A Little Harassment for Westboro Nutcases
July 6th, 2007 at 7:06 pm by CrankyFrom Vinnie’s neck of the woods – Omaha:
A Topeka woman [Shirley Phelps-Roper]whose church protests at military funerals across the nation was charged Thursday with four misdemeanors after her son stomped on a U.S. flag during a demonstration in Bellevue.
Shirley Phelps-Roper, 49, was charged with negligent child abuse, contributing to the delinquency of a minor, flag mutilation and disturbing the peace.
I don’t expect that these charges will stick. But it is OK in my book to legally harrass these people at every turn.
July 6th, 2007 at 9:58 pm
It’s Boy George’s Church of the Poisoned Mind.
July 7th, 2007 at 11:00 am
Throw her in Gitmo and toss away the key. No Koran for her.
July 7th, 2007 at 12:45 pm
I love it because the local ACLU chapter–maybe the national one– is going to have to come out and defend their right to burn the flag.
July 8th, 2007 at 11:35 am
So you agree with the El Supremo Majority;
“Speech I agree with is protected, speech i do not agree with is not”
Good Show.
July 8th, 2007 at 11:46 am
How much thought did you put into your canned response?
They are free to say and do as they wish.
However, if they break any laws, I fully expect them to be called on it.
Is flag burning constitutionally protected free speech? I don’t know. It is against the law in Nebraska, so let have that battle play out in the courts. An added benefit is that it will consume Westboro’s resources fighting it.
They’ve made themselves controversial and they should expect opposition.
Do you know what shut down the Aryan Nation up in Idaho? It wasn’t First Amendment violations, they harrassed an African American family which accidentally made a wrong turn onto their compound.
Once they made a misstep, it was very easy to shut them down for good.
I assume that is bad form in your view too.
You know what? I’ve put too much thought into your comment.
Just shut up, you idiot. <-Excercises 1st Amendment Rights, offends semanticleo because he is “denying him his right to speak”
July 8th, 2007 at 12:10 pm
“However, if they break any laws, I fully expect them to be called on it.”
You didn’t really answer consistent with yourself. See how it works in you July 2nd post. Apparently you don’t put much thought
into anything.
July 8th, 2007 at 12:12 pm
Tsk Tsk, Cranky. Did you take your meds this morning?
You seem even crankier than usual; feel something coming on here?
July 8th, 2007 at 3:25 pm
See how it works in you July 2nd post. Apparently you don’t put much thought into anything.
I’m flattered that you track my every post, but help me out here. What 7/2 post?
Shelly, please excuse me, I woke up with a frog in my throat.
July 8th, 2007 at 3:32 pm
Ok. I think I know what you are talking about but…if you look real carefully at the end..maybe use some reading glasses..you will see that it is not my post.
However, in general defense of my other co-laborers in blogdom, If you think that something “illegal” was done by the Administration, demonstrate it with evidence, not some flippant, ad hominem.
My statement was conditional–If, then. The “if” is a condition precedent to “then.” Do you remember studying this in school? I can understand if you don’t or, rather, your post makes it understandable.
–Cranky II