• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories

I'd rather we have one Marine

I hear you Darth.

Freedom of speech has nothing to do with those vile scum. Their words and actions have forfeit them ANY of the rights afforded to human beings.

They deserve no support, or even tolerance, from anyone.

Disgraceful.
 
I agree with Darth and Akhenaten. That was hate speech and deprived a grieving family of mourning their son in peace.
 
Last edited:
Akhenaten said:
I hear you Darth.

Freedom of speech has nothing to do with those vile scum. Their words and actions have forfeit them ANY of the rights afforded to human beings.

They deserve no support, or even tolerance, from anyone.

Disgraceful.
Click to expand...

This type of response is precisely why we have protections for free speech. If we limit free speech to only opinions we like, well, it's not free speech is it?

I dislike these worms at Westboro as well. They are loathsome and vile people. However, if we want a country with free speech, that means free speech for everyone.
 
One Eyed Jack said:
This type of response is precisely why we have protections for free speech. If we limit free speech to only opinions we like, well, it's not free speech is it?

I dislike these worms at Westboro as well. They are loathsome and vile people. However, if we want a country with free speech, that means free speech for everyone.
Click to expand...
Seconded. Free speech does apply to all. Not just the speech you approve of.
 
Free speech does apply to all. Not just the speech you approve of.
Click to expand...

But that has never been true. There have always been limits.

And for me in this case it's not the speech, it's the behavior. It's where the speech is occuring, not the speech itself.
 
How long can I stand on public property outside your house and yell obscenities at you?

How many obscene letters can I write to you?

Phone calls?

All of the above are either harassment or disorderly conduct or both, and I'd soon be arrested and rightly so.
 
I agree with the court's decision. I would rather have Westboro on my street every day then "hate" speech laws putting opinions up for mob justice.
I could agree with some kind of "disturbing a funeral" law. But restricting Westboro's speech is not the path a country "of the people" would go down. If majority vote decides what speech is free, you better believe JREF's "atheist" views would be at the top of the "hate" list. In American polls we're hated more than muslims.

Also the family is not out the 16,000. Bill O'Reilly paid it.
 
Ferguson said:
I agree with the court's decision. I would rather have Westboro on my street every day then "hate" speech laws putting opinions up for mob justice.
I could agree with some kind of "disturbing a funeral" law. But restricting Westboro's speech is not the path a country "of the people" would go down. If majority vote decides what speech is free, you better believe JREF's "atheist" views would be at the top of the "hate" list. In American polls we're hated more than muslims.

Also the family is not out the 16,000. Bill O'Reilly paid it.
Click to expand...
We have Racial and Religous Vilification laws in Australia. The sky hasn't fallen.

http://www.hreoc.gov.au/racial_discrimination/cyberracism/vilification.html
 
Ferguson said:
I agree with the court's decision. I would rather have Westboro on my street every day then "hate" speech laws putting opinions up for mob justice.
I could agree with some kind of "disturbing a funeral" law. But restricting Westboro's speech is not the path a country "of the people" would go down. If majority vote decides what speech is free, you better believe JREF's "atheist" views would be at the top of the "hate" list. In American polls we're hated more than muslims.

Also the family is not out the 16,000. Bill O'Reilly paid it.
Click to expand...

This would mean that Westboro is free to disrupt JREF events in a similar manner if they so choose. It won't really matter what they say, they will be disruptive regardless, which is their intent.
 
LTC8K6 said:
But that has never been true. There have always been limits.
Click to expand...
Yes but never on the content per say unless said content is harmful or specifically harassing against an individual.
And for me in this case it's not the speech, it's the behavior. It's where the speech is occuring, not the speech itself.
Click to expand...
As defined by whom?
What about a rally against poverty at a UN summit?
A war rally near the Vietnam Memorial?
 
LTC8K6 said:
How long can I stand on public property outside your house and yell obscenities at you?

How many obscene letters can I write to you?

Phone calls?

