View Full Version : Westboro Baptist Douchebags Getting A Day In Court
I am sure that most people here of heard of Fred Phelps and his dispicable version of religion. A case will be heard tomorrow in the SCOTUS to determine if their right to protest outweighs the rights of the families at the funerals.
It was great to see that 47 states' attorney generals have filed briefs on behalf of the plaintiffs. Let's hope that it is decidely quickly and favorably. These people are scum.
http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/snyder-v-phelps/
I belive little ole VT is one of the 47. We recently made it illegal to protest near a funeral. These folks are clearly out there. They DISGUST ME!
SeriousStudent
10-05-10, 23:28
I am certainly a strong supporter of the first amendment, and free speech.
But Fred and his brood are such a vile, hateful nest of snakes that they should never be referred to as a church.
I hope that SCOTUS returns a thoughtful decision that protects mourning families from his reprehensible behavior.
Folks, remember to support the Patriot Guard Riders, that shield military funerals from that ilk.
Fred and his ilk are a different breed. It is like the currnet islamic breed and their ilk using our political freedom against us. I think a united public front shooting them down(figuratively for now) is the best first step. Now it that and the court fails... well you know what the alternative is....
lethal dose
10-06-10, 00:18
It's about time. When will people realize that abusing our god-given rights leads to a gov't clamp down on these rights? Fools. It's sad that a lot of human beings can't discern what's right and wrong and show some decency and integrity. Is it that hard? I wonder how they think what they're spewing goes hand in hand with the Bible. Despicable.
Bolt_Overide
10-06-10, 00:54
I remember when those assholes were at Ft. Campbell in 06, their protest damn near caused a riot. If there hadnt been all those LEO's there, I have no doubt they would have gotten beat down.
ChicagoTex
10-06-10, 01:15
Folks, remember to support the Patriot Guard Riders, that shield military funerals from that ilk.
I have a couple very close friends in the PGR. They'll be the first to tell you they'd love to be out of a job. Here's hoping...
As long as they're not inciting violence than they're within their rights as shitty as it is. They may need to change some of their signs but other than that you can't stop protest.
I'm still waiting for Phelps to drop dead, the old bastard can't go to much longer. When he does I already have some sign ideas :D
As long as they're not inciting violence than they're within their rights as shitty as it is. They may need to change some of their signs but other than that you can't stop protest.
I'm still waiting for Phelps to drop dead, the old bastard can't go to much longer. When he does I already have some sign ideas :D
There is a time and place for them to exercise their rights. What about the rights of the familes to greive. You can not yell fire in a crowded theatre. It's all well and good for us to sit at our keyboards and talk about their rights. A funeral is not the place for any "free speech" that argument is a perversion of the constitution. Funerals are a personal and private time not a time for disgusting freaks to protest. It is about the rights of the dead and their familes, not a bunch of assholes trying to use someones death to get their mugs on TV.
There is a time and place for them to exercise their rights. What about the rights of the familes to greive. You can not yell fire in a crowded theatre.
Apple and oranges, you're talking about Schenck v. United States and it doesn't really apply here. What they're doing is in my opinion immoral but isn't a violation of the rights of the families of the deceased. No difference than the KKK protesting in a black neighborhood. As long as they're not inciting violence than they're within their rights.
We wouldn't need the first to include freedom of speech if it was for speech we all agree with.
They may not be committing acts of violence, however their presence has caused people to do rash things. The most recent was the guy that pepper sprayed a group of them as they were protesting.
I predict the SCOTUS will rule in favor of the plaintiffs in this matter.
As long as they're not inciting violence than they're within their rights as shitty as it is. They may need to change some of their signs but other than that you can't stop protest.
I'm still waiting for Phelps to drop dead, the old bastard can't go to much longer. When he does I already have some sign ideas :D
Smiles
Of course it applies. My point was free speech can and has been limited. It is not the same situation but.it applies because it has been limited. Look at what has been done to the second ammendment there are all kinds of limits there.
ForTehNguyen
10-06-10, 08:16
sorry to say it they have freedom of speech too. As much as I would like this behavior to stop, I do not want the govt legislating morality.
I'm taking a look at every organization that is for the respondant. I will do my best to never do business with any organization that supports these people. I'm sorry to see NPR supported Phelps here. They will never receive another dollar from me. I expected to see NY Times in the list.
I agree that some of the stipulations in this case need clarification--hence its review by the supreme court. The award of damages is also a major concern for the media corporations.
However, I do believe that "Hate speech" should be limited, outlawed and carry heavy civil and criminal penalties. What the WBC asserts is absolutely hate speech. Defining the boundaries of what "Hate speech" means is something that does need to be legislated.
You can't just say whatever you want without being responsible and accountable for the words coming out of your mouth or keyboard. That is one issue we have not dealt with successfully... yet.
People should be held acccountable for their actions. Organizations like WBC or the Dove organization in Florida need to experience the power of consequences. Common sense and good taste are clearly not a boundaries capable of restraint.
montanadave
10-06-10, 08:58
Here is a link to an op-ed piece on this subject written by Maryland's Attorney General Doug Gansler, one of 47 state attorneys general who submitted arguments to the SCOTUS in support Mr. Synder, the father of the Marine whose funeral was picketed by Mr. Phelps and his Westboro Baptist Church.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/05/AR2010100503827.html
As much as I loathe Phelps and his gospel of hate and intolerance, I am reluctant to see the Supreme Court establish a judicial precedent which prohibits free speech based on another individual's right to privacy. If you have concerns about judicial review and slippery slopes, this would be a doozy.
The worst part of this appeal is the free publicity provided to that vitriolic prick Phelps and his extended family of litigious vermin.
ForTehNguyen
10-06-10, 09:04
yea these people are just like forum trolls, just ignore them. Media is feeding them by giving them coverage and attention
However, I do believe that "Hate speech" should be limited, outlawed and carry heavy civil and criminal penalties. What the WBC asserts is absolutely hate speech. Defining the boundaries of what "Hate speech" means is something that does need to be legislated.
Who gets to define these boundaries and will it be all encompassing. Like it's Hate Speech if a white says the N word but not if a black says it. Or Homosexuals can only use the terms gay, queer or homo but not everyone else.
Okay I am paraphrasing here but I don't know exactly how to define it but I know it when I see it. Do you think the protesters in these cases are spouting hate speech?
SCOTUS needs to define hate speech. There has to be a limit. I attended a funeral in 2006 with these individuals present. The level of pain, anger, frustration and suffering they inflict on those grieving is difficult to put into words.
Here is a letter I wrote to NPR today after seeing them on the list.
I am deeply disgusted to see your organization has sided with the respondent in this case, SCOTUS docket 09-751. Your support of the Westboro Baptist Church will directly result in my immediate cessation of support and utilization of all media produced by NPR. I have read the response and understand the corporate desire to limit liability litigation, but this does not excuse your organization from taking a firm stance against hate speech. Your desire to maintain the unrestricted interpretation of Free Speech without acknowledging that boundaries should exist for good taste and common sense leads me to believe your organization has deeply misguided beliefs. Responsibility and accountability for a person and the actions they take is critical to being a productive member of a global community. When people deliberately injure with malice, there should be culpability for those actions. Your defense of the Freedom of Speech is admirable, but in this case—fundamentally flawed from my perspective.
I have enjoyed your programming for the past twenty years of my life, but I will not participate or support any organization that supports the Westboro Baptist church. I have lost too many friends to dishonor their memory. I sincerely hope no member of your organization ever has to bury a friend or loved one during one of their protests.
I strongly suggest that someone at a decision-making level within NPR attend the funeral for a fallen soldier while this organization is present. There is no boundary for the shame a person should feel for supporting this group after witnessing these individuals in action while a grieving family tries to bury a son, daughter, husband or wife.
William B.
10-06-10, 09:28
sorry to say it they have freedom of speech too. As much as I would like this behavior to stop, I do not want the govt legislating morality.
Amen, brother! As much as I can't stand these creeps, I would rather put up with a few douche bags' distorted statements and continue to enjoy my personal liberties than to get the government involved. These things have a way of taking care of themselves. When they came to protest at Camp LeJeune a few years ago so many pissed off military spouses showed up that Westboro and its views were completely overshadowed.
sorry to say it they have freedom of speech too. As much as I would like this behavior to stop, I do not want the govt legislating morality.
Government has ALWAYS legislated the morality of the majority. Where do you think laws against murder, theft, etc come from? It just happens that in recent history the morality of the majority has promoted acceptance of minority rights.
Government has ALWAYS legislated the morality of the majority. Where do you think laws against murder, theft, etc come from? It just happens that in recent history the morality of the majority has promoted acceptance of minority rights.
Murder, theft, etc are infringements upon another's right to life, liberty, and property/pursuit of happiness. I don't really consider what the douchetards at WBC to infringe those rights, unfortunately...I agree with dbrowne1, it's protected, if deplorable, speech.
God bless the PGR, by the way.
That's an awfully slippery slope you're on.
On a personal level I am sorry that you and others have suffered more because of them, and again I don't agree with what they are doing, but think about the consequences of that standard you're suggesting. If speech is meant to convey a political or religious position and to put pressure on some group (government or the public), but also has the effect of causing frustration or emotional distress, does that mean it should be banned?
That's an awfully dangerous road to go down...
Couldn't have said it better myself.
People, this is how our liberties get stripped from us. This court case will set "precedent." Go look that up - it means ALL similar cases will follow the ruling of this case, regardless of which way the case goes. These lowlifes will die and burn in hell one day... and nothing will be left of them, but the rulings from this court case can potentially affect us for the rest of our existence as a country.
If this ruling states that this hate/protest gathering is illegal, then how much longer before someone connects the dots and starts challenging ALL protest gatherings that could be construed as "hate" gatherings? How much longer before our posts here are construed as "hate against the government"? Think I'm going overboard? I'm not. It's in your history books.
This is why you don't get the government involved. I don't approve of these Westboro wastes one bit, but it's their right to do so. They're going to go to hell for it, but it's still their right.
Go ahead and dogpile me, I expected it.
"We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition:
And gentlemen in England now a-bed
Shall think themselves accursed they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day."
I know where I have been and I know where I am. If I don't have a tomorrow--I do not want these people at my funeral. I do not want them at anyone else's funeral either. They should not be there.
the only thing more offensive than what these ****ers do at soldier's funerals would be outlawing what they do at soldiers funerals.
Go ahead and dogpile me, I expected it.
"We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition:
And gentlemen in England now a-bed
Shall think themselves accursed they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day."
I know where I have been and I know where I am. If I don't have a tomorrow--I do not want these people at my funeral. I do not want them at anyone else's funeral either. They should not be there.
Nice quote. Here's another:
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
the only thing more offensive than what these ****ers do at soldier's funerals would be outlawing what they do at soldiers funerals.
Spot on.
Remember those soldiers died to secure those freedoms, legislating them away would be the greatest injustice to EVERY fallen soldier. It is bad enough these people do this crap, lets not make it worse with pointless legislation that negates the freedoms the soldiers died for in the first place.
SCOTUS needs to define hate speech. There has to be a limit. I attended a funeral in 2006 with these individuals present. The level of pain, anger, frustration and suffering they inflict on those grieving is difficult to put into words.
Here is a letter I wrote to NPR today after seeing them on the list.
I am deeply disgusted to see your organization has sided with the respondent in this case, SCOTUS docket 09-751. Your support of the Westboro Baptist Church will directly result in my immediate cessation of support and utilization of all media produced by NPR. I have read the response and understand the corporate desire to limit liability litigation, but this does not excuse your organization from taking a firm stance against hate speech. Your desire to maintain the unrestricted interpretation of Free Speech without acknowledging that boundaries should exist for good taste and common sense leads me to believe your organization has deeply misguided beliefs. Responsibility and accountability for a person and the actions they take is critical to being a productive member of a global community. When people deliberately injure with malice, there should be culpability for those actions. Your defense of the Freedom of Speech is admirable, but in this case—fundamentally flawed from my perspective.
I have enjoyed your programming for the past twenty years of my life, but I will not participate or support any organization that supports the Westboro Baptist church. I have lost too many friends to dishonor their memory. I sincerely hope no member of your organization ever has to bury a friend or loved one during one of their protests.
I strongly suggest that someone at a decision-making level within NPR attend the funeral for a fallen soldier while this organization is present. There is no boundary for the shame a person should feel for supporting this group after witnessing these individuals in action while a grieving family tries to bury a son, daughter, husband or wife.
Ryan
Thanks for sharing this letter with NPR and with us.
Thanks for the PM you and yours showed extreme restraint. Just remember what comes around goes around and these folks will get a chance to answer for their actions when they see the Man. We will all have our chance.
I'm a father of three small children and I cannot imagine the pain these people have caused to so many.
SSG Nisely you and your family are in my thoughts and prayers. We need to remember the real human beings being affected by this "speech" and we need to make reasonable decisions to limit the effect on the innocent. When some ones "rights" intrude on another’s "rights" we have a problem. We clearly have a problem her. It is just not reasonable.
When some ones "rights" intrude on another’s "rights" we have a problem.
This is how I see it. It befuddles me that the right of these "people" to protest hatefully at a funeral seems to trump the rights of those who are seeking to have that same funeral proceed peacefully and respectably.
What about disturbing the peace? Is a funeral not the ultimate peaceful, somber occasion? How can it be legal to verbally decimate such an occasion? Or what about disorderly conduct?
If they are required to stay away 100' or 200' ft, then that distance should be expanded to where they are too far away to be disruptive. Even if this law is for funerals only, find a way and get it done.
Even do so officially but informally, so to speak. Kind of like how we allow funeral proceedings to drive through red lights as a group in the name of respect. Don't recall having seen a law in the books allowing it, but everybody does it and it is considered the norm.
So should be the right of the police to remove or push back anyone who interferes with such services.
Murder, theft, etc are infringements upon another's right to life, liberty, and property/pursuit of happiness
I would say that those things being considered rights is a codification of our morality. Not all cultures or societies believe the same way, they have a different moral compass.
there is no "right" to be free of other's people free expression of their rights. the only right we have is the right to be free from un-Constitutional legislation against our rights.
liberty means being free- it also means everyone else is free. it's absolutely no guarantee that you'll like everyone else's ideas of freedom and free expression of their rights. you can't ****ing litigate away freedoms you don't like- thats why our 2A rights have been so badly infringed, people.
very, very disappointing to see how many of you guys will just flop on the Constitution because you find something repugnant.
there is no "right" to be free of other's people free expression of their rights. the only right we have is the right to be free from un-Constitutional legislation against our rights.
Yes and no. They can exercise their rights as long as they don't infringe on my rights. Safetyhit is correct. I also have a right to not be accosted or to have peace at an assumed peaceful place. This is why we have disorderly conduct and disturbing the peace laws. The loud and rowdy ones are not the only ones with rights and expectations of free exercise of those rights.
Yes and no. They can exercise their rights as long as they don't infringe on my rights. Safetyhit is correct. I also have a right to not be accosted or to have peace at an assumed peaceful place. This is why we have disorderly conduct and disturbing the peace laws. The loud and rowdy ones are not the only ones with rights and expectations of free exercise of those rights.
No, you don't have a right to have peace at an "assumed peaceful place." You only have a right to have peace at 1) your home, 2) at another private establishment offering that atmosphere, or 3) at area designated as a place for a peaceful gathering. This whole mentality of "assumed peaceful place" is ridiculous because everyone assumes different expectations. To use "assumptions" to guide our laws is about as irresponsible as you can be.
I might "assume" a baseball game will be peaceful. That doesn't give me a right to file a lawsuit against someone yelling at my team because I find it isn't. People might want a funeral to be peaceful, that doesn't give people a right to file lawsuit against free speech when it isn't.
People at a funeral have ZERO rights to be undisturbed. Don't like it? Pass a law designating funerals as private, non-disturb events, don't limit the first amendment.
No wonder the 2nd amendment has become so watered down. It starts with crap just like this.
variablebinary
10-06-10, 11:43
If I lost a friend in the war and these people showed up at the funeral, it would get violent.
very, very disappointing to see how many of you guys will just flop on the Constitution because you find something repugnant.
Seems much more disappointing to me that some have greater concern for the rights of the the protesters than they do the rights of those that are trying to suffer in silence with dignity.
Seems much more disappointing to me that some have greater concern for the rights of the people of the Unites States of America than they do the rights of those that are trying to suffer in silence with dignity.
Fixed.
GermanSynergy
10-06-10, 11:51
Would the same good liberals that support Phelps and his ilk support say........ a Koran burning ?
Not trying to derail the thread, but it just exposes their hypocrisy....:mad:
No wonder the 2nd amendment has become so watered down. It starts with crap just like this.
There is no "crap like this" going on here today. People are attempting to discuss a fair way to protect those at a funeral service from hate speech, nothing more.
There is no "crap like this" going on here today. People are attempting to discuss a fair way to protect those at a funeral service from hate speech, nothing more.
The "fair" way to do it is to make funerals private events or make purposely disturbing (not speaking out against) a funeral a misdemeanor, not by trying limit the 1st amendment, which so many people here seem blind to.
Let's flip this scenario:
"Protesters bring unloaded guns to the funeral of a gang-banger who was shot dead after he tried to rob someone with a CCW, as a statement that they will fight back against crime in the area."
EXACT same scenario, only the elements have changed.
Now you can get emotional and create laws stating guns can no longer be brought to funerals (disarming anyone who carries one there for legitimate purposes, such as with a CCW) in the name of "peacefulness," or you can respect the rights of the people and understand the consequences of making such rash, illogical decisions.
Fix the underlying issue, don't curb the rights of the people.
It's not that easy. You can call an event "private" all you want, and restrict access to private property, but you can't keep people from assembling and protesting on adjoining public areas that might be very close by.
"Disturbing" a funeral is a rather nebulous standard, one that has all sorts of First Amendment problems written all over it. Who decides when the line gets crossed into "disturbing?"
I see your point with the definition of "disturbing" and I was actually reluctant to use such a broad term. I honestly don't what the exact best solution would be, but I do know it revolves around privacy of the funeral itself and not with curbing speech rights.
The "fair" way to do it is to make funerals private events or make purposely disturbing (not speaking out against) a funeral a misdemeanor, not by trying limit the 1st amendment, which so many people here seem blind to.
Now we're blind as well? Wow. More rather harsh words looking to negatively portray anyone who wants to help protect another family from suffering needlessly at a loved one's funeral. And remember that is the goal here, please try to keep this in mind if at all possible.
Personally I don't care how they do it so long as they get it done. There are a lot of BS laws on the books right now that make no sense, yet we deal with them every day. This one would make sense if applied properly and specifically, so I think we could somehow survive it.
...the rights of those that are trying to suffer in silence with dignity.
what rights? spell it out. the "right to have absolute silence at a funeral" isn't listed in my copy of the Bill of Rights... however, the right to assembly and free speech are.
i'm NOT one of these that believes because a right isn't spelled out specifically in the Constitution that it isn't a right- that's bullshit. all peaceful activity is a "right," as far as i'm concerned- which is exactly why i'm 110% opposed to legislating away rights we find repugnant.
fact of the matter is, when in public, there is no "right to be free from shit you don't like."
what if the majority of Americans decided that the sight of Christians in worship was repugnant? what if they decided that having to see christians worship their God violated their "right" not to have to see/hear something they found grossly offensive? would you support banning all worship viewable to the public? would revival tents become felonies? would outdoor weddings be banned? it's a total violation of everyone else's right to not have to hear/see christian bullshit, no?
There is no "crap like this" going on here today. People are attempting to discuss a fair way to protect those at a funeral service from hate speech, nothing more.
So what qualifies it as hate speech? Your dislike for their message?
This goes back to the point of the first is to protect the minorities speech from being silenced by the majority. I find the messages full of hate. But if all speech was made to be non offensive to the majority the need for freedom of speech would be non existence.
Nothing in the constitution says funerals are a place of morning that most be respected and free from protest. It's simply universally believed to be true by most people.
what rights? spell it out. the "right to have absolute silence at a funeral" isn't listed in my copy of the Bill of Rights... however, the right to assembly and free speech are.
i'm NOT one of these that believes because a right isn't spelled out specifically in the Constitution that it isn't a right- that's bullshit. all peaceful activity is a "right," as far as i'm concerned- which is exactly why i'm 110% opposed to legislating away rights we find repugnant.
fact of the matter is, when in public, there is no "right to be free from shit you don't like."
what if the majority of Americans decided that the sight of Christians in worship was repugnant? what if they decided that having to see christians worship their God violated their "right" not to have to see/hear something they found grossly offensive? would you support banning all worship viewable to the public? would revival tents become felonies? would outdoor weddings be banned? it's a total violation of everyone else's right to not have to hear/see christian bullshit, no?
And that's not even touching on the more taboo subject of firearms the "emotional distress" even seeing one can cause... :rolleyes:
That is a truly frightening statement.
Honestly, why the drama?
So the First Amendment is a BS law?
What on earth??
Or perhaps you mean that there are a lot of mere legislative acts that are BS, so we shouldn't mind adding yet another unconstitutional one to the pile?
I suppose so, just without the unconstitutional part. And just as the protesters are protected from the first amendment in the name of fairness and decency, so should be the family and friends attending the serviceman's funeral.
Do I have the perfect solution? No, which is the main reason as to why I am taking part in this discussion. And I am hoping to see justice prevail in court today.
there is absolutely no such thing as "hate speech." we're free to speak our minds or we're not- and any bullshit about "inciting violence" is nothing more than a vehicle to legislating away rights we don't care for.
"fighting words" laws are generally good, and perfect for situations like this. under ORS, "fighting words" are not "prohibited"- but if you use them, the law offers you no protection from people kicking the snot out of you. you cannot walk up to a black man and call him a "stupid ****in smelly ass nigger," and then expect to be able to lodge charges against him when he pounds your dumb ass into the dirt.
the exact same law could be used effectively in situations like these. all it takes is a a tiny little bit of intelligence to come up with effective measures. let local matters stay local, first of all.
what rights? spell it out. the "right to have absolute silence at a funeral" isn't listed in my copy of the Bill of Rights... however, the right to assembly and free speech are.
I understand this, though I appreciate you pointing it out. But let me ask you and the others something, if I may.
Why doesn't the first amendment, or anything else allow for the protesters to stand among or immediately next to the funeral goers?
Choose your answer carefully. ;)
"fighting words" laws are generally good, and perfect for situations like this. under ORS, "fighting words" are not "prohibited"- but if you use them, the law offers you no protection from people kicking the snot out of you. you cannot walk up to a black man and call him a "stupid ****in smelly ass nigger," and then expect to be able to lodge charges against him when he pounds your dumb ass into the dirt.
I don't think things work this way, otherwise someone would have beaten the stuffing out of these Westboro people and suffered no consequences already. The Westboro people thrive on suing for physical and non-physical retaliation to their message.
ChicagoTex
10-06-10, 12:43
Why doesn't the first amendment, or anything else allow for the protesters to stand among or immediately next to the funeral goers?
Funerals are almost always held on private property. Protestors bothering people while on private property are subject to trespassing violations.
ForTehNguyen
10-06-10, 12:47
In a nutshell, 1A is a freedom of speech not a freedom from speech. Big difference.
Government has ALWAYS legislated the morality of the majority. Where do you think laws against murder, theft, etc come from? It just happens that in recent history the morality of the majority has promoted acceptance of minority rights.
so I need a law to tell me stealing, murder, and rape is wrong? That is the big difference. These types of offenses are inheritly wrong and do not need clarification. One can't say the same about "hate speech" whatever the heck that means.
Why doesn't the first amendment
Because the first amendment covers speech only, not where you can or can't stand.
or anything else allow for the protesters to stand among or immediately next to the funeral goers?
"Anything else" is not the Constitution, the rights I have that no one can take away. Regardless of what other "laws" say about standing at a funeral, they are NOT inalienable rights. Going to a funeral, or how I go about viewing one, is not my "right." The 1st amendment is.
Funerals are almost always held on private property. Protestors bothering people while on private property are subject to trespassing violations.
Agreed. And just the answer I anticipated of course, knowing some basic elements of the law as you obviously do.
So with this assessment, we can also agree that there is already a law in place restricting these folks ability to congregate where they want in order to say what they want, correct?
Anyone here looking to repeal the law against trespassing that is keeping them from saying what they want wherever they want?
Because the first amendment covers speech only, not where you can or can't stand.
You just rammed my point home. This simply because at no time did I say that they weren't allowed to say that slop in protest.
My point is and always was what distance is acceptably far enough removed so as not to disturb the others. Never went past that in any way.
Anyone here looking to repeal the law against trespassing that is keeping them from saying what they want wherever they want?
As I said originally, I want these guys to pay dearly for what they've done and to be treated in the fashion they've treated others. If they can get them for trespassing, do it! Free speech does not apply to private property. I'm just against restricting 1a rights.
very, very disappointing to see how many of you guys will just flop on the Constitution because you find something repugnant.
Very disgusting indeed. This is why we have so few rights that are actually upheld these days; why we have som many "laws" and "restrictions" of our rights. We give them away in the name of "safety" or "comfort" or "niceness" everyday. It's a bunch of hog wash and those who contribute are hypocrites and little fascists.
Freedom is freedom and rights are rights; they aren't freedoms only as long as I am happy or okay with things, thay aren't rigths only unitl I get upset and disagree. They are ****ing rights, meaning we have the "RIGHT" to do so, regardless of how we choose to excercise that right. I don't agree with the morons, but more power to them for excercising their constitutional rights.
i doubt anyones arguing to allow these ****s to trespass. they're usually doing it from the sidewalk- public property.
Very disgusting indeed.
Jeez, now I am up to "very disgusting? Dang.
How about you take a rational shot at my last two posts just above this one and try commenting again?
Go to their website to check out their message. Go to youtube to see videos of them at funerals. Their message is very clearly hate speech; there is no way it could be construed as anything but hate speech. And these people are assaulted at funerals—then they sue—and WIN—damages from grieving families. That is part of how they fund their activities. They try to get you to hit them, THEY WANT YOU TO HIT THEM--that’s money in the bank. It’s like slipping in the supermarket—except for what they do is go to the funerals of people who are emotionally vulnerable and then take them over the edge. We had a briefing before attending regarding this issue. They do the same thing with Church groups—they will show up and protest to try to get you upset enough to do something stupid.
Research them first before you get into the legal mindset of should/should not argument. See what their message is first, and then decide. These people will do anything they can to get you to break, cross that legal line in the sand and then take you down. I agree in first amendment protections, but I do not agree in the lack of consequences for this type of behavior. The same goes for the Dove Church that wanted to burn the Qu'rans. That could have started an entirely new holy war with Islam.
This is not an esoteric argument for me. I changed my will so that I will be cremated and a non-descript stone be placed next to where my parents would be buried. I have specifically asked to not have a funeral so my loved ones—in part—do not have to deal with these people. So in a way, they have won because I don't want my family and those who love me to suffer because of their ideology. Make no mistake, these people cause anger, pain and suffering that endures. The offense is simply too great and delivered at far too delicate a time emotionally for those who are still staggered by the loss.
Take the lowest, hardest, most difficult and painful time in your life. Then imagine you had a group of hecklers there to ruin the sanctity of one of the last moments you will ever have with your father, mother, son, or daughter before you lower the casket. If you’ve never lost someone close to you, then just imagine another similarly bad—if not the worst day in your life--then imagine someone spitting in your face or shoving your face into a pile of crap. And there is absolutely nothing you can do or say because it is their right and you just have to stand there and take it.
I do not think you should argue the point unless you have first hand or a solid understanding of this group, their message and the way they deliver that message--along with why. If you do and you can still support them, I guess I do not have enough in common with you to warrant further discussion.
What they do causes pain and suffering. Its not about free-speech, its about a pay check for these folks. That is not and cannot be simply ignored and white-washed as a necessary evil. Consequences need to be established.
In the old west, if you called someone a damn liar—you went out in the street and settled it with a .45. I’m hoping SCOTUS delivers the ammo for that .45 today so these people can at least start doing time or paying damages.
To me, this is about justice and karma. This is an absolute abuse of the 1st Amendment to the extreme.
Jeez, now I am up to "very disgusting? Dang.
How about you take a rational shot at my last two posts just above this one and try commenting again?
I was not commenting at you, I was commenting on how the attitude bkb referred to gets rights stripped. If you embody that attitude, thats on you. I didn't say anything at all towards you buddy.
So then safety who decides the "Acceptable" distance, you? Our govt? Maybe we should spend millions to figure that out? Nah, they have a right to be on public property adjacent to the private property where the funeral is being held. If one is so concerned about these types of protests at a funeral, why not have the funeral at a place where they would be far enough away from public property so they didn't have to hear them? Instead of limiting the 1a rights of an entire nation?
I don't agree with what they are doing, but I don't agree with a ot of things in this world, and still I wish not to have my government come in and force a stance on us regarding any of it.
No matter how disturbed I am with how people wield their 1a rights; it is their right to do so that way, and who the **** am I to force them to not excercise their rights?
Part of what seems unfair to me is that the system protects their speech, and then protects them from the consequences of their actions. Yet I'm not sure what, if anything, I'd want the government to do about it.
One incredible thing I take from this whole terrible situation is what it says about the integrity and virtue of the men and women in our armed forces. That these people haven't been slaughtered in a wholesale manner by those trained professionals, speaks volumes I think.
I'm unfamiliar with the term "hate speech" or its place in First Amendment jurisprudence despite my lengthy and expensive study of the subject.
i think some guys around here are confusing us with Canada.
where you can literally be imprisoned for making a public statement that others dont like.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_crime
I guess the definition that is lacking is that the soldier being buried isn't part of a "protected class".
Maybe that is what is needed.
No, you don't have a right to have peace at an "assumed peaceful place." You only have a right to have peace at 1) your home, 2) at another private establishment offering that atmosphere, or 3) at area designated as a place for a peaceful gathering.
Bingo! Cemeteries would probably fall into that category. Thanks for making my point!
This whole mentality of "assumed peaceful place" is ridiculous because everyone assumes different expectations. To use "assumptions" to guide our laws is about as irresponsible as you can be.
not really. Don't get caught up on my words. If you want "designated peaceful place" instead have at it
I might "assume" a baseball game will be peaceful. That doesn't give me a right to file a lawsuit against someone yelling at my team because I find it isn't. People might want a funeral to be peaceful, that doesn't give people a right to file lawsuit against free speech when it isn't.
People at a funeral have ZERO rights to be undisturbed. Don't like it? Pass a law designating funerals as private, non-disturb events, don't limit the first amendment.
No one is limiting the 1A. The 1A does not guarantee unlimited right to any sort of speech at all in any place.
Just as most libraries are public places but you cannot make a disturbance in them, there is no 1A hinderance to making a public cemetery and its access roads off limits as well. I am not saying that they cannot make their protest and say any speech they want. They just cannot do it where-ever they want.
People are limited all the time to where they can protest and have rallies etc.
No wonder the 2nd amendment has become so watered down. It starts with crap just like this.
No, totally different question. I don't think that most people are claiming the 2A allows totally uninhibited rights to bear arms. Most people will agree that arms can be forbidden to certain people (perhaps felons, or mentally sick people needing help, some minors, etc -- I don't want to get into a discussion on exactly who as that is not important) and that certain locations can also be forbidden to the carrying of arms (for right or wrong, for example, airports, federal buildings, etc are forbidden in most cases)
i think some guys around here are confusing us with Canada.
Actually I think that beyond just the above statement some of us are confusing if not now clouding the issue. At least mine anyhow, as all I keep trying to say is that they need to be far enough away to not be a disturbance to the mourners.
Sorry, but I find little shame for those words or the accompanying mindset.
Actually I think that beyond just the above statement some of us are confusing if not now clouding the issue. At least mine anyhow, as all I keep trying to say is that they need to be far enough away to not be a disturbance to the mourners.
Sorry, but I find little shame for those words or the accompanying mindset.
i'm talking about in reference to the term "hate speech," as though there's certain types of free expression that should be banned, in this Constitutionally protected nation.
Canada has, in fact, banned all "hate speech," and there are, in fact, people sitting in prison as we speak for using "hate speech."
Go to their website to check out their message. Go to youtube to see videos of them at funerals. Their message is very clearly hate speech; there is no way it could be construed as anything but hate speech. And these people are assaulted at funerals—then they sue—and WIN—damages from grieving families. That is part of how they fund their activities. They try to get you to hit them, THEY WANT YOU TO HIT THEM--that’s money in the bank. It’s like slipping in the supermarket—except for what they do is go to the funerals of people who are emotionally vulnerable and then take them over the edge. We had a briefing before attending regarding this issue. They do the same thing with Church groups—they will show up and protest to try to get you upset enough to do something stupid.
Research them first before you get into the legal mindset of should/should not argument. See what their message is first, and then decide. These people will do anything they can to get you to break, cross that legal line in the sand and then take you down. I agree in first amendment protections, but I do not agree in the lack of consequences for this type of behavior. The same goes for the Dove Church that wanted to burn the Qu'rans. That could have started an entirely new holy war with Islam.
This is not an esoteric argument for me. I changed my will so that I will be cremated and a non-descript stone be placed next to where my parents would be buried. I have specifically asked to not have a funeral so my loved ones—in part—do not have to deal with these people. So in a way, they have won because I don't want my family and those who love me to suffer because of their ideology. Make no mistake, these people cause anger, pain and suffering that endures. The offense is simply too great and delivered at far too delicate a time emotionally for those who are still staggered by the loss.
Take the lowest, hardest, most difficult and painful time in your life. Then imagine you had a group of hecklers there to ruin the sanctity of one of the last moments you will ever have with your father, mother, son, or daughter before you lower the casket. If you’ve never lost someone close to you, then just imagine another similarly bad—if not the worst day in your life--then imagine someone spitting in your face or shoving your face into a pile of crap. And there is absolutely nothing you can do or say because it is their right and you just have to stand there and take it.
I do not think you should argue the point unless you have first hand or a solid understanding of this group, their message and the way they deliver that message--along with why. If you do and you can still support them, I guess I do not have enough in common with you to warrant further discussion.
What they do causes pain and suffering. Its not about free-speech, its about a pay check for these folks. That is not and cannot be simply ignored and white-washed as a necessary evil. Consequences need to be established.
In the old west, if you called someone a damn liar—you went out in the street and settled it with a .45. I’m hoping SCOTUS delivers the ammo for that .45 today so these people can at least start doing time or paying damages.
To me, this is about justice and karma. This is an absolute abuse of the 1st Amendment to the extreme.
I guess I don't Understand this "hate speach" thing. WHat is the deciding factor of what is hate speach, versus what is just "ignorant ramblings"? OR "frustrated mean speak"? Please define this for me?
What if saying the black population in jail is highest? IS that hate speach? Who decides what is hate speach and what is not?
When I get called a "Cracker" by black guys is that hate speach?
If someone calls me a "mic" or a "Indian" (I am native american and Irish) is that hate speach? or just ignorance? Where is the line and who decides?
I say screw defining any speach as "hate speach". If someone threatens you, they infringe on your rights, if they say they hate you, who cares? I've had more than a few people go into diatribes of hate and disgust for me; should they be prosecuted for "hatespeach" hell no. Should I have beaten them to a pulp right then and there? No. I understood they were angry at me for my point of view and couldn't handle their emotions, they spewed a bunch of crap at me, and I argued against the idiocy of their claims. Many of them are family memebrs and some best friends, some people I met on the street or in a library; the point being, how could we ever determine what is and isn't "hate Speach" Vs. Anger and frustration/acting out.
Can you provide specific examples of this "hate speach" you mention above and explain why it shouldn't be protected under 1a in your opinion?
I'm not trying to be rude, just trying to understand.
GermanSynergy
10-06-10, 13:35
Interesting point. Would the WBC still be permitted to protest at a funeral of a Muslim soldier?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_crime
I guess the definition that is lacking is that the soldier being buried isn't part of a "protected class".
Maybe that is what is needed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_crime
I guess the definition that is lacking is that the soldier being buried isn't part of a "protected class".
Maybe that is what is needed.
you realize there is no "hate speech" in THIS country, right?
William B.
10-06-10, 13:43
This one would make sense if applied properly and specifically, so I think we could somehow survive it.
But how often do we see the government (at all levels) take laws that were enacted with seemingly good intentions and distort them through improper use?
I don't like these people either, but I would rather they have the right to protest offensively than the government have the power to stop them.
Actually I think that beyond just the above statement some of us are confusing if not now clouding the issue. At least mine anyhow, as all I keep trying to say is that they need to be far enough away to not be a disturbance to the mourners.
Sorry, but I find little shame for those words or the accompanying mindset.
I agree a respectibale distance is a great idea, where I disagree is that our government should legislate or have anything to do with this decision. It is up to those organizing the funeral to hold it at a place where they are far enough from public places where protestors can be heard. If they did that, we wouldn't have to limit 1a rights, and the funeral goers wouldn't have to hear the so called "hate speach".
You want to be uninterupted at a funeral, find a spot far from public property, don't get the government involved; that has never helped anything much.
it's always sad when freedom is lost for everyone due to the actions of a few individuals. :(
it's always sad when freedom is lost for everyone due to the actions of a few individuals. :(
And it happens all too often as well.
But understand the few do not ruin it for the many; the many allow those few to ruin it for all for us. Which is even sadder; we strip our own rights for some perceived "niceness", "equality" or "safety".
I don't have the answers to these questions and I'm not a lawyer. All I can say is I know my family and my friends, if I had a funeral and this group showed up--people that I love would end up in prison. Even if you know they are trying to get you to react, it doesn't take away the pain and anguish you are suffering. Your not in a state of mind where you have all your faculties with you.
You guys are approaching this like these families should know better or understand the process. They don't. The reality is, they just had guys show up on their door step with the worst news they'll probably ever received and they don't know what to do other than they have precious few days to plan a burial. They are heart broken and sometimes beyond reason. Even when you try to set everything up so they only have a few things to do, it still doesn't go as planned. They aren't thinking about a fringe group showing up and turning a bad day into a nightmare.
This group takes advantage of those at probably their greatest moment of weakness/stress/turmoil/grief.
Whatever kind of speech you want to call it--it sucks and we need to find a way to link serious consequences to their actions.
I don't have the answers to these questions and I'm not a lawyer. All I can say is I know my family and my friends, if I had a funeral and this group showed up--people that I love would end up in prison. Even if you know they are trying to get you to react, it doesn't take away the pain and anguish you are suffering. Your not in a state of mind where you have all your faculties with you.
You guys are approaching this like these families should know better or understand the process. They don't. The reality is, they just had guys show up on their door step with the worst news they'll probably ever received and they don't know what to do other than they have precious few days to plan a burial. They are heart broken and sometimes beyond reason. Even when you try to set everything up so they only have a few things to do, it still doesn't go as planned. They aren't thinking about a fringe group showing up and turning a bad day into a nightmare.
This group takes advantage of those at probably their greatest moment of weakness/stress/turmoil/grief.
Whatever kind of speech you want to call it--it sucks and we need to find a way to link serious consequences to their actions.
I understand what you are saying, I can wholly admit that if they showed up to a funeral that I was at and acted like they do, I would get extremely violent and end up in jail, that is my choice; and I would deal with the consequences.
Stripping the rights of an entire nation so this one hideous group is stopped is wrong. It goes against everything our forefathers stood for, and everything our constitution was written for in the first place. Liberty and freedom.
None of us have all the answers, this is a conundrum; but how can killing yet another constitutional right even be considered?
Throwing our rights/freedoms under the buss is no way to combat ignorance and hate. Only with education and persistence can we even have a chance to change these types of things.
I understand what you are saying, I can wholly admit that if they showed up to a funeral that I was at and acted like they do, I would get extremely violent and end up in jail, that is my choice; and I would deal with the consequences.
Good to see your a real person. :)
Now why should you or anyone else ever be placed in such a horrible position in the name of freedom and based solely on pure fanatical hate? We are a nation of laws, are we not? That said, is such a law so outrageous? One that keeps violence-inciting maniacs from disrupting a peaceful funeral and doing real, lasting emotional damage to the friends and family?
FromMyColdDeadHand
10-06-10, 14:35
I'm just praying for a narcoleptic snow plow driver and a sharp blade.
A crack in the heat exchanger of the furnace of the hotel they are staying at.
God works in mysterious ways. Sometimes he needs a little help.
As to getting money for the beatings they get, what jury are they getting to give them money?
Be kind of funny if their leaders just disappeared one night and woke up and found themselves in A-stan. See how far free speech would get you there.
Actually, go after them asymmetrically. Get the local DA to start to investigate them for child abuse and endangerment. Yank their kids and put them in a foster home with gay Jews. IRS them to death. Screw with the zoning for their church. Boycott and picket anyplace that hires one of their members. RICO them for something.
Good to see your a real person. :)
Now why should you or anyone else ever be placed in such a horrible position in the name of freedom and based solely on pure fanatical hate?
I think most of us agree we would turn violent, but it's because the hates projected at people we love. Are we going to start locking up holocaust deniers? 1,000,000's of Jews died and people in this country still have a right to deny the fact and even criticize Jew's.
FromMyColdDeadHand
10-06-10, 14:51
Just though of something else.
It would be great if some of our gay buddies would try to hit on church members and then post the videos on YouTube. It seems that when you get groups like this against gays, it often is because they are struggling with something inside them. Great way to disillusion the followers.
I'm just praying for a narcoleptic snow plow driver and a sharp blade.
A crack in the heat exchanger of the furnace of the hotel they are staying at.
God works in mysterious ways. Sometimes he needs a little help.
As to getting money for the beatings they get, what jury are they getting to give them money?
Be kind of funny if their leaders just disappeared one night and woke up and found themselves in A-stan. See how far free speech would get you there.
Actually, go after them asymmetrically. Get the local DA to start to investigate them for child abuse and endangerment. Yank their kids and put them in a foster home with gay Jews. IRS them to death. Screw with the zoning for their church. Boycott and picket anyplace that hires one of their members. RICO them for something.
This post made my day :)
What's left of it anyway, time for bed.
I do not have a solution to this problem, but it is wider than just this fringe group. The Dove church almost started an entirely new war in Afghanistan with their crap.
In an age of global communication, responsibility cannot be ignored. People need to understand they are now part of a much larger community and their thoughts, words, and deeds carry more weight and consequence than ever before. This has not been drilled into our heads yet. SCOTUS needs to set an example for how to deal with groups and individuals that are unable to do so without help.
I don't like adding more laws to the books either, but we've reached a state where things are out of control in this arena.
The rest of the world does not understand our concept of free speech and classifies most of what they see as "American" and does not attribute the action to a specific group. Why should we care? Because when a butterfly flaps its wings in China--we really do have a Hurricane in the Gulf.
Everything is connected and we can't deny that fact any longer. Part of being connected is bearing responsibility and accountability for acting globally. There really isn't a "locally" anymore.
This is a chance to not only tie down the issue with WBC, but deal with any additional situations such as the Dove church in Florida. We were powerless as a nation, military or government to deal with them effectively. The consequences of their actions would have been paid for with more of our blood in Afghanistan.
Good to see your a real person. :)
Now why should you or anyone else ever be placed in such a horrible position in the name of freedom and based solely on pure fanatical hate? We are a nation of laws, are we not? That said, is such a law so outrageous? One that keeps violence-inciting maniacs from disrupting a peaceful funeral and doing real, lasting emotional damage to the friends and family?
None should HAVE TO; but we live in a positive/negative balanced universe, not a lollipops and butterflies everything nice and only nice can exist and everything else should be killed, quelled, ignored, imprisoned or pushed to the fringe. Hell no I shouldn't HAVE to endure that shit, but it may happen, and I will react as I will and deal with the consequences of my choice. I do not want to kill 1a rights; doing so wouldn't stop these situations from happening anyways, it would just put a large strain on our already strained prison system; and kill yet another valuable piece of our constitution.
We are nation of too many laws; too much legislation, and too many talking heads pushing further for idiotic legislation/laws. Yes it is outragous to want to put a bullet in 1a; it is downright tyrannous IMO.
There are plenty of ways to combat people/groups like this; stripping our own rights; or imposing further government controlled restrictions/regulations on ourselves SHOULD BE at the bottom of the effing list. Not on the list at all rather.
There are plenty of ways to combat people/groups like this...
Please elaborate.
RICO them for something.
excellent. :laugh:
Famalies that have been affected can be the antithesis to this group ; start a larger group, and shout louder, be the oppossing force, they can seek these people out individually and try to inform/educate them, they can find illegal goings on within these groups (I"m sure if we looked hard enough these hateful people are doing things illegal in some way) and expose them for it.
If you got enough people riled up against this group, you would have 10X's the amount of protesters fighting them, being louder and stadning up for what is right.
Another way is to not let these groups affect us so much, they feed off of hate and when we get so angry that we change our very way of life; they knwo they did their jobs correctly. Don't give them that benefit. Shower them with love and smiles, offer up your kindness to battle their hatred.
Thats just a few, and only a few legal ways as well.
I'm sure you have a good enough imagination to come up with at least 1 single way to combat these type of hate groups without compromising our inherent right to free speach and trampling our constitution, can't you?
Edited to add:
One thing I would do (If they did any of this to any of mine) is wait patiently (Whilst organizing all along for the event) for one of the Phelps family members to die, and picket the effin shit out of the funeral to the point of mentally exhausting them and making them attack me, so then they would get the pleasure of being behind bars; or at least have to endure the hate they force onto so many others...
Hate speech does not really exist. What exists in some countries is speech that goes against the people in power and what they approve of. We may find it offensive but we are the ones taking offense. Heaven forbid we get that kind of crap here in the US.
I am not trying to limit what WBC can say. Just looking for reasonable limits on where they can say it. The same way we have reasonable limits on what sort of speech we can say in a city hall meeting room or a library, both of which are public places as well. Disturbing the Peace type of offenses.
This is how I see it. It befuddles me that the right of these "people" to protest hatefully at a funeral seems to trump the rights of those who are seeking to have that same funeral proceed peacefully and respectably.
What about disturbing the peace? Is a funeral not the ultimate peaceful, somber occasion? How can it be legal to verbally decimate such an occasion? Or what about disorderly conduct?
If they are required to stay away 100' or 200' ft, then that distance should be expanded to where they are too far away to be disruptive. Even if this law is for funerals only, find a way and get it done.
Even do so officially but informally, so to speak. Kind of like how we allow funeral proceedings to drive through red lights as a group in the name of respect. Don't recall having seen a law in the books allowing it, but everybody does it and it is considered the norm.
So should be the right of the police to remove or push back anyone who interferes with such services.
We have a law here in VT. Protest at a distance. Back to being reasonable let them do it. Give.them a permit and a spot let them get on TV.
Bill Bryant
10-06-10, 15:16
This thread confirms that John Adams knew what he was talking about when he wrote, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
RancidSumo
10-06-10, 15:25
Hate speech is quite frankly a bullshit term. There has been a lot of talk about "rights" of the grieving family but what exactly are these rights? All rights stem from the right to property, that is really the only right there is. The protesters have the right to free speech because they own their own bodies and can do whatever they like with it.
The families of the deceased rights are not being violated in any way because there is no such right as the "right to a peaceful funeral". Show me where in the Constitution or in any philosophical code that "right" exists.
Is what they are doing disgusting? Absolutely but so is a lot of other shit that goes on but is still allowable because no rights are being violated by the actions.
RancidSumo
10-06-10, 15:26
Also, the entire issue of where they can stand could be solved by moving away from the nonsense principle of "public property". If everything was privately owned, there would be no debate about this. Unfortunately we are a long way off from that.
Also, the entire issue of where they can stand could be solved by moving away from the nonsense principle of "public property". If everything was privately owned, there would be no debate about this. Unfortunately we are a long way off from that.
You want more free speech zones? :sarcastic: <--- I'm loving this guy.
CarlosDJackal
10-06-10, 16:28
Free speech, just like anything else, have its boundaries. As the old saying goes, "Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose". The problem is defining where the nose begins in a case like this.
IMHO, these morons (the Westboro pukes) are protesting against a policy or topic (gays in the military) at the cost of adding to the emotional burden of those who did not make the choice to bury a loved one who died at a far away place. It's not like they invited or sought after any publicity. And herein lies the very abrasive rub.
The Snyders and a lot of the other Americans who have had to bury their loved ones who died in uniform; have nothing to do with the policy. This is like protesting at some random citizen's home in Seattle for a policy that their Mayor has introduced. It just doesn't make any sense and bears no connection.
A funeral is a very private affair and should never be treated as something anyone uninvited can participate in, regardless of their intentions. While I don't think that this should be a criminal charge, I do feel that the Snyders and other families like them are more than entitled for financial compensation for the unwanted emotional burden that the Phelps and their goats have placed on them during their times of grief. JM2CW.
RancidSumo
10-06-10, 16:29
I want more places with a definable owner who can either say, "Yes you can protest here" or (preferably) "No, get the **** off my property you sick ****s." That way nobody could bitch about where they are standing because its private property and no one but the owner has any say in it.
Surely with the vast amount of absolutely retarded lawsuits that seem to collect millions, the good guys can find a way to bankrupt these people.
Actually, go after them asymmetrically. Get the local DA to start to investigate them for child abuse and endangerment. Yank their kids and put them in a foster home with gay Jews. IRS them to death. Screw with the zoning for their church. Boycott and picket anyplace that hires one of their members. RICO them for something.
Sadly it seems the people that (ab)use the system like this always know the system extremely well, and using it against them simply doesn't work. Anything targeted against them is likely to be met with a lawsuit where they collect attorney's fees, if not a judgment award.
Belmont31R
10-06-10, 17:12
Free speech, just like anything else, have its boundaries. As the old saying goes, "Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose". The problem is defining where the nose begins in a case like this.
IMHO, these morons (the Westboro pukes) are protesting against a policy or topic (gays in the military) at the cost of adding to the emotional burden of those who did not make the choice to bury a loved one who died at a far away place. It's not like they invited or sought after any publicity. And herein lies the very abrasive rub.
The Snyders and a lot of the other Americans who have had to bury their loved ones who died in uniform; have nothing to do with the policy. This is like protesting at some random citizen's home in Seattle for a policy that their Mayor has introduced. It just doesn't make any sense and bears no connection.
A funeral is a very private affair and should never be treated as something anyone uninvited can participate in, regardless of their intentions. While I don't think that this should be a criminal charge, I do feel that the Snyders and other families like them are more than entitled for financial compensation for the unwanted emotional burden that the Phelps and their goats have placed on them during their times of grief. JM2CW.
So what happens if someone drives by a shooting range and is frightened? Do they deserve compensation because someone exercising their rights had a negative reaction?
They are protesting from public property. Just because almost no one likes what what they are protesting about, and when doesn't mean we get to take that away. I don't like the precedent of limiting people's rights because we don't like their message. That gives the gov a tool that isn't always going to strike right or against the right people.
What happens when you or I are deemed not able to protest something because people don't like it?
The gov doesn't get to pick and choose who can exercise their rights. Otherwise we are no better than any other shit hole country in the world.
The gov doesn't get to pick and choose who can exercise their rights. Otherwise we are no better than any other shit hole country in the world.
and neither does the majority, gov-approved or not. the Constitution was written not only to protect us from the gov, but also from the "tyranny of the majority."
which, i'll remind everybody, is exactly why we're not a democracy. if you let the majority just roll around ****in shit up all over the place, we'd have a ban on whatever anybody could get everybody fired up over. guns would have been banned decades ago, reproduction would require a license, and everything even remotely dangerous, or even just a little bit scary, would be completely forbidden.
I would rather attend a Neo-Nazi drag queen Klan rally rather than allowing these Westboro nuts to harass and degrade the families and military service members who gave their lives.
I realize my view may be unpopular, but I see what they are doing as clearly protected political and religious speech, squarely at the heart of the First Amendment. The whole purpose of the First Amendment (and the Bill of Rights more broadly) is to protect the rights of the unpopular minority as against the whims of popular opinion.
I personally think that what the Westboro Baptist people do is deplorable, but then I also don't agree with quite a bit of constitutionally protected speech - Klan rallies, queer pride parades with giant jelly dong statues, and so on.
What was is that Voltaire said? ""I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
Moose-Knuckle
10-06-10, 18:45
I'll post what I posted on Yahoo. . .
The Westboro Baptist Church, NAMBLA, etc was not what the framers of the Bill of Rights had in mind when they wrote the 1st Amendment. People like that were hung in 1776, period.
People have perverted the Constitution into what ever they deem benevolent. Utterly disgusting.
I don't give a unicorn's queef what SCOTUS interprets; NO ONE has the right to harass the family of a fallen service member PERIOD!
This thread confirms that John Adams knew what he was talking about when he wrote, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
So true.
Westboro soldier funeral protests and the Ground Zero Mosque are examples of activities that probably are protected speech... but are completely inappropriate and would never be engaged in by any moral person with respect for their fellow man.
its the Law, and it's all we have. without it, we'd already be slaves to a ****ed up sadistic oligarchy, like the rest of the world. you could argue that we already are- but at least there's a pretense.
Moose-Knuckle
10-06-10, 19:25
without it, we'd already be slaves to a ****ed up sadistic oligarchy, like the rest of the world. you could argue that we already are- but at least there's a pretense.
Yes we are slaves and we are led to believe that SCOTUS is omnipotent in their ivory tower. They are in essence over educated idiots.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Okay I have read it dozens and dozens of times in my life but I wanted to read it again. I do not see a problem limiting or prohibiting protesting at a funeral. Where is it covered here in the above sentence?
Is it here?:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
Nope.
What about here?:
"or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;"
Nope let them say all they want, they have no need to be at the funeral let them say it some where else:
Here?:
"or the right of the people peaceably to assemble,"
Nope they are far from peaceful that is the issue were not talking about Gandhi here:
"and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Not here either they are attacking and harassing civillians not the government.
Yes we are slaves and we are led to believe that SCOTUS is omnipotent in their ivory tower. They are in essence over educated idiots.
the difference is that if you ask the average American how much "freedom" he has, his answer is going to be substantially more positive than the average englishman.
thinking you have power is still a damn sight better than thinking you don't. even if you really dont. people who think they have power still might have the drive to take the power. push might actually come to shove, someday.
Belmont31R
10-07-10, 10:42
I'll post what I posted on Yahoo. . .
AR15's, AK47's, etc was not what the framers of the Bill of Rights had in mind when they wrote the 2st Amendment. People like that were hung in 1776, period.
People have perverted the Constitution into what ever they deem benevolent. Utterly disgusting.
I don't give a unicorn's queef what SCOTUS interprets; NO ONE has the right to harass the family of a fallen service member PERIOD!
Fixed it for you to give the same excuse the anti's give in banning modern weapons.
When you're in public or earshot/eyesight of the public you don't have the right to not be offended.
If someone being offended is all thats needed to ban people from exercising their rights then we have nothing. Not you, me, our kids, the rest of the country, ect.
montanadave
10-07-10, 11:39
When the appeals court overturned the verdict in favor of Matthew Synder's father, their opinion quoted Felix Frankfurter (Supreme Court Associate Justice 1939-1962): “It is a fair summary of history to say that the safeguards of liberty have often been forged in controversies involving not very nice people.”
And, unfortunately, Phelps and his Westboro Baptist Church are the "not very nice people" making headlines today.
But the law that protects their right to speak today is the same one that protects my right to speak tomorrow.
Moose-Knuckle
10-07-10, 11:40
the difference is that if you ask the average American how much "freedom" he has, his answer is going to be substantially more positive than the average englishman.
thinking you have power is still a damn sight better than thinking you don't. even if you really dont. people who think they have power still might have the drive to take the power. push might actually come to shove, someday.
This might be good enough for the average American, but those who stay informed see through the malarkey.
Automatic rifles, nuclear weapons, gangs, and Mexican drug cartels were not on their minds when they wrote the 2nd Amendment.
See where this leads?
Automatic rifles were legal until the unconstitutional National Firearms Act of 1934. Atomic weaponery is not classfied as a FIREARM so there for the argument is inane. Mexican drug cartels, since when are Mexican citizens covered by the Bill of Rights?
The only place this leads into the perversion of our laws.
Fixed it for you to give the same excuse the anti's give in banning modern weapons.
When you're in public or earshot/eyesight of the public you don't have the right to not be offended.
If someone being offended is all thats needed to ban people from exercising their rights then we have nothing. Not you, me, our kids, the rest of the country, ect.
ARs, AKs, ect are considered by federal law as FIREARMS. So yes any FIREARM is coverd by the 2nd, period.
The day that this country allows anyone to show up at an 18 year old Marines funeral that was killed in the defense of this country and call him a fag for it is the day that this country no longer stands for which it was founded upon. You can talk all the talk you want all because something is "legal" does not make it right. This has nothing to do with someone's delicate sensibilities but it has everything to do with the identity of a nation.
CarlosDJackal
10-07-10, 11:56
So what happens if someone drives by a shooting range and is frightened? Do they deserve compensation because someone exercising their rights had a negative reaction?
They are protesting from public property. Just because almost no one likes what what they are protesting about, and when doesn't mean we get to take that away. I don't like the precedent of limiting people's rights because we don't like their message. That gives the gov a tool that isn't always going to strike right or against the right people.
What happens when you or I are deemed not able to protest something because people don't like it?
First of all, I'm not arguing against their right to protest. That should not even be an issue. But as with anything in life, their right to be so low should not be mandated or protected from the other private party's right to sue their asses. Basically, I am arguing for the affected family's right for compensation for the added emotional burden they experienced because of the misguided protest.
Otherwise what will prevent these same idiots and others like them from protesting against the use of Atomic Bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki should protest a World War II Vet's funeral? Is that really the proper exercise of free speech and if so; does it matter to a private citizen that they are exercising their right to free speech and Mr. Snyder is exercising his right to gain compensation for them ruining his son's funeral?
If these same scumbags came to protest my Father's (a WWII Vet) funeral back in 2004 in this same manner, I'd probably be in jail because I doubt it if they would consider burning the Westboro Baptist church down as protected speech!! :mad:
But that's JM2CW.
Is political protest equitable to speech designed to cause additional grief to those already grieving?
To me, I separate peaceful assembly outside a capital building holding anti-abortion signs from peaceful assembly outside a funeral holding "Thank God for Dead Soldier" signs. Many parts of the law are built upon intent, to my understanding, and it seems the intent in the two cases are different.
What was is that Voltaire said? ""I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
Yeah, and I've heard this said as well: Your right to be you, includes my right to be free from you.
These Westboro ****s may have a right to protest, but the grieving families have a right to not be subjected to their crap.
But the law that protects their right to speak today is the same one that protects my right to speak tomorrow.
Unless you're protesting say, the mosque at Ground Zero, the you get labled as an islamaphobe spewing hate speech. Unfortunately, in today's society, the rights of people like Phelps and his cronies are protected, but the rights of families at military funerals are not. Last time I checked funerals were private affairs, not public.
the difference is that if you ask the average American how much "freedom" he has, his answer is going to be substantially more positive than the average englishman.
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -von Goethe
Yeah, and I've heard this said as well: Your right to be you, includes my right to be free from you.
These Westboro ****s may have a right to protest, but the grieving families have a right to not be subjected to their crap.
you obviously didn't read the whole thread. you do NOT have a right to be free from MY rights if i'm on public property. "public property" means property owned by the public- property everyone has a right to. how do i not have any rights on public property because you're exercising your rights on private property close by?
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -von Goethe
true enough, and yet completely over-simplified bullshit.
if somebody thinks he's got the power to do something, he's always going to be a damn sight more likely to achieve it than somebody who doesn't even try.
Please tell us where you find this second "right."
If absolutely nothing else it is indeed a moral right, perhaps one surpassing any written anywhere.
true enough, and yet completely over-simplified bullshit.
if somebody thinks he's got the power to do something, he's always going to be a damn sight more likely to achieve it than somebody who doesn't even try.
There are two different issues at stake here...there is certainly a distinction between knowing (or not) that you are enslaved and knowing/believing that you can do something about it.
What about RPGs? Artillery? Naval vessles? Colonial artillery and warships were mostly owned privately.
The Second Amendment speaks of "arms" generally - a term broader than "small arms" or "firearms."
You're loosing credibility here. I'm pretty sure our Navy works better than a bunch of us having our own warships.
You're loosing credibility here. I'm pretty sure our Navy works better than a bunch of us having our own warships.
No, he's not. His point was that "arms" does not just apply to firearms (as Moose-Knuckle claimed), otherwise they would have used the word "firearms."
I'd also like to point out that every time we've been in all-out war with our Navy, we've ended up conscribing private vessels to assist our Navy (Revolutionary War, Civil War, WWI, WWII).
Whether you want to admit it or not, the 2nd amendment was written to allow the citizens to fight in wars, both foreign and domestic, when necessary. It was never about reasonable self defense; it's about the citizen being able to wage war whenever the need arises.
To suggest that we should have a fleet of personally owned Warships is ridiculous. When I flew off to the gulf war we were aboard civilian air lines, thankfully! I am sure the military used the air lines just like you suggest we've used civilian ships in the past. I would imagine those ships were recently what is known as our Merchant Marine. We also used ships to clean up after the oil spill in the gulf. I am all for that. The idea of personally owned nuclear weapons and war ships is foolish.
I don't know where it is right now but years ago I saved an article from the Dillon Blue Press it was a reprint of an article in American Rifleman from WWII. In the article it asked Americans to donate weapons (not sure about ammo cannot remember) to be used to arm the British Home Guard. That is a sad situation, one I do not believe we would have to worry about here in America. I think another quote from a Japanese Admiral summed it up well. There would be a rifle barrel behind every blade of grass.
Life is not black and white there is a lot of grey out there and again we need to use common sense and be reasonable.
Belmont31R
10-07-10, 14:18
ARs, AKs, ect are considered by federal law as FIREARMS. So yes any FIREARM is coverd by the 2nd, period.
The day that this country allows anyone to show up at an 18 year old Marines funeral that was killed in the defense of this country and call him a fag for it is the day that this country no longer stands for which it was founded upon. You can talk all the talk you want all because something is "legal" does not make it right. This has nothing to do with someone's delicate sensibilities but it has everything to do with the identity of a nation.
And free speech is covered by the first including flag burning.
Our identity as a nation is that we protect everyone's rights not just a class of people deemed worthy by the state. Leave that shit to other nations to restrict what people can say and where. That should not happen here even if its something vile. You really want the gov being the morality police and dictate who can say what where? You want to give them that power over us? If you do you should never bitch when that hammer has your name written on it. Let Obama and Holder tell you when you can exercise your rights?
Belmont31R
10-07-10, 14:19
Is political protest equitable to speech designed to cause additional grief to those already grieving?
