Login/Sign Up




Phelps v Snyder
Politics

shadovvelite
Oct 06, 2010
3 votes
2 debaters


+ Add Argument

3
Phelps Clan IS NOT protected by the first amendment


shadovvelite
Oct 06, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
In this case I do not believe that the Phelps Clan is protected under the first amendment. I think they crossed the line by singling out one persons funeral. At that point it's almost an emotional hate crime against the Snyder family. Now, had they been somewhere else and been stating their beliefs against all military members or gay people then they would have been fine. But to single out out one person in particular and hold signs up saying "Semper Fi fag" and " Thank God for dead soldiers" is a direct emotional attack and should not be protected under the first amendment.

 
againstthecurrents
Oct 07, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Under the Constitution, ughh, I believe these people are protected.

A way around this... perhaps.... is to make the service an official military exercise.
The military has the right to suspend certain laws,
so could the military simply say this is an official act of military business and your first
amendment rights are trumped,
such as say,
the fact that citizens can be denied entrance to a military base?

 
shadovvelite
Oct 07, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Against, I really don't think they are protected under the first amendment. Had they been saying those things and picketing a movement as a whole they would have been. But when they singled out one specific person and attacked him I believe that would be a hate crime. So that would not be protected in anyway. Especially the aggressiveness of the Phelps Clan directed at the family. If the Phelps Clan wins this, I think it would be a gross misuse of law and I would be highly disappointed.

 
shadovvelite
Oct 10, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
I see where you would think that it could be protected but I'll walk you through why I think its wrong. First lets look at the definitions of a few things.

1st Amendment - The amendment prohibits the making of any law "respecting an establishment of religion", impeding the free exercise of religion, infringing on the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.

Now I want to highlight... the first amendment DOES NOT protect, for example, someone yelling " FIRE, FIRE" in a crowd because it gives rise to disorderly conduct.

Hate Crime - (also known as bias-motivated crimes) occur when a perpetrator targets a victim because of his or her perceived membership in a certain social group, usually defined by racial group, religion, sexual orientation, disability, class, ethnicity, nationality, age, gender, gender identity, or political affiliation.

A side not for hate crime... it can refer to physical assault, damage to property, BULLYING, HARASSMENT, VERBAL ABUSE or INSULTS, or offensive graffiti or letters (hate mail).

Granted, this is not a case of assault or damage to property, but none the less a hate crime is not protected under the first amendment.

 
shadovvelite
Oct 11, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: againstthecurrents Show

As much as I would like the military being able to pull that on the Phelps clan in this case, I don't think in the long run it would be beneficial. Mostly for two reasons, the first being it then opens up judicial precedence on cases like this so people will start to hate on the military for invading their rights. And the second being that right now I think the military has more important things to worry about overseas.

 
shadovvelite
Oct 11, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: againstthecurrents Show

Actually, the military puts a lot of effort into public relations and making sure they look good in the publics eye. You don't want someone defending your nation that you can't respect or trust. And with good reason the general public should not have access to that information, If the general public has that information, then that means the enemy also has that information readily available to them.

And for the second point, I didn't mean to imply that it's a waste of time to guard a fallen comrades funeral, I meant it is a little overboard to send the national guard to detain 3 people in the Phelps clan. You have to take use of force into account.

 
shadovvelite
Oct 11, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: againstthecurrents Show

How is it not overboard? I mean not only would you have to mobilize the unit and cost the state quite a bit of money (taxpayers money), by the time they would be there protesting there would be no way to mobilize fast enough before the funeral would be over. Unless it was known they were going to be there before the actual event.

The only way I would see it as not being overboard is if for some reason there was need for a military presence that the local police wouldn't have the jurisdiction to do, as you stated. And if it ever came to that, only to send in a select few from SF/MP so as to not make it a big deal.

 
shadovvelite
Oct 11, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
But we are straying from the main topic here. First Amendment rights, protected or not. I still firmly believe its a no. They (Phelps) were already found guilty in the state supreme court, they just had it appealed to the federal supreme court.

 
shadovvelite
Oct 11, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: againstthecurrents Show

Again you are misconstruing what I'm saying. I'm not saying its overboard to pay respect for the people who gave their life in the war. What I'm saying is overboard is the use of force necessary to handle a group of older people. The only thing they can do is verbally harass and cause emotional distress. And lets face it, thats not as serious of a crime as lets say agg. assault or causing massive property damage from rioting. The only way they would be a physical threat is if they brought weapons. Now, effective ways the military could be used in this situation could be to take legal action and try and make laws preventing this in the future, that's respecting the fallen soldiers.

