Hateful Protesting, freedom of speech?

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.

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

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 Generic Badass

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.

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

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

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.

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:

Originally Posted by Generic Badass

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,

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.

FELIPE NO

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?

Originally Posted by Generic Badass

The link doesn't even matter when Phelps has said that he hopes some will be saved.

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?

Quote:

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.

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

Quote:

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.

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?

Jam it back in, in the dark.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Alterminded

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'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.

Originally Posted by Generic Badass

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Generic Badass

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Generic Badass

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.

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.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Deleted.

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

Originally Posted by McCloud

Figure this is the best place to put this.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=rAC9t4nNx...elated&search=

http://youtube.com/watch?v=qCdT9dfrb...page=1&t=t&f=b

Discuss.




PS: If this has already been posted somewhere, let me know.

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".

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

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!

I was speaking idiomatically.

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.

How ya doing, buddy?