Thursday, October 7, 2010
Fred Phelps, Funerals, Faggots and Free Speech
Perusing the nauseating flotsam over the Google News feeds this evening, I scrolled along, stumbling across the "news" of an absolutely ridiculous case I have been following on and off for several years. After meandering through lower courts that reversed each other, it is finally being presented before nine old doddering, simianesque fools sitting on the US Supreme Court. I cannot believe that such an idiotic, open and shut case that would have been dismissed on presentation years ago has made it as far as it has.
What am I saying, considering that everyone has their fucking feelings on their shoulders these days, and are so easily offended by most anything, I shouldn't be surprised at such utter nonsense coming from the gigantic lunatic asylum that has become the United States. The case has to do with the now endlessly changing concept of the right of free speech, and what constitutes said free speech in late 2010, CE. A clown named Albert Snyder and Fred Phelps, head religious idiot of Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kansas, are the litigants; Snyder the Appellant/Plaintiff and Phelps the Defendant. Now don't jump to conclusions like a bigoted asshole and think I agree with Phelps or his idiotic religious fanaticism, but free speech is fucking free speech, period. This liberal concept is defined in writing, contained within the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, which guarantees the unfettered right of Phelps and company to utter their delusional dogmatic babblings, for good or ill. The First Amendment also guarantees the right to display the silly signs carried by Mr. Phelps and his moronic coterie of fanatical Christian loonies picketing military funerals, whether such placards like "God Hates Fags" or "Thank God for Dead Soldiers" are considered "offensive" by the simple-minded masses or not. Regardless of all that happy horseshit, the current crop of robed adjudicators, together with their their smart mouthed, monkey-suited shyster rhetoricians are now effectively splitting hairs, cunningly attempting to differentiate free speech directed at "public" individuals, from that free speech supposedly directed toward "private" individuals.
Yeah, I wonder what part of the phrase "free speech" is so goddamned difficult for these addle-brained, Harvard educated simpletons to understand? Free speech is and can be offensive speech, it also can be libelous or slanderous speech. Free speech can and does contain foul language or ethnic/racial slurs; it can even reflect hatred for someone or something, but is still free speech. Free speech is "Piss Christ", and a picture of the Virgin Mary painted with elephant shit, as is an oil paint depiction of Prophet Mohammed sucking someone's stiff dick, or a watercolor of Pandava Arjuna fucking his mother. Free speech and the exercise thereof can also hurt people's little bitty fucking feelings, as when Bibles, Korans, effegys of Elvis Presley, or US flags are burned. Tough shit people, people have the right to their opinions, and to express them in whatever fashion they deem suitable, so grow up get over it.
I now submit to the reader that the United States of America is so completely fucked up that it boggles the mind. Whatever happened to the lofty concept of judicial impartiality? It went out the fucking window, perhaps 25 years ago or so, and subjective emotionalism went in, that's what happened. These days, in such instances, idiotic judges make completely subjective, emotional, lame brained determinations regarding what they personally find offensive, their determinations glaringly contrasted against the concept of free and unfettered speech and the exercise thereof. The fact that an arrogant, superstitious, fanatical jackass clergyman like Phelps takes it upon himself to be an annoying shithead 1000 feet or so from some jarhead stiff being planted doesn't mean that his fucking speech should be limited because someone's little bitty "feelings" were hurt or offended by his obtuse remarks. That said, I reckon that Albert Snyder should grow the fuck up, dismiss Phelps as the Grade-A asshole that he is and be done with it. Snyder should be a man and consider the source, rather than trying to make some bucks off his late son's demise by by suing a pack of annoying religious fanatics who don't like limp-wristed queers, genuflecting beadrattlers, yarmulke wearing kikes and most everything else. Face it, the world will never get rid of annoying people of every type until the last human dies and the species goes extinct - it is time we realize that terrible truth and go on.
Anyway, over the past two decades or so the concept of free speech as defined by the First Amendment has been under assault by cunning bastards wishing to further their personal agendas and turn what is left of this nation into a fucking politically correct prison where all have to watch what they may utter. Such individuals, usually politicians and/or lawyers, employ nebulous terms like "offensive", "mean-spirited" and "hate speech", along with other shrill propaganda cleverly used to limit the exercise of the people's right to express their opinions, and the right to speak out with regard to their opinions in whatever fashion deemed suitable.
