• 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
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

I'd rather we have one Marine

I propose that we give the Westboro Baptist lunatics freedom to say whatever they want at Marine funerals. I further propose that we give blanket amnesty to the mourners at such funerals for any assault/battery/attempted murder charges against the aforementioned lunatics.

I'll bet you wouldn't see any more protests at funerals.
 
jhunter1163 said:
I propose that we give the Westboro Baptist lunatics freedom to say whatever they want at Marine funerals. I further propose that we give blanket amnesty to the mourners at such funerals for any assault/battery/attempted murder charges against the aforementioned lunatics.

I'll bet you wouldn't see any more protests at funerals.
Click to expand...

Hang on a mo - that would suggest that you think words have some kind of power over people....
 
jhunter1163 said:
I propose that we give the anti-warWestboro Baptist lunatics freedom to say whatever they want at Marine funerals. I further propose that we give blanket amnesty to soldiers and police the mourners at such funerals for any assault/battery/attempted murder charges against the aforementioned lunatics.

I'll bet you wouldn't see any more protests at funerals.
Click to expand...


http://www.siue.edu/~ejoy/Filo_Kent_State.jpg


Edited by LashL: 
Removed breach of Rule 5. Do not hotlink images in your posts.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
jhunter1163 said:
I propose that we give the Westboro Baptist lunatics freedom to say whatever they want at Marine funerals. I further propose that we give blanket amnesty to the mourners at such funerals for any assault/battery/attempted murder charges against the aforementioned lunatics.

I'll bet you wouldn't see any more protests at funerals.
Click to expand...

I propose that we give Teabaggers freedom to say whatever they want. I further propose that we give blanket amnesty to non-racists/sane people for any assault/battery/attempted murder charges against the aforementioned lunatics.

I bet the teabag protests would end soon.
 
jhunter1163 said:
What's the problem? What about the mourners' freedom of expression? Why can't the mourners use their freedom of speech to say just what they feel about the Westboro Baptist loonies, without fear of reprisal?

Works both ways, doesn't it?
Click to expand...
The mourners can say whatever the want. Who says they can't?
Are you falsely equating freedom of expression with "freedom" to assault someone you don't like?

Let's flip this around.
"Mourner's lead by Cindy Sheehan to use funeral procession of dead soldier to protest Iraq War."
 
You've never had anyone close to you have their life cut short, have you?

The idea of using a funeral, any funeral, to try and advance a political agenda is so devoid of common decency as to be completely incomprehensible to me. There are so many other more appropriate fora for dissent.

These morons are out to shock people, that's all. And to my mind, they should be prevented from protesting at funerals. I don't think that's such an enormous curb on free speech.
 
jhunter1163 said:
You've never had anyone close to you have their life cut short, have you?
Click to expand...
And how is that relevant? Does my opinion concerning the law becomes relevant only when it applies to me?
The idea of using a funeral, any funeral, to try and advance a political agenda is so devoid of common decency as to be completely incomprehensible to me. There are so many other more appropriate fora for dissent.
Click to expand...
I agree but does not change the fact that the issue becomes WHO or WHAT determines what is "decent"?
These morons are out to shock people, that's all. And to my mind, they should be prevented from protesting at funerals. I don't think that's such an enormous curb on free speech.
Click to expand...
Yes they are out to shock people. They now have all the outrage they want.

This case is now on the docket of SCOTUS and we will see which way this goes.
 
paximperium said:
"Mourner's lead by Cindy Sheehan to use funeral procession of dead soldier to protest Iraq War."
Click to expand...

Using other people's grief as a vehicle to promote your agenda is indecent.

Cindy Sheehan can, and does, channel her own grief into her antiwar activities, and I'm fine with that. It's piggybacking your agenda onto people who are mourning, who you don't even know, and who very possibly don't share your opinions that I am opposed to.

That really shouldn't be that hard to grasp.

ETA: We'll see how the SCOTUS rules. I await their ruling with interest. Thanks for playing, no hard feelings.
 
Last edited:
Some basic facts about this case seem to be misunderstood. It is not disputed that protesters obeyed local ordinances and police and stayed at least 1,000 feet away from the church. They were in a public place. The father couldn't see the protesters, and he said he didn't see the protesters until he saw them on television later. The protesters never confronted the family in person.

