Westboro Baptist Church #Winning!

[Fez Hammersticks]

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Westboro Baptist Church on Wednesday. As Robert Barnes reported:

The First Amendment protects a fringe church's anti-gay protests at military funerals, a nearly unanimous Supreme Court ruled Wednesday in a powerful opinion that spoke to the nation's tolerance for even hateful public speech.

-Washington Post

I can see Fred Phelps pounding his chest proclaiming that God is on their side and their message is valid.

​

 

[SlyPokerDog]

I think that's great news! It means a whole bunch of pissed off people can go shout cruel shit when one of their members dies.

 

[LittleAlex]

I agree that they should be able to do or say pretty much whatever vile bullshit they want to.

But one of these days they are going to interrupt the wrong funeral and a bunch of them are going to get hurt bad.
And I think the folks doing the hurting should walk away scott free.

There are always repercussions for saying whatever comes to mind.
Eventually the Westboro Baptish Closet Cases are going to find that out.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

To me, their conduct was reprehensible, but it was an 8-1 vote.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

I think that's great news! It means a whole bunch of pissed off people can go shout cruel shit when one of their members dies.

you would think so, but probably wouldn't happen.

 

[agoo]

To me, their conduct was reprehensible, but it was an 8-1 vote.

I agree with both parts of that statement. Freedom of Speech comes with some warts.

 

[maxiep]

I support all freedom of speech, even when it comes from dipshits like these folks. We bitch about trolls on this forum, but these jackholes take the cake.

 

[crandc]

I think the headline in the SF Chronicle summed it up: Unconscionable but Constitutional. The editorial went on to say that sometimes defending the Constitution requires a strong stomach. While these poor excuses for human beings are loathsome, I do not want the state deciding what can and cannot be said. As long as they don't threaten, block access, etc. they have the right to picket. Even though it turns my stomach. Phelps did not win. We won. The country.

 

[Shooter]

But one of these days they are going to interrupt the wrong funeral and a bunch of them are going to get hurt bad. And I think the folks doing the hurting should walk away scott free.

Oh really? Do you also think that people who bomb abortion clinics should walk away "scott free"? After all, the abortion crowd loudly demands their right to kill babies, and that is offensive to many people.

 

[BrianFromWA]

I'm not sure that anyone doing unsanctioned "hurting" should walk away scot-free, but comparing free speech picketers at a funeral to bombing abortion clinics, in the words of Sam Jackson,

ain't the same fuckin' ballpark, it ain't the same league, it ain't even the same fuckin' sport.

 

[BrianFromWA]

(Unsarcastically) can someone explain to me why these guys aren't prosecuted for hate speech?

 

[BrianFromWA]

BTW, here's a more appropriate way to screen the protesters off:
http://www.godvine.com/Christian-Veterans-Protect-the-Funeral-of-a-Fallen-Soldier-278.html

 

[MARIS61]

(Unsarcastically) can someone explain to me why these guys aren't prosecuted for hate speech?

Same reason I'm not prosecuted for breathing the air. There is no law against it.

Seriously? You're paid to defend the Constitution and it's Amendments and our American way of life and your true desire is to control what people can say?

I want my tax dollars refunded since they have been collected under false pretenses.

Most of Asia, Africa, Western Europe and Canada have enacted strict laws controlling/preventing the expression of individual opinion under the guise of "hate speech".

We do things a little differently here. Having true Freedom of Speech is what separates us from the pack of pseudo-free societies.

from wiki:
Laws prohibiting hate speech outside of obscenity, defamation and incitement to riot are illegal in the United States.[36][37][38] The United States federal government and state governments are broadly forbidden by the First Amendment of the Constitution from restricting speech.[39] Even in cases where speech encourages illegal violence, instances of incitement qualify as criminal only if the threat of violence is imminent.[40] This strict standard prevents prosecution of many cases of incitement, including prosecution of those advocating violent opposition to the government, and those exhorting violence against racial, ethnic, or gender minorities.[41]

Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, employers may sometimes be prosecuted for tolerating "hate speech" by their employees, if that speech contributes to a broader pattern of harassment resulting in a "hostile or offensive working environment" for other employees.[42][43]

In the 1980s and 1990s, more than 350 public universities adopted "speech codes" regulating discriminatory speech by faculty and students.[44] These codes have not fared well in the courts, where they are frequently overturned as violations of the First Amendment.[45] Debate over restriction of "hate speech" in public universities has resurfaced with the adoption of anti-harassment codes covering discriminatory speech.[46]

from wikia:

There are a number of arguments suggested against the prohibition of hate speech:

■Prohibiting hate speech interferes with the right of free expression and free discussion of opinions, a key right in modern democracies, particularly in the media. (The United States constitution expressly protects freedom of the press.) This argument from freedom is formally described by John Stuart Mill in On Liberty.
■Hate speech restrictions are attempts to control not only the relevant speech actions, but the thoughts of individuals, and are thus an attempt to create a kind of thoughtcrime. Some believe governments may be currently enforcing laws that implement a de facto thoughtcrime regime.
■Even if used, hate speech does not necessarily lead to actions, and that where actions are carried out, the speaker of those words cannot be held responsible for the actions of others. Critics of this position hold that position depends on denying what they argue as historical truths (i.e. that hate speech in practice sometimes is used to incite murder and genocide).
■Prohibiting hate speech does nothing to change the ideas that give rise to the opinions behind the "offensive" terms. On this view, it is agreed that hate speech may be dangerous and should not exist, but suggested that we should not attempt to end it by legislative action, as opposed to debate and discussion.
■In some cases it is held that prohibiting hate speech is part of a campaign of political correctness intended to censor any expression of certain ideas, even if there is no accompanying incitement to hatred or criminal action.

 

[MARIS61]

BTW, here's a more appropriate way to screen the protesters off:
http://www.godvine.com/Christian-Veterans-Protect-the-Funeral-of-a-Fallen-Soldier-278.html

See. Morons are easy to deal with at a community level, and no assistance is needed from Big Brother to "protect us".

 

[KevinJBonn]

They've been feeling some heat for the past few weeks. Check out their website, it's been taken down by hackers (thank god).

 

[bluefrog]

BTW, here's a more appropriate way to screen the protesters off:
http://www.godvine.com/Christian-Veterans-Protect-the-Funeral-of-a-Fallen-Soldier-278.html

Awesome! I've read about those bikers but it's cool to see them in action

 

[BrianFromWA]

Seriously? You're paid to defend the Constitution and it's Amendments and our American way of life and your true desire is to control what people can say?

Seriously. And where the heck did you get that my "true desire is to control what people can say?"

I want my tax dollars refunded since they have been collected under false pretenses.

Tell you what, refund me those that paid for your education and we'll call it even?

First, I've been pretty clear that my job is to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, among other things--though "American Way of Life" is not among them. Though I've actually read the Constitution, which I'm not sure many in here can claim, I don't pretend to be a lawyer. I know many on the board here are (or are involved in the GLBT community) so I ask questions about things that I don't know. Like, say, recent civilian legislation against hate crimes. Unlike, say, assuming that whatever inane opinion I came up with is now Truth because it was formed in the void of my mind's eye.

So, I just attempted to do a quick look-up. My confusion comes in part b/c hate speech is illegal in the military. On the outside? Hate crimes (crappy wiki definition, I know...sorry)

generally refers to criminal acts that are seen to have been motivated by bias against one or more of the types above, or of their derivatives. Incidents may involve physical assault, damage to property, bullying, harassment, verbal abuse or insults, or offensive graffiti or letters (hate mail).

From further on:

In 2009, the Matthew Shepard Act added perceived gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, and disability to the federal definition, and dropped the prerequisite that the victim be engaging in a federally-protected activity

So if a "hate crime" may consist of verbal abuse, insults, and offensive graffiti ... motivated by a bias against ... sexual orientation ... I think my question is at least valid enough for the question to be asked. It also says that if the speech incites a riot, one can be prosectued for hate crimes. Is it just a matter of them showing up at the wrong funeral and inciting a riot that would get them convicted of hate crimes?

 

[MrJayremmie]

Westbroro church pastor's daughter declared Obama the beast from Revelation.

Sweet.

 

[LittleAlex]

Westbroro church pastor's daughter declared Obama the beast from Revelation.

Sweet.

I seriously hope he is since that means the Rapture is on its way, taking this whole collection of jackasses up to heaven so we get 7 years of peace before they come back and screw it all up.

 

[maxiep]

An interesting point: http://reason.com/blog/2011/03/07/why-do-newspapers-support-west

 

[MrJayremmie]

Maxiep, I think it is because they are persons, and the 1st amendment applies to persons. Corporations are not persons.

 

[Fez Hammersticks]

[video=youtube;S9XzShL0h8M]

 

[crandc]

Harassment and speech, however nasty, are not the same thing. Despicable as they are, the Phelps cult is careful to follow laws. They observe prescribed distance, do not block sidewalks, do not approach and scream in people's ears, do not use threats, do not block doorways, etc. So yes, they are covered by free speech. And it is a victory for us, all of us, because it means the Tea Party and the National Organization for Women, the Christian Coalition, Earth Action, the Gay Pride Parade, all of whom annoy someone, still have our rights.

Harassment is more what the anti-women's rights groups (I can't just say antiabortion since they also oppose contraception, sex education, rape prevention programs, prenatal care, WIC program - everything that either prevents unwanted pregnancy or helps babies be healthy). Those people do, often, block sidewalks, barricade buildings, padlock doors shut, write down license plates and harass patients at their homes, jobs, schools, threaten, get in people's faces and scream, tell men to beat their wives/girlfriends to prevent their abortion, videotape patients, post doctors home addresses on line with invitations to act violently against them, bomb clinics, kill doctors and clinic staff and police officers. That is not free speech. If they just stood across the street with their signs, as the Phelps cult does, however offensive, I'd have to defend their free speech, as I do the Phelps cult.

 

[jlprk]

Only in this, the most conservative country, could this event happen without any ridicule of the ideologies behind it, both conservative and religious.

If a bunch of hippies were doing this and holding leftist signs, the reaction would be much more harsh. Actually, the conservative police never would have allowed it to happen in the first place.

The U.S. freedom of religion is much stronger than the freedom of speech. If not under the umbrella of religion, they wouldn't have won using only one freedom as an issue, the one of speech. They needed both freedom issues to win, mainly religion. The legal system is why the liberal social movements which are most enduring are under the ambiance of religion.