Posted: 7/24/2007 12:19:51 PM EDT
 www.lincolnjournalstar.com/news/nebraska/doc46a653318812e178267678.txt BELLEVUE — The Bellevue City Council won’t let members of a Kansas church protest next week outside the funeral of a sailor killed in Iraq. A Bellevue permit application form filed Monday with the city said a maximum 15 people affiliated with Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka wanted to hold a “religious demonstration” on Monday morning near the Bellevue Christian Center. A funeral has been scheduled there for Petty Officer 1st Class Jeffrey Chaney, 35, a 1990 graduate of Bellevue West High School. The Defense Department says he and another sailor were killed by a roadside bomb last Tuesday in Iraq’s Salah Ad Din Province. Chaney’s body arrived Monday at Offutt Air Force Base in a flag-draped casket, escorted by his brother, Petty Officer 2nd Class Randy Chaney. The base sits on the southeastern corner of Bellevue. Listed on the application were Jonathan Phelps and his sister, Shirley Phelps-Roper. She faces four misdemeanor charges in connection with a demonstration last month outside a Bellevue soldier’s funeral. Her 10-year-old son allegedly stomped on an American flag during the protest. Westboro Baptist Church says that troop deaths are God’s judgment against America for tolerating homosexuals. Phelps-Roper’s father founded the church, which has protested at military funerals in Nebraska and across the nation. On Monday, Bellevue Police Capt. Herb Evers told the City Council that the church group had broken the law at the last protest, so he wanted the council to reject the new application. After a discussion, the council voted 8-0 to deny the permit. The church can appeal the denial by filing a lawsuit, said Tim Kenny, a city attorney. City Councilman Gary Mixan said the council “might be opening up a Pandora’s Box here” by denying the permit. He suggested approving the permit with conditions on the protest. But, said council president Gus Erickson, “Either way, they’re going to go to court.” The council eventually voted 8-0 to reject the church’s permit request. Reached Tuesday, Phelps-Roper, 49, said church leaders had yet to discuss whether they would launch another court fight. But, she said, “It’s a constitutionally protected right to stand on the street and protest. ... They (the council members) know doggone well they don’t have the right to reject the application.” Phelps-Roper has acknowledged that she let her son stand on the flag last month, saying the act qualifies as freedom of expression. She has promised to challenge the constitutionality of the flag-mutilation charge, noting that the U.S. Supreme Court has struck down laws forbidding flag desecration. Nebraska’s flag law defines flag mutilation as when a “person intentionally casts contempt or ridicule upon a flag by mutilating, defacing, defiling, burning, or trampling upon such flag.” The June 5 funeral in Bellevue was for Nebraska Army National Guard Spc. William “Bill” Bailey, who was killed May 25 when an explosive device struck his vehicle in Iraq. |
WTF .. why approve it just so you dont go to court,, right is right . and they know damn well it isnt gonna be peacefull.. cant thier track record be used to legitly deny the permit and not have it go to court ? |
|
Why don't they "express" themselves the day before or the day after the private funeral? Well they must want to gather at and protest the private funeral itself - which they have ZERO "right" to do. They're not being stopped from expressing themselves - they just dont' have carte blanche to protest anytime anywhere they want especially when it's intended to interfere with a specifically-chosen private funeral. Fuck'em. This ain't a free-speech issue. It's an intentional and personal HARASSMENT issue. |
|
I'd love for the Freedom Rider bikers to get some of those extremely unsavory & violent Outlaw Bikers (Banditos, Hell Angels, Mongols, ect...) to pay a visit to those jack-offs. I'm sure the local police and populace would race to the rescue of freaky fred and his misbegotten maggots. I believe people have a right to protest, but the time and location are not automatically approved. Give them the O.K. to protest the day after the funeral at 10PM? BIGGER_HAMMER  |
|
There was a funeral in Lincoln a few weeks ago......I couldn't even tell where the protesters were due to the massive numbers of Patriot Riders! There's quite a few churches up and down the street I live on, so every so often, I hear the rumble of the Patriot Riders on a weekday morning, keeping those inbreeders in check. |
| Anyone who believes in America should also believe in Free Speech. However, they should also believe in honoring the fallen regardless of their personal views on the war and American foreign policy. Protesting a serviceman's funeral is an absolute No-Go in my book and any participants should be pelted with rocks until subdued. |
|
Freedom of speech is not freedom of venue. You can say anything you want, but you can't say it anywhere (zoning) or anytime (noise abatement) you want. If no demonstrators are allowed (pro-war, anti-war, pro-gay, anti-gay, whatever) at an event, then there is not discrimination on the basis of content of the message, but on the venue. Should pass muster, constitutionally. |
Funeral protestors get their come uppance.  Unfortunately, not the Phelps clan. 
