Westboro Baptist Church is thwarted!

[sheic99]

No it is not. What they did is in no way a violation of their rights. Only the GOVERNMENT can violate their first amendment rights, not private citizens. You can say whatever you want in public, but that doesn't mean people are required to let you keep speaking. Just so we're clear on this, the freedom of speech does not cover slander and libel, both of which the WBC have committed in the past.

No -- fuck you, and fuck that noise. Anyone can infringe on free speech. That's what laws are for. If you're gearing up to go to an anti-war rally, and I block your driveway and refuse to move? I'm breaking the fucking law.

"...but that doesn't mean people are required to let you keep speaking."

Honestly? If that's not what 'freedom of speech' is supposed to mean, then I am truly fucking confounded.

The WBC is not calling for murder. They are not inciting violence. People are getting pissy because they don't want to hear the Phelps family. Too fucking bad. IT IS THEIR RIGHT.

You are right, you are violating a law by doing that, but you are not violating my rights. Only the government can violate you rights. The government cannot stop me from yelling racial slurs in a black neighborhood, but that doesn't they have to protect me while I do it.

 

[Beat14]

I am all for freedom of speech, but there is a time and place for it, the time and place is not at some ones funeral.

I despise the views of that church and hope they fade away or better yet vanish.

 

[Canid117]

Well that is one of the hazards of free speech. You can get punched in the face for abusing it.

 

[Nerdygamer89]

*sigh* This is exactly what the WBC wants. I expect to hear about a major law suit being lodged against the town of Rankin. Violating the freedom of speech of anyone - even those with deplorable messages - is unconstitutional.

But see, as far as anyone knows the events in Rankin were not a concerted effort, rather a "series of coincidences" and I'll bet that's what the police will say if there is a lawsuit. It's not about what you say happened, it's about what you can prove in a court of law.

 

[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.')

 

[wammnebu]

Good to see people remember that 1st ammendment is a 2way street.

you have the right to speak without hinderence of the government, the citizens have the right to kick your ass

 

[Scipio1770]

Really I see this as a shallow, and hollow nothing. I won't even call it a victory of any kind. I do not see what there is to celebrate when people are resorting to violence, and/or abusing the law. They had no right to attack W.B.C., or hold them. Really the fact that I have to defend the W.B.C. is a sad commentary in and of itself. I despise Communism, but I'm not going to start attacking Communist.

Let me make a quick point, and leave it at that, and the point is there are only 72 people in the W.B.C.'s congregation. We should not be giving 72 crazy people this kind of attention; it only empowers them to continue. I can guarantee you that right now they are quoting "Matthew 10:22 "All men will hate you because of me, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved."

and Luke 6:22 "Blessed are you when people hate you, avoid you, insult you, and slander you because you are committed to the Son of Man."

Really the best thing you can do about these people is ignore them completely, [sarcasm]but thank you Mississippi for making them feel good about themselves, and empowering there cause.[sarcasm end]

Fuck! He's totally right.

not at all. Ignoring a tumor only invites it to spread.

The WBC survives solely by agitating society enough to drain money out of it through lawsuits. By giving the group the blind eye, the US has allowed the WBC to perfect it's method. The WBC has learned to target funerals and schools, travel to more easily provoked communities, and countless other tactics to successfully play the legal system.

The only way to eliminate this tumor is either to freeze it, extract it, or eradicate it. By that i mean to freeze financial assets and take away tax exempt status of a church, extract from society by only allowing WBC protests in certain public areas away from their targets, or eradicate.. through less than legal means.

 

[Sarge034]

I don't think the WBC understands how lucky they have been. One of these days someone is going to make a few WBC corpses and then protest THEIR funerals.

 

[Bento Box]

No it is not. What they did is in no way a violation of their rights. Only the GOVERNMENT can violate their first amendment rights, not private citizens. You can say whatever you want in public, but that doesn't mean people are required to let you keep speaking. Just so we're clear on this, the freedom of speech does not cover slander and libel, both of which the WBC have committed in the past.

No -- fuck you, and fuck that noise. Anyone can infringe on free speech. That's what laws are for. If you're gearing up to go to an anti-war rally, and I block your driveway and refuse to move? I'm breaking the fucking law.

"...but that doesn't mean people are required to let you keep speaking."

Honestly? If that's not what 'freedom of speech' is supposed to mean, then I am truly fucking confounded.

The WBC is not calling for murder. They are not inciting violence. People are getting pissy because they don't want to hear the Phelps family. Too fucking bad. IT IS THEIR RIGHT.

You are right, you are violating a law by doing that, but you are not violating my rights. Only the government can violate you rights. The government cannot stop me from yelling racial slurs in a black neighborhood, but that doesn't they have to protect me while I do it.

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.

 

[Sam Ronin]

I have to agree that assaulting the guy was wrong. As much as it might feel good to shut their hate filled mouthes. Its only making him a martyr to them.

Now if those wrecker/tow truck people were all attending the funeral and unable to perform any actions until after the event then you cant do all that much about them.
For all the obvious planning, a good counter plan can cover rear ends against those law suits.

Its times like this that make me glad to be in the UK. For all the failings I do see here at least the government here had anti hate preach law and used that to refuse entry to the Phelps family when they wanted to protest here.
Freedom of speech upto the point where said speech is being used to promote extemism or hatred towards others...

Now if their WBC was somehow reclassified as a cult and a danger then perhaps something more suitable could be arranged. But that would need something like the common Christian branches there to stand together and officially denounce the WBC as being something else, something non-christian...

 

[Cavan]

*sigh* This is exactly what the WBC wants. I expect to hear about a major law suit being lodged against the town of Rankin. Violating the freedom of speech of anyone - even those with deplorable messages - is unconstitutional.

But see, as far as anyone knows the events in Rankin were not a concerted effort, rather a "series of coincidences" and I'll bet that's what the police will say if there is a lawsuit. It's not about what you say happened, it's about what you can prove in a court of law.

Exactly, as far as anybody knows the stories we are talking about are rumours started by the WBC itself in order to make themselves appear the victim, a tactic they are not above.

 

[JochemDude]

Sorry, Genuinely with the WBC on this one.

These Rankin Neanderthals were violent, obstructed the course of justice and broke laws...all in the name of denying the WBC their first amendment rights.

You morons are praising people for being WORSE than the WBC, Yes, fucking WORSE.

What? You think its justifiable because the majority of people disagree with their message? Must I whip out my big book of history? Womens rights? Civil rights? All things and more that at some point were embraced by the majority as being "Right" to oppose, where the tiny minority that supported, where the tiny minority felt the wrath of the majority for doing little more than protesting, than espousing unpopular opinion...where the majority opinion holders would beat them, lynch them and subjugate them. Guess what, that majority thought the ends justified the means too.

OP and those that agree, you're officially more despicable than the WBC.

You're avatar tells me more than enough about what you're doing here. Can someone please call in a banhammer strike here?

Wow, I suppose if I change the little black and white pixels by my post all of a sudden it becomes valid? Can't help but notice that more than a few others have espoused the same opinion as me, going to try and get them banned too?

Or do you just want to silent dissenting opinions?

Or I want to silence you're opinion? If you're indeed saying that I'm worse than WBC. Then fuck yes, we are praising people for standing up against those racist hate spreading assholes, with or without law on their side. You even realize how insulting it is to say against someone who isn't a hating dick to call him worse than WBC.
Don't get me wrong though, voices are meant to be heard, but one must also bear the responsibility and consequences for them.

 

[sheic99]

No it is not. What they did is in no way a violation of their rights. Only the GOVERNMENT can violate their first amendment rights, not private citizens. You can say whatever you want in public, but that doesn't mean people are required to let you keep speaking. Just so we're clear on this, the freedom of speech does not cover slander and libel, both of which the WBC have committed in the past.

No -- fuck you, and fuck that noise. Anyone can infringe on free speech. That's what laws are for. If you're gearing up to go to an anti-war rally, and I block your driveway and refuse to move? I'm breaking the fucking law.

"...but that doesn't mean people are required to let you keep speaking."

Honestly? If that's not what 'freedom of speech' is supposed to mean, then I am truly fucking confounded.

The WBC is not calling for murder. They are not inciting violence. People are getting pissy because they don't want to hear the Phelps family. Too fucking bad. IT IS THEIR RIGHT.

You are right, you are violating a law by doing that, but you are not violating my rights. Only the government can violate you rights. The government cannot stop me from yelling racial slurs in a black neighborhood, but that doesn't they have to protect me while I do it.

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.

 

[Lunar Templar]

I agree. This needed to happen, to be honest I kind of wish that someone would snap and take a spray of machine gun fire across their protest line.

nah, wait till they're all gathered in one spot, THEN open up, get em all at once

OT:: they deserved worse, but this made me grin, specifically the beating cover up >

 

[Bento Box]

Really I see this as a shallow, and hollow nothing. I won't even call it a victory of any kind. I do not see what there is to celebrate when people are resorting to violence, and/or abusing the law. They had no right to attack W.B.C., or hold them. Really the fact that I have to defend the W.B.C. is a sad commentary in and of itself. I despise Communism, but I'm not going to start attacking Communist.

Let me make a quick point, and leave it at that, and the point is there are only 72 people in the W.B.C.'s congregation. We should not be giving 72 crazy people this kind of attention; it only empowers them to continue. I can guarantee you that right now they are quoting "Matthew 10:22 "All men will hate you because of me, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved."

and Luke 6:22 "Blessed are you when people hate you, avoid you, insult you, and slander you because you are committed to the Son of Man."

Really the best thing you can do about these people is ignore them completely, [sarcasm]but thank you Mississippi for making them feel good about themselves, and empowering there cause.[sarcasm end]

Fuck! He's totally right.

not at all. Ignoring a tumor only invites it to spread.

The WBC survives solely by agitating society enough to drain money out of it through lawsuits. By giving the group the blind eye, the US has allowed the WBC to perfect it's method. The WBC has learned to target funerals and schools, travel to more easily provoked communities, and countless other tactics to successfully play the legal system.

The only way to eliminate this tumor is either to freeze it, extract it, or eradicate it. By that i mean to freeze financial assets and take away tax exempt status of a church, extract from society by only allowing WBC protests in certain public areas away from their targets, or eradicate.. through less than legal means.

God damn it, this is so simple -- JUST BECAUSE YOU DISAGREE WITH SOMEONE, DOES NOT GIVE YOU THE RIGHT TO CHANGE WHICH RIGHTS THEY HAVE.

By what RIGHT would you freeze their assets? They've done nothing illegal.
By what RIGHT would you kill their tax exempt status as a church? Don' get me wrong -- I think that ALL religious institutions should have their tax exemptions revoked, but how do you decide to support, say, Pat Robertson's ministries, and not Fred Phelps'?

Also, they are already required to stay a certain distance from the funeral, just like any public display must.

 

[Stephanos132]

A lot of people here are quick to quote 'freedom of speech', but what about responsibility? Do you really want to live in a world where immoral actions have no direct consequence, because that's where harping on endlessly about rights will lead (and, if you ask many people from Britain at least, it has already led there. That said, you could argue freedom of speech doesn't really exist anymore there anyway)?

These people broadcast hate, nothing more. Sitting down and taking it won't stop them, it'll merely embolden them. Taking irritating but ultimately harmless (as per the blocking of their cars) measures to stop them being dicks can surely only be a good thing?

 

[Speakercone]

You're comparing the Westborough Baptist Church to the civil rights movement and womens' rights then calling foul when you're called a troll. Granted the call for banhammer is ironic given the content of your post, but seriously, rethink your analogies.

I explained the analogy and they fit perfectly, Again, others in the thread have done the same because it is an apt analogy. The only difference is that you agree with those other movements, but you don't agree with this one therefore the ends justify the means.

I'm pointing out that this is exactly the same mentality that people who were against equal rights had. Sorry that the reality of hypocrisy is uncomfortable.

Everyone has the same rights, you can't take them away whenever it suits you.

I have voiced an opinion that the right to freedom of speech and expression should have some limits. This limit should come right around the time where your organization is picketing funerals. As the law stands now, however, I will concede that they do indeed have the right to say as they please and it is unlawful for law enforcement officers to hamper their efforts to do so.

Your analogy doesn't work because the civil rights movement and womens' rights movements were fighting against legal opression. These were laws in place which were designed to opress black people because they were black and women because they were women. The WBC doesn't appear to be quite so put upon. There are no laws preventing them from voting, nor laws which dictate where they may or may not go in public, no laws which force them into poor education because of the colour of their skin, and no laws telling them where they may or may not go to the bathroom. In short, they are not opressed in any sense of the word. They are merely very angry at the families of those who died serving them for reasons that escape me.

The analogy is flawed due to a difference in scale. You are right to point out that it would be just as unlawful to silence them, but what's legal and what's right are often very different. Just look at the Civil Rights movement.

 

[Kelethor]

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?

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.

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.

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.

Your'e Right. it sucks a lot, but you are indeed right.

 

[Bento Box]

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.

 

[Wicky_42]

Everything apart from the beating amuses me, despite the infringement on right to free speech. Honestly, I think the WBC has said all it needs to on certain topics and should know when to have the decency to shut the hell up - there's a point where even the wishy liberal in me gives up and just lamps the annoying dick in the face, and the WBC has been up in everyone's faces for long enough; the blocking of their protest was masterfully done (again, barring the physical violence...)

That said, I wouldn't want it to become common practice; once is cathartic and amusing, but to continuously suppress any group's legal rights is downright... well, illegal, and insidious. Where would you draw the line? How strongly does someone have to hold a differing opinion before you feel you can shut them up?