All of the above are either harassment or disorderly conduct or both, and I'd soon be arrested and rightly so.
Click to expand...
Have they done so against one specific family?
 
LTC8K6 said:
This would mean that Westboro is free to disrupt JREF events in a similar manner if they so choose. It won't really matter what they say, they will be disruptive regardless, which is their intent.
Click to expand...
So?
 
lionking said:
Free speech is not unlimited, and I think you know that.
Click to expand...
I know that. The question is what the limits are.
Specifically picketing war dead which is not directed against one specific family or person is a political statement and protected by free speech.

No matter how offensive it is, the freedom to do so is important.
 
LTC8K6 said:
This would mean that Westboro is free to disrupt JREF events in a similar manner if they so choose. It won't really matter what they say, they will be disruptive regardless, which is their intent.
Click to expand...

If they are disturbing the peace, they should be arrested for that. What they have to say is irrelevant.
Events are "disrupted" by protesters all the time. So which ones do we arrest? The ugly ones?
No one said the marketplace of ideas would be quiet and peaceful. I'm sure the streets of communist/fascist dictatorships were quite peaceful, what with Stasi and Gestapo around, but I'll take loud and obnoxious protesters to thought police 10 times out of 10.
 
LTC8K6 said:
But that has never been true. There have always been limits.

And for me in this case it's not the speech, it's the behavior. It's where the speech is occuring, not the speech itself.
Click to expand...

OK, the limits are: you can't falsely yell fire in a movie house, and you can't yell obscenities at a funeral. Are there any more you can't do, or does this close the book on it?

Twenty years ago no one did what Westboro does at funerals. If you had to make the rules back then, would you have even thought about including NYOAAF? Or would you have just added it when Westboro started ranting? What is that start picketing weddings in that way? Add another line to the list? Gets kind of tedious.

Unless you can define, ahead of time what is and is not allowable, in precise terms, then your argument is hosed.

In any case, the SCOTUS disagrees.
 
Ferguson said:
If they are disturbing the peace, they should be arrested for that. What they have to say is irrelevant.
Events are "disrupted" by protesters all the time. So which ones do we arrest? The ugly ones?
No one said the marketplace of ideas would be quiet and peaceful. I'm sure the streets of communist/fascist dictatorships were quite peaceful, what with Stasi and Gestapo around, but I'll take loud and obnoxious protesters to thought police 10 times out of 10.
Click to expand...

A private funeral is now a marketplace of ideas?

Is TAM-whatever also a marketplace for Westboro's ideas?

How about this board? Can Westboro participate in this marketplace with their ideas?
 
shadron said:
OK, the limits are: you can't falsely yell fire in a movie house, and you can't yell obscenities at a funeral. Are there any more you can't do, or does this close the book on it?

Twenty years ago no one did what Westboro does at funerals. If you had to make the rules back then, would you have even thought about including NYOAAF? Or would you have just added it when Westboro started ranting? What is that start picketing weddings in that way? Add another line to the list? Gets kind of tedious.

Unless you can define, ahead of time what is and is not allowable, in precise terms, then your argument is hosed.

In any case, the SCOTUS disagrees.
Click to expand...

I already can't yell obscenities at your house, so why would I be allowed to yell them at your funeral? I can't hold a big protest at your house. It would interfere with you living your life. I'd be arrested as disorderly. It's crystal clear that my free speech has reasonable limits.

Try holding a big protest at Westboro and interfering with their services. I'll bet your free speech ends right about there.

If there are any rules, they need to be enforced evenly, and there clearly are rules.
 
LTC8K6 said:
Try holding a big protest at Westboro and interfering with their services. I'll bet your free speech ends right about there.
Click to expand...
Why would it? People protested catholic churches over sex abuse, without being arrested. Whenever neo-nazis meet up, there are hundreds or thousands of protesters, and police to "defend" them. Depending on what you mean by "interfering with their services," I don't see how there would be a problem.

