Hateful Protesting, freedom of speech?

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.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Josiah

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.

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.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Watts

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.

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.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

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 am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by Watts

Still isn't a freedom of speech issue. Now we're into the clarification of other parts of the first amendment.

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.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by RacinReaver

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?

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

Originally Posted by Devo

Dead soldiers families aren't the target audience, it just gets them attention, as many have pointed out. Their target audience is congress but writing to their senators isn't newsworthy. Protesting at a funeral which is considered highly imflammatory is worth the press coverage.

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.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by Devo

No it's not presumably, the only ones who can change legislation are congress. There is no way their rioting is going to change the minds of those at the funeral to be anti-gay, if anything it will make them anti-Southern Baptist. However, rioting at the funerals give them enough press coverage to make themselves heard to those who happen to agree with their principles. They want air time to enlist more crazies for their cause.

If some ultra-religious group started telling me at my boyfriend's funeral "it's cause you tolerate gays," I'd tell those Baptists to shove that bible right up their ass. I certainly wouldn't think, "Yeah those homos killed my love, not the insurgency."

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.

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by Devo

You can't prove their doing this for publicity? Um, hello, they're out on the street yelling and waving picket signs. That's a cry for attention. If they were serious in their cause in terms of the political process, it's called lobbying and sending mass mail to their congressmen.

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.

Quote:

Uh what?

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.

Quote:

Never said I was against their right to the first amendment so what was the point of this statement?

Ties in to the last part.

Quote:

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.

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.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

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.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

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.

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by a lurker

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.

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.

Quote:

You're weird, and also mildly immature.

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

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by a lurker

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.

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.

Quote:

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.

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.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

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.

Originally Posted by Devo

I have yet to see someone say "Yeah shut them up." What I have seen are people posting that they agree with the distance factor within the bill in order to protect both the funeral attendees and the protesters.

And also the attention whoring was brought up to your reply about how they're only trying to get their message across. It's been said repeatedly if it was just about the "message" there are better avenues to do this.

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?"

Quote:

You're arguing against a point no one has brought up. Yes, plenty of us find those Westboro folks offensive and repugnant. This isn't why we feel the law is appropriate. We feel the law is appropriate because people are trying to have a funeral service for their fallen Military family members, and a bunch of inbred hicks with picket signs are in their face claiming "our tolerance of gays" killed their sons and daughters. Yes, freedom of speech protects them, but freedom of speech becomes null once it instigates violence. The distance will keep people from coming to blows. I don't know why I have to keep reiterating this point with you.

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.

Originally Posted by a lurker

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.

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.

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

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?

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.

Quote:

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 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.

Most amazing jew boots

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.

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by Devo

Planned parenthood promotes measures that anti-abortionists don't support. The clerks don't want consumers purchasing products, thus supporting the company they are striking against.

Your examples don't really work since planned parenthood is in opposition of anti-abortionists and strikers don't want stores to continue to earn money while they suffer.

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.

Quote:

People at funerals are not in active opposition to the Westboro baptists (although it could be argued they find everyone but themselves to be enemies let's not go there), and they don't necessarily support the acceptance of gays. So once again, I'm curious as to why you don't want to accept their actions as not much more than an offensive attention ploy for the wrong reasons, i.e. pissing people off not actual change.

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.

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by Devo

Have you actually listened to Fred Phelps in interviews? Or do you just want to defend the actions of known liars, hypocrites and attention whores?

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

Quote:

Fred Phelps said himself, (as lurk said and you conveniently ignored) they are doing this just for attention.

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

Quote:

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

Quote:

You would do a lot better by dropping the whole lying argument altogether.

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.

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

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.

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.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?