Westboro Baptist Church and other Radicals: Enough is enough?

[JQwerty91]

[Rant] We all know our First Amendment rights; the freedom of speech. However they're those who would abuse their rights to promote hate and ideas that would leave a negative impact (or worse death). Here are some examples revolved our current time:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6UMP3AK5jwo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpGRBu7mzrg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IN5StQAr7n0&feature=related

Let's not forget, it can take one radical minded person from anywhere to perform an inception to inspire a hate war (i.e Hitler, Hussein). I hope our leaders can do something within a moderate view to curve hate speeches. [/Rant]

 

[mcatdtDROID]

abuse your right of freedom of religion?
abuse your right to a speedy trial?
abuse your right to not be a slave?


So how is it you can abuse a right of free speech? not possible. We may not like what they say, but we don't have to listen, either.

 

[Vihzel]

So how is it you can abuse a right of free speech? not possible. We may not like what they say, but we don't have to listen, either.

There is no such thing as true free speech. If there was, then you could hide behind everything that you say. There are consequences.

 

[mcatdtDROID]

I didn't say they didn't have responsibilities with free speech, or any right. For every right, you have a duty associated with it. You have the right to vote, but you have the duty to be educated and not get a felony. you have the right to bear arms, but the duty to learn how to handle them through required education courses.

You can't yell fire in a crowded theatre and claim free speech. But like it or not, Westboro Baptist is a Civics 101 lesson plan. They are extreme, they are fanatics, and if they showed up at my son's funeral protesting like they did that marine, I don't know what I would do but since suing them doesn't work, I would have no problem spending the night in jail by punching a bish in the face. However, they educate themselves on the law, where that line is, and they go RIGHT UP TO THAT LINE, but make sure they don't cross it. That is the duty associated with free speech.

Freedom of speech protects ALL speech, not just popular speech.

 

[cjr72]

RealClearPolitics - When Thought Becomes a Crime

 

[byteware]

abuse your right of freedom of religion?
abuse your right to a speedy trial?
abuse your right to not be a slave?


So how is it you can abuse a right of free speech? not possible. We may not like what they say, but we don't have to listen, either.

I don't like the term "Abuse the right to....".

However, there are limits to an individual's rights.

Your rights usually end when they infringe the rights of someone else.

The real question here is, were the mourners' rights violated by their free speech.

If the Supreme Court rules that we have a right to privacy when burying our loved ones, then that is definitely a limit to their freedom of speech.

I don't know how the Supreme Court is going to rule, but it is possible that it could go either way.

 

[mcatdtDROID]

well, remember, they protested when there was no Constitutional right to bury your loved ones.... It may indeed change something, but you can't argue that they followed the letter of the law WHEN they protested.

I do agree with the limits statement. You have the right to protest an abortion clinic, but you don't have the right to restrict access to it. So as long as you stay back the designated distance, you are good.

Westboro Baptist was given rules they had to follow in order to protest the funeral, and they followed them to the letter of the law.

 

[byteware]

well, remember, they protested when there was no Constitutional right to bury your loved ones.... It may indeed change something, but you can't argue that they followed the letter of the law WHEN they protested.

If the Supreme Court determines that there is a Constitutional Right to Privacy, then that right will have ALWAYS existed legally, and they will be liable for violating it.

 

[mcatdtDROID]

see, while I'm not saying you're wrong and they could interpret it that way, I do have a problem with that. you can't go changing the rules after the fact in order to retroactively punish someone you don't like. It's like holding my estate financially liable now for holding slaves back in the 1850's because it slavery was ruled unconstitutional. If my estate held slaves AFTER the 13th amendment, then yes, but holding it liable because they held slaves PRIOR to the 13th amendment is wrong.

 

[byteware]

see, while I'm not saying you're wrong and they could interpret it that way, I do have a problem with that. you can't go changing the rules after the fact in order to retroactively punish someone you don't like.

That's not quite what happens in these cases.

This is a case of whose right to what trumps whose. If the mourners right to privately mourn their loved one trumps the Westboro protesters right to speech, then it just does. It didn't start with the Supreme Court decision. It just does.

If the Supreme Court rules that way, then it's because the mourners have that right, and it WAS violated by the Westboro group.

It's like holding my estate financially liable now for holding slaves back in the 1850's because it slavery was ruled unconstitutional.

The difference is, the 13th amendment CHANGED what was and was not constitutional.

The Supreme Court ruling would determine what IS or IS NOT constitutional.

The Supreme Court isn't changing anything, it's just determining what IS.

 

[tommy_ed]

and we have yet another case of:

Legal... but damnnnn thats f***ed up!!!!

I first discovered the phelps family a couple years ago and watched a documentary on them. Someone should exterminate that whole family. Sorry for being extreme, like mcatDROID said above, I would spend a night in jail to give them a well deserved beating

 

[mcatdtDROID]

That's not quite what happens in these cases.

This is a case of whose right to what trumps whose. If the mourners right to privately mourn their loved one trumps the Westboro protesters right to speech, then it just does. It didn't start with the Supreme Court decision. It just does.

If the Supreme Court rules that way, then it's because the mourners have that right, and it WAS violated by the Westboro group.



The difference is, the 13th amendment CHANGED what was and was not constitutional.

The Supreme Court ruling would determine what IS or IS NOT constitutional.

The Supreme Court isn't changing anything, it's just determining what IS.

I understood... I still don't like the precedent it sets.

Technically, did they prevent them from burying the kid? to me, it's no different than protesting an abortion clinic. Yell all you want at me, but don't block me from doing what I have to do....

That's where the line comes in to play. IDK what it is right now, but I could see the SC bumping that line back farther away.... but to say they can't protest shouldn't be done



Dead soldier is mocked at funeral as punishment from God for gays in America..... that's not so popular.

Soldier who killed those at the military base last summer is mocked at his (eventual) funeral...... that's a little more popular.


is one more right than the other?

Had anyone protested Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold's funerals, would there have been this outrage? That's what you have to ask yourself. Does the popularity of the cause make it more or less constitutionanal?

 

[LickTheEnvelope]

I do find it interesting the types of "gods" people will worship. I'm not religious, but if I was I would tend to steer clear of the gods that are as vengeful as some make them out to be.

I still find this amusing:

 

[Bob Maxey]

[Rant] We all know our First Amendment rights; the freedom of speech. However they're those who would abuse their rights to promote hate and ideas that would leave a negative impact (or worse death). Here are some examples revolved our current time:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6UMP3AK5jwo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpGRBu7mzrg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IN5StQAr7n0&feature=related

Let's not forget, it can take one radical minded person from anywhere to perform an inception to inspire a hate war (i.e Hitler, Hussein). I hope our leaders can do something within a moderate view to curve hate speeches. [/Rant]

The examples above are exactly the kind of hate we do not need in this country because it is deplorable and uncalled for.

It is also exactly the kind of speech that needs protecting. God help us if some entity is allowed to start dictating what we can and cannot say. The most egregious speech must be protected. Well, within certain limits. Threatening to kill a leader must not be tolerated.

Bob Maxey

 

[Josh2]

The Westboro Baptist Church is coming to my school friday. It is going to be interesting to see how students react to them.

 

[dark4181]

The Westboro Baptist Church is coming to my school friday. It is going to be interesting to see how students react to them.

Pack some tomatoes

 

[gvillager]

"God Hates ***s!" Ok, fine, whatever... I'm gay and an atheist so if there is a God I'm surely going to hell. But so will those who lie, cheat, and steal. Sin is sin so why are they singling out the "***s?" I want to see some "God Hates Sinners" signs!

 

[mcatdtDROID]

The Westboro Baptist Church is coming to my school friday. It is going to be interesting to see how students react to them.

HOW would ANY school think it's a good idea to have them visit your school. Please expand on your statement.

Also, please please PLEASE post an update to this

 

[Josh2]

They are protesting my school because the kids who go their are sinners I guess? They will be picketing on grounds because it is a public place from 7 am to 7:40 am. Right when every kid is getting there. It was on the news for days, but there is nothing anyone can do about it. It's not illegal.

 

[mcatdtDROID]

this friday huh? I'll definately pay attention for it.

The only advice I can say is just don't get sucked into the battle. If you feed the fires, they win. It's like feeding an online troll. The best thing your school could do is just not even acknowledge their presence. That won't happen because some kid will get sucked into a verbal exchange because they want to be that kid "that told them" type thing.

do post updates though

 

[byteware]

I understood... I still don't like the precedent it sets.

Technically, did they prevent them from burying the kid? to me, it's no different than protesting an abortion clinic. Yell all you want at me, but don't block me from doing what I have to do....

That's not the right we are discussing. We are discussing the right to privacy when burying someone. If they violated that right, then they violated that right (if it exists). If they did violate that right, then the judgments against them stand, and they will be sued for EVERY incident that they have ever made.

That's where the line comes in to play. IDK what it is right now, but I could see the SC bumping that line back farther away.... but to say they can't protest shouldn't be done

I disagree. I think a right to privacy should be established when it comes to burials. That's my personal opinion. I wonder if the Supreme Court will agree with me.

Dead soldier is mocked at funeral as punishment from God for gays in America..... that's not so popular.

Soldier who killed those at the military base last summer is mocked at his (eventual) funeral...... that's a little more popular.

Rights apply across the board. You already know that though.

Had anyone protested Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold's funerals, would there have been this outrage? That's what you have to ask yourself. Does the popularity of the cause make it more or less constitutionanal?

Had anyone murdered them before they entered the school, would there have been outrage?

Just because something is popular, doesn't make it right. Not right morally, or legally.

 

[byteware]

They are protesting my school because the kids who go their are sinners I guess? They will be picketing on grounds because it is a public place from 7 am to 7:40 am. Right when every kid is getting there. It was on the news for days, but there is nothing anyone can do about it. It's not illegal.

Have the guys go out and hit on the girls, and the girls go out (provocatively) hit on the guys. Wear low cut and VERY inappropriate clothes. See how they react.

Try to have the girls discuss with the male protestors, off a little bit from the group. Like they are flirting.

Offer them cigarettes and offer to help them sin.

Just surround them and engage them.

TEMPT them, but don't ARGUE with them. SEE if they come back again.

 

[mcatdtDROID]

That's not the right we are discussing. We are discussing the right to privacy when burying someone. If they violated that right, then they violated that right (if it exists). If they did violate that right, then the judgments against them stand, and they will be sued for EVERY incident that they have ever made.



I disagree. I think a right to privacy should be established when it comes to burials. That's my personal opinion. I wonder if the Supreme Court will agree with me.



Rights apply across the board. You already know that though.



Had anyone murdered them before they entered the school, would there have been outrage?

Just because something is popular, doesn't make it right. Not right morally, or legally.

They have prvacy though.... they weren't on private property...they didn't block ebtrance, they didn't crash the wake or spit on the bady laying in state, they protested. There has to be an established line the protestors can't cross, I agree, but on the flip side of that coin, there has to be an acceptable place allowed to protest it.

 

[byteware]

They have prvacy though.... they weren't on private property...they didn't block ebtrance, they didn't crash the wake or spit on the bady laying in state, they protested.

The extreme emotional distress of people burying their loved ones may very well mean that protesting is enough to violate their rights in this situation.

There has to be an established line the protestors can't cross, I agree, but on the flip side of that coin, there has to be an acceptable place allowed to protest it.

No they don't. They don't have to have an acceptable place to protest a funeral.

They are able to protest, but just as I think it should be illegal for them to park outside birthing rooms and shout that the mothers are giving birth to antichrists, I feel it should be illegal to protest funerals.

I believe that it violates the rights of those participating in those events.

 

[mcatdtDROID]

but where would you draw the line of how far back they have to be. It's a slippery slope. If you say they can't protest a funeral, does that mean, on site, in the state, what about on the internet? Am I not allowed to protest a funeral, the day of the funeral, on a website, from xx number of states away?

I also don't think they should be outside birthing rooms either, but that's private property. But they do have a right to protest OUTSIDE the hospital, on public property. People protested Octamom having more kids when she was on govt assistance already.... do those protesters also have rules put on them saying they aren't allowed to protest her on public grounds?

To me, the KKK deserves just as much protection as the ACLU, as the NAACP as much as westboro baptist, as much as Thomas Paine handing out pamphlets. And so long as they follow the established guidelines in peaceful assembly (that just means non-violent, not agreeable assembly), then let the KKK march

"you aren't allowed to say anything unpopular or speak against xxx during this set time or you'll be arrested" - you seem ok with that rule during a funeral, what about during Obama's next campaign rally. "you aren't allowed to say anything unpopular or speak against Obama during election time"


I still feel if Westbor baptist was protesting a baby-killing soldier's funeral, noone would be giving a rat's patoot about what happened at the funeral. I can't change your opinion on the matter, but I can definately ask you to self - reflect a little and see if you're being hypocritical or not