LTC8K6 said:
If there are any rules, they need to be enforced evenly, and there clearly are rules.
Click to expand...
I agree completely with that. Show me the non-violent funeral protesters that have been prosecuted under US law and I'll change my opinion on the court's decision in an instant.
 
LTC8K6 said:
There's no way Westboro can discuss their ideas here...

I can't even discuss their ideas here.
Click to expand...

That God hates homosexuals and punishes the US through war? I've read waayyy more ◊◊◊◊◊◊* stuff on JREF than that. I've read way more ◊◊◊◊◊◊* stuff than that in the bible. And people give that thing to children.
 
How many people responding in this thread have read the court's decision?
Click to expand...

Has nothing to do with why I posted here...

It sounds to me like there's an unfamiliarity with Westboro, their ideas, and the way they protest.

I am gobsmacked at the claim that they would be allowed to discuss their ideas here.

At any rate, I can see that I'm not going to get anywhere here, but I said what I wanted to say.
 
LTC8K6 said:
Has nothing to do with why I posted here...
It sounds to me like there's an unfamiliarity with Westboro, their ideas, and the way they protest.
Click to expand...
I'm quite familiar with them, and hate them passionately, I have nothing but disdain for them. What does that have to do with the law?

LTC8K6 said:
I am gobsmacked at the claim that they would be allowed to discuss their ideas here.
Click to expand...
Their ideas are rather run of the mill Old Testament. It's their choice of language and tactics that are so offensive. I've seen similar and what I would consider quite insane ideas on JREF (have you read yrreg or the reincarnation thread :eye-poppi).

LTC8K6 said:
Your post is censored, and they don't say "homosexual"...
Click to expand...
:rolleyes: And this is relevant? I thought it was their ideas that couldn't be discussed?
 
You mean "god hates fags"?

God Hates Fags.

It seems to not be censored.

There are people on the JREF forum who write things that are on par with that in terms of hatred. It doesn't seem like you are right.
 
I frankly don't see how it can be such a huge blow to freedom of speech to not be allowed to dishonour the dead within hearing distance of their funeral service.

There's lots of places where you can't do what you want. You can't march into a congressional hearing with a buddy, have a seat and start chatting about Swedish politics. You can't stand outside an elementary school and yell obscenities. If Westboro has the right to do what they do, I want the right to sit outside the playground of a kindergarten and talk loudly about graphic butchering methods.
 
Alan said:
You mean "god hates fags"?

God Hates Fags.

It seems to not be censored.
Click to expand...
Yes, I should have said it too, but there have been a few bizarre AAH dumps lately and I didn't want to risk torpedoing a good thread.


Safe-Keeper said:
I frankly don't see how it can be such a huge blow to freedom of speech to not be allowed to dishonour the dead within hearing distance of their funeral service.
Click to expand...
I have no problem with a "disrupting a funeral service" misdemeanor, as long as speech content is irrelevant.

Safe-Keeper said:
There's lots of places where you can't do what you want. You can't march into a congressional hearing with a buddy, have a seat and start chatting about Swedish politics. You can't stand outside an elementary school and yell obscenities. If Westboro has the right to do what they do, I want the right to sit outside the playground of a kindergarten and talk loudly about graphic butchering methods.
Click to expand...
Have you been to a kindergarten playground? You'd look like a nun compared to the language elementary-schoolers throw around. ;)
 
Safe-Keeper said:
I want the right to sit outside the playground of a kindergarten and talk loudly about graphic butchering methods.
Click to expand...

Have you ever spent much time with kids of this age? They would think you were awesome and ask if the guts would spill out and wiggle around like worms. :D

On a side note, I used to work for a company owned by a couple of religious conservatives. They would go on about not letting their children watch shows which depicted homosexuals. They felt this was damaging. With the same breath, their faces would light up as they discussed how the whole family never misses an episode of CSI... you know, CSI, where every episode opens with a decomposing, mutilated, or sexually assaulted corpse shown in graphic detail.

Are these the types of people that we want to decide what is appropriate speech? I ask because they are the type that traditionally flock to opportunities to do so.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom