Westboro Baptist Church

[orcus116]

Hoping for violence does seem a bit hypocritical, as much as I don't like them.

[Adami]

Justice is reason free of passion.

Put your own feelings aside.

[Perpetual Change]

Well, nobody's perfect.

Justice is reason free of passion.

Put your own feelings aside.

I have, and I still don't believe harassment and bullying qualifies as free-speech.

[Adami]

It does unfortunatly, they're on public property and out of peoples ways.

[Perpetual Change]

It does unfortunatly, they're on public property and out of peoples ways.

I really don't think it does.

[Adami]

It does unfortunatly, they're on public property and out of peoples ways.

I really don't think it does.

What qualifies as harassing people though? It's too subjective.

I know we can all say that this case qualifies, but I'm talking about other cases where we might not all agree.

[Perpetual Change]

It's not subjective. Showing up to a dead girls funeral and shouting about how "the killer done right" is harassment. There's no gray area whatsoever. I'm not concerned with other cases right now.

[Adami]

It's not subjective. Showing up to a dead girls funeral and shouting about how "the killer done right" is harassment. There's no gray area whatsoever. I'm not concerned with other cases right now.

I know, but laws need to be over all and not so case specific. You can't ban these people without it affecting other people.

[Perpetual Change]

Yes, you can, and the state of Arizona will.

[ack44]

Philosophically I'd be against legislations that would have an effect on freedom of speech, but I don't really see anything wrong with what they just passed in AZ. It's got little or no "slippery slope" element and is definitely not politically motivated.

[AcidLameLTE]

The most appalling thing is when they bring children to their protests and shove "thankg god for dead troops" signs in their hands. Those kids probably have no idea what they're in the middle of.

This is kind of touched on in a documentary about them called "The Most Hated Family in America". He asks the children what they think the signs mean and they don't have a clue.

I would recommend watching it if you haven't seen it before.

[7StringedBeast]

It would be free speech if these people were protesting bad practices by the cemetery or something like that and were parading around the street outside of it in protest.  That would be a relevant cause.  You can't just protest against a family in mourning, that's just not right.  Bullying and harassing an innocent family in mourning should not be protected.  The fact that the family did nothing politically or socially wrong or objectionable means there is nothing to protest against them.  There is no context for this protesting.  It has no relevance.  I really don't think it would hold up in court as free speech.

Why should targeting and harassing an innocent family at a funeral be protected speech?  Why can't they just take their shit somewhere else.  I'm sure no one would have a problem if they were doing this a mile down the road away from the funeral activities.  What about protecting the funeral goers rights?  Do they not have the right to mourn peacefully?

[Orbert]

Their protests always happen away from the actual event, on public property, and where required, with all the proper permits in place.  That's how they've always gotten away with it.  They're not actually protesting at the funeral.  They make a big deal about how they're going to protest "at" the funerals, but in reality they're just a band of idiots with signs a few blocks away.

If the funerals weren't all over the news, and the WBC weren't also all over the news, it seems entirely possible that you could pass by one of their little "protests" and not have any idea who they are or why they're there.  The cemetary is a few blocks away.

[Dublagent66]

...and they call themselves a baptist church?  My opinion of religion just hit an all-time low and I didn't think it could get any lower.

[7StringedBeast]

I think they've been rejected by the baptist church organization as we know it.  I don't know what they are called.  But yeah they aren't recognized as a baptist church by other baptist churches.  They should have their status revoked.

[El Barto]

I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.*

*As long as it doesn't offend me, offend others that I like, convey a message I don't like, or do anything else that might trouble me, and I reserve the right to add to the list of transgressions at any time as I see fit. 

[7StringedBeast]

Barto,  do you support speech that calls for the death of someone else?

[El Barto]

Barto,  do you support speech that calls for the death of someone else?

I'm more troubled by the death than the speech.

As I see it, hate speech is a wonderful way for people to demonstrate just how stupid, silly and childish they really are.  If the Klan kept to themselves and never let anybody see their nutty antics, then they wouldn't be as reprehensible.  By allowing them to act like assholes, everybody gets to see just how silly they really are. 

This was actually how Mark Twain was trying to portray the bigotry of his era.  Sadly the point was wasted.

[7StringedBeast]

So then you would say a public calling out for the president to be killed would be protected speech?

[Adami]

So then you would say a public calling out for the president to be killed would be protected speech?

Actually, not sure I agree, but I think that's a crime.

[El Barto]

As long as you're not threatening or compelling somebody to act on it, then I see no problem.  Inciting a crime is illegal, but I think there is distinction as to whether or not a reasonable person would be compelled to act. 

Pat Robertson suggested the world would be a better place if somebody were to nuke Foggy Bottoms.  No reasonable person would have taken that as an instruction to blow up the State Department.  Had he said "I encourage all of my watchers to do anything possible to kill any State Department employee," that would have been a different thing altogether.  However, I wouldn't necessarily say that even that should run afoul of the first amendment.  I'd just suggest that he would bare some responsibility for the result of his statement should somebody act upon it. 

[El Barto]

KANSAS CITY, Mo. -- A Kansas church has decided to not protest at the funeral of a 9-year-old girl killed in a shooting rampage in Tucson, Ariz.

Shirley Phelps-Roper of the Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka says church members will skip Thursday's funeral of Christina Taylor Green in Tucson.

Phelps-Roper says the church decided against the picket in exchange for airtime with 102.1 The Edge in Toronto, Canada, and an interview with KXXT-AM in Phoenix, Ariz. on Saturday morning.

Phelps-Roper says the group will picket the Friday funeral of U.S. District Judge John Roll and at the intersection where Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and others were shot.

So are people as equally outraged at the picketing of a Federal Judge instead of a nine year old girl?  Since we're now applying the first amendment on a case by case basis, I'm curious where this stands.

[ResultsMayVary]

...and they call themselves a baptist church?  My opinion of religion just hit an all-time low and I didn't think it could get any lower.

I think they've been rejected by the baptist church organization as we know it.  I don't know what they are called.  But yeah they aren't recognized as a baptist church by other baptist churches.  They should have their status revoked.

This.

I'm a Baptist and I see these people as a disgrace to Baptists and all Christians alike. They don't follow the same principles that Baptists practice and their religious message is absolutely ridiculous. They give Baptists and Christians a bad name...

[7StringedBeast]

KANSAS CITY, Mo. -- A Kansas church has decided to not protest at the funeral of a 9-year-old girl killed in a shooting rampage in Tucson, Ariz.

Shirley Phelps-Roper of the Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka says church members will skip Thursday's funeral of Christina Taylor Green in Tucson.

Phelps-Roper says the church decided against the picket in exchange for airtime with 102.1 The Edge in Toronto, Canada, and an interview with KXXT-AM in Phoenix, Ariz. on Saturday morning.

Phelps-Roper says the group will picket the Friday funeral of U.S. District Judge John Roll and at the intersection where Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and others were shot.

So are people as equally outraged at the picketing of a Federal Judge instead of a nine year old girl?  Since we're now applying the first amendment on a case by case basis, I'm curious where this stands.

I don't think you should be allowed to protest a funeral period.  But seeing as they aren't actually at the funeral and are farther away from it, It doesn't seem as bad.  As long as the funeral goers are not disrupted by the protestors.  but I don't know.  It still seems like they actually don't have anything to protest.

[orcus116]

I know they won't be at the actual funeral but going to the crime scene and praising the shooter is seriously fucked up. It's like silently terrorizing that entire town.

[7StringedBeast]

I know they won't be at the actual funeral but going to the crime scene and praising the shooter is seriously fucked up. It's like silently terrorizing that entire town.

Wait, they are going to praise the shooter?  Is that true?

[orcus116]

Just taking a guess. They don't seem to mind throwing up "THANK GOD FOR IDEs" signs when a soldier dies in Iraq.

[El Barto]

I suspect they'll say the shooter was a messenger of God, doing God's will.

And yes, I naturally defend their right to say that all they want.

[7StringedBeast]

I suspect they'll say the shooter was a messenger of God, doing God's will.

And yes, I naturally defend their right to say that all they want.

Yeah they are allowed to say that.  They have the right to say it.  But I don't think they have the right to say it at the funeral of the deceased.  I don't have a problem with it if its not within eye or ear sight of the funeral.  (I do have a personal problem against it though, not regarding the constitution.)

[soundgarden]

I suspect they'll say the shooter was a messenger of God, doing God's will.

And yes, I naturally defend their right to say that all they want.

Yeah they are allowed to say that.  They have the right to say it.  But I don't think they have the right to say it at the funeral of the deceased.  I don't have a problem with it if its not within eye or ear sight of the funeral.  (I do have a personal problem against it though, not regarding the constitution.)

They have the right to say it wherever, and I will defend that, even at the funeral.  Now if their presence are causing a commotion with others (which of course it will); now that is a different reason to remove them from the premises (disturbing the peace is it?)

But until that point is reached, they have EVERY SINGLE right to say what they want, where they want (assuming they have invitation to private property), and I would defend them on this.

I firmly believe that freedom of speech is one of humanity's greatest achievements and should never EVER take a back seat to politeness, thoughtfulness, etc..

[7StringedBeast]

The first amendment does not necessarily protect someone's right to protest at a funeral.  The first amendment gets interpreted in different ways based on precedents of previous cases.  If judges start saying that protesting at a funeral with no motivation or connection is illegal, it can go up to the supreme court, and they will decide whether or not it is constitutional to stop them or not.

I think a lot of people misunderstand the first amendment in the first place. 

[orcus116]

I'm having a problem accepting that free speech can cover a clear menace. The outrage against their words isn't a side effect of what their beliefs, it's a reaction to their direct message. These people pick and target families solely so they can mentally terrorize them. What they're doing isn't even really a protest. To me, that's not using what is protected under the First Amendment, that's abusing the First Amendment.

[El Barto]

I'm having a problem accepting that free speech can cover a clear menace. The outrage against their words isn't a side effect of what their beliefs, it's a reaction to their direct message. These people pick and target families solely so they can mentally terrorize them. What they're doing isn't even really a protest. To me, that's not using what is protected under the First Amendment, that's abusing the First Amendment.

And on that point I disagree.  I don't think their intention is to terrorize the families.  I think their intention is to draw attention to themselves, and what better way than to do something that society as a whole thinks is distasteful.  But here's the important part:  we now have two separate ideas of what it is that they're trying to accomplish, and at that point, they deserve deference.  Neither the state nor the public should be in the business of parsing someone's ideas before determining whether or not the first amendment should apply.  That's where the "chilling effect" gets created. 

[ResultsMayVary]

I'm having a problem accepting that free speech can cover a clear menace. The outrage against their words isn't a side effect of what their beliefs, it's a reaction to their direct message. These people pick and target families solely so they can mentally terrorize them. What they're doing isn't even really a protest. To me, that's not using what is protected under the First Amendment, that's abusing the First Amendment.

This.

[soundgarden]

I'm having a problem accepting that free speech can cover a clear menace. The outrage against their words isn't a side effect of what their beliefs, it's a reaction to their direct message. These people pick and target families solely so they can mentally terrorize them. What they're doing isn't even really a protest. To me, that's not using what is protected under the First Amendment, that's abusing the First Amendment.

Yes, a sad abuse; their words may be menacing, but they are not threatening (from what I seen) nor do they resort to any physical acts.  In fact, they follow the legal pathway to their protest licenses.

Its important not to re-think a law of the land based on a few nut jobs.  Its important to remember why most of develop world embraces this idea; what history we went through to get it; and what is allows to us to do today.

EDIT... To us, yes, it is clear they are terrorizing, but to them they are doing god's work which opens up the discussion to freedom of religion.  They are using legal means to follow their beleifs, despite how diabolical the words are to us.  Until they start using force or threats, they MUST be allowed to protest.  

This is a very important core tenant of western civilization.  Take it from an immigrant; this IS your pride and joy.  Don't bend the rule for a few crazies.


EDIT 2 - Would you guys have the same disposition for Scientologists? It is completely obvious it is a scam; tricking people out of their money.  They are far more "menacing" than the WBC who really only protests.  When we see them we smirk and continue; yet they are gaining a large following with a large expense account.  I would hope you guys take your battle against Scientology first.