Westboro Baptist Church to get day in court

[Hexx]

I will buy many cartons of eggs. I will sell said eggs for $2 a piece, and 3 for $5, with a sign reading "Eggs for sale. Do with what you will." I will donate all the proceeds to a charity, and will donate all unsold eggs to a homeless shelter.

lol, either that or I'll make a big protest sign like theirs that reads "Welcome to Charleston; Good Luck with the Buttsex"

If you do this, I second Miruyasha and post pics =D

 

[Linhjah]

It irritates the shit out of me that these fuckers are from my home town. They love litigation, many of the church members are lawyers.

My favorite thing that has ever been done in response to the acts of Fred Phelps and the other members of the Westboro Baptist Church was at Matthew Shepard's funeral.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Shepard

The anti-gay Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kansas, led by Fred Phelps, picketed Shepard's funeral as well as the trial of his assailants,[39][40] displaying signs with slogans such as "Matt Shepard rots in Hell", "AIDS Kills Fags Dead" and "God Hates Fags".[41] When the Wyoming Supreme Court ruled that it was legal to display any sort of religious message on city property if it was legal for Casper's Ten Commandments display to remain, Phelps attempted and failed to gain city permits in Cheyenne and Casper to build a monument "of marble or granite 5 or 6 feet (1.8 m) in height on which will be a bronze plaque bearing Shepard's picture and the words: "MATTHEW SHEPARD, Entered Hell October 12, 1998, in Defiance of God's Warning: 'Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind; it is abomination.' Leviticus 18:22."[42][43][44][45]

As a counterprotest during Henderson's trial, Romaine Patterson, a friend of Shepard's, organized a group of individuals who assembled in a circle around the Phelps group wearing white robes and gigantic wings (resembling angels) that blocked the protesters. Police had to create a human barrier between the two protest groups.[46] While the organization had no name in the initial demonstration, it has since been ascribed various titles, including 'Angels of Peace' and 'Angel Action'.[39][40] The fence to which Shepard was tied and left to die became an impromptu shrine for visitors, who left notes, flowers, and other mementos. It has since been removed by the land owner.

 

[Zaltana]

I read about that stunt when i had to to research on the group. Oh and half, don't get me started on the NRA. They are practically an unofficial branch of the KKK. A long time friend of mine interviewed a number of members at a gun rally they had in her state. A common response when she simply asked "Why to you feel the need to have a gun?" was this reply; "So i can shoot black people."

I also agree with what mara said. We all have rights, but all to often some groups get so caught up in theirs they seem to forget that others have them too. Unbiased example: Reporters will trample all over an individual's right to privacy if they smell a story. And yes these people are zealots. I understand the need to protect "unpopular speech". But whats to be done about "destructive speech"? Saying the war bush started is wrong is unpopular, decalring your loved ones will burn in hell AT the very funeral you are holding for them, something this group goes out of their way to do year around, is destructive. There is a always a line. and once that line has been crossed you also over step the bounds of exercising your rights. In a perfect senario i would applaud this group being disbanded and the lot of them locked in rubber rooms, perminantly.

 

[Valandil]

I read about that stunt when i had to to research on the group. Oh and half, don't get me started on the NRA. They are practically an unofficial branch of the KKK. A long time friend of mine interviewed a number of members at a gun rally they had in her state. A common response when she simply asked "Why to you feel the need to have a gun?" was this reply; "So i can shoot black people."

I also agree with what mara said. We all have rights, but all to often some groups get so caught up in theirs they seem to forget that others have them too. Unbiased example: Reporters will trample all over an individual's right to privacy if they smell a story. And yes these people are zealots. I understand the need to protect "unpopular speech". But whats to be done about "destructive speech"? Saying the war bush started is wrong is unpopular, decalring your loved ones will burn in hell AT the very funeral you are holding for them, something this group goes out of their way to do year around, is destructive. There is a always a line. and once that line has been crossed you also over step the bounds of exercising your rights. In a perfect senario i would applaud this group being disbanded and the lot of them locked in rubber rooms, perminantly.

Because the term "destructive" is completely subjective and left up entirely to interpretation. It only takes one group, slightly less malevolent than the homophobic zealots, to gain enough of a political foothold that they start to define "destructive speech" in their own terms. Before you know it, to speak out against what they're doing is considered "destructive speech" and you've entered the realm of totalitarian censorship. I know it's cliche to bring up Nazis on an internet forum, and it generally gets your post ignored, but this is exactly how the Nazis rose to power in Germany and then imploded the German people. They began with not-quite-so-sinister rhetoric that appealed to many of the fears and insecurities felt by the German people after World War I, this gave them relevance and a platform. Once they started gaining more support their rhetoric began to shift more and more into the totalitarian spectrum. At the same time they found themselves wielding ever increasing power as their popularity grew until they finally had control of all the apparati with which they could define what was or was not acceptable and could enforce their will. It's almost certain that these cultists will never achieve anything remotely resembling relevance or mainstream support, but once you begin outlawing things based on subjective judgements, you've open a door that will allow more covert and more sinister groups to use those precedents to achieve their own ends and everything that Constitution had stood for will lie dead and buried.

 

[Hexx]

As much as I agree with Zaltana on this, I also agree with Valandil. Once you start labeling things as "destructive speech" it opens up the doors for groups to sue to have other things labeled as such. Hell, it could go as far as trigger something similar to Nazi Germany where any negative criticism of the government is outlawed as "destructive speech" as well. I dont think we wanna go there D= as much as we want to shut these idiots in a loony bin.

 

[Zaltana]

And you don't think the situation has something to say on the matter at hand. If you falsely yell "RAT!" in a restaurant you run the risk of causing a panic, damaging the restaurant's reputation, and endangering the patrons should people make a rush to leave that immediate area of the place. Now is that, or is that not, destructive speech (if not flat out stupid as well)? hmmmm?

Lets say the group did these protests on their own private property or just anywhere hundreds of miles away from the actual places they currently protest endlessly. Are they infringing on anyone's rights? Are they causing discord among the area of the funeral and the mourners present, or what every they get a wild hair about protesting? Because of the situation, i say no. They would be exercising their rights without treading all over the rights of others, while they are still being every bit as disrespectful, they are still on their side of the line. The WBC repeatedly goes above and beyond what could be considered exercising their right of protest. I've heard the can of worms conspiracy theory many different times from people i discuss these topics with. Use the facts and simple observation skills and the difference between the two isn't so blurry as many think.

The assessment of which type of speech is which is much like the gear in this game; highly situational.

 

[Hexx]

And you don't think the situation has something to say on the matter at hand. If you falsely yell "RAT!" in a restaurant you run the risk of causing a panic, damaging the restaurant's reputation, and endangering the patrons should people make a rush to leave that immediate area of the place. Now is that, or is that not, destructive speech (if not flat out stupid as well)? hmmmm?

Lets say the group did these protests on their own private property or just anywhere hundreds of miles away from the actual places they currently protest endlessly. Are they infringing on anyone's rights? Are they causing discord among the area of the funeral and the mourners present, or what every they get a wild hair about protesting? Because of the situation, i say no. They would be exercising their rights without treading all over the rights of others, while they are still being every bit as disrespectful, they are still on their side of the line. The WBC repeatedly goes above and beyond what could be considered exercising their right of protest. I've heard the can of worms conspiracy theory many different times from people i discuss these topics with. Use the facts and simple observation skills and the difference between the two isn't so blurry as many think.

The assessment of which type of speech is which is much like the gear in this game; highly situational.

Thing is Zalt, as much as I agree with you, yelling "rat" in a restaurant is different from what the WBC idiots are doing. They are expressing their opinions (as sick and twisted as they are) while yelling "rat" in a crowded restaurant is causing a panic (which IS a law in most things, think its called "Inciting riot and panic" or something like that). Once you get to the point where you want certain opinions and ideas blocked/filtered/repressed/etc you start treading on dangerous grounds. As much as I dislike the WBC, I would rather let them spew their poison, than risk a whole new set of problems.

 

[Linhjah]

Yelling "Fire!!" in a crowded building when there is no fire is not considered protected speech, so I don't see where "Rat!!" would be, either. Hatemongering is different.

 

[Zaltana]

Change is one of the most dangerous things in this world. Small problems become big problems if they are continuously ignored, proven fact.

 

[Hexx]

Change is one of the most dangerous things in this world. Small problems become big problems if they are continuously ignored, proven fact.

What kind of change are you referring to? The WBC is a small problem, that will STAY small because they are so damn insular. Thank goodness for that I say. Eventually they will be reduced to a ragtag bunch of in-bred idiots riding the shortbus.

 

[Valandil]

Change is one of the most dangerous things in this world. Small problems become big problems if they are continuously ignored, proven fact.

It's also a proven fact that once a populus begins to sign its rights away in the name of "protection," oligarchies and tyrannies eventually follow.

 

[Halifirien]

Lets say the group did these protests on their own private property or just anywhere hundreds of miles away from the actual places they currently protest endlessly. Are they infringing on anyone's rights? Are they causing discord among the area of the funeral and the mourners present, or what every they get a wild hair about protesting? Because of the situation, i say no. They would be exercising their rights without treading all over the rights of others, while they are still being every bit as disrespectful, they are still on their side of the line.

Protesting where nobody can see you isn't a protest. It's just a sign-holding circle jerk. Causing discord is the reason to protest. The WBC schmucks are soulless jackals for choosing funerals as their venue and compounding the grief, but they're not violating a right to never be offended. That right does not exist, nor should it. As much as I hope Fred Phelps dies choking on his own blood while a choir of gay men sing showtunes outside his hospital window, he's allowed to piss people off.

 

[Zaltana]

Then their right to protest is more important then those of their verbal victims?

 

[Hexx]

Then their right to protest is more important then those of their verbal victims?

Neither Zalt, equal rights are equal. As citizens of the USA they have the right to protest as much as you have the right to protest what you see as unfair. You cant make anyone "more equal" than another cuz then racism, sexism, and prejudice in general start rearing their ugly heads.

 

[Halifirien]

Then their right to protest is more important then those of their verbal victims?

Yes. Their victims are not the victims of a crime. They're only the victims of hurt feelings. That's not illegal.

 

[Skaw]

The problem isn't so much what Westboro says as much as what Westboro does. It's fine and dandy if you're racist, xenophobic, sexist, etc. You're entitled to your opinions. You can even say whatever you want about whoever you want. You even have the right to peacefully protest using these opinions. However harassment is very much a no-no, and that's what Westboro is doing. They aren't practicing free speech, they aren't protesting. They're harassing. There'd literally be nothing anyone could do if they just sat down, shut up, and held up signs stating "God hates black gay Jews."

But they don't, they deliberately disturb the peace and incite violence. So they shouldn't be able to do what they do. Taking them to court over what they say or when they say it isn't the right course of action though. Getting them on harassment charges is what people should be doing.

 

[Zaltana]

Finally someone else talking sense about this. I've said it over and again. there is a limit to how far a person can go before they cross the line into the "wrong zone", so to speak. WBC crosses said line on purpose. It is their edict to do so, they call it "spreading the word". Getting harassment charges to stick should be no trouble, seeing as its exactly what they do.

I wonder when people will say enough is enough?

 

[Halifirien]

I've said it over and again. there is a limit to how far a person can go before they cross the line into the "wrong zone", so to speak.

That'll be for the Supreme Court to decide. Given their recent ruling allowing corporations a greater hand in election spending in the name of free speech, I wouldn't be certain they'll come down on your side in this one. We'll see how it goes when Phelps gets his day in court.

 

[Zaltana]

That'll be for the Supreme Court to decide. Given their recent ruling allowing corporations a greater hand in election spending in the name of free speech, I wouldn't be certain they'll come down on your side in this one. We'll see how it goes when Phelps gets his day in court.

I always thought that was decided by common sense. But we'll see if the SC will let a problem fester or actually do something about it.

 

[Skaw]

I always thought that was decided by common sense. But we'll see if the SC will let a problem fester or actually do something about it.

Just hope it doesn't end up with a "You can't protest at a funeral," decision. There are completely legitimate reasons to be able to protest someones service and burial.