So, however you want to define "disrupting" the funeral, those are the facts against which you need to measure it.
 
I don't understand why so many people get so confused about freedom of speech. You have the right to say whatever the hell you want. I have the right to kick you out of my property if I don't want you there. The government (with a small number of exceptions) does not.

If you come into my cinema and shout "fire" - you get booted out not because of the limits of free speech but because of the implicit rule that you don't shout fire in my damn theatre. I hate to agree with libertarians, but Jacob Hornberger gets it much more right than Oliver Wendell Holmes:
The reason that a man ordinarily cannot scream, “Fire!” in a theater is that the owner of the theater hasn’t permitted it. That is, when a patron enters the theater, he does so on terms established by the owner of the theater, which implicitly include a rule against disturbing the other patrons.

Let’s assume, however, that for some strange reason a theater owner decides to create a rowdy environment and openly declares that anyone who enters his theater can scream, yell, dance, and even issue false warnings of “Fire!” As the owner of the theater, that would be his right, just as it would be the right of people to refrain from patronizing that theater.
Click to expand...

If you come into my home and start shouting off racially or whatever, I can tell you to leave, and if you don't, I can call the cops or force you.

If you are standing on the street corner shouting about dead soldiers being God's punishment for tolerance of homosexuality, I am not allowed to kick you off our property. I am allowed to be offended by you; I am allowed to shout back. I am allowed to determine that you are absolutely mental and to check you off the list of people I want anything to do with in life.

Free speech as I see it is pretty much the freedom to say anything. Incitement to hate? That is free speech in my book.

There are limits, but they all tend to be based on other stuff. When does incitement go too far? The moment someone commits an actual crime. So, imagine you've got your bunch of racist thugs all being stirred up by Big Nasty Racist Man. He can stir them up as much as he likes, but once Stirred-Up Thug goes and hits someone or trespasses or whatever, both the Stirred-Up Thug and the Big Nasty Racist Man are involved - the latter as a conspirer with the former. If the Big Nasty Racist Man says "Wouldn't it be nice if all the ethnic minorities were to die?", that is free speech - but if his thugs go and attempt to do so, they are guilty of attempted murder, and the Big Nasty Racist Man is conspiring with them in their attempted murder.

In terms of the God Hates Fags looneys, they can be as nutty as they like out on the street, but the moment they step onto the land that is being used for the funeral itself - the church or funeral parlour or whatever - they are then trespassing.
 
Tom Morris said:
If you come into my cinema and shout "fire" - you get booted out not because of the limits of free speech but because of the implicit rule that you don't shout fire in my damn theatre. I hate to agree with libertarians, but Jacob Hornberger gets it much more right than Oliver Wendell Holmes:
Click to expand...
That quote reeks of ignorance. The government can regulate speech to a certain degree. In theory that example could be (or already is) a crime. In terms of civil actions, there's quite a bit of room so that I, as a fellow patron, could sue the idiot shouting fire. Civil law is still subject to the first amendment, as this case here points out.

The libertarian quote is a crock of ****. Other than that, your post wasn't bad.
 
LTC8K6 said:
All of the above are either harassment or disorderly conduct or both, and I'd soon be arrested and rightly so.
Click to expand...
A point the court decision missed, in how it condones Phelps' antics by its decision to punish the targets of harassment.

Lisa, I understand what you are saying. I wish to point out that free speech's root purpose is the freedom to speak out against government without fear of being muzzled. The deliberate abuse of fellow citizens seems not to have to do with freedom against the oppression of government. It strikes me that the assumption in that philosophical stance is that what is protected is the truth, not the ability to spread lies. The motives of Phelps and his fellow jerks has nothing to do with speaking the truth.

That said, my initial response to Jeff had to do with his comparing the struggles of this Marine's family with the JREF.

I found it offensive.

DR
 
Last edited:
Darth Rotor said:
A point the court decision missed, in how it condones Phelps' antics by its decision to punish the targets of harassment.
Click to expand...
Actually, the court addressed this in its opinion. The protest was staged at least 1,000 feet away from the church, and the family was unaware of the protest at the time, so the notion of direct harassment is specious at best. The opinion addressed the issue of speech harassment at length in its opinion. There's no mention in the opinion about why attorney fees were awarded, though. That's an odd beast in U.S. law that I don't really get.

Lisa, I understand what you are saying. I wish to point out that free speech's root purpose is the freedom to speak out against government without fear of being muzzled. The deliberate abuse of fellow citizens seems not to have to do with freedom against the oppression of government. It strikes me that the assumption in that philosophical stance is that what is protected is the truth, not the ability to spread lies. The motives of Phelps and his fellow jerks has nothing to do with speaking the truth.
Click to expand...
The messages spread by the Phelps were anti-government and not specifically addressed to the Snyders with the exception of a few comments on their website stating that the parents should have raised the kid to follow god. The protest was against U.S. policy, and they chose Snyder's funeral because they felt it was an example of the failure of that policy. Twisted, no doubt, but still political and religious in nature.

That said, my initial response to Jeff had to do with his comparing the struggles of this Marine's family with the JREF.

I found it offensive.
Click to expand...
I think the JREF did themselves a disservice by implicitly holding hands with the Phelps' group over freedom of speech issues.
 
UncaYimmy said:
Actually, the court addressed this in its opinion. The protest was staged at least 1,000 feet away from the church, and the family was unaware of the protest at the time, so the notion of direct harassment is specious at best. The opinion addressed the issue of speech harassment at length in its opinion. There's no mention in the opinion about why attorney fees were awarded, though. That's an odd beast in U.S. law that I don't really get.

The messages spread by the Phelps were anti-government and not specifically addressed to the Snyders with the exception of a few comments on their website stating that the parents should have raised the kid to follow god. The protest was against U.S. policy, and they chose Snyder's funeral because they felt it was an example of the failure of that policy. Twisted, no doubt, but still political and religious in nature.

I think the JREF did themselves a disservice by implicitly holding hands with the Phelps' group over freedom of speech issues.
Click to expand...
Thanks for your inputs. There was certainly an emotional element to my initial response.
UY said:
I made fun of: Articulett, CFLarsen, Chillzero, Darat, Desertgal, Dr Adequate, Ducky, Farsight, fls, Geemack, James Randi, Jeff Wagg, !kaggen, King of the Americas, Kitakaze, Lionking, Locknar, Moochie, Plumjam, Poptech, Recursive Prophet, Remirol, Rika, rjh01, Rodney, rorylee, Skeptic Ginger, Sol Invictus, The Atheist, Wolfman, Zep, and Ziggurat.
Click to expand...
I feel so left out, but I won't sue. ;)

DR
 
jhunter1163 said:
Using other people's grief as a vehicle to promote your agenda is indecent.

Cindy Sheehan can, and does, channel her own grief into her antiwar activities, and I'm fine with that. It's piggybacking your agenda onto people who are mourning, who you don't even know, and who very possibly don't share your opinions that I am opposed to.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you should have taken a closer look at a Sheehan protest. She would place hundreds of crosses each with the name of a person killed in Iraq. When people demanded that she remove their relative she switched to blank crosses. But, she was originally using other people's grief to further her agenda.
 
I gather many of that crowd also don't accept the evidence for evolution.

I think it is reasonable that they don't, since they seem to have not experienced any, and seem to be stuck in a chimp-like stage of expressing disagreement mainly by just throwing crap around.
 
Dragonrock said:
Perhaps you should have taken a closer look at a Sheehan protest. She would place hundreds of crosses each with the name of a person killed in Iraq. When people demanded that she remove their relative she switched to blank crosses. But, she was originally using other people's grief to further her agenda.
Click to expand...
While I don't care for the disrespect Sheehan gave her dead son, I firmly believe her grief was genuine. Her linking her own grieving to that of other mothers/fathers of war dead, albeit in a less stoic manner than most, did not come off as cynical to me. There were grieving parents who were not pleased with her public keening.

