Westboro Baptist Church is thwarted!

[IAmWright777]

If I'm correct (I might have some details off) they protest the funerals of soldiers because these men died for a country that, and I quote, "is full of fags." I hesitate to even acknowledge their claims of being the same faith as me. Anyways, I wish I could give more details.

they claim that because we should celebrate in all of gods decisions that we should celebrate when he decides to take the life of a soldier. they also claim that god is taking their lives due to our acceptance of gays, atheism and sexuality in general.

Thank you. I didn't know much else other than they cause trouble at soldier funerals.

 

[Atmos Duality]

I have no pity for those who desecrate those who died in service.
I'm not sure where/what those Westboro cultists adopted their beliefs from, but in my experience Christians are supposed to honor the lives of those who have gone on ahead of us.

 

[Temah]

Love the thought of the police questioning the crowd but no one saw the beating.

 

[Moon_Called]

I kinda want them to come up to Canada. Really, I do!

Reason?
I think we can do an epic troll up here. Most Canadians I know are very, very much against racism, and homophobia. When you piss a large number of the them off, a shitstorm will head your way. We can think of something really good.

Actually, that's exactly why I love being Canadian.

See, in Canada, we have this little law that makes hate speech illegal. In America, the WBC has every right to keep spewing their slander and vile lies aaaall they want. Trying to stop them breaks your First Amendment.
In Canada, they'd get their asses arrested the second they held up one of their signs.

 

[redisforever]

I kinda want them to come up to Canada. Really, I do!

Reason?
I think we can do an epic troll up here. Most Canadians I know are very, very much against racism, and homophobia. When you piss a large number of the them off, a shitstorm will head your way. We can think of something really good.

Actually, that's exactly why I love being Canadian.

See, in Canada, we have this little law that makes hate speech illegal. In America, the WBC has every right to keep spewing their slander and vile lies aaaall they want. Trying to stop them breaks your First Amendment.
In Canada, they'd get their asses arrested the second they held up one of their signs.

Exactly. But! Let's not tell them that, let 'em come.

 

[YesIPlayTheBagpipes]

i feel great happiness due to this, and so express my feelings thusly: huzzah! (there, that alright for you, moderator?)

in all seriousness i feel that the fact that the Westboro nutters were able to do things like that is a prime example of when absolute freedom, here in freedom of speech, is a bad thing.
In America, Terry Jones got worldwide coverage for threaten to burn copies of the Qur'an. Here in Britain a member of the British National Party (aka British Nazi Party) did actually burn a Qur'an, and was swiftly arrested for "inciting hatred". Absolute Freedom, or Anarchism (in a political sence) is a nice idea, but not feesable in a real world.

 

[Moon_Called]

I kinda want them to come up to Canada. Really, I do!

Reason?
I think we can do an epic troll up here. Most Canadians I know are very, very much against racism, and homophobia. When you piss a large number of the them off, a shitstorm will head your way. We can think of something really good.

Actually, that's exactly why I love being Canadian.

See, in Canada, we have this little law that makes hate speech illegal. In America, the WBC has every right to keep spewing their slander and vile lies aaaall they want. Trying to stop them breaks your First Amendment.
In Canada, they'd get their asses arrested the second they held up one of their signs.

Exactly. But! Let's not tell them that, let 'em come.

Heh. I like the way you think, sir.

 

[Sudenak]

Whenever someone brings up how they are protected by the first amendment, I always point out what the WBC does:

- Pickets funerals and attempts to incite physical violence so they can sue the funeral-goers
- Pickets school plays for being about homosexuals while mocking someone who has MS
- Attempts to incite violence while mocking their prey like school children in the hope that they can sue them and get national attention

I think they fall in to the shouting-fire-in-a-crowded-room area of non-protected speech. They're deliberately being bigoted assholes just so they can make people miserable in the faint hope that they can gain publicity and make money off of people trying to shut them up. This sort of shit shouldn't be protected. Christ, I never thought the day would come when I would -ever- say this, but I'd sooner defend the damned KKK than ever defend these assholes. Ever seen the videos where they get their small children to walk around laughing at "faggots"? It's damned vile, and for a country of action-loving gun nuts we sure seem to be a bunch of pansies to have -not- shut these morons up.

Or how about when they claim that America is a sin filled, evil nation yet constantly praise the first amendment? They're a bunch of cowardly fuckwits that hardly deserve protection, and you can guarantee that I'd proudly wear a jail sentence tied to knocking their teeth out.

 

[Iron Lightning]

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.

I don't mean to be a grammar Nazi, but seriously, don't use contractions or possessive nouns if you don't want to use apostrophes. The best thing you can do to lose credibility on the internet is by using wildly incorrect grammar.

No, but the police were effectively complacent in the man's beating in this case and they detained protestors with questionable legality. In your previous post you drew a parallel between what happened to the members of the WBC and the punishment of a child. This implies that you think it's proper to beat people for misbehaving as one would beat a child for misbehaving. Surely, as you state above, if it's okay for people to beat other people for misbehaving then it logically follows that it's okay for the police to beat people for misbehaving as they're also people. If it's okay for the police to beat people for a child's brand of misbehavior then there must be laws which allow for the police to treat the people as their children. This would result in a world wherein the police beat you for childish crimes, such as saying a swear word or not going to bed on time.

I'm not building straw men. If I was then I'd say that something like: "smallthemouse seems to think that we should live in a world where people can kill each other for no reason whatsoever."

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.

No one let "fuck all happen" to the WBC. The people of Rankin county illegally trapped their vehicles, beat up one of them, and detained them most likely without probably cause in order to prevent them from protesting. Frankly, stopping protestors, no matter how universally despised they may be, is a bit of a slippery slope. Especially so if it leads to a ban of "hateful" speech, a term which could technically include all forms of verbal dissent. Freedom of speech is a civil right, which means that it pertains to everyone. If it's officially declared okay to infringe upon the free speech of any group of people then it sets precedent which makes it okay to infringe upon the right to free speech of everyone. If the courts rule to ban "hateful" speech then the next time you yell at someone for cutting you off on the road you could very well be arrested.

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.

Are you daft or just trolling? There is a difference between a traffic violation and an assault. One's a victimless crime in which a person might just be exceeding the speed limit while the other one's a crime in which someone brutally beats someone else and if the witness claim not to have seen the assault then each one of them has committed perjury.

Yes, it isn't so black and white, to be precise there are three shades in play here:
Black: Serious harmful crimes involving a victim (e.g. assault, murder, extortion etc..)
Grey: Mostly harmless victimless crimes (e.g. speeding, underage drinking, etc..)
White: Things that aren't crimes.

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.

Yes, I am aware of those facts. No one died in those brawls. Dueling is the most civilized possible way to kill someone. Both participants have to agree to the duel. If I may quote your last post in regards to you perception of the founding fathers' mentality: "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?" Oh, I'm sure the founders would have some very nasty things to say at these hypothetical protestors, they would probably challenge one or more of them to a duel. I seriously doubt they would just turn their muskets on them. Especially after they had just fought for people's rights to say whatever they wish. If the police were interfering with people's rights I'm damn sure that the people who wrote those same rights would have a problem with people disregarding them.

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.

The biggest way that I could possibly dishonor someone who died fighting for my rights would be to deny the rights of others. That's would be a bit like if a man died to save the life of another man, and at the first man's funeral I were to kill the second man. This fine soldier died defending the rights that the people at his own funeral choose to disregard.

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.

I'm sorry, that was a typo, I mean to say corporal punishment of children.

Yes, yes, people are capable of assault, I've never said that they weren't. The fact is that people oughtn't assault and should be punished with a few years in jail when they do assault. What I'm taking issue with is your statement that: "As for the beating, yes it is ok, he did not die." Assault is only justified when it is done in self-defense. The perpetrator in the assault ought to be punished since he committed assault. It is not okay to beat a person if you hate them; the law does not protect your feelings.

The actions of Rankin county were both appalling and very stupid. Giving the WBC both grounds for a lawsuit and the attention they crave is the best thing the county could've done for them short of throwing the WBC a parade with a big check from the taxpayers at the end. Ignoring them or setting up a peaceful counter-protest is the only way to fight them.

 

[Iron Lightning]

Whenever someone brings up how they are protected by the first amendment, I always point out what the WBC does:

- Pickets funerals and attempts to incite physical violence so they can sue the funeral-goers
- Pickets school plays for being about homosexuals while mocking someone who has MS
- Attempts to incite violence while mocking their prey like school children in the hope that they can sue them and get national attention

I think they fall in to the shouting-fire-in-a-crowded-room area of non-protected speech. They're deliberately being bigoted assholes just so they can make people miserable in the faint hope that they can gain publicity and make money off of people trying to shut them up. This sort of shit shouldn't be protected. Christ, I never thought the day would come when I would -ever- say this, but I'd sooner defend the damned KKK than ever defend these assholes. Ever seen the videos where they get their small children to walk around laughing at "faggots"? It's damned vile, and for a country of action-loving gun nuts we sure seem to be a bunch of pansies to have -not- shut these morons up.

Or how about when they claim that America is a sin filled, evil nation yet constantly praise the first amendment? They're a bunch of cowardly fuckwits that hardly deserve protection, and you can guarantee that I'd proudly wear a jail sentence tied to knocking their teeth out.

Not really, they're certainly vile people but they are in no way inciting panic nor endangering the public. If they were protesting on the middle of freeways that would probably lead to car accidents that would not be protected speech.

 

[smallthemouse]

I don't mean to be a grammar Nazi, but seriously, don't use contractions or possessive nouns if you don't want to use apostrophes. The best thing you can do to lose credibility on the internet is by using wildly incorrect grammar.

An apostrophe is hardly the most wildly incorrect use of grammar, and I'm sorry if I have better things to do than proofread these rather large posts fourteen times. I would think that my big words and commas give me all the credibility I want. I choose to use contractions on an internet gaming forum because I don't like sounding all formal in such a casual place.

Also now that I'm not pressed for time I can properly do quotes!

No, but the police were effectively complacent in the man's beating in this case and they detained protestors with questionable legality. In your previous post you drew a parallel between what happened to the members of the WBC and the punishment of a child. This implies that you think it's proper to beat people for misbehaving as one would beat a child for misbehaving. Surely, as you state above, if it's okay for people to beat other people for misbehaving then it logically follows that it's okay for the police to beat people for misbehaving as they're also people. If it's okay for the police to beat people for a child's brand of misbehavior then there must be laws which allow for the police to treat the people as their children. This would result in a world wherein the police beat you for childish crimes, such as saying a swear word or not going to bed on time.

That has got to be the most massive bridge I've ever seen. I was mocking you when I brought up the kid thing, kids were not even part of the argument, I was just jokingly hypothesizing (it's probably not true, I'm exaggerating to prove my point and for comedic purposes) that you were never properly disciplined when you were a child, leading you to think that you can do anything you want short of crashing mommy's car on a joyride or stabbing daddy in the chest without repercussions. These people are facing the repercussions of their actions, and even though it isn't against the law to protest funerals, it's not against the law to choose not go to bed on time, but I hope that there are parents out there with the initiative to get their kids in bed for their own good, and if that means an eventual slap on the wrist (aka corporal punishment), then so be it. It's also not against the law for a husband to cheat on his wife of 10 kids with multiple women, but I wouldn't mind if he was slapped once or twice (assault) by his wife when he tells her hes leaving her and going to Cuba so he wouldn't have to pay child support.

I'm not building straw men. If I was then I'd say that something like: "smallthemouse seems to think that we should live in a world where people can kill each other for no reason whatsoever."

Is this not what you're essentially saying when you twisted my thoughts to this? "This would result in a world wherein the police beat you for childish crimes, such as saying a swear word or not going to bed on time."

No one let "fuck all happen" to the WBC. The people of Rankin county illegally trapped their vehicles, beat up one of them, and detained them most likely without probably cause in order to prevent them from protesting. Frankly, stopping protestors, no matter how universally despised they may be, is a bit of a slippery slope. Especially so if it leads to a ban of "hateful" speech, a term which could technically include all forms of verbal dissent. Freedom of speech is a civil right, which means that it pertains to everyone. If it's officially declared okay to infringe upon the free speech of any group of people then it sets precedent which makes it okay to infringe upon the right to free speech of everyone. If the courts rule to ban "hateful" speech then the next time you yell at someone for cutting you off on the road you could very well be arrested.

I never called for it to be officially declared okay to infringe on free speech. Just that in this one incident, it may be okay to turn a blind eye like they have done. Not everything is a slippery slope. If you want to go there, then letting these people publicly protest funerals lets impressionable bystanders see that it is okay to say hurtful things to anyone whenever we want, and we may have an even larger group of people doing things like the WBC has been doing. Maybe even a majority. This would lead to a world where the second you walk outside your front door, poo would be flung at you from all sides by people just because you think that sometimes it's ok to tell someone it's not okay to be a total dick. See, I can make up wild slippery slope scenarios too.

Are you daft or just trolling? There is a difference between a traffic violation and an assault. One's a victimless crime in which a person might just be exceeding the speed limit while the other one's a crime in which someone brutally beats someone else and if the witness claim not to have seen the assault then each one of them has committed perjury.

Yes, it isn't so black and white, to be precise there are three shades in play here:
Black: Serious harmful crimes involving a victim (e.g. assault, murder, extortion etc..)
Grey: Mostly harmless victimless crimes (e.g. speeding, underage drinking, etc..)
White: Things that aren't crimes.

What I meant was theres
Black: publicly murdering someone in front of a bunch of people and having them tell the police what happened sending you to prison for a long long time.
White: letting this person go do whatever the fuck he wants short of breaking the law and defending him to the death no matter what.
Grey: What we have here, where the facts are not clear, and for all we know, someone speeding on the road caused a 5 car accident killing all involved including 3 baby kittens, and all the assaultee got was a slap in the face and was done.

Yes, I am aware of those facts. No one died in those brawls. Dueling is the most civilized possible way to kill someone. Both participants have to agree to the duel. If I may quote your last post in regards to you perception of the founding fathers' mentality: "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?" Oh, I'm sure the founders would have some very nasty things to say at these hypothetical protestors, they would probably challenge one or more of them to a duel. I seriously doubt they would just turn their muskets on them. Especially after they had just fought for people's rights to say whatever they wish. If the police were interfering with people's rights I'm damn sure that the people who wrote those same rights would have a problem with people disregarding them.

So now it's okay to kill someone as long as they agree to it....

The thing is they wouldn't obviously go kill them with their bare hands due to their status as politicians and gentlemen and role models and whatnot, but they wouldn't need to, the people of that time would do it themselves being a lot less civilized and complacent than we are now, and the founders would have gladly turned a blind eye, just like what happened right now.

The biggest way that I could possibly dishonor someone who died fighting for my rights would be to deny the rights of others. That's would be a bit like if a man died to save the life of another man, and at the first man's funeral I were to kill the second man. This fine soldier died defending the rights that the people at his own funeral choose to disregard.

I'm sick of this being said too, how do you know what this soldier wanted? On paper thats what they were defending, but as an individual, maybe they would also like for their families to be able to be left alone to grieve, and not be tormented by disgusting picket signs at a time when they are most vulnerable. You think they gave their lives so that a bunch of jerks can spout inane and hurtful garbage at innocent families at funerals? Do you think his last dying breath was "Just...make sure....our freedom of speech....is protected." No. This person bravely died protecting the well being of his family and loved ones, and might assault the protesters himself for causing his family the pain they have.

I'm sorry, that was a typo, I mean to say corporal punishment of children.

Yes, yes, people are capable of assault, I've never said that they weren't. The fact is that people oughtn't assault and should be punished with a few years in jail when they do assault. What I'm taking issue with is your statement that: "As for the beating, yes it is ok, he did not die." Assault is only justified when it is done in self-defense. The perpetrator in the assault ought to be punished since he committed assault. It is not okay to beat a person if you hate them; the law does not protect your feelings.

Yes the law does not protect your feelings, but our human nature would protect your feelings in such a situation. The fact is, we don't know the whole story of the person who was beaten. If he sustained permanent injury, then I would be the first to say it is wrong and maybe send the attacker to jail, but if its just for getting a bruise or a bloody nose (which I suspect), then with the amount of bullshit and emotional torment these people spread, it is hardly something to send the person to jail for years over.

The actions of Rankin county were both appalling and very stupid. Giving the WBC both grounds for a lawsuit and the attention they crave is the best thing the county could've done for them short of throwing the WBC a parade with a big check from the taxpayers at the end. Ignoring them or setting up a peaceful counter-protest is the only way to fight them.

I agree that WBC are pretty much just huge attention whores, and it would be best to ignore them, but hey this already happened, and people can only take so much salt in their wounds. Besides, it was handled pretty well for what has happened, considering the entire congregation may have been beaten. Maybe fear of a beating will deter a couple of these protesters in the future. Look at the silver lining, and don't condemn the people of Rankin to hell for violating our sacred constitution.

This argument is basically just the age old argument between Idealism and Pragmatism, and I doubt you or I will change the other's mind.

BTW I think I got all the apostrophes this time

 

[Iron Lightning]

This argument is basically just the age old argument between Idealism and Pragmatism, and I doubt you or I will change the other's mind.

BTW I think I got all the apostrophes this time

Well, I was ready to write another long, rambling essay debating you but I think that you're right as to what this argument truly is. I think that the best way to deal with assholes is to rise above them whereas you think that sometimes you just have to punch a ************. We're just arguing in circles now, I admit that this isn't really a slippery slope unless these sorts of incidents become much more commonplace. As it is pointless to continue arguing, I say that we ought to stop.

I like your post quite a bit better now that you are not pressed for time. In the future, please don't post when pressed for time, honestly you come off as very blunt and angry.

I'm sure we can agree on one thing though, that the WBC are the scum of the Earth and deserve to be fought in every way legally possible.

 

[Callate]

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?

Well, let's put it another way: what if I do say I'm for property rights, and the right to autonomy within my body and my home. Now say someone smashes down my front door with an axe, picks me up, throws me over their shoulder, carries me outside, and flings me into the street. Am I countermanding my feelings on autonomy and property rights by being glad for that person's actions if the person who did these things was a firefighter?

Literalism isn't necessarily helpful. I can, in fact, be in favor of free speech rights and still question whether particular instances should receive those same protections, so long as I remain cognizant of the possibility that making something that might seem to be an exception has the danger of opening the door for abuses of the abiding principle. There aren't a lot of people who feel their rights are trampled by their inability to scream "fire" in a crowded theater, and relatively few who feel slighted by the standing laws on libel and slander.

As far as the "assault" idea goes, it's not as simple as repetition. A manager who goes to work every day and reminds their team that it's day "x" of the company's fundraising drive and they hope everyone will do their part is not assaulting their team. But "speech" implies a desire to communicate ideas, perhaps to further their acceptance among the receptive and decrease resistance among those who disagree. In some cases to make people aware of an idea, its spread, and its ramifications; in some cases to discomfort those who believe otherwise, and let those who believe likewise that they aren't alone.

It's difficult for me to believe that the actions of the WBC achieve any of this. One could make a case that such might have been the desire in the beginning, but with every new protest the general contempt for the WBC seems to grow. The idea, such as it is, has been communicated. There's no sense that their numbers are swelling as a result of their activities, and resistance, as clearly indicated by the story that started this thread, is growing both more open and more organized. Those who are "discomforted" aren't discomforted by the underlying idea ("God hates homosexuals and punishes those who support them") so much as by the disturbance and disrespect shown to families who are in mourning.

It's this last point that brings up the matter of intent; after this many repetitions of the act, it's difficult to come to any conclusion other than that the real intent of these "demonstrations" is not to further the ideas, but to a) raise publicity and b) express hostility. And it's in the last point that the WBC's actions begin to seem less like a debater at their podium or even some kook up on a soapbox with a bullhorn than someone smashing someone else in the face with their fist. The desire, the intent, is to hurt people. The crime is not in the repetition; the repetition is what illuminates the intent.

Your best bet to deal with the Phelps, or anyone baiting you for a response, is to ignore them.

If the media were to ignore them, that might work out. Some ideas don't quiet for being ignored, though. They just fester. Internet forums are not a metaphor for all arenas in life.

 

[DVnotDivvy]

Just remember folks, the Constitution and Bill of Rights only limit what the Federal Government can do, not the State or Local Governments (Those are covered by State Constitutions) and most certainly it does NOT apply to individuals, judging from the article it was a group of private citizens acting against another group of private citizens when those vehicles were blocked in, that falls under local laws.

Considering it's the Supreme law of the land, I would think it applies to everyone; it just isn't easy for an individual to trample on someone's constitutional rights like the federal government does.

Which says you do not understand the purpose of the Constitution and what it was created to do, which was to limit the FEDERAL government, not State government, not local government, and most certainly NOT private citizens.

So you're saying that it's perfectly justifiable for any state to deny someone's constitutional rights as long as the federal government doesn't intervene? This sounds like an argument at a Tea Party rally in Arizona!