Rob's point. On principle the actions are just wrong, but it's their right to do them... UNLESS someone can sue them for trespassing.

---Landon

Inking is sexy.

http://www.angelfire.com/comics/wickedlakes

Paul (dinther)-
Sorry, I just realised I hadn't responded to your post. My opinion is that you can justly defend yourself in proportion to the threat. If the threat is verbal then a verbal response is appropriate.

Yes, I am reinforcing the notion that mental and physical abuse are different things.

Cheers,

Reed

Sam -

In any culture, (see my Muslim parallel), don't you think there'd be the same, quite universal, response?
No.

If you insulted someone's woman, would you be surprised to be challenged to a duel at dawn?
If I accepted a duel I would be voluntarily accepting the consequences but in reality (if I am to consider pistols at dawn reality) I would decline the duel.

It would be just for him to respond in the same manner (verbal abuse) but to escalate to assault or murder would be unjust.

Does anyone agree with Sam that [honour] trumps property rights, and legalities? From what I understand that POV wouldn't comply with objectivism.

Cheers,

Reed

It sounds a lot like what Christians call self righteousness.

This item has poked me and have been trying to get something clear to myself. Found this by chance:-

"Honor is self-esteem made visible in action."

Philosophy: Who Needs It

It applies to this case (& the Muslim parallel), and trumps property rights, and legalities.

In any culture, (see my Muslim parallel), don't you think there'd be the same, quite universal, response?

If you insulted someone's woman, would you be surprised to be challenged to a duel at dawn?

As for the 'goat fuckers', Lance is being a good sport, and performing a community service.

Sam -

Manners and decency are not absolutes, they are based on the individuals perspective.

I'm sure this would constitute bad manners from some perspectives.

Is it moral for someone to commit an assault for it?

Cheers,

Reed

-- You pass a law that makes the military cemetery in question private land (you can give it to a Returned Serviceman's organization or similar), allowing the custodian of the cemetery the right to exclude whomever they wish.

Phelps et al. can then be excluded from the cemetery and any noise they make must pass the noise pollution laws - which you make sure are vigorously enforced.

Remember, the right to free speech doesn't include the right to make a nuisance of yourself by yelling your head off loud enough to disturb someone else going about their lawful business.

-- Otherwise you do what a radio station here in the US did. You make a deal with Phelps: 2hr of Live Radio time in exchange for them not protesting. Then you ring in and let the bastards have it.

Private citizens stepping in and lending a hand to shield the grieving families from these nutters is the best way.

For instance: Freedom Riders (ex-military bikers providing a loud biker-escort for the family with the aim of drowning out Phelps).

Donating land for a privately run military cemetery would be best.

Phelps is only able to do what he does on public land. Keep it private and he's screwed.

-- Or you could have the Police monitor Phelps' crew closely and arrest or fine them for every infraction, no matter how trivial.

-- Or if you are feeling really evil & unprincipled, you could get together with the Topeka City council and have his land confiscated using the Kelo v New London eminent domain decision.

Cos I'm the law in deese dem parts.

What I see in this episode are decent & good folk laying to rest an honourable son, while indecent nothings from planet Z use the occasion to parade their own obsessions. It's a case of really bad manners.

In cases of bad manners, it's quite reasonable to ask the offender to move on, to get out of yr space. When they don't it's quite reasonable to take further meaningful action.

Sure, the planet Zs will hide behind the law, but the moral ground is - and should be - with the decent.

Were they from planet Z doing anything illegal? No.

Did they deserve to be bopped a few for not moving on when asked? Yep.

The guy who heads the group up is a former civil rights lawyer who knows exactly what he can and can't do according to the law. It's one of those situations where I'm disgusted with who I'm defending, but I'm affraid of what could happen in the long run.

---Landon

Inking is sexy.

http://www.angelfire.com/comics/wickedlakes

Sam -

If they (picketers or stereo offenders) are not doing anything illegal why do you say it is reasonable and appropriate to use force on them?

Cheers,

Reed

If you can't protect free speech right up o it's most brazenly obscene extreme, there is no free speech. The only cure for bad speech is more speech. Plain and simple. That has been proven in the case of the Phelps mob by the way.

Take in mind they're not on private property. They protest outside a gate. Now that means the family can have whatever they want in front of said gate.

Cue Matthew Shepard: In 98, gay 21 year old Matthew Shepard was brutally murdered by a couple of black blooded rednecks in Wyoming, just for being gay. He was tied to fence and left to slowly whither away for days. The case (understandably) caused public outrage. When the highly publicized funeral rolled around the Phelps gang picketed the event with signs bearing slogans such as 'Got Hates Fags', 'Thank God for Aids', 'Matt Burns in Hell' etc. This caused so much outrage that when the word got out that they were planning to picket outside the trial of Shepard’s murderers a whole bunch of people got together in angel costumes, with big white sheets held up by frames as wings (see movie depiction). They got inside the premises and stood in front of the protesters. Perhaps one of the most touching and beautiful real life stories I've ever heard. Hate seems to bring out the best in people.

Oh but there's more. Now that the Phelps gang is picketing the funerals of soldiers a biker group called The Patriot Guard is taking it upon themselves to follow them to every funeral and stand in front of them with American flags.

I'll say it again; the only cure for bad speech is MORE speech. And it really is one hell of a cure. The hate spewed by Phelps and his followers seems to inspire people to come out and show the families of these kids how much love and solidarity there really is out there. That's what should be focused on. As usual passing laws only makes things worse. PEOPLE are always the answer.

Reed, nothing to do with emotional state. Facts are pretty clear. Yr burying yr son & a bunch of idiots are disturbing the peace. It's not like you can do this all again once you've had a chance to gentlemenly-like go through the courts, etc...

Guess we all agree it's tasteless, and those folk are idiots.

Think we're all uncomfy with the 'they caused offense' claim, and yet sympathise with the family making it.

We all agree that idiots are allowed free speech too.

Once you get that it's not a free speech issue (though that's the path been taken - and will probably mean they'll lose) you'll get that the bop on the head is completely reasonable & appropriate.

Sam -

You get one chance to bury yr son. You want to do it right. By putting off action you are dishonouring him, and being considerate to idiots. You'll have to live with that.

My emotional state does not determine what is right and what is wrong.

Cheers,

Reed

..these chaps should be free to do idiotic things if they want to.

And good folk should feel free to deal to idiots accordingly.

Sue them for playing their stereo and being inconsiderate... should be worth at least a million?

You get one chance to bury yr son. You want to do it right. By putting off action you are dishonouring him, and being considerate to idiots. You'll have to live with that.

Muslim analogy would be to do an anti-jihad protest outside a mosque during a wedding. You'd get what you deserved.

Brilliant observation. See that sits as wrong with me as does the funeral protests.

While the family seems to have gone the offense track, it's not the heart of the thing.

The wackos were conscious intruders on a private ceremony, showing complete & utter disrespect. They needed be treated as such.

Muslim analogy would be to do an anti-jihad protest outside a mosque during a wedding. You'd get what you deserved.

In both cases it's not offense you are causing. It's not about hurt feelings.

Imagine instead they were a bunch of teenagers playing their stereo real loud. You asked them to turn it down. They declined. What ya gonna do next? Time's limited.

Sue them for playing their stereo and being inconsiderate... should be worth at least a million?

For all that I despise them, and I do, I hope this gets overturned. That their message was offensive and caused emotional distress is not good grounds.

think it is a freedom of speech matter, and as such these chaps should be free to do idiotic things if they want to.

I decided not to include this in my previous post...

And what about the obvious distress caused to Muslims by drawings of their prophet. Would compensation of $1000 each be appropriate?

It's not a free speech issue. It's become that. Pity.

Imagine instead they were a bunch of teenagers playing their stereo real loud. You asked them to turn it down. They declined. What ya gonna do next? Time's limited.

This was the nature of the situation.

That really re-enforces the notion that mental and physical abuse are different things.

If these wackos go up to those people and beat them over their heads with the signs then we don't talk about the receivers vulnerabilities. We talk about assault.

But when they are mentally attacked at a point when they are most vulnerable then it is not assault.

For a limited time you can withstand a mental assault but the same can be said for a physical assault. I like to argue that there really is no difference but I struggle to place this in a Libertarian or Objective context.

Carbon Tax is a hoax. Read more at carbonhoax.org.nz and spread the word.

To sanction violence against them would immediately sanction any act of violence against anyone who has caused offense. Say offending Muslims by insulting Mohammed or Allah for example?

I realise I'm equating a whack on the noggin with murder, but still...

How the hell do you deal with this?

To be consistent with objectivism you would have to support their right to free speech, oppose the court imposed fine/compensation and condemn any physical violence toward them.

It is the obvious vulnerability that causes our sympathies - Is it valid for the courts to take into account someones vulnerability when assessing whether a breach of rights/law has been committed or not?

I think a whack in the head to these types totally appropriate. It's a matter of honour on the part of the family, and best dealt with by private action. One would then likely be up on an assault charge & have to defend that, which is better than having it become a free speech issue.

Simply, yr soldier son's funeral is not a time for debate - let alone debating wackos. Those wackos are so disconnected from the facts of the situation, some physical impression needed be delivered to get them to back off.

That said, it would have been best for friends of the family to have done the job - the family didn't need the added grief.

Putting on my "objective robot" hat:

They are utilising "free expression". It's offensiveness comes from not just what they are saying but where they are saying it, at a funeral. Funerals are the disposing of dead human tissue, any "sacrosanct" nature of them is a cultural thing.

Property rights can take care of keeping them out of the cemetery I assume? So if they were outside, in a 'public' space, surely they were within their rights?

So, if it were humanly possible to be truly objective then you would not be offended if someone would say something bad but true about your mother. Actually, come to think of it. Same can be said if someone says something bad but untrue about your mother.

In case 1 an objective person would recognize the truth in the statement and only be concerned with the intend of the statement.

In case 2 an objective person would simply dismiss the statement all together and possibly be concerned with the intent of the statement.

These churchy types offend the people with their irrational statements which really just confirm that they are superstitious weirdo's. How could man take offence to what they say! Clearly a case 2 style situation.

So these weirdo's should not be considered offensive in a world where we all act like objective robots. But reality is we are human, we got feelings and emotions and although they really are the source of all this mess, isn't it good to be alive?

Carbon Tax is a hoax. Read more at carbonhoax.org.nz and spread the word.

is a tricky one.

I think the issue goes to the desire of Mankind to engage in wishful thinking and supernatural witchcraft, rather than 'reality'.

People want to 'believe' certain things to be true, and get offended when someone points out the Emperor is naked.

For instance...

1. Try telling someone their Parents are/were losers.
2. Try telling someone they are wasting their time engaging in [whatever] activity.
3. Try telling someone there are huge profits to be made owning shares in Oil Companies or Defence Contractors, and they should cash in...(basically to become a 'War Profiteer')
4. Try telling someone they are bad parents.
5. Try telling someone they are stupid.
6. Try telling someone their children are stupid.
7. Try telling someone foreign ownership of real estate or businesses is the best thing for our economy.
8. Try telling someone they seem 'addicted' to chaps who are manifestly in the 'Mr Wrong' category.
9. etc...etc...

I think Gordon Gekko summed it up brilliantly in the film 'Wall Street' where he says "...the illusion has become real, and the more real it seems, the more desperately they want it.."

That's what I'm trying to work out. It conflicts with something I held to be true.

You don't have the right not to be offended. I needed to read that one a few times.

Ok, so how do I read that? "You have the right to offend"

So I can say bad things about your mother publicly and that is OK?

Do those things said, need to be true? If so, who determines what is true?

I can sort of go with that rule, but why is mental abuse acceptable but physical abuse not ? 

Carbon Tax is a hoax. Read more at carbonhoax.org.nz and spread the word.