Hateful Protesting, freedom of speech?
 

Source

Personally speaking I am not against this measure. It doesn't limit their right to protest or say what ever they want, it just limits how close they can get to a military funeral while protesting.

Here is another artical on it.

About fucking time someone dealt with those unfortunately vocal and active wackos mentioned in the story. I saw a Fox News interview with one of the 11-person church's hag-like women.

"Your son died in Iraq because God purposely let him die. Why? Oh because some other Americans don't follow the bible so now God wants American to burn. Abraham and rivers of fire and bullshit bullshit."

There is no way this is an unreasonable obstruction to 1st A rights.

So they think Jesus would approve of harrassing the families of fallen soldiers because the United states somehow approves of homosexuality?
I don't recall anywhere in the Bible where Jesus told his disciples to harass Roman soldiers or their families because Rome was a pagan nation. These people obviously have never heard of the golden rule. I think keeping them away from these soldiers funerals will actually go a long way in keeping them from being injured or assaulted.

The fact that there are people protesting like that at, of all things, a funeral or memorial service, is in my opinion completely outrageous to begin with.

If my brother in Iraq was killed on duty (knock on wood), and there were people like this at his funeral among the mourners, I'd be furious. I'd be tempted to tell the officers to use live ammunition, and then aim the cannon and the gun salute at the protesters. :annoyed: Ahem. [/rant]

But really, in agreement with Gumby, this legislation does not take away their freedom of speech per se. It's merely saying they can't get within a certain distance. No soldier's family deserves that kind of crap at the funeral. To say that protests of that nature are rude is an understatement. Why can't the people protesting instead, for example, go and be with their families like the people at the funeral are trying to?

It's an absolutely disgusting practice, but I'm against this sort of regulation. I agree that there should be some distance between the protestors and mourners, but only to a point where they can't physically disrupt the funeral.

There's a far easier way. Instead of taking away rights to protest, just start deeming all fundamentalist religious groups terrorists and revoke their rights. Because I'm sure we all agree here the problem is the wackos themselves, not the noise they're making.

It's not like they wouldn't be able to find some place nearby where they would get some degree of attention. "Camp Casey" was three miles from Bush's ranch, and we all know how much attention that got.

You are asking whether the Westboro Baptist Church is seriously insane. The answer is yes. Yes they are.

Unfortunately half of them are also lawyers, and tenacious fucks at that. The measure is unconstitutional in the same way that murdering pedophiles when they're not kiddie-touching is unconstitutional. Making this law was a bad idea, and it will not end well.

They're not pushing for this act to quell the media attention, they're doing it to allow mourners to carry out a funeral/memorial service in peace. I don't ever recall Sheehan stopping Bush's motorcade en route to the ranch.

That may be true, but these people are doing something that makes flag burning look like a Sunday walk through the park. They can pull what ever legal crap they want, I do not think the American people will not tolerate it.

The worst part about this is the fact that they actually had to make a law that you couldn't protest with in a certain distance of a military funeral. Some of the signs that they had were so awful that I can't understand how those who had to see it remained peaceful. Those people are fucking insane and to inflict that upon a griefing family is just wrong.

What do they mean by America is tolerating homosexuals, anyway? I'm always hearing about people getting beaten and killed simply due to the suspicion that they're homosexual. We don't allow samesex marriage and anything other than the missionary position is still illegal in many states.

Do they want America to start jailing and executing homosexuals? Where is their God's supposed love in that?

Maybe we should let the wackjobs have their way and change the nomenclature of this continent to Middle East II.

Dark ages comin liek wut.

Where the fuck did that come from? I think you seriously fucking need to re-read what I wrote. I was referring to the fucking insane protesters and their utter hate for everything that they don’t agree with them... not homosexuals O_o

I know, I'm just saying that the protestors don't have to be right there at the funeral to use their freedom of speech and still get their message across.

