Hateful Protesting, freedom of speech?

Originally Posted by Generic Badass

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.

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?

There's nowhere I can't reach.

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...

How ya doing, buddy?

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.

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

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

I was speaking idiomatically.

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.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by Gumby

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.

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:

Originally Posted by Generic Badass

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.

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.

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?

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.

Originally Posted by Generic Badass

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Josiah

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.

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.

How ya doing, buddy?

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.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Generic Badass

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.

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?

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

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?

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.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by Generic Badass

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.

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.

Quote:

And since they have 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.

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.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Quote:

"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."

Quote:

"...we hope that by our preaching some will be saved."

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.

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by Watts

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.)

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!

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

Quote:

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

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.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by PattyNBK

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?

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.

Originally Posted by Lord Styphon

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.

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

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Generic Badass

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.

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:

Originally Posted by VitaPup

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 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.

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

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.

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by VitaPup

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??????

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...)

Most amazing jew boots

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

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.

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by Generic Badass

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

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.

Quote:

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

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

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.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Generic Badass

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.

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.

Quote:

What am I being selective about?

[...]

[A]nd I'm not objecting just for the sake of it.

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.

There's nowhere I can't reach.