And were you asking why Snyder won in state court? They won on charges of invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Also something new I just learned which only strengthens my argument that they ARE NOT protected under the first amendment. Phelps posted an "epic poem" entitled "The Burden of Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew A. Snyder". One of the lines in the poem adresses his parents saying, "you raised him for the devil." Those are direct attacks against the Snyder family.

 
+ Add Argument

0
Phelps Clan IS protected by the first amendment


againstthecurrents
Oct 08, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: shadovvelite Show

The problem is,,, has a crime been committed?

We should look at skokie v illinois perhaps, although your point is taken that they were targeting specific people. I still do not find it illegal, since as I said, it doesn't appear to me that any actual crime occurred.

I think phelps is going to win.

I am still more interested in the military utilizing its special situation in society to perhaps put an end to this garbage. Couldn't the military simply have a check point on the road and claim the rest is official military business?

 
againstthecurrents
Oct 11, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: shadovvelite Show

This is one of those situations where you'd wish the cop present would just whisper "have at it" to the military friends and family..... but alas, we can't.

This is protected under the first, not only under freedom of expression, but freedom of petition and to congregate.

I'm not sure this is a hate crime either.... because what crime? I do understand where you are coming from, for instance in NYC a teacher can be fired for verbally abusing a student. Verbal abuse is treated legally the same as physical. I'm not sure if that translates to the world outside of the classroom though?

I really don't know. I am in favor of hate crimes, but I also understand the oppositions pov as well. Unless you can really prove a crime was committed and that it was out of prejudice trial lawyers can start playing mind crime games.

Perhaps this is a hate crime..... don't know.

What do you think about the military simply stopping all of this before it starts utilizing some of the ideas I mentioned earlier?

 
againstthecurrents
Oct 11, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: shadovvelite Show

A few observations,

I don't think the military cares if people don't like them. The military routinely denies rights to individuals,
you cannot photograph outside of bases, you are not allowed within certain proximity of some areas, information is denied etc. etc.

As for your second point... yes, but I don't think those -in- the military would see it that way. A fallen comrade is as important as the front lines. Call up the national guard!

 
againstthecurrents
Oct 11, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: shadovvelite Show

why is it over board?

 
againstthecurrents
Oct 11, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: shadovvelite Show

If America is serious about equality, why is it over board to take care of those who gave their lives for us?

As for the crime... specifically what crime, specifically.

 


Use these tags to find similiar debates

britain death government politics uk 2008 2009 9/11 abortion Afghanistan america Arizona AU bad Baha BBC bias Biden boycott Britain bush canada capitalism Censorship cheney children China Christianity church cia Clinton Cold War commonwealth communism Communist congress conservative conservatives conspiracy Constitution Corruption country crime death debate defeat Democracy democrat Democrats detention discrimination drugs economics economy education election elections Ethics EU Europe Euthanasia evil Fascism feminism Fight France Frankie freedom Freedom of speech freedoms french gay Gaza george bush Georgia global global warming goverment government Great Britain Guantanamo Bay guns Health Health Care Healthcare Hillary hillary clinton History Hitler homosexual human rights illegal illegal immigration immigration india iran Iranian presidential election iraq islam Israel japan Jewish juggernaut justice Karl law laws legal legislation liberal lies marijuana marriage mccain media Medicine mexico middle east military monarchy money moral morals Mugabe Muslim Muslims news North Korea nuclear nukes Obama objective Oil opression Osama pakistan Palestine Palin Panda paradox parliament peace petition philosophy policy politicians Politics polygamy power president Prime Minister prisoners protest Public Affairs punishment queen race racism religion republican Republicans revolution right rights Rove russia Saddam Sarkozy Security sex socialism Society South Korea sovereignty Supreme court tax taxes terror terrorism terrorist terrorists Tibet torture Troop U.S. uk un united nations united states us usa vancam vote Votes voting war washington weapons wmd women world wrong