To me, I separate peaceful assembly outside a capital building holding anti-abortion signs from peaceful assembly outside a funeral holding "Thank God for Dead Soldier" signs. Many parts of the law are built upon intent, to my understanding, and it seems the intent in the two cases are different.
And why do you want the gov to decide which is valid and which is not? The 1st doesn't say anything about content or location.
To suggest that we should have a fleet of personally owned Warships is ridiculous.
If I could afford it I would.
Belmont31R
10-07-10, 14:20
If absolutely nothing else it is indeed a moral right, perhaps one surpassing any written anywhere.
You don't have the right to not be offended. This has been covered by SCOTUS in the past.
Belmont31R
10-07-10, 14:22
You're loosing credibility here. I'm pretty sure our Navy works better than a bunch of us having our own warships.
Were is the key word.
We had a navy but many of the private shipping companies had their own protection.
kaiservontexas
10-07-10, 14:55
How expensive is a thermonuclear bomb? Getting a production facility is going to be a pain, especially with the EPA and DOE involved. Then there is the delivery system, and maintaining the entire set up, which is horribly expensive. I guess Bill Gates could afford one or two in the end.
A super carrier? Well once again the person would have to be a mega-billionaire to afford it, which is excluding arming it. What is it 27 mil there abouts a pop for a F-18A? Then there are the cost of fuel, ammunition, and munitions for the F-18A, and factored in pilot training which is about 1 mil? I doubt they could do more then commission the carrier to be built.
Now tanks and all would be within easy reach of the very well off and moderately rich.
Everybody else could afford a M16/whatever you wish rifle no problem. I am willing to bet though that gernades are not cheap. Probably cheap enough for the middle class to own a few.
I would not be worried about privately owned SS-27 ICBMs on mobile launchers, nor ships, tanks, planes, stinger missiles, anti-air, or artilery being in private hands even if there were no laws standing in the way. Economics alone is prohibitive enough as not all people in the U.S. own AR-15 rifles due to only being able to afford the passed down .30-30 handed to them.
As for this church . . . what is good for the goose is good for the gander. Why not protest them every Sunday and Wednesday night? Stand outside on the street and shut them down through noise. I am thinking in a fashion similar to the bikers did in that Pasadena neighborhood over here in HTX when Quanal(sp?) X shoulded up to harrass Mr. Horn. Makes more sense then crushing the freedom of the people.
Battleships and nuclear weapons are obviously extreme examples, but one man's "common sense" and "reasonable" is another man's "ridiculous" and "unreasonable."
What about mortars? RPGs? An M2? An M240? MANPADS?
There's an awful lot of grey between musket and atom bomb.
I'm sure you could find an M2, I've never looked. I've eyed M60's and M16's but I can not afford to do more than look.
MANPADS? Nope, you can cross that off the list of what I think is acceptable along with RPG's and Mortars.
If necessary I will use my M4 to collect some RPG's from the Russians AKA Red Dawn Style.
Life is not black and white there is a lot of grey out there and again we need to use common sense and be reasonable.
The Constitution IS black and white. As I posted earlier this week, the word "arms" as used in the 2nd amendment has a specific meaning. It does not encompass things like nukes, large bombs, etc, but it DOES cover virtually all firearms, bows, swords, and most single-person operated weaponry.
There are several books that cover what "arms" means and how it was used in context with the writing of the 2nd amendment. Anything that fit the definition of arms should be legal, without regard to reason or common sense. To limit it due to "reason" is a VERY slippery slope.
as kaiser indicated above, laws do not prohibit arms ownership- as we already know. do you think that anybody who has the ability to own a thermonuclear device is going to give a rats ass if there's a law against it? besides- we already have individuals privately owning many of these things- you think dictators don't "own" everything in their country?
You don't have the right to not be offended. This has been covered by SCOTUS in the past.
Of course, but morally one does have the right not to be harassed, disparaged and otherwise verbally assaulted during a loved one's funeral. Or any other funeral for that matter. As a civilized society we often and wisely accommodate for such fundamental human needs.
And please keep in mind, the very foundation of the Constitution was built on morality and fairness. Shockingly, these concepts have been acknowledged before and many in fact have been made law.
Of course, but morally one does have the right not to be harassed, disparaged and otherwise verbally assaulted during a loved one's funeral. Or any other funeral for that matter. As a civilized society we often and wisely accommodate for such fundamental human needs.
And please keep in mind, the very foundation of the Constitution was built on morality and fairness. Shockingly, these concepts have been acknowledged before and many in fact have been made law.
you think lying should be illegal? it's immoral. you think paying people less than you'd be willing to pay them should be illegal? it's immoral. you think failing to disclose an oil leak on a truck your selling should be illegal? that's immoral. you think gambling should be illegal? immoral. you think getting drunk should be illegal? immoral. homosexuality illegal? immoral. etc, etc, etc. you think anything that's immoral should be illegal?
that's not how this country operates- and when you subject law to "morality" you end up with some pretty difficult to define lines- since everyone's ideal of morality is different.
Belmont31R
10-07-10, 15:58
Of course, but morally one does have the right not to be harassed, disparaged and otherwise verbally assaulted during a loved one's funeral. Or any other funeral for that matter. As a civilized society we often and wisely accommodate for such fundamental human needs.
And please keep in mind, the very foundation of the Constitution was built on morality and fairness. Shockingly, these concepts have been acknowledged before and many in fact have been made law.
Already been decided in court, and this doesn't fall under any unprotected speech.
Totally off topic I know, but one form of speech is no longer free. Political. Seems the 1A no longer applies for real in the US.
FromMyColdDeadHand
10-07-10, 17:02
I go away for a few hours and you guys have Bill Gates owning a Supercarrier?
The U$$ Bill Gates would suck, you'd have to reboot it in the middle of flight ops all the time or reboot in the morning to do updates.
Can we just go back to evil, ironic things that could happen to these 'Baptists'?
Were is the key word.
We had a navy but many of the private shipping companies had their own protection.
You lost me with "Where is the key word" I am not tracking on that one?
Thanks
The Constitution IS black and white. As I posted earlier this week, the word "arms" as used in the 2nd amendment has a specific meaning. It does not encompass things like nukes, large bombs, etc, but it DOES cover virtually all firearms, bows, swords, and most single-person operated weaponry.
There are several books that cover what "arms" means and how it was used in context with the writing of the 2nd amendment. Anything that fit the definition of arms should be legal, without regard to reason or common sense. To limit it due to "reason" is a VERY slippery slope.
I agree with you about the definition of arms. There fact that there are several books covering the definition of arms shows how grey things actually are.
If things are so clear why is the court even taking up the issue?
Ok. Why is a belt-fed .50 cal or an M60 acceptable, but a RPG isn't? Why do you draw that line? Is there some historical or constitutional reason why one is a protected arm and the other isn't, or is that just a pure subjective "feeling" on your part?
For me it was personal. The idea of Stinger Missiles in private hands is too much for me. I believe a person has the right to defend themselves, their family and their country. The massive damage missiles, mortars and artillery cause just makes me uncomfortable. Part of my answer was also because I know folks can own, M2’s, M60’s and M16’s.
What is the current cut off for weapons? Is it size? Is .50 the biggest? I know DD’s are legal. I've wanted an M203 for years but just do not have the coin for one.
Belmont31R
10-07-10, 17:43
You lost me with "Where is the key word" I am not tracking on that one?
Thanks
"Were" as in past tense.
Thank Belmont.
I've been reading most of this on my phone and the tiny screen does not always make things easy to read.
I agree with you about the definition of arms. There fact that there are several books covering the definition of arms shows how grey things actually are.
If things are so clear why is the court even taking up the issue?
For me it was personal. The idea of Stinger Missiles in private hands is too much for me. I believe a person has the right to defend themselves, their family and their country. The massive damage missiles, mortars and artillery cause just makes me uncomfortable. Part of my answer was also because I know folks can own, M2’s, M60’s and M16’s.
What is the current cut off for weapons? Is it size? Is .50 the biggest? I know DD’s are legal. I've wanted an M203 for years but just do not have the coin for one.
.50 cal is the cutoff to be a DD...
I agree that we don't need court rulings and/or legislation around this particular issue (the Westboro loonies). All we need is a DA who won't prosecute when someone does what really needs doing. Frankly, I'm surprised and a bit disappointed it hasn't happened already.
Belmont31R
10-07-10, 20:20
I agree that we don't need court rulings and/or legislation around this particular issue (the Westboro loonies). All we need is a DA who won't prosecute when someone does what really needs doing. Frankly, I'm surprised and a bit disappointed it hasn't happened already.
What people haven't figured out yet is these people are looking for someone to do something illegal against them, and then since they are a family of lawyers will sue them for damages.
Has nothing to do with gays or the military. Thats just what they picked to get the most negative response they could, and are just looking for someone to do something stupid to hit pay dirt.
If people would stop giving them attention and threatening to do something stupid they would melt away, and find a new money making scheme. Just like that guy who pepper sprayed them. They can sue for damages now because of what that guy did.
What people haven't figured out yet is these people are looking for someone to do something illegal against them, and then since they are a family of lawyers will sue them for damages.
Has nothing to do with gays or the military. Thats just what they picked to get the most negative response they could, and are just looking for someone to do something stupid to hit pay dirt.
If people would stop giving them attention and threatening to do something stupid they would melt away, and find a new money making scheme. Just like that guy who pepper sprayed them. They can sue for damages now because of what that guy did.
yes, this is their goal. Too bad most people don't realize it
I agree. Unfortunately my NAZI powers won't let me clamp down on the media to stop them. :p
What people haven't figured out yet is these people are looking for someone to do something illegal against them, and then since they are a family of lawyers will sue them for damages.
Has nothing to do with gays or the military. Thats just what they picked to get the most negative response they could, and are just looking for someone to do something stupid to hit pay dirt.
If people would stop giving them attention and threatening to do something stupid they would melt away, and find a new money making scheme. Just like that guy who pepper sprayed them. They can sue for damages now because of what that guy did.
Moose-Knuckle
10-07-10, 20:48
A young soldier who was killed in Iraq had his funeral services in the city in which I’m employed by. We found out that members of the Westboro congregation were flying in to protest his funeral. My department has a crowd control unit which I happen to be on so needless to say we were deployed. A lot of the citizens were amazed to find out that we were there to protect the Westboro protesters and not the family. The soldier’s parents were approached by the Freedom Riders and asked if they wanted their support at their son’s service. The parents respectfully declined the Freedom Riders as they did not want to make their son’s service a bigger circus than it already was. Fortunately the church where the service was held had ample land and a huge parking lot separating the sanctuary and the public street where the “protests” can legally take place. We watched videos during the briefing of past Westboro “protests” where they were attacked by the crowd and even had the windows to their mini-vans smashed out as they left the site rather quickly. Luckily for us that day only a few cars stopped to cuss out the protesters. The one gentleman who actually stopped his car and got out of it to approach the protesters was a Vietnam Army veteran and had some of his own exercising of the 1st Amendment. :D
I have had actual dealings with these people. I have had to protect their 1st Amendment right first hand. I performed my duty that day as others, many of which are veterans some recently back from deployments.
Would we be having this discussion if it were the Civil War, or how about WWII? The Bill of Rights was the same then as it is today. What is different is that the moral compass of our country has gone tits up.
Moose,
We've become soft as a nation and more concerned about protecting the wrong people. We also would not be listening to whining about terrorists rights we would have a trial and hang or shoot the ones convicted.
I imagine 60-150 years ago things would have been over before they began.
GermanSynergy
10-08-10, 00:12
I agree 100%, sir.
Here's an idea- why not turn the 1A around on the WBC and have a 24/7/365 presence outside of their church, protesting them?
Moose,
We've become soft as a nation and more concerned about protecting the wrong people. We also would not be listening to whining about terrorists rights we would have a trial and hang or shoot the ones convicted.
I imagine 60-150 years ago things would have been over before they began.
ChicagoTex
10-08-10, 00:30
Here's an idea- why not turn the 1A around on the WBC and have a 24/7/365 presence outside of their church, protesting them?
Because, unlike them, we have real lives. :cool:
You're right about that (on many levels) but the solution isn't more government intervention. Quite the opposite, actually.
It's sort of the same problem with "bullying" and kids hanging themselves over it, or shooting up schools because the rage builds up inside them. They can't do anything because the penalties for fighting back are so draconian now. Back in the good old days these things never happened, and people like the Westboro Dipshit Brigade would be tarred and feathered, because the law looked the other way when the bully got what he had coming. When a bully finally got his nose broken because he picked on the wrong person one too many times, the kid who socked him went on his merry way, or at worst got sent home for the day. Everybody, including the school admins, knew he had it coming. And the result was that people were more polite. Now that kid would be expelled, branded as "violent," have a juvenile record, and not be able to get into a good college all because he did the right thing.
Creating laws that restrict the First Amendment, or any other fundamental right, because of one group of shitheads is still the worst possible way to make policy. The problem is that it's easier to do that than it is to change the entire structure of our system and attitudes for the last 30+ years so we can look the other way when they get what they deserve.
Superb post, sir. Very well said.
What people haven't figured out yet is these people are looking for someone to do something illegal against them, and then since they are a family of lawyers will sue them for damages.
Has nothing to do with gays or the military. Thats just what they picked to get the most negative response they could, and are just looking for someone to do something stupid to hit pay dirt.
If people would stop giving them attention and threatening to do something stupid they would melt away, and find a new money making scheme. Just like that guy who pepper sprayed them. They can sue for damages now because of what that guy did.
yes, this is their goal. Too bad most people don't realize it
"Something stupid", eh? If people weren't so pussified that they let fear of a lawsuit prevent them from doing what's right, maybe we wouldn't have to worry about shitheads like Westboro doing what they do.
Belmont31R
10-08-10, 13:30
"Something stupid", eh? If people weren't so pussified that they let fear of a lawsuit prevent them from doing what's right, maybe we wouldn't have to worry about shitheads like Westboro doing what they do.
So when are you going to step up and do whats right?
You gotta decide if the settlement that is levied against you by the court after this family of lawyers sues you is worth it?
And that will just embolden them to stand out there again with their signs waiting for the next chump comes along that does something stupid so they can sue them.
So when are you going to step up and do whats right?
If it were my family member, brother believe me, you'd be reading about it.
Belmont31R
10-08-10, 14:16
If it were my family member, brother believe me, you'd be reading about it.
And then you would end up getting sued, thrown in jail, and lead them to protest more funerals in hopes of getting another paycheck.
Or we could just ignore them, and don't feed into their scheme. Then they'd find something else to try and make money at.
This was front page of stars and stripes this week. There were two editorials as well. But we won't hear the results until sometime next year! That was disappointing for me.
And then you would end up getting sued, thrown in jail...
Some things are worth it.
You're right about that (on many levels) but the solution isn't more government intervention. Quite the opposite, actually.
It's sort of the same problem with "bullying" and kids hanging themselves over it, or shooting up schools because the rage builds up inside them. They can't do anything because the penalties for fighting back are so draconian now. Back in the good old days these things never happened, and people like the Westboro Dipshit Brigade would be tarred and feathered, because the law looked the other way when the bully got what he had coming. When a bully finally got his nose broken because he picked on the wrong person one too many times, the kid who socked him went on his merry way, or at worst got sent home for the day. Everybody, including the school admins, knew he had it coming. And the result was that people were more polite. Now that kid would be expelled, branded as "violent," have a juvenile record, and not be able to get into a good college all because he did the right thing.
Creating laws that restrict the First Amendment, or any other fundamental right, because of one group of shitheads is still the worst possible way to make policy. The problem is that it's easier to do that than it is to change the entire structure of our system and attitudes for the last 30+ years so we can look the other way when they get what they deserve.
Very good post. You put into words what many believe but may have not had the chance to or be able to articulate themselves.
these westboro fags are really doing us gun people a great service. it stands are proof that gun-owners are 99.999999999999% non-wacko.
think about it for half a second.. with alllll the people in this country- 300,000,000 or so- not a single one is the right mix of ballsy/unstable enough to set up wind somewhere and snipe shots at these assholes? an excusable act, many would say- and yet nobody has/probably will never do it? the simple fact that these dirtbags still live is proof enough that there are far, far, far, far, far fewer "wackos with guns" than the left would ever want you to believe.
it's probably funny, but i'm dead serious.
bkb
I agree most gun folks are good people. I just met one at the range this afternoon testing a lower that came back from being repaired. He and I were on the opposite end of what we are interested in but we had a good conversation. He told me he reloads for his trap guns and buys about A TON of lead shot a year. I asked him if he really meant a ton as in 2,000 #’s, he did. That is a lot of shooting!
I agree 100%, sir.
Here's an idea- why not turn the 1A around on the WBC and have a 24/7/365 presence outside of their church, protesting them?
It would be nice to see them get a healthy dose of their own medicine.
Find me a bus and some "clean" plates. I'll also need an alibi.
I just wanted to make clear that, despite my vigorous defense of their First Amendment rights, I'd be the first one to look the other way if they got "accidentally" run over by a bus.
SeriousStudent
10-08-10, 22:32
....... I'll also need an alibi.
You were at my place all day, eating smoked beef brisket and discussing BBQ guns with 12 witnesses. Half of whom will be cops, the other half defense attorneys.
I have a stack of plates at the office.
:D
SeriousStudent
10-08-10, 23:30
So all we need is a bus, and we can put this thing to bed.
Preferably an old Jay Bird bus. Do they still use those on base? A Veteran bus!
Sounds good. Where is their next protest scheduled? :laugh:
You were at my place all day, eating smoked beef brisket and discussing BBQ guns with 12 witnesses. Half of whom will be cops, the other half defense attorneys.
FromMyColdDeadHand
10-09-10, 01:58
You're right about that (on many levels) but the solution isn't more government intervention. Quite the opposite, actually.
It's sort of the same problem with "bullying" and kids hanging themselves over it, or shooting up schools because the rage builds up inside them. They can't do anything because the penalties for fighting back are so draconian now. Back in the good old days these things never happened, and people like the Westboro Dipshit Brigade would be tarred and feathered, because the law looked the other way when the bully got what he had coming. When a bully finally got his nose broken because he picked on the wrong person one too many times, the kid who socked him went on his merry way, or at worst got sent home for the day. Everybody, including the school admins, knew he had it coming. And the result was that people were more polite. Now that kid would be expelled, branded as "violent," have a juvenile record, and not be able to get into a good college all because he did the right thing.
Creating laws that restrict the First Amendment, or any other fundamental right, because of one group of shitheads is still the worst possible way to make policy. The problem is that it's easier to do that than it is to change the entire structure of our system and attitudes for the last 30+ years so we can look the other way when they get what they deserve.
I've often wondered why there are so many more stalkers, perverts, rapist, and child abusers now then there were 60-70 years ago. Maybe it is society and we produce more trash, but I also wonder if some of these people where either commited more easily, or literally dealt with severly and no one ever talked about it.
When I joined a fraternity in college I let the biggest hazer know the first night that I wasn't going to be intimidated. He ended up being my big brother and I was golden my whole pledgeship, no one would mess with me.
I just wanted to make clear that, despite my vigorous defense of their First Amendment rights, I'd be the first one to look the other way if they got "accidentally" run over by a bus.
Snow plow, sharp blade, diagnosed narcoleptic driver..... sheeesh, how many times do we have to go over this.
these westboro fags are really doing us gun people a great service. it stands are proof that gun-owners are 99.999999999999% non-wacko.
think about it for half a second.. with alllll the people in this country- 300,000,000 or so- not a single one is the right mix of ballsy/unstable enough to set up wind somewhere and snipe shots at these assholes? an excusable act, many would say- and yet nobody has/probably will never do it? the simple fact that these dirtbags still live is proof enough that there are far, far, far, far, far fewer "wackos with guns" than the left would ever want you to believe.
it's probably funny, but i'm dead serious.
Logic that you won't see reported on the MSM.
Bringing back an old thread, but I saw this story and thought it was a pretty good idea, non-violent, not really confrontational, but effective.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/11/07/residents-missouri-town-block-protesters-picketing-soldiers-funeral/?cmpid=prn_baynote-js_Residents_of_Missouri_Town_Block_Protesters_From_Picketing_Soldiers_Funeral__
EJ
Thanks for sharing that info. I wish I could have gone and double parked to help out.
Bumping this thread after just hearing on CNN that Westboro is planning on protesting at the fureral of Elizabeth Edwards.
William B.
12-09-10, 21:36
Bringing back an old thread, but I saw this story and thought it was a pretty good idea, non-violent, not really confrontational, but effective.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/11/07/residents-missouri-town-block-protesters-picketing-soldiers-funeral/?cmpid=prn_baynote-js_Residents_of_Missouri_Town_Block_Protesters_From_Picketing_Soldiers_Funeral__
That's great! My wife was telling me about that story the other day. That is exactly how we should handle morons like that. We don't need to get the government involved.
That's great! My wife was telling me about that story the other day. That is exactly how we should handle morons like that. We don't need to get the government involved.
While it's nothing like what most of us would LIKE to do to them, or what they deserve, it is legally allowed. One of the better solutions I've heard when discussing them.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.