God Hates Mace

Fred Phelps has a formula: 1) Find a disaster with a death toll 2) attribute said disaster to God and 3) picket funerals of victims holding up their trademark multi-colored (and ironically gay-looking) signs.

I've been waiting for years for someone to take a pop at these wackjobs. But I guess they're just too comically obnoxious to enrage anyone. Then suddenly, after years of begging for it, one guy finally snaps and attacks a Westboro picket:

George Vogel was arrested yesterday after he drove by the protest in his pickup truck and "sprayed a large amount of mace into the air from an industrial-sized container."

Aw shucks... you go to Nebraska to yell abuse at a dead marine's funeral and someone maces you? Shame.

Random Picture of the Day

Fred Phelps and the logical conclusion. More protest signs.

First Amendment v. Defamation

Just to preface, I'm as big a fan of the First Amendment as anyone else. But it's got to be one of the most abused and abuse-able pieces of legislation ever written.

It's abused by Fred Phelps when his hate church's First Amendment 'right' to wave offensive placards at funerals is deemed more sacrosanct than the right of bereaved families to lay their dead to rest in peace.

It's abused by propaganda organizations like Fox when they lie their asses off knowing the First Amendment will trump any obligations they might otherwise have to maintain a semblance of journalistic integrity.

It's been abused by Rush Limbaugh throughout his career of advancing authoritarian conservatism (i.e., fascism) and white supremacism.

Sometimes having a First Amendment blows. But there's hope.

Limbaugh's currently being sued by arch nemesis Al Sharpton for defamation after Limpdick suggested Sharpton was involved with rioting and murder. Sure, say what you want, it's a free country and we have a First Amendment. But Sharpton's lawyers are claiming rightly:

"He has the right to criticize Rev. Sharpton, but he does not have the right to accuse him of criminal activity, and riots and murders are criminal."

Maybe we don't need a rewrite of the First Amendment to check poisonous jerks like Limbaugh, Fred Phelps and Fox News. We just need the good old fashioned libel laws we inherited from English common law to be applied with more rigor.

Maybe we just need to suck it up and admit that Medieval laws designed to protect the reputations of the rich and powerful can, in some cases, be more just in practice than the high-fallutin', Enlightenment-era constitution which sought to replace them.

Just to postscript, I'd like to say I'm not being hypocritical in supporting libel laws. I might call Rush Limbaugh a fat c***, but I'd also support Limbaugh's right to call Sharpton a c*** too if he wished. This would get a libel suit going over in England, but thanks to the First Amendment, we have the right to indulge in name calling.

On the other hand, Limbaugh accusing Sharpton of being complicit in rioting and murder is a seedy attempt to undermine the reputation of a man who marched with MLK and has always advanced non-violence as a philosophy.

Wingnuts may argue that Limbaugh has the same right to sue over the recent 'false' quotes that contributed to him being dropped from the Rams syndicate. But he'd have a hard job defending his non-racist credentials when there are many more provable racist quotes on his record.