much attention to their antics anymore. When local people have tried to stand up to them, they've been unsuccessful, because Fred and his family are a.) ruthless, and b.) able to find justification for their actions in the law. They even won the right in court to send harrassing faxes.

I'm hoping the media get tired of covering the Phelps family soon. The more attention they get (positive OR negative), the happier and bolder they will become. There are a lot of other people out there using bigotry and religion to advance their own ends, and those people are a much greater threat than the Phelpses.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
genieroze Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-07-05 01:29 PM
Response to Original message
46. Check this out
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jmm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-07-05 01:46 PM
Response to Original message
51. She must be desperate for publicity.
Why else would someone who is obsessed with hating homosexuals appear on a show hosted by a man who is obsessed with lesbians?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Swamp Rat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-07-05 02:38 PM
Response to Original message
57. Ah, so she is a Bush fan...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FizzFuzz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-07-05 04:58 PM
Response to Reply #57
67. oh man, another good one from Swamp Rat!!
That does it! Next time we visit New Orleans, I am giving you a shout!!!

:hi:

:D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Robin Hood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-07-05 03:19 PM
Response to Original message
61. It appears that a good chunk of rat bastard nazis fled to America.
I thought that a lot went to south america and Africa, but it appears that a good number of them came to the states. They are either descendents of rat bastard Nazi's or the rat bastards have spread their diseased thought throughout the populace.

I wonder what will our punishment be for killing 3 million Vietnamese? Or how about all of the other atrocities that we have committed?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
One_Life_To_Give Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-07-05 04:43 PM
Response to Original message
66. But what was the nasty thing she said?
she said the most foul and disgusting thing I have ever heard said in public in my life

So what did she say that was that disgusting? }(


Seriously I have heard far worse on the discovery channel, from the mouths of Nazis and Klansmen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Dec 18th 2014, 01:06 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC