Westboro Baptist Church is thwarted!

[Harry Mason]

Hell Yeah!
I hate those bastards, and I really like the way they dealt with the situation.

 

[The Rascal King]

Unconstitutional? Sure.

Totally Worth It? Yes.

It was a military funeral. The people of Rankin County were doing their best to keep the peace for burial of a fallen soldier. It was kind of an act of honor as I see it.

EDIT: Keep in mind, Westboro Church runs a website called godhatesfags.com. These people are a blight and deserve to be persecuted.

 

[KoalaKid]

I'm surprised they haven't suffered other beatings.

 

[Fleischer]

You completely countermand yourself there. You can't be "all for free speech," and then turn around and say you want some speech limited

Only if one has an extremely black-and-white view. As I believe I mentioned, one can make a case that a point is reached when words cease to be speech, i.e. the communication of ideas and becomes assault, that is, an act whose principal purpose is to inflict injury.

I was pointing out the prior poster's flaw in their statement. If I said, "I'm all for protecting people's property, but there are certain people that should be allowed to take anyone's property," then my second statement negates what I said initially. To your second point, I am not seeing where you are going. By stating the same message over and over again it becomes assault?

I'm aware of that. The common example is "you can't yell 'Fire!' in a crowded theater." Would you suggest that someone who favored such a thing also "completely countermanded themselves" if they said they were all for free speech?

And if so, is there any point to such an assertion?

Yes, they would be.

The fact of the matter is everyone has a limit where they *personally* feel speech should be limited; however, depending upon the ruling of the government they live under and the rulings of its courts, the courts and laws decide what is protected speech and what is not. Your best bet to deal with the Phelps, or anyone baiting you for a response, is to ignore them.

 

[Wintermoot]

Haha, well done Rankin County. Apart from the guy that got assaulted, this was a pretty smart, non violent way of dealing with these guys. Unfortunately the Church will just view it as persecution against them.

you mean the WBC or the regular church?
I love this! finally these douches have been put into their place!

 

[aashell13]

Very Clever. I approve.

Particularly the pickups that were 'accidentally' parked wrong. gee, it's awful hard to get an F-350 between the lines with a shiny kansas plate puttin' the sun in yer eye...

 

[Thumper17]

I'd like to quote Volitaire on this one.

"I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."


That about sums up the situation, as much as I hate that church, they DO have rights. Though, would it be possible to at least make it illegal to stir shit up at funerals?

 

[Gudrests]

I am so glad they kid got his shit beat in. and the whole town went ... "There was a fight?.....NOPE we were all watching nascar"

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

Am I the only one who thinks this is funny? One, or many, committed assault by beating that one protester, others lied about not seeing said assault and thus helped the criminal(s), others committed a crime by purposely blocking the protesters vehicles. All of this was done to deny a group their first amendment right, the same right Sgt. Rogers was entrusted to protect and died for, so that they couldn't protest at Sgt. Rogers funeral?

That people attending a funeral do not have the right to keep these people from interfering with their private activity because doing so would violate the rights of the protesters is the silliest thing here. That one has to go to such lengths to achieve the end that ought to be allowable by a simple injunction is asinine.

I can't think of many better ways to disrespect someone who died for their country then to deny a group of people their rights, once again the rights the dead man died for, in some kind of twisted way to honor said dead person.

A funeral does not simply serve to honor the dead; its most useful function is to allow some measure of closure for the living. This process of private grief ought to have some measure of protection, even if it is simply in the form of a restraining order. Yet because this is a political protest (in the loosest sense), such a restraining order is impossible to acquire.

Ever police officer involved with this should be put on leave without pay and investigated, if they are found to have actively helped to deny this group their right to protest and to have like other people get away with criminal activity then they should be fired on the spot.

Because you enjoy solving problems in the worst possible way? This solution would include problems like reduced law enforcement presence (getting rid of police officers), dramatically increased costs (finding and training new ones), and would introduce a large number of rookie police officers presumably lowering overall force readiness. That's a great solution.

As much as I disagree with this church's illogical, irrational, ignorant beliefs, they are well within their right to protest and just because you don't like what they have to say doesn't give you he right, nor the justification, to break the law. If one actually believed that it does give them that right, or justification, then that belief would just be as ignorant and illogical as the church's beliefs that they so despise.

Yes, they are within their right to protest. But, as has been pointed out a great many times by courts across the land, that ones right to speak is limited when it unjustly infringes upon the rights of others.

This entire process happened because Westboro's right to protest is given greater regard than people's right to grieve. These two things can coexist. Sure they should be able to protest on the day of a funeral. They should even be able to do so within the limits of the city. But they should not be allowed to do so in a location where they would interfere with the grieving process. In other words, during a memorial service they should be forced to stay out of sight of the church (or other structure) - a rule that at worst places them a few hundred yards away. They should also be required to avoid the route of the casket and should be forced to stay a reasonable distance from the burial grounds. That one cannot get an order from a court for this very thing is silly. Such a request isn't denying Westboro's right to protest, its simply allowing those who are grieving for someone recently lost to do so without having to listen to their bullshit.

 

[RN7]

This is nice and all, but I'm still in favor of firebombing their churches and crucifying or decapitating thier members. Then protesting their funerals, just to be a dick.

...

No? Ok, fine. Active and creative manipulation of civility and the law in favor of hindering these dumbasses works too.

 

[metal mustache]

excellent, i hope this is a new trend, blantantly breaking the law to spite WBC and pretending that we didn't. Fuck the courts, long live anarchism!

edit: I feel like going into this a little more, why does this group have the support of the supreme court? I was under the impression that the laws and constitutions were vague enough (especially in the freedom and RESPONSIBLITY of speech sections) that the judges could call people out when they were wrong; ethically, morally, every sense of the word really. When we stop these monsters from preying on emotionally devasted people, they should go to jail, not us! Serioulsy, why do even have this court?

 

[Arisato-kun]

I give Rankin props for handling the situation so coolly, with the exception of the man beating the member up. Honestly though I'd probably have done the same as him.

I'm not going to get into any arguments about free speech here or anything. All I know is if I saw any of these hate mongers spewing their filth anywhere near me I'd have to do SOMETHING about it.

 

[Custard_Angel]

Ahh... I laughed.

Good on the rednecks... They got something right.

 

[Aureli]

Is hate speech protected by the first amendment anymore? (This is a serious question, and I would appreciate if someone could answer it for me) Because as far as I can tell, that's all the WBC does in their protests. While Rankin county did not handle this in the best or most peaceful manner, I hope that more communities can find peaceful ways to prevent the WBC protesting at funerals like this.

 

[joshuaayt]

I don't know... I mean, I'm not really sure being a total dickhead deserves a beating- I usually only support vigilantism for stuff like murder and whatnot. Aren't these people legally allowed to protest? Isn't freedom of speech a Big Thing in America? If the people show intolerance for what some guy is saying, how can you expect the government to act differently?

I don't agree that these people should be allowed to protest in such a manner, but I do fear the implications that stopping them would bring to light.

 

[Bobbity]

It will never cease to amaze me how many people will rush the defence of the WBC, because they're exploiting loopholes. This, from wikipedia:

Whatever righteous cause the Jewish victims of the 1930s?40s Nazi Holocaust had, (probably minuscule, compared to the Jewish Holocausts against Middle Passage Blacks, African Americans and Christians?including the bloody persecution of Westboro Baptist Church by Topeka Jews in the 1990s), has been drowned in sodomite semen. American taxpayers are financing this unholy monument to Jewish mendacity and greed and to filthy fag lust. Homosexuals and Jews dominated Nazi Germany ... The Jews now wander the earth despised, smitten with moral and spiritual blindness by a divine judicial stroke ... And God has smitten Jews with a certain unique madness ... Jews, thus perverted, out of all proportion to their numbers energize the militant sodomite agenda... Jews are the real Nazis.

This is not free speech; it's a hate speech. That this is protected by the constitution is a serious flaw in the system, not something making America great. That the WBC is able to exploit loopholes in the law is indicative of something seriously wrong.

If a union dedicated to Hitler and Nazism started up, with the intent of rallying support for Hitler's cause, there would be universal outrage. I daresay that those people would not last long, nor would they receive protection from the law. Why is it that this group receives protection under the amendment of free speech, when it so obviously should not?

 

[metal mustache]

I don't know... I mean, I'm not really sure being a total dickhead deserves a beating- I usually only support vigilantism for stuff like murder and whatnot. Aren't these people legally allowed to protest? Isn't freedom of speech a Big Thing in America? If the people show intolerance for what some guy is saying, how can you expect the government to act differently?

I don't agree that these people should be allowed to protest in such a manner, but I do fear the implications that stopping them would bring to light.

I know right? i can't even imagine what life in my neighbourhood would be like if i weren't allowed walk into old mrs hankins garage and yell at her to drop the fuck dead.
(risky post, i hope you laughed)

 

[Kortney]

It doesn't matter one way or the other if we talk about them. The churches like this one tend to fairly short lived, relatively speaking. Fred Phelps is the sole leader of his congregation that when he dies, the church will fall apart without his leadership.

It does matter. Us talking about this only keeps these issues alive. They need to be ignored. They don't actually do anything - their whole functionality is based on causing an uproar and spurring discussion. This is what they want.

Also, I don't believe you have any idea on whether or not the church will stay alive after Phelps dies. You have no knowledge to back up that claim. Considering the fact his children are all prominent members in semi-leadership roles, I doubt any of what you said is true. But then again, I don't really know and I don't really care.

 

[smallthemouse]

Well if thats the case then you must go and tell the police about every single traffic violation you've ever committed and pay your five million dollars in speeding tickets.

Right, because clearly traffic violations are on the same level as assault. There's a classification of laws known as "petty offenses" which all consist of minor things such as speeding or stealing a candy bar that are mostly just there so that the police department can better fund itself by issuing minor fines. Forgive me if I was being overly axiomatic, it was not my intention to say that all minor and victimless laws need to be obeyed at all times. However, it was my intention to say that all of the more serious laws ought to be obeyed at all times, such as the law against assault.

See my previous post about if it was your family member who died.

I have seen it and I maintain that I believe I have the ethical strength to avoid being a hypocrite. That, and I know that the best way to deal with this brand of complete wankers is to ignore them.

Hindsight was exactly what i was talking about, we are NEVER going to look back and think, that WBC and their 72 members were right. Please read carefully.

You wrote: "obvious oppression." This implies that those oppressed we're obviously seen as oppressed back in the day. If I misinterpreted you and your point was really about how we can only see that women and blacks we're oppressed with hindsight then I'm glad that we agree that the majority opinion can not be trusted since it only sees clearly with hindsight. By that logic, there is no reason to oppress anyone on the basis of majority opinion since it is so often incorrect. Also, if you wish to change the law so that it does not offer freedom of speech to the WBC then you are setting a very dangerous precedent. If that meaning was not your intention, then please write carefully.

The first amendment's *****PRIMARY***** purpose was that we can speak out against the government. Remember who wrote this stuff, people who just got out of a monarchy where they might be killed for speaking against the king. You think they would hesitate to murder people like WBC if they protested the dead colonist soldiers in General Washington's army (a massive celebrity at the time) during the American Revolution?

So... you think the founding fathers were murderous hypocrites that wouldn't hesitate to discard the ideals that they fought so hard for the instant someone made them angry?

If we assume that the amendment's "primary" purpose was to allow people to speak out against the government then why does that mean that we should discount the first amendment's "secondary" purposes? The first amendment says nothing about only protecting speech against the government. You have no grounds for saying that we should ignore any part of the first amendment.

As for the beating, yes it is ok, he did not die. Tell me, were you ever punished when you were a kid, or were you sent to your room to think about what youve done? Grow up, there is violence in the world, and this is hardly the situation to be defending this guy. And it is not like being beaten during a store robbery or a mugging, there you are within your rights to be defended, as you did nothing wrong. Don't poke a grizzly bear and cry for pity when it mauls your ass.

Oh, so now it's okay because he survived the beating, clearly. I'm sorry, but in the adult world we generally don't beat each other up just because one party said some nasty words. Why are you drawing an analogy with capital punishment of children? Do you wish to live in a world where the police beat you for saying a dirty word? For not going to bed on time? For yelling at someone? Because clearly everyone needs to be treated as a child their whole lives. Legally, people have the right to beat up another party only in self-defense. Self-defense does not mean defending your feelings. Also, I don't think it's unreasonable of me to expect more civilized behavior from my fellow man than a grizzly bear.

One more thing, please learn to use apostrophes.

Your arguments are stupid. You either are taking things wayy out of proportion or not even thinking logically. Also you are now correcting grammar, losing pretty much any credibility in my eyes. The police beating your kid is not the same at all as PEOPLE beating some guy everyone hates, you're making straw men.

Letting fuck all happen to a GROUP OF 72 UNIVERSALLY DESPISED people is not a slippery slope to loss of your precious freedom. Do you know ANYONE who condones what this GROUP OF 72 PEOPLE do? Civil rights and womens rights pertain to massive groups of people, not 72 people.

You say it's not so black and white, yet you also say that there is a difference between a traffic violation and an assault in which nobody claimed to seeing anything happen.

And lol, you think the founders were civilized? Did you know there were all out brawls in the middle of congress proceedings at those times? Did you know how Alexander Hamilton died? He died in a duel to the death with pistols over some political argument, which was common then too. They would not have given a s*** if this happened.

Stop hiding behind your precious moral high ground. If you seriously believe that if your brother or sister died fighting in a war that you would be calm and composed at their funeral and be taking your moral high ground at that time, then you are either really young or extremely short sighted.

I never mentioned the capital punishment of children I don't even know where you got that...you're trying to make my arguments look absurd. I was simply pointing out that you were probably never properly disciplined as a child, making you think we live in a place where if you do something incredibly wrong that you won't get punished. We don't live in an adult world. Are you trying to say nobody gets in fights if they're above a certain age? I'm not saying I would have assaulted the guy, but you have to accept that this is not care bear town, and people who do not have the patience and maturity are going to assault you if you say offensive enough things. These are the grizzly bears he was poking. In fact, he was pretty much beating it upside its head with a club.

 

[Marsell]

Epic Win
suck it WBC