I know you can be a liar and not break the law. However, how is it right to call someone a liar and condemn them outright when they haven't been unlawful? You can call these people "morally questionable", yes, but they aren't unlawful. Yet.

What did I do, if you don't mind my asking?

I don't see how they can be protected by the freedom of speech. Cause you see, I don't see this as protesting. You protest when you are trying to force change on something. But this person is dead and people are trying to mourn their loss. What these people are doing isn't protesting, it's harassment.

Because that's what most people are doing already, you silly boy. Why aren't you reading what you're writing? Everyone admits that they are morally repungant and that they are seeking attention, this is a seperate issue to the new law's constitutionality. I don't know why you even brought it up.

You're arguing for the sake of being contrary, and selectively ignoring things people say (including yourself) in order to do so.

If you're trying to argue a point you don't believe in, you are doing a poor job of it.

I brought it up because people seem to think it's okay to silence the Westboro Baptist Church because they strongly feel the protestors are lying and putting on a show for the public to notice. I'm trying to argue that you can't call that a valid reason for trying to shut them up.

What am I being selective about? I've tried to answer everyone's arguments and explain my comments to the best of my abilities. I'll be the first to admit that my abilities aren't particularly good, but I think I've explained things well enough for the reader to grasp. If there's something I've missed, please to direct me to it so that I can adress it. This is my stance on the matter, and I'm not objecting just for the sake of it.

No you're not. You're arguing - or at least, what you're saying - is that you can't judge a group as liars unless they're doing something illegal. This... this doesn't even make sense.

Why don't you do what you say you've been doing? Yeah, argue the constitutionality of this law. That'll be more relevant and less embarassing to yourself.

Specifically, you said that you can be a liar and not break the law, but you can't be condemned as a liar unless you break the law. I don't know, buddy, I think you should stick to words you have a better grasp on. If you want to say, "Simply because these guys are showboating and also complete assholes, there should not be unconstitutional laws made to target them specifically" or something, then just say that. See how easy it is? But you keep digging this hole of "but you don't KNOW FOR CERTAIN that they're lying, you only ASSUME" which is bullshit and anyway Fred Phelps was quoted as admitting he does it for attention.*

* If you think that wasn't in the quote, you need to learn reading comprehension.

I think this "any erosion of first amendment is dangerous" argument is just the slippery slope fallacy. Yes, ceding rights is a dangerous thing. But you judge each step on it's merits.

How is the government going to abuse this? Start charting war funeral processions through hippie concerts? Start delivering pro-Iraq "new-speak" speeches only at funerals to dead soldiers?


...by the by, there is legal precedent to the idea that "supporting freedom of speech requires that people feel safe enough to express themselves freely." This has been used to shut down overt and aggressive racism.

I don't see how protecting the rights we have in place would be a slippery slope. Most would argue that the slippery slope is to do the opposite.

The argument could be said for any protest. "Oh, just mail your congressman."

The first time I said this whole lying thing was in response to you about a comment which I misunderstood, so I apologize for that. These repeated comments were to try to explain my reasoning behind it when I was asked "what kind of logic is that?"

You don't. Even though there hasn't been any violence, I do agree that there should be distance. I've said that before, I think. I've also mentioned what it was that concerned me-- regulation of time in which protestors can gather. Distance is all that should be necessary to give mourners the peace they deserve for memorial services, and anything more seems to infringe on first amendment rights.

I'm not saying that they're not liars until something illegal is done, I'm saying that since there hasn't been any sort of criminal activity, why not just let them have the benefit of the doubt? But I'm not saying you can't be judgmental, I'm saying you shouldn't be. I just think you should tolerate others in case, sometime down the line, the roles are reversed.

I apologize, it's just that I've been trying to explain myself to you and whoever might've had questions about my logic. If people think I'm weird and immature, it would be best for me to try to explain myself.

Yes, I see how easy that is. It would have been better for getting that point across, but tolerance is what I'm emphasizing. The first amendment freedoms have some ugly sides like this and KKK rallies and all that stuff, but we should and do tolerate it because of the good sides it has.

I don't think that's what he was saying, though I can see how someone might believe that. It seems like he was expressing his cynicism in the general public, with it having no "real" faith in God. He knew people thought he and his church were crazy, so he made his opening comment in frustration, but then contradicted himself shortly later by hoping that "some will be saved" by his preaching and protests.

Why does their protest mean less than the ones you described? Why can't you write to your mayor or city councilmember about the Wal-Mart threat? You could make the argument that all of those should be taken to pen and paper.

And protests aren't always about going to the people who can actually change law, as taking it to the average Joe is acceptable, too. Like with abortion protests-- some take it to the capital, yeah, but others take it to Planned Parenthoods, and Planned Parenthood can't change law. Or what about labor strikes in retail? They protest outside the stores so that they can get the consumer's attention. They don't just picket at the corporate offices.

Memorial services for those in the military depict them as heroes. The Westboro Baptist Church's ideals directly clash with this-- they don't want to put them on pedastals; they want to use them as examples of God's retribution. They're against celebrating the dead, which would be why they'd show up at funerals.

Because pissing people off is just... pissing people off. It doesn't do anything. Why would they have absolutely no goal in doing this? Do they need to find some way to pass the time? Is this some sort of sick joke to them?

There obviously has to be some purpose, and that purpose has to be about change. You protest to change something, and that's exactly what they're doing.

You can be morally wrong without doing a thing illegal. If you think it's judgemental to find the Westboro corps bad people, you really don't know anything about them. Here, read this. It's long, but it's a primer to the Phelps clan: Addicted To Hate

Look, I'll come out and say that, safety issues aside, I agree that Westboro has the right to preach their message. That said, you're still arguing two different things. You're asking people to be taken as fools in the name of Tolerance, and you think this is an effective argument against the law as passed. It is not. You would do a lot better by dropping the whole lying argument altogether.

Your ignorance about the subject matter is unsightly. Please read the link, and do not reply to this thread until the entire thing is read. It didn't take me longer than an evening to do it.

Double Post:
If you don't think pissing people off is a purpose in and of itself, you haven't been on the internet. Christ, kid, you're hopelessly optimistic.

I will defend any and every American's right to speak and protest freely to the extent that is provided in the US Constitution.

Conveniently ignored? I directly commented on it with my own opinion as to how it should be interpreted.

You can tolerate people by just ignoring them entirely. I'm not sure why people would be taken as fools by this.

Like I said, this originally started by a misunderstanding. It continues to be brought up because people ask what my logic is, and I try to explain.

The link doesn't even matter when Phelps has said that he hopes some will be saved. That is inclusionary. He is expressing a desire to change the opinions of those who do not think like himself and his family, which indicates that he has a goal to gather others. This contradicts your belief and interepretation of his comments that this is just for the attention. And that would make it a legitimate protest.

Though it looks interesting, so I will read it. Thank you.

How is Phelps comparable to the average internet retard? You said it yourself, the man is shrewd. He has more of a purpose than to just piss people off, and you know that.

But I see I'm only making a negative impression, so I will concede. Thank you to everyone who argued/put up with me, as things like this are always learning experiences.

Are you telling me that examples of behavior in a subject doesn't matter when the subject exhibits certain behaviors now? I.... what? Are you stupid?

1 that's the definition of lying, yes

2 actions speak louder than words

3 how many licks does it take to get to the center of my dick

4 you don't think his past behavior or the behavior of his church has anything to do with anything

5 he said specifically "We don't picket to win people over, idiot. It's to harden people's hearts. Make them hate.", I mean, i don't know what more evidence you want re: trolling and attention-grabbing

6 you can have a goal that you do not work towards, please see new years resolutions

7 keep licking boy, you ain't even close

he's not the average internet retard, he's the dedicated troll. Whose purpose is also to piss people off.

You know, I find it very intolerant that you would suggest only retards want to make other people angry. Shouldn't you take them at face value, unless they do something wrong eg break the law? Don't they deserve the benefit of the doubt, something you're even willing to give the Westboro Baptist Church?

Oh, I understand that. Thing is, the United States is supposed to be "better" than that. Such abuse of power make us no better than the tyrants we fight, really.

I'm not so sure. In this case, we have two Amendments duking it out, the 1st and the 4th. The Amendment order was just the order of [ratification], not the order of importance, so it's really a matter of which one the judges find more threatened.

Are the 4th Amendment rights of the family more threatened by the protesters being allowed full reign, or is the 1st Amendment rights of these ignorant dumbasses more threatened by the law?

I think the law will stand, if only because the protesters are only being being given organization limits. They're still being allowed to say what they want, just not at the funeral to which they weren't invited. Funerals are more or less sacred and a time of mourning for families, so I think the courts will sympathize and rule in favor of the 4th Amendment in this case, especially this particular USSC.

Except in this case we have, as I said, two "rights" butting heads, the right to free speech and the right to privacy. If this law doesn't go through, the next act of Congress will be to pass a federal law making funerals a completely private invitation-only event, which will have the same effect.

Why should we give the benefit of the doubt to people who, by their very words and actions, and showing themselves to be untrustworthy and despicable? They're a bunch of total tools and have an extreme bias that is completely irrational.

As for roles getting reversed, if people like that ever got into power so that the roles could be reversed, I'd be moving to the UK or Canada. Those people are against everything that America is supposed to be about. They're basically un-American.

What good are groups like that for? What good comes from allowing them to do that? All I can see is that allowing it prevents the government from becoming overly corrupt, a problem that shouldn't exist to begin with.

In an ideal world, we could ban that kind of crap without the fear of the government going too far. Too bad it's not realistic.

God bless....
 

Deleted.

Merged with the other Westboro Fuckwads thread.

In the future, please read the Please Read Before Posting thread before posting crappy threads containing two YouTube links and "Discuss".

Holy shit . . . That Shirley Phelps-Roper is so fucking retarded she needs to be fired out of a cannon into the core of the sun! That Julie Banderas rocks the way she totally pwned that bitch! People like that really piss me off and almost push me to the point of wanting to lash out in a very violent way . . .

This is why I would ban hate speech, by the way. Too bad it would lead to abuses from the government . . . I guess that's why an ideal world is just a fantasy, eh? Unfortunately, we're forced to put up with raving lunatics like her. I would never worship a God that condemns people for things that are not usually a choice (i.e. homosexuality) . . . What kind of loving deity would that be, anyway?

Julie Banderas: 1
Hannity & Colmes: 1
Retarded Bigots: 0

Hahaha!

EDIT: Congratulations to Iowa for banning the funeral protests outright!

An extremely touchy and sensitive issue. It is too tough to draw the line when it comes to freedom of speech. Did anyone catch this lady (the head of the church) on Hannity and Colmes? It was pretty funny, you could probably find the video on youtube.