A quarter million people petition for the Westboro Baptist Church to be reclassified as a hate group

[Twilight_guy]

I doubt if this is going to do anything. It would need over a million signings to get noticed and it would need even more support then that to pass since it deals with first amendment considerations since its religion.

 

[Abomination]

The United States can't do that, though. Singling out a single group would absolutely be considered an infringement of their rights to any judge worth their weight in salt.

You can't just make legislation saying, "Yeah, just ignore the rights of these people specifically, that's okay." That's the whole reason we have a Constitution to begin with, because if we allowed this, there would be nothing preventing other people from having their rights taken away by an oppressive leadership.

Good thing that's not what is being proposed, then, isn't it?

What is being proposed is removing their status as a church and rebranding them as a hate group. This would still allow them to say whatever they want, but without the tax-exemption status of a church.

And everyone knows the -real- way to hurt someone isn't through words, but money.

 

[Wolf In A Bear Suit]

You have a right to free speech and a responsibility to face the consequences for what you say, that's my opinion. Hate speech and discrimination have no place these days. Picketing funerals is a huge disrespect and this group's behavior sickens me. Thank god I'll never come into contact with this shower of shits.

 

[chadachada123]

The United States can't do that, though. Singling out a single group would absolutely be considered an infringement of their rights to any judge worth their weight in salt.

You can't just make legislation saying, "Yeah, just ignore the rights of these people specifically, that's okay." That's the whole reason we have a Constitution to begin with, because if we allowed this, there would be nothing preventing other people from having their rights taken away by an oppressive leadership.

Good thing that's not what is being proposed, then, isn't it?

What is being proposed is removing their status as a church and rebranding them as a hate group. This would still allow them to say whatever they want, but without the tax-exemption status of a church.

I don't think any church or religion should be tax-exempt to begin with, given how arbitrary our definition of a "religion" is. But still, to have the Feds take away their tax exempt status and no one elses, despite the fact that they're one of the only religions that actually follow what they preach, would, again, be discriminatory. If anything, their existence and the fact that they are following the same tax codes as any other church is reasoning against tax exemption of religions, since it has massive, uncorrectable loopholes like this.

Besides, there isn't any such thing as a "legal recognition as a hate group." The only thing close to that is the FBI, which doesn't even have a publicly-available list, and only investigates groups that are considered an active, violent threat, which the WBC definitely is not.

 

[bananafishtoday]

Is freedom of speech more important than the right to mourn in peace?

Yes, yes it is.

Is freedom of speech more important than the right to mourn in peace?

Yes.

No, you're wrong.

And this, dear European posters, is why it's impossible to argue with Americans: they don't understand how their own fundamental rights are meant to work. They are convinced that rights should never exist with limitations, even if those limitations make perfect sense in order to guarantee the rights and freedoms of others. They will always perceive the fundamental rights described in the Bill of Rights as non-negotiable and un-bendable, even if the application of those rights means that other people's rights are infringed upon.

And yet....

No one seems to complain about the fact that you're not allowed to scream "FIRE" in a crowded theater without being prosecuted, but isn't that just freedom of speech being infringed?

What about smoking? Whose right is more important: the right for a smoker to smoke whenever he wants, or the right of other people to breathe clean and wholesome air?

And what about all the other laws that you blindly accept as part of natural society that are regulating how you use your rights, where you can use them, and when you can use them? Like laws regarding the proper methods and regulations for peaceful assembly? Or laws that restrict your ability to carry firearms everywhere you go?

The Constitution and all manner of law enforcement are very clear on how this works: your rights officially end where the rights of others begin. In other words, you stop having the right to do whatever you want once your "right" starts to infringe on other people's rights. Rights are NOT universal, they never have been. They are always bound by regulation and organization to prevent their abuse, and to prevent the rights of others from being infringed.

And it cannot be argued in any universal form that the WBC isn't infringing upon the rights of others in what they do.

Which is why the law is firmly against the WBC on many, many accounts. In 2006, Bush signed a law that prohibits funeral protests closer than 300 ft from the site of the funeral, and many states/cities have laws that extend that boundary to 500 ft. To violate such laws can result in fines and jail time for the accused.

They are absolutely allowed to say whatever hateful speech they want, under the First Amendment. But their right to protest a funeral officially end at 300 ft. It's the law, and it's how freedoms should always work. When your freedom attacks my freedom, then your freedom gets limited. That's the only proper way to ensure that people's freedoms are not trampled upon. But unfortunately, most Americans do not understand this concept, which is why you'll always see someone say that one person's right is "more important" than another person's right when this obviously isn't what the Founding Fathers intended.

Minor quibble: if the 300 ft thing came before the Supreme Court, it would probably be ruled unconstitutional. But the Court can only deliver judgments on laws tied to cases ("actual controversy.") The Constitution supersedes the Code of Laws. Edit: And the reason WBC doesn't violate the boundary laws is because they don't actually care about the people at the funeral seeing them in the first place. They're not directing their opinions at the funeral-goers. Their platform is the news media and the internet, and their target audience is the general public. The whole "picketing funerals" thing is just because it generates enough outrage to get them attention.

More broadly, it isn't about one person's or group's rights being "more important." When the WBC pickets, they're not infringing on the rights of others. There's no "right to mourn in peace." The argument against allowing them their protests is based on the idea that the funeral-goers have some right to be shielded from the WBC's speech, which isn't the case.

I'm not arguing that rights should be unlimited. I'm arguing that this is nowhere near a good enough reason to limit them.

And it isn't that Americans in general think rights should be unlimited. Americans and Europeans have very different notions of how society should function, so when we talk about rights, we're often talking past each other. For better or worse (mostly worse, I'd say, but eh,) one of the US's guiding philosophies is that government is inherently a bad actor, and individuals should be as free from government interference as possible. We don't have anywhere near the emphasis on the responsibilities of the citizen that Europe does. (This is why, for instance, we'll probably never get universal health care.)

I'd be the first to admit this notion causes way more problems in the US than it's worth. But our notion of free speech grows out of that, and that notion is one of the few things about my country I hold dear.

(And in practice, police here shit on those rights all the time anyway.)

 

[Travis Manning]

As a soldier, i thoroughly and absolutely HATE the WBC!!! Many times i have wished that they would try to come to the post i was stationed on and try to picket at a soldier's funeral there. maybe they might have enough sense to keep off bases because of the fact that every american soldier on the planet is out for their blood. there is actually a video on youtube somewhere that shows them getting beat up by a soldier because they were trampling on the american flag. i would like to pose a question to anybody and everybody that reads this: whatever country you are from, if you saw someone using your flag as a welcome mat, wouldnt you do the very same as that soldier? i know i would, and i would do everything possible to get the flag away from such disrespectful fucks.

 

[NotSoNimble]

What a pathetically small number. This sounds like a win for the WBC.

I respect their right to protest, but I don't support them and their beliefs. Sounds like the people agree. Just because you (ridiculously small number of people) don't like them, doesn't mean they can't be a religion.

 

[Yabba]

they suck as ppl but everyone has a right to their own opinion and beliefs

captcha happy full moon. watch out

No one is denying their right to an opinion or belief.

They're just trying to put a stop to the picketing (which I'm all for. It shouldn't be legal to cause harm at funerals just because some lawyer aparrantly sees an = sign between "picketing at funerals" and "free speech").

public street = right to speak
private property = get the fuck out

try and keep in mind that 90 years ago you would have got your ass handed to you if you dared speak in public about, gay rights, women's rights or racial equality and while i don't think these guys are gonna be the next step in advancing us as a society they have every right to express their opinions as long as it doesn't harm others. but sure you guys keep talking about murdering them or burning down buildings cause that definitely proves you are better ppl

here's an idea. how bout the next time one of these fucktards dies y'all get together and picket their funeral. maybe make some signs that says "god hates churches who hates fags" or "there is no god" or whatever you think would piss them off the most cause i would actually love to see what happens lol

You know what? That actually sounds like a good idea, show them the golden rule that Jesus taught

 

[GamemasterAnthony]

POSSIBILITY ONE:

I could actually see this work...except not by classifying them as a hate group. If they were classified as a POLITICAL group, that would be different.

Take a look at what they are doing. They are basically going around the country, spending the church's money in the process, all in order to try and get people to agree with them in a very public manner. While they do have the right to their opinion, trying to get others to agree with them even if its against their beliefs certainly isn't religious in my book...

...but it is most DEFINITELY political.

Best part about this is is that if they ARE declared a political group, they lose their nonprofit status and as a result will have to pay a crapton of back taxes to the state and federal governments. This will pretty much make them a non-issue as a result since they can no longer fund their little hate-filled field trips...since bankruptcy court will be their only concern at this point.

POSSIBILITY TWO:

Now...correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't we already have to deal with some zealot telling us "believe as we believe...OR ELSE"?

What the WBC is doing feels kind of like what Osama Bin Loser did. But rather than threatening to kill us, they're just annoying the drek out of us and refusing to go away. Thing is...all it will take is one complaint to the right branch of Homeland Security and it will be more than enough to put them under so much scrutiny that I'm SURE someone will find SOMETHING wrong with their actions, regardless of the Supreme Court decision. *evil smirk*

All in all, I do agree they have the right to their opinions and beliefs. But trying to force others to believe as they do? That's what the Freedom of Religion was created to try to PREVENT!

POSSIBILITY THREE:

Hmm...truth be told, I'm very surprised the military personnel, both active and retired, haven't had a say in this. Oh sure...they've had to fight to protect the very rights that allow the WBC to do this, but I do think they have also earned some sort of protection from this sort of behavior.

I think the actions of the WBC could very well make for the a good class action suit against them by military personnel and their families. Not for the fact that they're protesting...but that their actions could be construed as a form of direct attack and harassment against them. This could work if the right lawyer worth his/her salt can find more than enough evidence to prove it. Hell, this is the kind of "fire in a crowded theater" situation that created certain restrictions to the Freedom of Speech...especially since it's a blatant example of using speech to harm another.

Just my two GP/Zenny/Mobiums/Rupees/etc. on the situation.

CAPTCHA: live, love, type.

I think...I just did...

 

[BrainWalker]

So... there's a lot of interesting debate in this thread about the nature of free speech and to what extent it should be offered to reprehensible human garbage, but this classification thing isn't about denying the WBC's rights. It is about denying them the privilege of tax-exempt status. They can still be the Hate Legion, they just shouldn't be able to do it while being subsidized by the government.

 

[Terminate421]

You would think that someone would burn down the church or shoot a crowd of them. They would accomplish getting rid of them but in all seriousness, we have people shooting schools and not these guys? Come on, man.

 

[Oinodaemon]

-snippu-

If you believe shielding society from harmful organizations led by delusional bigots counts as being hypocritical, I think you should look up the word hypocrisy, because I don't think you know what it means.

These people are nothing but an ulcerous cancer, that we need to take a stand against. You ask how much hate is okay, don't you see how silly that question is? NO amount of hate is ever okay. I fully realize that we are human, and such irrational emotions are kind of our handicap, but to base a religion on it and shoving it down people's throats is just WRONG. It doesn't need defending, nothing good can come from that. "we have more people therefore we are correct"? Try "we have common sense and are therefor correct"

Yes, I know you're not a mod, I was just putting it out there.

Very well put. I really doubt I could have phrased it so well myself.

 

[Erttheking]

"Reads through the thread" oh dear lord, what monsters have I unleashed?

 

[Soviet Steve]

Bourgeois freedom of speech: You can say whatever the majority likes to hear.

 

[bananafishtoday]

Oh I rather strongly doubt that, actually. For several reasons, not the least of which is that many of the locations used for funerals and funeral proceedings are private property and thereby able to supercede things like the "right to free speech" (much for the same reason that you have restrictions to your freedom of speech while inside a place of business, or at work).

The percentage of funerals on private property doesn't allow the government to ban protests near funerals in general.

Ah, so the only rights that exist are those officially recognized by the Bill of Rights?

No, that's not how the real world works, I'm afraid.

What you fail to understand is that the Bill of Rights was intended to prevent a very particular set of rights from being infringed by the government. They are not an unbreakable set of rules that everyone has to abide by (OR ELSE).

And they're certainly not the only rights that exist in the world, merely that they are some of the most basic and fundamental. Many other fundamental rights are stated outright in international law, and others can be derived from these.

I don't even understand what the part I bolded is supposed to mean. If the government were to prevent WBC from holding their little protests, it would be about a particular right being infringed by the government.

And the law disagrees with you on city, state, and federal levels, thus the 300-500 ft ban. So it doesn't really matter.

It is within the duties of the government to regulate the application of these rights such that other people are given the same opportunity and application of rights. Your rights end where theirs begin. This isn't a newfangled concept, many of the existing laws that regulate speech, assembly, etc are laws that grew out of the fundamental notion that the rights of people must be regulated to ensure that everyone is allowed to appreciate their own rights.

A few people holding signs in your general vicinity does not interfere with your ability to exercise your rights.

The problem is that these "rights" have been taken dreadfully out of context by people who are willfully choosing to misunderstand them.

The Bill of Rights is a protection for the people against the government. "Freedom of speech" does not mean "you can say whatever you choose at any time and place you choose", it means precisely what it says: that the government cannot prevent you from speaking ill of the government or its officials. That "right" has been taken to an extreme in this country, with people saying that they should be allowed to do or say whatever they please, when in fact that is not what the amendment states. And there are any number of regulatory laws which restrict what you can say and can't say, depending on the property in question, the time of day, and other factors.

The ONLY way that you can argue that the WBC is well within their "rights" is to fundamentally misunderstand what "rights" that the first amendment actually grants them. The government is indeed not allowed to tell them what they can say. But they can very easily regulate where it's said (through distance bans and regulations associated with assembly), when it's said, and other such things in order to ensure that their right to speech and assembly isn't infringing on the rights of others to have a peaceful funeral assembly.

The First Amendment does not restrict the protection of speech to speech critical of the government. And time/place/manner laws are required to be content neutral, narrowly tailored, and serve a legitimate government interest.

Anyway, SCOTUS has said the Westboro protests are protected in Snyder v. Phelps, so it's already been decided they can say what they say in the places they've been choosing to say it. You seem to think the government should have much more of a hand in regulating speech than the nation's highest court does.

 

[Maze1125]

You seem to think the government should have much more of a hand in regulating speech than the nation's highest court does.

Is that the same court that ruled that it was perfectly legal for the USA government to round up every person of Japanese descent on the west coast and put them in camps that were concentration camps in all but name?
Yes, yes I think it is.
Excuse me if I don't think their word is infallible.

 

[BoredAussieGamer]

My two cents on the touchy subject on the right of free speech and picketing funerals:

Here's a fundamental line that can apply to any situation regarding issues of freedom of speech. Your rights to freedom of speech cease to protect your ass when you infringe on other's rights, whether that be to mourn their dead or not be harassed during a sensitive time.

 

[Maze1125]

My two cents on the touchy subject on the right of free speech and picketing funerals:

Here's a fundamental line that can apply to any situation regarding issues of freedom of speech. Your rights to freedom of speech cease to protect your ass when you infringe on other's rights, whether that be to mourn their dead or not be harassed during a sensitive time.

Ah, but America has no such right.
Yep, in America you have the right to be as offensive as you want to whom ever you want, but not the right to mourn the death of a loved one in peace, and many Americans are proud of that...