|
actually that is the phelps clan |
I don't know. Stupid and treasonous as they are, would you advocate the murder of these people? |
| Someone should beat the shit out of them. Simple assault. Get arrested, pay the fine. We do have choices. They can protest funerals, and I can stand on a street corner in the hood @ 3 am and thumb through my wallet for an hour or so. Just because it's legal doesn't mean it's smart. |
|
As much as I hate what these people do (and I truly find it to be disgusting), I do not like the idea of government limiting their ability to protest by denying a permit. First off, requiring a permit in order excercise your constitutional right to peacably assemble is complete fucking horseshit. Second, denying a group's permit because one member of that group commited a misdemeanor during a previous protest is also bullshit. The unfortuante fact here is that a government entity found a technicality and used it as grounds to deny Americans their right to peacably assemble because they find the people's message to be offensive. I wish I didn't have to stick up for that asshole Phelps on this one, but the city council is wrong, wrong, wrong. |
Let me imagine that one of their 'protests' is interrupted by a hail of gun-fire and see if I can muster a tear of sympathy.....uhhp, maybe, here comes one! Oh, never-mind. This is one of those cases where I wouldn't want the government to take them out, but if a private civilian (like a family member of one of the fallen) was willing to do it and then face-up to the consequences, I'd consider them a good guy, and I'd even send them cookies to the jail regularly. |
i have to agree with you here. I almost didn't want to say it because I really do have conflicting feelings and i hate their guts, but its not a good precedence. However, some private civilians (not acting in a government capacity) needs to bring the whoop ass. eta: If I could figure out how this was harrasment and not protest then I'd be ok with it. That may be the case. But i don't like the idea of a permit being necessary to protest or assemble. That's always pissed me off. That's like saying you need a permit to recieve due process, not answer .gov questions, or refuse a warrantless search. Perhaps it is harrasment and not protest, and instead of arresting them for 'protesting without a permit' if they went ahead with it, they should be arrested for harrasment. I could see an argument to be made there. |
This is not "peaceable assembly" - it's intentional public harrassment and intimidation directed at a specific family and an attempt to disrupt a private funeral. It is PERSONAL harrassment of private individuals. That's a far cry from protesting in front of a Senator's office because of their political positions or a generalized march down main street. This is "fighting words" if I ever heard them, directed at a specific family chosen because of the death of their loved one with the INTENTION of causing personal emotional pain and provocation. |
The constitution makes no distinction. As long as they aren't commiting acts of violence then they have a right to do it. They disgust me and I wouldn't shed one tear of their bus went over the side of a cliff. But I will not cheer any government entity limiting the constitutional rights of any American. I'll err on the side of Fred Phelps long before I'll err on the side of Big Brother. |
Murder? No, but crippling them with the business end of an axe handle would be good. I note that they've not set foot in Mississippi since the almighty G-awd told them of "great danger" awaiting them Jones County. They were wise to listen to the voices in their heads that time, because they'd have ended up in the hospital at the very least if they'd shown up to that funeral. There were people ready to make special trips up to Laurel just for that occasion, and it wasn't going to be a polite social call. |
Libel, slander, perjury, conspiracy, fraud, threats, sedition, treason, inciting riots, falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater just to cause a disruption.... all are forms of "speech" and "expression" yet none are protected by the 1st Amendment. Same with this type of harrassment. |