Vandalism is Morally Wrong and a Criminal Offense

[Cleon]

The one thing you can say about the Phelps gang: they are uniters, not dividers. I can't think of any issue that unites a more diverse group of people (in opposition!) than the WBC. Just about everyone is in broad agreement that the WBC gang is repugnant.

Even the KKK hates 'em.

 

[MRC_Hans]

It's a very emotional issue. We all love to see jerks get a come-uppance, and these WBC people are some of the biggest jerks around. I was happy to hear that they were inconvienianced.

...BUT, I am disturbed by the story too. Same goes for the the police turning their backs on the sign theft complaints.

What this is saying is that if you are unpopular, you do not deserve protection or justice under our laws. That is just plain wrong.

I totally agree. However, this is not a question of the beliefs of the WBC folks. If they were just telling each other, and whoever showed up at their meetings voluntarily, that God hates fags etc, I fully agree that they should have the full protection of the law. However, where the tolerance gets thin is when they show up at all kinds of sensitive occasions and foist their beliefs on others.

I am thinking of the three Mississippi civil rights workers, James Chaney, Andrew Goodman & Michael Schwerner who were murdered in 1964.

Other than the degree of injury, I can't see a distinct difference between the injustice they suffered and what was done to the WBC in terms of moral or legal principals.

I would like to hear others thoughts on this comparison.

In the deepest principle, I suppose it is the same. OTOH, let us remember that we ate not talking bodily harm here; we are talking vandalism of a fairly moderate kind, or in the case of the signs, theft of objects of very low value.

However, obviously, there is a slippery slope in there somewhere.

Hans

 

[caniswalensis]

I totally agree. However, this is not a question of the beliefs of the WBC folks. If they were just telling each other and whoever showed up at their meetings voluntarily that God hates fags etc, I fully agree that they should have the full protection ofthe law. However, where the tolerance gets low is when they show up at all kinds of sensitive occasions and foist their beliefs on others.

In the deepest principle, I suppose it is the same. OTOH, let us remember that we ate not talking bodily harm here; we are talking vandalism of a fairly moderate kind, or in the case of the signs, theft of objects of very low value.

However, obviously, there is a slippery slope in there somewhere.

Hans

Hi Hans,

I do agree that their appearances at soldier's funerals & similar ocasions is terrible, and the main cause of people's intense dislike for them, including my own. I honestly don;t think that it should be allowed. They are garaunteed the right to free speech, but not at those specific venues.

It may be that the comparison is not valid. Most folks would not cross the line between sign theft/tire slashing and murder. That's a big step. However, how many of us want to look in the mirror and say: "I am only a little bit in the wrong." or "At least I didn't murder anyone."

I keep thinking though, we are still subverting the law & our constitution by illegally harrassing people with unpopular views. It just doesn't seem worth the sacrifice of principles. We would essentially be allowing them to turn us into something as bad as or possibly worse than themselves.

That would be a tragedy. Especially when there are ways to legally & ethically thwart their objectives. A great example is their appearance at this years ComicCon. The convention goers flexed their own free speech muscles and organized a costumed counter-protest with funny signs. The ruthlesly parodied the WBC and made them look like idiots. It looked like they had a ton of fun doing it, too. No tire slashings required.

Regards, Canis

 

[MRC_Hans]

A great example is their appearance at this years ComicCon. The convention goers flexed their own free speech muscles and organized a costumed counter-protest with funny signs. The ruthlesly parodied the WBC and made them look like idiots. It looked like they had a ton of fun doing it, too. No tire slashings required.

Regards, Canis

Oh, but I agree. It IS a crime to slash their tires, and whoever did it should be ready to face the law for it. Actually, I'm in agreement with the OP, essentially saying: "This is wrong, but it does give me a chuckle."

We could put it in another way: You can put yourself that much in the path of harm that you don't merit any pity. For example, suppose you leave your expensive watch on your towel while going for a nice long swim. If the watch is gone when you return, well sure someone is a thief, but you are a damn fool.

I feel the WBC are deliberately trying to piss people off as much as they can, so if they sometimes succeed, well, tough luck.

Hans

 

[caniswalensis]

Oh, but I agree. It IS a crime to slash their tires, and whoever did it should be ready to face the law for it. Actually, I'm in agreement with the OP, essentially saying: "This is wrong, but it does give me a chuckle."

We could put it in another way: You can put yourself that much in the path of harm that you don't merit any pity. For example, suppose you leave your expensive watch on your towel while going for a nice long swim. If the watch is gone when you return, well sure someone is a thief, but you are a damn fool.

I feel the WBC are deliberately trying to piss people off as much as they can, so if they sometimes succeed, well, tough luck.

Hans

All fine points!

I do pity people that have crimes perpetrated against them, even if they do something foolish that set the stage for it. Even fools don't deserve to have bad stuff happen to them.

regards, Canis

 

[MRC_Hans]

All fine points!

I do pity people that have crimes perpetrated against them, even if they do something foolish that set the stage for it. Even fools don't deserve to have bad stuff happen to them.

regards, Canis

As for the WBC folks, I mainly pity them for being such asses. They must surely have a sorry life.

Hans

 

[3point14]

I understand the feelings, but it's not like truthers are actually insulting the 9/11 victims - well, at least that isn't their intention. And seriously, the idea that any opinion warrants physical attacks the person is horrendous. Should Christians slash the tires of outspoken atheists? Many consider us reprehensible. People must have the freedom to voice unpopular opinions without fear of vigilantism - that's what freedom of speech means.

Absolutely.

I need to be able to work out who the idiots are. How do I do that if no-one is allowed to say anything idiotic?

 

[Mirrorglass]

Absolutely.

I need to be able to work out who the idiots are. How do I do that if no-one is allowed to say anything idiotic?

Well, you could follow the black eyes and smashed windows, I suppose.

 

[brenn]

I never tire of pointing out that freedom of speech is not freedom to be heard, nor is it freedom to speak anywhere you happen to be, nor does it mean you can't be prosecuted for that speech. A lot of people seem to think it means you are free to say what you want to, where you want to, without any legal repercussions. 'Taint so.........

It does not include the right to make people hear you, but it does include the right not to be prosecuted. In fact, it fundamentally IS the right not to be prosecuted, although lesser government interference is also prohibited. Being prosecuted is generally regarded as a "legal repercussion."