Comments on: High court to examine limits on Phelps protests http://www.keennewsservice.com/2010/03/11/high-court-to-examine-limits-on-phelps-protests/ National LGBT news by experienced gay reporters covering law and politics with a deeper understanding than mainstream news wires. Tue, 07 Feb 2012 22:56:44 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: John http://www.keennewsservice.com/2010/03/11/high-court-to-examine-limits-on-phelps-protests/comment-page-1/#comment-297 John Sat, 13 Mar 2010 22:29:49 +0000 http://www.keennewsservice.com/?p=960#comment-297 I don't understand how this got to the high court. It's a legal no-brainer. Clearly it is protected speech and other courts have limited Phelps' activities to the periphery because no right is absolute. e.g. one is not free to falsely shout fire in a crowded theater or invite others to eminent lawless action, These are "reasonable time place an manner restrictions." All well-settled law. The problem I have with articles like this is that the writers (with all due respect) miss the forest for the trees at the same time they take to the tainted bait. The real questions are Church and State and who funds Phelps. He has lost millions in civil judgments for intentional inflection of emotional harm and violating the civil rights of others. So where does this backwater bigot get that kind of money? Finally Phelps knows he will lose and the ONLY reason these matters are forced into court is as a device to keep their hate in the news. They do it almost SOLELY to get the media attention. This generates funds for them. So why do writers take to this tainted bait which really only serves him as you preach to the choir? Phelps will lose in court. So why even dignify him by chomping at his tainted bait? I don’t understand how this got to the high court. It’s a legal no-brainer. Clearly it is protected speech and other courts have limited Phelps’ activities to the periphery because no right is absolute. e.g. one is not free to falsely shout fire in a crowded theater or invite others to eminent lawless action, These are “reasonable time place an manner restrictions.” All well-settled law.

The problem I have with articles like this is that the writers (with all due respect) miss the forest for the trees at the same time they take to the tainted bait. The real questions are Church and State and who funds Phelps. He has lost millions in civil judgments for intentional inflection of emotional harm and violating the civil rights of others. So where does this backwater bigot get that kind of money?

Finally Phelps knows he will lose and the ONLY reason these matters are forced into court is as a device to keep their hate in the news. They do it almost SOLELY to get the media attention. This generates funds for them. So why do writers take to this tainted bait which really only serves him as you preach to the choir? Phelps will lose in court. So why even dignify him by chomping at his tainted bait?

]]> By: Mykelb http://www.keennewsservice.com/2010/03/11/high-court-to-examine-limits-on-phelps-protests/comment-page-1/#comment-294 Mykelb Sat, 13 Mar 2010 17:09:42 +0000 http://www.keennewsservice.com/?p=960#comment-294 What will it take for the court to decide that "those are fightin words"? When someone from a funeral decides to take matters into their own hands and gun down the Phelps KLAN? Maybe then the court will see just how offensive these Phelps' really are. What will it take for the court to decide that “those are fightin words”? When someone from a funeral decides to take matters into their own hands and gun down the Phelps KLAN? Maybe then the court will see just how offensive these Phelps’ really are.

]]>