A glaring example of this dreadful phenomenon is the now ancient case of Mike Diana of Florida, a man who simply drew various depictions of, shall I say, graphically unpleasant situations, to say the least, and distributed them in an self-produced comic book called "Boiled Angel". For the terrible "crime" of drawing gory and disgusting pictures, Mr. Diana was first harassed by the pigs for whatever reason, and was then charged with "obscenity" by a prudish assistant state's attorney named Stuart Baggish, apparently trying to make a name for himself. Adding insult to injury, Diana was actually convicted in a courtroom of "obscenity" by a totally subjective judicial shithead or shitheads; I have been unable to determine if the trial was conducted before a jury. On June 4, 1996, the conviction was appealed, and another adjudicating, subjective shithead named Douglas Baird of the Circuit Court upheld the conviction, he finding Diana's drawings "patently offensive". Hell, I've seen worse in old copies of MAD magazine or Sex to Sexty; such "convictions" set a very bad precedent for the future by limiting what someone can depict, using artwork penned or painted by one's own hands. Don't believe my words, read about this fucking guy, Mike Diana, he was simply an artist who drew pictures that a power-mad, judicial maniac, the "Honorable" Douglas Baird, found personally disturbing. Mr. Diana's appeal was rejected by this arrogant, zealous prick simply because he was "offended" while looking at them; in my opinion Baird isn't fit to judge a fucking dog show, let alone another human being. Anyway, the robed megalomaniacs sitting on the US Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal from Mr. Diana and the ACLU, and the conviction was allowed to stand.
Isn't modern "justice" wonderful? Sure it is, and I'm the fucking pope.
In an upside-down world where words can mean anything the authorities want them to mean (just ask ex-President whoremonger Bill Clinton and his evasive sophistry on the meaning of the word "is"), it is not surprising that such occurrences are becoming commonplace in this dying nation. As another example of "subjective ruling", according to the brain dead, drooling geriatrics sitting on the Supreme Court, it is now illegal to create drawn or painted pictures of nude individuals identified as "children" with identified depictions of such now defined as "child pornography". That ruling is, to put it bluntly, insane, as they are only pictures or similar artwork created by one's own hand, though I do agree (Michelangelo aside, of course) that those interested in creating or viewing such depictions are a few eggs short of a dozen. So what, everyone is fucked up in one way or another, it seems to be a necessary requirement for being considered human.
That idiotic ruling now in effect, I suppose the pigs, between beating prisoners, selling stolen drugs and taking payoffs, are now diligently searching the Internet for terrible websites containing stick figures labeled as "nude kiddies" and Japanese hentai anime porn, rather then going after real pedophiles, peeping toms, and other assorted perverts. You see, some of those folks shoot back, and they couldn't care less if they shoot politicians, priests or pigs during the course of their insatiable sexual depredations. Further, it is much easier to arrest a 120 pound, 30 year old virgin geek sitting before a monitor in his parent's basement, wearing coke bottle bottoms for spectacles, than it is to take down a horny, murderous, six foot four butch john pedophile armed with a .357 magnum revolver.
Even more ridiculous in the latest example of laws gone mad, i.e., the arrest, prosecution and conviction of children found guilty of the terrible crime of "sexting" each other, in which they send photos of themselves in the buff to their significant other (boyfriend or girlfriend, as such the case may apply) after which they are labeled for life as "child pornographers" and "sex offenders". Don't believe my words, look it up, apparently, the power-mad bastards running this fucking place are determined to turn the United States into a gigantic jail, and everyone, other than themselves, into felonious prisoners.
Hell, I remember years ago when a drunken, amoral, ex-FBI lawyer tried to convince me that money could commit a crime (see an earlier post in which I noted this). I said to him that he was fucking crazy, and he was crazy as hell, but if compared to the demented, power-mad loonies running this forsaken dump today, he would be the absolute epitome of sanity.