While I'm against the war overall, I fully support this measure. These hate-mongering religious zealots have absolutely no right to pull their disrespectful bullshit at any funerals, much less military funerals.

I'm all for freedom of speech, within reason, but there are certain limits that need to be in place. I'm glad this law was passed to stop some of the insanity. Now if only we can pass laws banning "hate speech" protests in public (basically any white power type bullshit), I'll be a happy camper.

It's hard for me not to loose my temper when it comes to people so shameless and stupid, so I'll just say thank goodness they made that law and my only dissapointment is that it doesn't carry a far harsher punishment. The right to free speech is very important, but so is the right to just bloody be buried or mourn in peace without some whackjob lunatics turning it into some hate-filled propaganda.
How dare anyone even give a reason to make such a law. Tolerance toward gays isn't America's problem, people like that are the problem.

Weren't they protesting against tolerance of homosexuals?

I'm obviously not the only one with a skewed sense of logical predication. Soldiers dying in a war = God's hate of homosexuals! Sounds completely logical to me.

I fail to see how this has anything to do with freedom of speech. This is just a measure to protect the privacy of military families. Perhaps prevent an eventual violent outburst from either parties involved. The reason why the ACLU filed it's case in favor of the protesters is to make sure this point is clarified legally.

I don't know how you can be for the freedom of speech if you want the government to limit people's ability to say whatever comes into their mind. Shouldn't you be fighting for expansions of your rights and not the limitations of pre-existing rights?

When limitations are placed upon a right (in this case a fundamental right ) it becomes a privilege. This is why the ACLU will defend these rabid protesters, and it also explains why in the past the ACLU has defended the speech rights of white-power types. To make sure that the intentions of this bill are not the very same limitations you're proposing. They're fighting for expansions of our rights. But scratching the surface of a liberal and finding a authoritarian is pretty common eh?

Who knows, maybe they'll ban any speech; written or verbal that has any sense of an anti-governmental policy tone next. Oops! Too late. It's happened in the past, and they haven't gotten around to enforcing the Patriot Act yet. I think I talked about the legality of seditious libel in another thread awhile back.

I'll clarify it a bit here. They were protesting that America's tolerance for homosexuals was being punished by god, and that punishment was the death of our soldiers. The leader of this group was on MSNBC, and sounded pretty crazy. He would not stop talking and they had to cut his mic...

Fun stuff.

As for the law, I can't say I care too much really (although I do hope this law doesn't have any unexpected 'loopholes'). These people can say what they want, they just won't be close enough to dance on the soldiers graves' while they do it.

The thing I don't like is the regulation of what time they're allowed to gather. I'm not familiar with laws regarding protests, but is there that sort of limitation on other protests?

"Okay, you can't protest in front of this Planned Parenthood from an hour before it opens to an hour after it closes."

I'm not saying that there's a real correlation between the two, but the idea is to reach those who you feel are your target audience. The Westboro Baptist Church believes that God is killing American soldiers in Iraq because He hates gays, so the friends and families of these soldiers are their target.

Why don't they protest infront of military recruiter offices, then? Tell people that God's going to kill them when they sign up because they're protecting gays.

Probably because it wouldn't get them a tenth of the publicity that protesting at a soldier's funeral does.

Yeah, and there's not much wrong with that. They're so few that they're using the media attention as a crutch, so it's no one's fault but the press.

I don't see how it's authoritarian to want to ban hate group rallies in public places. I'm not saying we should make all racist speech illegal by itself, I'm just saying we should ban them from rallying in public. It's harmful to society as a whole.

If it makes you feel any better, I don't like gay pride parades either. We don't have heterosexual pride parades, so the opposite is really just ignorant in my estimation.

Good question. I don't really know. Usually when you have large scale protests you have to file a permit with the city. Which tells you where you can protest and until x time. I think this is a precedant in the manner though. Since it's an out-right ban. So a judicial ruling is required. Still isn't a freedom of speech issue. Now we're into the clarification of other parts of the first amendment.

