Hate comes to Fort Wayne

Automatic Washer - The world's coolest Washing Machines, Dryers and Dishwashers

Help Support :

Well, according to God's word, we are to love our enemies, even Mr. Phelps, but we certainly can DESPISE his hatred and how he feels about homosexuals.

So I guess it boils down to there is a difference between HATE and DISLIKE. I don't hate him, but I don't like him.

You're right. He's very dangerous. I don't even want to go near or even mess with him and his group.
 
Abuse of Free Speech

What Phelps and his followers practice are an abuse of free speech.And the abuse is directed at a whole community of American people,of which the Constitution is supposed to protect. I am praying that his the attention from his abuse in Fort Wayne backfires on him,and more people than ever turn out the see The Laramie Project,and the debate at Indiana/Purdue University Fort Wayne. Already a couple of friends are going to attend both with me.And I will be asking more....

Rick
 
I've never heard of this guy, but I surely wouldn't want him or his festering followers to CT. The crap thses people stand for, all in the name of religion. Maybe he should be sent to Iraq to watch the bloodshed.....& leave everyone else alone
 
I was fortunate enough to hear Judy Shepard speak last year. She said the good thing about Fred Phelps is that, by seeking to spread hatred, he creates publicity for anti-hate causes. That, at least, is a silver lining.
 
I had never heard of this man either. I went to his site, and about puked to put it lightly! All I can say about him and his followers is WACKO! I really wouldn't mind spending tax dollars on putting them in a Institution. Free speech is one thing but that is ridiclous! What a waste of energy!
 
PeterH, thanks.

I'm pretty hard core about the First Amendment also. But this guy pushes the limit about as far as Nazis marching through a Jewish neighborhood.

So far our society has a consensus about three limits on free speech: a) Shouting fire in a crowded theatre, i.e. speech that falsely claims an emergnecy in such a manner as to lead to a panic that itself is a danger to public safety. b) Direct threats against an individual, which are the definition of "assault" (carrying out the threat is the "battery" part), and here we extend the boundary a bit with regard to public officials, where any threat against them is taken seriously because we don't want our system of governance to be subjected to manipulation by intimidation. c) Fraud, i.e. commercial speech that is false and misleading, because this would otherwise enable criminals to essentially rob people at will.

We have a partial consensus on one more category, d) pornography or obscenity. However I find it interesting that the definition is restricted to "explicit depictions of sexual or excretory functions or activities without redeeming scientifc of other social value." I believe this should be extended to include violence according to the same rule. For example video games such as Grand Theft Auto which effectively give players a subjective "reward" sensation for committing on-screen crimes up to and including murder of police officers. (And it's especially hypocritical that Hollywood is talking about how depictions of *smoking* in the movies should be eliminiated, so as to "not encourage kids to do it," while the depiction of all manner of murder and mayhem is somehow supposed to never encourage kids to do *that*, while we have one of the highest crime rates in the industrialized world.)

And we have also a consensus on banning child pornography, but in that case there is not even a question of "speech," the issue is that children are being sexually abused to make those pictures, which is clearly abhorrent to any civilized sensibility.

The underlying basis for criminalizing the induction of mass panic (via "fire" in a crowded theatre) or the induction of lust (via pornography) is that those emotions preclude reason, preclude rational decision making on the part of individuals, and thereby cause individuals to behave in a manner that is overtly detrimental in a measurable way (e.g. stampeding the theatre, risk of injury and death; lusting after children or married people, child-molestation and adulterous breakage of families). In other words, those types of speech "push buttons" in susceptible individuals that can produce more-or-less automatic behavioral responses that are hazardous in an obvious way. The underlying basis for criminalizing "threat speech" is that it is a statement that one is willing to, or about to, harm another person: a clear and present danger to another person.

With those criteria in mind, there is a rational basis for banning hate "speech." It is clearly aimed at inducing an emotion of hate, which in turn is conducive to hazardous and detrimental behavior such as committing violent acts against the targeted individuals. As well it constitutes a form of "threat," in that its defining emotion is one that coincides with the capability *and inclination* to harm others. A person in a state of hatred or rage is as much a manifest hazard as a driver in a state of drunkenness.

So on balance, I'd have to say that hate speech could reasonably be criminalized in the same manner as "threat speech."

As well, hatred itself should be recognized as a form of chronic (long-term) psychopathology (personality disorder); and rage itself should be recognized as an acute (short-term) psychotic state (psychotic as defined by sensory distortions, ideas of reference, and loss of reality-testing). Both of these should be subject to involuntary civil commitment under the standard of "danger to self or others."

There is however a risk that the highly manipulative sociopaths such as Phelps would merely tailor their messages in such a manner as to circumvent the law, and tailor their behavior to circumvent the psychiatric diagnosis. We already see this with respect to other cases, e.g. racism, anti-Semitism, etc., which are "merely" the subject of a nearly universal social consensus of severe disapproval.

In the end, regardless of whatever legal measures are available, there's no substitute for fighting back -in a disciplined manner- whenever and wherever these creeps appear.
 
This is a quote from Fred's son Mark: "I realize that my father is a very unstable person who is determined to hurt people. And because he is so bound to be hateful and hurtful, and because he's so untrustworthy, I believe it's a good idea to respond to him with caution much like the caution used when dealing with a rattlesnake or a mad dog. You see, the causes that he crusades for, including the Bible, are not the issue here. He simply wants to hate and to have a forum for his hate."

Four of Fred's children left his church (His church only consists of 51 family members...children, in-laws and grandchildren) and have publicly exposed him as an extreme wife and child abuser. According to the offspring who escaped, those remaining with him are "brainwashed" abuse survivors. The story truely is a nightmare. Fred systematicly cut all his family ties with the outside world...including relatives...and visciously abused his wife and 13 children. They lived in terror and fear. It is sad he was able to carry on such abuse. A lawyer, he slapped lawsuits on anyone who tries to interfere...including his children's school and local law enforcement. He is such a lunatic, that locals would rather ignore him than try and deal with his behavior. The man should really be in a padded cell....he is insane.
 
That's extreme sociopathy for you. Or evil, pure and simple.

In the old days there was another way people like this were dealt with.

Hunting accidents.

I'm not suggesting that's *right," just that in earlier times these monsters were not just let loose to run around and cause harm.

As a theological and philosophical matter I have to wonder if people are morally responsible for the results of brain injuries? That is, the guy is clearly damaged and a post-mortem would probably find visible signs such as you see with Alzheimer's (though different). And his actions are clearly evil. But where does one draw the line of moral culpability, as distinct from criminal or other forms of culpability?

It may be that God forgives even the monsters in one way or another, but as a society we can't let them run around loose as a threat to public safety.

At one time even Osama and the Ku Klux Klan had only "a few" followers. Change the circumstances a bit and Phelps could pick up more than his 51. Maybe not enough to lead to mass murder, but maybe enough to constitute a more direct physical threat. Ignoring these people lets them gather strength in the shadows.

Here's another possible chant for a counter-demonstration:

"Bigot! Loser! Child abuser!"

And perhaps signs with quotes from the family members who escaped would be appropriate there.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top