Westboro Baptist Church is thwarted!

[FFHAuthor]

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.

Arcticle six, clause two:"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."

Don't play fucking states' rights with me, kid.

(As an amusing aside, the first half of my captcha was 'Article.')

I'm afraid that quoting passages out of context and incorrectly applying applying them does not validate your argument, nor does deciding to make belittling comments give your false argument any kind of weight. You sir, are wrong. If your argument had any weight then the Fourteenth Amendment would have been unnecessary.

The second section of Article six merely reinforces the point that in all states, the Constitution is the governing document in regards to the Federal Authorities.

 

[Agayek]

They broke the law, Blocking someone in is against the law, which is exactly why your car can get towed for doing so.

Lying to the police in the course of an investigation is a crime, does any of us REALLY believe that the crowd of people who watched the ass beating, nor any of the staff, saw "Nothing"?

And whilst This is speculation based on a very, very curious coincidence, considering their illegal actions all day, I would not be surprised if someone filed a fake police report to have them questioned about a "Crime" they committed.

As someone else has already stated; I didn't know that we got to choose what laws we followed when it suits our agenda.

Also, i am going to LOL at the irony that half the people in here will then go directly to the PSN outrage threads and say the hackers should be in jail.

Whats that? A corporation doing something perfectly legal but unpopular? Then people break the law to get back at them? Funny how people's tone change...

First off, I'm fundamentally opposed to the whole concept of law in the first place. Neither I, nor anyone else, has the right to tell someone else how to behave. I recognize that laws are an unfortunate necessity, and accept that fact, but I will gladly ignore laws that inconvenience me when violating them hurts no one else (Note, this does not include piracy before anyone gets on my nuts about it).

Second, I've already said the beating crossed the line. Whoever attacked the guy (or girl) should be jailed for whatever the appropriate time is (I don't know the severity of the beating, but he could walk and talk afterwards so I'm guessing 15-30 days), and the rest of the people should have pointed him out. That clearly crossed the line and was completely uncalled for.

Third, your final thing is basically exactly the same as this, just replace "corporation" with "WBC", so I don't really see your point.

Finally, you'd have a point when comparing the WBC to the civil rights movement and whatnot if the WBC had a purpose of some sort. I am a firm supporter of free speech, and I will always argue in support of those trying to get a message out.

The WBC has no message. Look at what they do, read what they write and listen to what they say. There's nothing to it, no substance in any of their posturing. This isn't a matter of opinion. There's literally no meaning behind what they say. They are the perfect IRL trolls. Everything they say is designed to enrage as many people as possible, and then they sue people who retaliate. They are abusing the freedoms they have been granted, so I will gladly support those who attempt to shut them down.

PS - As others have said, the First Amendment (and all of the Constitution/Bill of Rights) only limits what the federal government can do. It does not apply to the state, city or private citizens.

 

[sheic99]

For assault and only assault.

Edit: Maybe aggravated assault depending on the severity of the beating and battery also.

Sure -- but that is EXACTLY WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. They not only assaulted, but BATTERED a member of the church. Furthermore, they gave the family very real reason to feel threatened when they blocked them into the parking lot.

They BROKE THE LAW to silence the WBC.

But they didn't violate their first amendment rights.

 

[Bento Box]

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.

Arcticle six, clause two:"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."

Don't play fucking states' rights with me, kid.

(As an amusing aside, the first half of my captcha was 'Article.')

I'm afraid that quoting passages out of context and incorrectly applying applying them does not validate your argument, nor does deciding to make belittling comments give your false argument any kind of weight. You sir, are wrong. If your argument had any weight then the Fourteenth Amendment would have been unnecessary.

The second section of Article six merely reinforces the point that in all states, the Constitution is the governing document in regards to the Federal Authorities.

What? Really? Fucking really? "The Federal Constitution is the law," doesn't mean "the Federal Constitution is the law?"

I'm done with you.

 

[RaikuFA]

way to go rankin county

 

[Agayek]

What? Really? Fucking really? "The Federal Constitution is the law," doesn't mean "the Federal Constitution is the law?"

I'm done with you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Cruikshank

Just saying.

 

[draken693]

They are trolls. The only way to get rid of trolls is by ignoring them. Or by setting them on fire. The ignoring them is a lot cleaning.

 

[Wicky_42]

PS - As others have said, the First Amendment (and all of the Constitution/Bill of Rights) only limits what the federal government can do. It does not apply to the state, city or private citizens.

One question, as I'm not up to scratch with all the US's laws, but don't you guys have the right to peaceful protest? I mean, I understand free speech is a Federal thing, but in the UK I believe we have the right to peaceful protest as a separate thing, and that the police (should) legally support and protect said protests (again, in theory). Is there anything equivalent in the States, because if so then there could well be alternative potential legal infringements other than the much talked about 1st Amendment.

 

[CrazyGirl17]

Hahaha! Thats fantastic!

Perfect example of a community pulling together to say a massive "Fuck you!" to those bigoted twatrackets.

Seriously, I abhor the WBC. I honestly can't understand how they haven't been shot yet.

If anyone should die, it is that fucking family. I hope their 'church' is hit by lightning.

I seriously despise the Phelps.

Exactly what I was thinking.

Seriously, those people should be wiped off the face of the map. Harsh, yes, but people like that really piss me off.

(Yes, I know ignoring them is the better option... but just tell me you wouldn't want to punch one of them in the face...

Uh huh. I thought so.)

 

[Fleischer]

Actually, they do. They don't have to put a guard next to you, to hold off some jackass who decides to let his temper get the best of him, but guess what -- if some jackass DOES let his temper get the best of him? You can carry his ass straight to court.

For assault and only assault.

Edit: Maybe aggravated assault depending on the severity of the beating and battery also.

Maybe even a hate crime?

 

[smallthemouse]

I think everyone needs to stop being a baby about this and saying "BUT THEY BROKE THE LAW WAA WAA WAA"

If it was your family member whose soldier funeral was being picketed you would not be taking your moral/constitutional high ground, and would be calling for more than a couple parked cars.

The primary point of the first amendment was so that the citizens are not allowed to be silenced for criticizing the government, not protecting a couple people with universally opposed views.

This is not comparable to civil rights or womens rights where it is ethically obvious oppression. Nobody in 50 years is going to be looking back and saying "Wow I can't believe we didn't let these lunatics protest funerals, how wrong we were."

Everyone needs to grow a pair and realize that getting a little beating (he was fine enough to be questioned by the police about who was assaulting him, so he couldn't have been that injured in the first place) or having your car blocked is not the worst thing that can happen to you.

People in other countries get beaten for far less and you're worried about the well being of a random morally bankrupt pariah?

 

[FFHAuthor]

What? Really? Fucking really? "The Federal Constitution is the law," doesn't mean "the Federal Constitution is the law?"

I'm done with you.

You have every right to base your argument on the equality clause, but frankly, you would have done better to use the 14th Amendment which actually comes close enough to enforcing the Constitution on the States. But if you wish to ignore every aspect of history related to the creation of the document, every statement made by the individuals who wrote and signed it, and ignore the causes of the very existence of it...do so, but ignorance of all aspects does not make you correct, it simply makes you ignorant, and willfully so.

 

[zarix2311]

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.

Arcticle six, clause two:"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."

Don't play fucking states' rights with me, kid.

(As an amusing aside, the first half of my captcha was 'Article.')

You know what, I think you're both right in one way or another. It only gives them more reason to do it and cheer themselves on like some oppressed minority, but If everyone just ignores it than that kind of idiotic, prejudice behavior could spread. I mean it's not like humanity hasn't gone to chant and kill en masse for some stupid reason before. I really hate them, but it does just encourage them, so apply more force until they break men!

 

[claymoreguy18]

Good. As a fellow soldier its good to see one of my NCO's properly laid to rest like he deserved.

 

[Agayek]

One question, as I'm not up to scratch with all the US's laws, but don't you guys have the right to peaceful protest? I mean, I understand free speech is a Federal thing, but in the UK I believe we have the right to peaceful protest as a separate thing, and that the police (should) legally support and protect said protests (again, in theory). Is there anything equivalent in the States, because if so then there could well be alternative potential legal infringements other than the much talked about 1st Amendment.

Protest falls under the protection of the first amendment, which is incidentally also passed down to the States through incorporation of the Bill of Rights (basically, the Supreme Court said the Bill of Rights must also (mostly) apply to the States because of the 14th Amendment).

So yes, the WBC does have the right to protest, and the police are obligated to protect the protest. Clearly, that's not how it works in practice though.

 

[Bento Box]

What? Really? Fucking really? "The Federal Constitution is the law," doesn't mean "the Federal Constitution is the law?"

I'm done with you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Cruikshank

Just saying.

Just want to make sure I'm reading that right. Does that say that if a state doesn't step in to stop a mob from stepping all over people's rights (and is thus complicit), that it's OK?

 

[Fleischer]

PS - As others have said, the First Amendment (and all of the Constitution/Bill of Rights) only limits what the federal government can do. It does not apply to the state, city or private citizens.

One question, as I'm not up to scratch with all the US's laws, but don't you guys have the right to peaceful protest? I mean, I understand free speech is a Federal thing, but in the UK I believe we have the right to peaceful protest as a separate thing, and that the police (should) legally support and protect said protests (again, in theory). Is there anything equivalent in the States, because if so then there could well be alternative potential legal infringements other than the much talked about 1st Amendment.

Correct. The First Amendment of the US Constitution provides:

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.

The Fourteenth Amendment provides this protection:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Some of the these Amendments have been found to be applicable to States, as well as the Federal government. The case of Gitlow v. New York (1925) gave the decision that States are also required to protect freedom of speech.

Make a bit more sense?