So you just step on their freedom to assembly peacefully instead of freedom of speech? You cannot cede that much authority to the government. Rarely, if ever is it ever returned. Once it's an accepted legal precedant, it no longer matters why certain groups are not allowed to assemble. The government now has the power to ban any gatherings it pleases. For example; anti-war gatherings.

(Yeah, I know those white power gatherings usually aren't peaceful. But it typically isn't the white power types that start the violence. It's the morons stupid enough to allow themselves to be goaded by those dipshits.)

Well yeah, they might as well scream "Hit me so I can sue you!" Similarly, the KKK once held a rally in my town about 6 years ago. The town's solution? We held a "unity rally" on the other side of town at the same time as the KKK's rally, and the town rally got a pretty good turnout. I don't remember there being any report of violence. Certainly distance (a mile or so in this case) was a major factor in that, which is why I'm not against this legislation. The KKK still had their rally, they said their peace, and we didn't have to hear (or read) a word of it, unless we actually chose to ourselves.

I'm not entirely sure. By regulating time and place in this way, the government is preventing protestors from reaching their target audience. It'd be like protesting high gas prices and being ordered away from all gas stations and oil company offices-- at least until everyone's gone home. Their right to protest is still there, but it's hindering their ability to give an actual message.

I wasn't sure how to articulate that properly, so I hope I'm explaining this clearly.

And the only reason why the press covers it is because it gets ratings. So it's really society's fault that they're protesting at a soldier's funeral, right?

These jerks are protesting at Arlington National Cemetary tomorrow; there's no way I'm gonna let them get away with this.

My friends and I are staging a counter-protest as we speak...

If you want to look at it that way, sure.

That's presumably what their goal is, but the only thing they'll publicly state is that they're doing this because these families should know that their loved ones are victims of divine retribution in response to America's aceeptance of homosexuals. Thus, they should be asking for God's forgiveness and fighting against gay rights.

So, officially, it is their target audience.

If spreading that message only to the families were the goal they'd write a letter.

Look, it's not about the likelihood of persuasion. No one can prove that they're doing this just for the publicity, and you have to take them at their word. Even if it is painfully obvious that that's exactly why they're doing it. You can't go passing legislation because you think people aren't using protests they way they are intended, or because you think there's no chance in hell that they're going to convince people.

They say they're gathering to protest for that reason, and we're supposed to let them have their right to congregate and say it.

Unless the American people can disbar lawyers and also oust Supreme Court judges, I doubt their not liking it will have any effect on Westboro's actions. What, do you think these kooks actually care about their popularity? They revel in being hated!

Double Post:
No, saying something like that is dumb. Becides, what proof do you have that they aren't seeking the publicity? Just saying, I don't really care.

Also, to Devo etc: this is just one crazy family and a few married-into people. It's not Baptists at all or even a crazy offshoot.

Then what's the point of having the right to protest if the proper thing to do is annoy the living crap out of your congressman? According to the Westboro Baptist Church, the idea is that they're protesting the mourning of these soldiers and the media attention just happens to be a part of their fight. Officially, they're there to protest that God wasn't bringing these soldiers home to Heaven, but punishing them for serving a nation tolerant of homosexuality.

Like I said, you can't prove that this is primarily or only for the publicity.

Like I said, I'm having trouble articulating my position, so please bear with me.

It sounded like you were saying "they're doing this only for the publicity, so why not regulate how they protest", and I was arguing that you can't argue in favor of regulation for that reason when you can't prove that their motivation is purely for free publicity. Besides, protests are meant to draw attention.

Ties in to the last part.

Considering these people haven't broken any laws yet, I thiink we're meant to go on the honor system. I dunno, maybe I'm alone in that.

I think what bothers me the most about this particular issue is that by covering this the way the media is, they are giving some sense of legitimacy to these protesters. The message doesn't really matter. That's not really the story. By conveying the protester's radical message they're endowing it with the very controversy and legitimacy the group seeks.

Neither am I. Not completely anyway. The government did the same exact thing with the Republican National Convention in New York with their so-called "free speech zones". I don't think the legal challenge on those very same grounds you're talking about worked in court. Then again, I don't even remember hearing much about that after the election.

That's probably the best way to handle it. The white power types get to practice the great American tradition of shouting into the wind, and your town denied the white power demonstration any sense of legitimacy. Everybody wins.

Well, like I was saying, there should definitely be some sort of regulated distance between mourners and protestors so that the service can be performed in relative peace. What really concerns me is the time in which they can gather.

What the holy fuck? You can't know, or even accuse a liar, of lying, unless they admit it?

Sure they are lying, but we should take their word, I mean, being liars and all. Somehow I don't follow the logic. If a person denies a thing, that does not mean that it is untrue.

As has already been stated, there are many different and better ways to inform the grieving parents about their point of view that do not involve protesting and media whoredom. Is this not reason enough to doubt their intents? Or their story regarding those intents?

Who said anything about being unable to accuse someone of lying?

It seems obvious that their motivation is free publicity, but we happen to think that way because we consider ourselves pretty level-headed. Maybe these people think this is the right thing to do and that these mourners should find out this way. I don't know, and that's the point-- no one knows what they're thinking; only what they're telling us. And since they haven't broken any laws during these protests (as far as I'm aware), we should at least take their word for it until they fuck something up. You know, tolerance.

This is a little off topic, but just out of curiosity, why the hell do these people think that America is tolerant of homosexuals? Is it becuase of Will and Grace?????? While America is nowhere near as bad as some Eastern European or Middle Eastern nations, it isn't exactly a super gay friendly country.

I don't understand why being gay is so much more of a sin to these people than war, or divorce etc. (I'm not saying I think war and divorce are evil but if I were a "true" Christian, I think that would be more of a concern than being gay).


::Edit::
I hope that didn't make me sound anti-gay becuase I am not.

::Edit 2::

I just went to check out the godhatesfags.com site, and was rather disturbed. Not so much by what it was saying, but by the pictures of their protests. There are so many little children holding up those signs. I feel bad for anybody being raised in that type of enviornment.

You're on the right track, GB. I believe what you're saying. But concerning the Westboro Baptist Church, the truth is they are doing this for attention and doing it to express how they really feel at the same time. It's an oxymoron. I mean, 'doing something to express how you feel' is by definition trying to get attention.


I quote Fred Phelps, the leader:

"We don't picket to win people over, idiot. It's to harden people's hearts. Make them hate. Make them hate God even more than they already do.

Our goal is to preach the Word of God to this crooked and perverse generation. By our words, some will repent. By our words, some will be condemned. Whether they hear, or whether they forbear, they will know a prophet has been among them... our goal is to glorify God by declaring His whole counsel to everyone... we hope that by our preaching some will be saved."

To translate the first paragraph:

"We don't seek attention to win people over. It's to harden people's hearts and....etc, etc, etc...."

The quote itself does logically support them protesting because it's what they really believe. While people are entitled to protest peacefully, one can wager that even if people are protesting peacefully without causing physical harm to anyone, it can lead to them being harmed by people offended by their 'beliefs'. It's why I support this law. It's not infringing upon freedom of speech, as everyone in this thread has already clearly proven, it's a way to prevent something bad from happening. While those people are lunatics and the law was made in regards to their action, it can be used as a way of saying, "We're protecting you and honoring those families at the same time."

Those people aren't the only lunatics in the country, let alone the world. It only takes one to snap and take action.

Agreed. Giving them this much publicity fuels their ambitions. I'm not surprised the News reported it, since it's their job, but actually interviewing these people, taking them on your show, and logically approaching them with common sense was all for naught. The quote above proves these people are doing it to piss us off.

Somehow, those two statements being in the same quotation doesn't make much sense to me. I hope the news people learned their lesson in how ridiculous these wackos are and quit giving them the attention they so crave.

Hmmm . . . I think we're actually sorta on the same side, just debating two different points.

I am generally for a ban on any specific organized hate speech (i.e. white power, any racist stuff, any anti-gay stuff, etc.), but I don't believe it should be allowed to open the door for a wholesale ban on other things (i.e. anti-war protests, etc.) . . . I'm thinking that the point you're trying to make (correct me if I'm wrong) is that the original intention doesn't matter because the first opening will just encourage the government to abuse the power and push it further; the basic "give an inch, take a mile" type of thing . . . Am I correct?

If that is the case, then I think we're probably (unfortunately) in agreement (because my idea, while I do believe it would be for the best, probably isn't realistic due to corruption). What does that speak of this country, though, that we know such a thing would occur? Does give a very good impression of the United States government, sadly . . .

Re: Fred Phelps . . . Holy shit that guy is as much of a sociopath as Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell! The funny thing is, if God does exist and is as benevolent and good as portrayed, then people like me are far more likely to get into Heaven than guys like him are. What irony!

It actually doesn't say anything about the U.S. government specifically, since the phenomenon Watts speaks of isn't unique to the U.S. government. Accumulation and expansion of power are things governments do naturally.

That was exactly the point I was trying to get across.

Well-intentioned liberals often take a similar tone. Realistic or not. They want to utilize authority in a benevolent manner by forcing us to get along with each other. (or the environment) This all seems rather shallow to me. By utilizing the laws and empowering government in such a fashion, a road that typically leads to a dictatorship is being traveled.

Power corrupts, and absolute power is pretty cool if you're the one wielding it.

It tends to speak more of the nature of human beings from a philosophical perspective.

Yes, you are completely alone in that. You don't have to break a law in order to be a liar or not entirely truthful, you know. Becides, getting free publicity isn't against the law either. You're weird, and also mildly immature.

Devo: Yeah, that's the group.

Double Post:
You know the funniest part? they make the children hold up the most immflamatory signs, for maximum impact. It's sort of taboo, seeing children holding such atrocious opinions. Plus, you'd be a lot more willing to punch a guy holding a "GOD CAUSED 9/11" sign than a child.

What can I say, Phelps is an evil but smart bastard.

These guys came to my school a few years ago. Crazy as all hell. I don't think there's anything positive that could be said for the intelligence of these people. They get rich off of counter-protesters assaulting them, so they have to annoy as many people as possible to keep their checkbooks afloat. And they need to make their material more and more inflammatory in order to stand out. If life was the internet they would be the trolls.

The thing is that there apparently is no grey area with these kinds of people, they want it all white or all black. If you're gay, you're damned, if you are bi, you're fucked, and well if you are straight, you are saved. Basically if they were to have their way, we would have the straight ones live a normal life, while the other ones who live their "alternative lifestyle," feel the full wrath and fury of judgement as they would exact it rather than wait for some "higher" power to take action. Basically, massive genocide to the same calibur as World war II against all non-aryan (Jews were not the only ones that were slaughtered, there were plenty of others as well, but the jews were the majority, so I'm keeping it PC in this aspect). At the same ime, these radicals truly do not see that they do not hold the final judgement in terms of the religious aspect, so what they are doing is passing opinion on what has been done. Thus the overall output and final answer would be a totally ignorant display and protest at a funeral for someone who died in a foreign country.

Normally its somewhat funny that America would rather display and allow ignorance to continue so forth without interuptions, but I am very glad that this community is getting the proverbial "Shut the fuck up" from capitol hill. Something you don't see in the united states often.

True that it may get shot down for its breeches on the first amendment, but if you look at it with a totally different perspective, so does the patriot act. I have a funny feeling should this go to the Supreme Court and get overturned by them as unconstitutional, the patriot act might be next up on the list. (Here is hoping, but not much into it...)

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.