The cynicysm of the continued Phelpsian obscenities I'll not further comment on. See my post about the Alibi Tavern, from a few years ago, if you are interested. ;)

DR
 
Darth Rotor said:
While I don't care for the disrespect Sheehan gave her dead son, I firmly believe her grief was genuine. Her linking her own grieving to that of other mothers/fathers of war dead, albeit in a less stoic manner than most, did not come off as cynical to me. There were grieving parents who were not pleased with her public keening.

The cynicysm of the continued Phelpsian obscenities I'll not further comment on. See my post about the Alibi Tavern, from a few years ago, if you are interested. ;)

DR
Click to expand...

I viewed it as a form of projection. I feel she had a breakdown that manifested in her rabid protests and she acted as though others had no right to not be as outraged as she was.

Her grief was genuine. Her manner of expressing it was selfish.
 
IMO, the westboro folk have a right to their free speech, vile as it is. What they do not have is absolution repercussions of what will happen if they ever truly dare to cross the line.

They are like the PETA people who will walk past a bunch of 1%er bikers in full leather to throw paint on old ladies wearing fur. They are very careful to look for people who will try to challenge them in court or stop a fight after the first punch.

One day... They will find the soldier, sailor, marine, gay guy, etc... who has friends that have been to prison and wouldn't mind going back. On that day, O'Rilley, and Olberman will be laughing at the same thing, and I will have a new screen saver.
 
Darth Rotor said:
Thanks for your inputs. There was certainly an emotional element to my initial response.
Click to expand...
Of course there was. I have no problems with that. I am totally clueless as to why they got attorney fees. If one judge thought there was a reasonable case, then to me it wasn't a frivolous suit. If anybody should pay, it should be the courts. For the most part I'm cool with the "each side pays their own way" doctrine so long as the worst abuses are handled accordingly. I am dumbfounded what happened in this case, and emotionally it ticked me off.

I feel so left out, but I won't sue. ;)
Click to expand...

I tried, but it's harder to make you into a caricature. It's actually a compliment.
 
UncaYimmy said:
I am totally clueless as to why they got attorney fees. If one judge thought there was a reasonable case, then to me it wasn't a frivolous suit.
Click to expand...

The awarding of attorney's fees are a way of dissuading frivolous or malicious suits. The idea being that knowledge if you sue somebody and lose, not only will you have to pay your own attorney's fees, but those of the person you sued, will make people think twice about filing suit when they know they have no case.

The unfortunate side effect is this. somebody who had a reasonable, but unsuccessful, case now seems to be punished because of it. The alternative, though, is that degenerates, like the WBC, could then use the legal system to harass and bully thier political opponents in the hopes that they may actually get a payday. Imagine, if instead of protesting funerals of dead servicemen, the WBC sued thier families under whatever pretense they could manage, in the knowledge that even if they lost, they would suffer not financial consequences, but would have still gotten press and made the family that much more miserable.
 
If I had to spend 16,000 dollars defending my civil rights, and I turned out to be "right" then I'd want it back. With interest. Fair is fair.
 
Also, could the father possibly recover the 16,000 by suing his lawyer for malpractice? WBC seem to be very careful to read, understand, and operate within, the law. If a person seeking to recover damages for emotional distress does not do the same, they would be foolish. If they hire an attorney to do that homework for them, then they are paying for sound advice. Such as "drop this frivilous suit while you still can without getting stuck with costs." If this man got bad legal advice, or the case was mishandled, doesn't he have a claim against the lawyer? I am surprised that the Supreme Court wants to hear this appeal. Maybe I am missing something.
 
from what i have read about the phelps family most of them have some sort of law training ( sorry i can;t post links here just yet i will have to leave it to you to google )
 
Fred was a lawyer, but as I recall he lost his license. His son who escaped said that he was pushing all of the kids into studying law.
 
It seems to me that shouting 'fire' in a crowded theatre is frowned upon because you are telling a lie that could lead to panic, distress, injuries or even death, but if the place _was_ on fire you'd be a hero.

If God really _does_ hate fags, and is punishing the US with war, then the people who make us aware of that fact are heroes.

If God doesn't actually hate fags, isn't punishing the US and doesn't even exist, then these people are telling a malicious lie which leads to distress and panic.

I lean towards option 2 fairly steeply myself :p

(British language joke; If god hates fags, why did he create tobacco?)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom