Mrmeangenes From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 566 posts, RR: 0 Posted (6 years 11 months 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 1832 times:
A small, noisy,sign-waving group from the Westboro Baptist Church tried to disrupt Memorial Day services today, but were face down by folks who use the Free Republic website as a discussion forum.
(The Westboro group is almost always referred to in the media as being "conservative" -which they most assuredly are NOT ! They are a self-promoting group of theocrats, opposed to everything the Constitution stands for, and they have been "edged away" repeatedly from the funerals of our military fallen.)
Beefstew25 From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 675 posts, RR: 0 Reply 1, posted (6 years 11 months 4 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 1795 times:
I think a law was just passed prohibiting these wackos from protesting militaty funerals....these people have some serious, serious issues....
MLB: Where you are always number one for takeoff.....
AndrewUber From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 2528 posts, RR: 44 Reply 2, posted (6 years 11 months 4 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 1777 times:
Appalling. What a group of first rate ass hats. If they don't like this country and what this military is doing then they need to get the hell out. I'm sure Syria and Iraq would welcome them (and their anti-American signs) with welcome arms.
Gigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16215 posts, RR: 88 Reply 3, posted (6 years 11 months 4 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 1774 times:
While I agree they're asshats, and everything they say is reprehensible and the entire opposite of any view or belief I've ever had, I fully support their right to say it.
I wish they would say it somewhere more appropriate and respectful.
DeltaGator From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 6341 posts, RR: 16 Reply 4, posted (6 years 11 months 4 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 1764 times:
Having spent many hours in Arlington I have to say these Westboro morons take the cake for ignorant asshats. Even more so than the white trash guido family in wife beaters from New Jersey that felt an impromptu game of tag football close to the Tomb of the Unknowns was in good taste.
"If you can't delight in the misery of others then you don't deserve to be a college football fan."
AndrewUber From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 2528 posts, RR: 44 Reply 5, posted (6 years 11 months 4 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 1761 times:
Quoting Gigneil (Reply 3): I fully support their right to say it.
You are very correct - I should have mentioned that. I do thank God that I live in a free country, and being in a free country is hard work - it means you must tolerate ass hats like these.
Nkops From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 2544 posts, RR: 6 Reply 7, posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 1586 times:
Quoting Beefstew25 (Reply 1): I think a law was just passed prohibiting these wackos from protesting military funerals
That's correct, but I believe only at National Cemeteries although states were given the right to pass their own law against protesting at funerals
JCS17 From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 8065 posts, RR: 43 Reply 8, posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 1573 times:
Quoting AndrewUber (Reply 5): You are very correct - I should have mentioned that. I do thank God that I live in a free country, and being in a free country is hard work - it means you must tolerate ass hats like these.
So when someone you love dies, you'd be perfectly content to see protestors saying that your loved one is going to hell? You'd just accept that because they have free speech rights? BS. I don't believe that families, especially those of fallen soldiers, should be subjected to this in the name of "free speech." Free speech, like other amendments, has its limits too.
Nkops From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 2544 posts, RR: 6 Reply 9, posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 1568 times:
Quoting JCS17 (Reply 8): I don't believe that families, especially those of fallen soldiers, should be subjected to this in the name of "free speech." Free speech, like other amendments, has its limits too.
Very, very well said!!!! These soldiers put there lives on the line to protect our freedoms, so it is BS that ANYBODY should protest at their funerals. I wonder how these people (the protesters) would react with protesters at a funeral for their families??
Falcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 10, posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 1559 times:
Quoting JCS17 (Reply 8): Quoting AndrewUber (Reply 5):
You are very correct - I should have mentioned that. I do thank God that I live in a free country, and being in a free country is hard work - it means you must tolerate ass hats like these.
So when someone you love dies, you'd be perfectly content to see protestors saying that your loved one is going to hell?
No, you don't have to accept it, or like it, Jcs. Absolutely not. But you rise above it, and show that you are better than those lowlifes. It isn't easy. The easiest thing to do is to lash out, and lower yourself to their level. But that's what these perverts wants.
Quoting JCS17 (Reply 8): I don't believe that families, especially those of fallen soldiers, should be subjected to this in the name of "free speech."
Agreed, 100%. No one should be subjected to it. And I agree, a military burial, above all, is a poignant and solemn event, and such groups should be kept VERY far away from the loved ones burying someone who has given his life in service of his/her nation.
I never thought I'd have any use for bikers, but I'm glad they're keeping vigil for these idiots, and trying to make sure a soldier/sailor/airman/marine gets a dignified burial.
We disagree on a lot, Jcs (gee, really?) but on this one, I think you're right on the money, and said it very well.
TWFirst From Vatican City, joined Apr 2000, 6346 posts, RR: 53 Reply 11, posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 1548 times:
Quoting Gigneil (Reply 3): While I agree they're asshats, and everything they say is reprehensible and the entire opposite of any view or belief I've ever had, I fully support their right to say it.
Jaysit From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 12, posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 1540 times:
Quoting JCS17 (Reply 8): I don't believe that families, especially those of fallen soldiers, should be subjected to this in the name of "free speech." Free speech, like other amendments, has its limits too.
Oh yeah?
Where were you when these people showed up at funerals of people who died of AIDs (including a very outspoken gay veteran who fell to the dont ask/dont tell policy), at funerals of prominent gays and lesbians who may or may not have died of AIDs, and at gay rights celebrations?
Oh, yes. Touting the infallibility of the First Amendment.
Where were you when these people showed up at funerals of people who died of AIDs (including a very outspoken gay veteran who fell to the dont ask/dont tell policy), at funerals of prominent gays and lesbians who may or may not have died of AIDs, and at gay rights celebrations?
Oh, yes. Touting the infallibility of the First Amendment.
Hypocrites.
For once, my friend, I have to take the side of Jcs. 1. What you brought up isn't the subject matter, and despite my differences with Jcs, I did notice he said that it's bad for these bums to show up at a funeral, but he did emphasize military funerals. And I agree with him.
And it's not proper at anyone's funeral-except maybe Hugo Chavez's.
Pope From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 14, posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 1515 times:
Quoting TWFirst (Reply 11): Hate speech isn't protected, Uncle Tom.
Says who? Hate speech is most certainly protected. What isn't protected is speech likely to incite a reasonable person to immediate violence ("fighting words").
The Supreme Court has repeatedly struck down content based restrictions on speech based on the message being communicated. While it makes you an ass, you could stand on the corner and scream, "die fag", "die Jew", "die white", "die homo", "die women", "die men", "die _________" . . . and if your speech does not fall within the definition of fighting words, it's been almost universally upheld as falling within the First Amendment.
The government with very few exceptions (i.e. obscenity and child porn) cannot regulate the content of your speech without meeting a very high level of constitutional scrutiny, no matter how distatesful that speech is.
As the Supreme Court said in R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, Minn. 505 U.S. 377, 112 S.Ct. 2538 -
Quote:
"The content-based discrimination reflected in the St. Paul ordinance comes within neither any of the specific exceptions to the First Amendment prohibition we discussed earlier nor a more general exception for content discrimination that does not threaten censorship of ideas. It assuredly does not fall within the exception for content discrimination based on the very reasons why the particular class of speech at issue (here, fighting words) is proscribable. As explained earlier, the reason why fighting words are categorically excluded from the protection of the First Amendment is not that their content communicates any particular idea, but that their content embodies a particularly intolerable (and socially unnecessary) mode of expressing whatever idea the speaker wishes to convey. St. Paul has not singled out an especially offensive mode of expression-it has not, for example, selected for prohibition only those fighting words that communicate ideas in a threatening (as opposed to a merely obnoxious) manner. Rather, it has proscribed fighting words of whatever manner that communicate messages of racial, gender, or religious intolerance. Selectivity of this sort creates the possibility that the city is seeking to handicap the expression of particular ideas. That possibility would alone be enough to render the ordinance presumptively invalid, but St. Paul's comments and concessions in this case elevate the possibility to a certainty."
Doona From Sweden, joined Feb 2005, 3706 posts, RR: 14 Reply 15, posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 1500 times:
Quoting JCS17 (Reply 8): So when someone you love dies, you'd be perfectly content to see protestors saying that your loved one is going to hell? You'd just accept that because they have free speech rights? BS. I don't believe that families, especially those of fallen soldiers, should be subjected to this in the name of "free speech." Free speech, like other amendments, has its limits too.
I agree, but I would not say there are limits to what we are allowed to say, if that was what you meant. IMO, there are limits, however, to how you should be able to state your opinions. There are of course moral and ethical issues, and freedom of speech does come with a responsibility. There's a difference between voicing one's opinion, and doing so with the intent of causing harm to others. The WBC is a joke, and I want to see Fred Phelps tied to a fence and beaten to death, however I have no problem websites such as http://www.godhatesfags.com or even http://www.godhatessweden.com .
Freedom of speech is a two-way thing. If you are free to say what you want, you must also realize that people are free to ignore you if they so choose.
Heckling mourners at a funeral is not freedom of speech. Freedom comes with responsibility.
Cheers
Mats
Sure, we're concerned for our lives. Just not as concerned as saving 9 bucks on a roundtrip to Ft. Myers.
TWFirst From Vatican City, joined Apr 2000, 6346 posts, RR: 53 Reply 16, posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 1492 times:
Quoting Pope (Reply 14): What isn't protected is speech likely to incite a reasonable person to immediate violence ("fighting words").
Then you must not be a reasonable person, because what these people are saying and where they're saying it is inciting other people to violence... that's why there's a problem.
Pope From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 17, posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 1485 times:
Quoting TWFirst (Reply 16): Then you must not be a reasonable person, because what these people are saying and where they're saying it is inciting other people to violence... that's why there's a problem.
I'm not the person that you need to convince. The 9 members of the US Supreme Court are the ones who created this very subjective standard and wrapped in a veil of objectivity.
Prior case law requires that the speech be specifically directed at the person being incited. For example someone who shows up at a gay rights rally with a sign saying "die fags die" would not be held to be speaking to anyone in particular but to the group as a whole. Therefore, since his speech was not directed at anyone in particular, they could not be "fighting words" under current Constitutional jurisprudence.
In contrast if the same protester walked up to one individual and started saying "I hope you die and your mother burns in hell for bringing a homo into the world," that might meet the fighting words standard because it was directed at one particular person.
In the first example, the "die fags die", the issue of the heckler's veto also comes into play. The police have an obligation to attempt to control the crowd even if the speech is inciting so that the speaker can communicate his message. It is only if the police cannot control the crowd can they force the protester to stop speaking.
Note, I'm not supporting/defending this standard, just informing you what the law is in regards to this matter.
Jaysit From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 18, posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 1461 times:
Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 13): What you brought up isn't the subject matter, and despite my differences with Jcs, I did notice he said that it's bad for these bums to show up at a funeral, but he did emphasize military funerals. And I agree with him.
Why?
Why do mourners who grieve for someone with a military background deserve greater protection and respect than those who grieve for any other loved one(and lets not get all emotional here about "how our brave boys are being blown to bits by nasty fundies" - not all military funerals are for soldiers killed in combat)?
The gay community has been bearing the wrath of Fred Phelps and his band of merry idiots for over 15 years now who didn't even let mothers (military and otherwise) whose sons were killed by gay bashers grieve in peace. Yet, I didn't hear a peep out of conservatives. Now that Phelps has gone uber loco and targets military personnel, these hypocrites are out there baying for censure.
Quoting Pope (Reply 17): In the first example, the "die fags die", the issue of the heckler's veto also comes into play. The police have an obligation to attempt to control the crowd even if the speech is inciting so that the speaker can communicate his message. It is only if the police cannot control the crowd can they force the protester to stop speaking.
Note, I'm not supporting/defending this standard, just informing you what the law is in regards to this matter.
Falcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 19, posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 1451 times:
Quoting Jaysit (Reply 18): Why?
Why do mourners who grieve for someone with a military background deserve greater protection and respect than those who grieve for any other loved one(and lets not get all emotional here about "how our brave boys are being blown to bits by nasty fundies" - not all military funerals are for soldiers killed in combat)?
Because they VOLUNTEERED, then died, in the service of their country. To me, that is the ultimate sacrifice, no matter what the conflict.
They do deserve the extra protection from lunatics like this. Everyone deserves it, but I agree with the over-riding sentiment here-our men and women who have lost their lives in the service of this nation deserve it more than anyone.
LO231 From Belgium, joined Sep 2004, 2299 posts, RR: 25 Reply 20, posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 1447 times:
Quoting Jaysit (Reply 18): Why?
Why do mourners who grieve for someone with a military background deserve greater protection and respect than those who grieve for any other loved one(and lets not get all emotional here about "how our brave boys are being blown to bits by nasty fundie" - not all military funerals are for soldiers killed in combat)?
Wasn't there a CNN reporter wounded? Or shot? Will they be at his funeral as well?
Regards,
LO231
Got both LO 788 frames already, next SN BRU-VCE-BRU
Jaysit From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 21, posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 1407 times:
Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 19): They do deserve the extra protection from lunatics like this. Everyone deserves it, but I agree with the over-riding sentiment here-our men and women who have lost their lives in the service of this nation deserve it more than anyone.
And what if they died from, say, a non-combat related brain aneurysm? Or prostate cancer? Are we going to set up a slippery slope of standards?
When the American Nazi party wanted to march through Skokie, IL back in 1978, the Supremes ruled that they had a right to. Now as you may remember from history class (or the newspapers), the reason the Nazis wanted to march through Skokie was because it had not only had the highest Jewish population per capita than any other town in the US, but also because it had the highest number of Holocaust survivors. You can imagine the fear and horror that these poor, mostly elderly folks would have felt to have Nazis marching down their streets after having survived the horrors of the concentration camp. Yet, the Supreme Court said "no go, the 1st Am. trumps all."
I'm glad the Supremes did, even though I can't think of anything more terrifying for the folks from Skokie. By shoving folks like the Nazis and Phelps under the carpet, you allow them to fester and take on the cloak of sympathy. Let them march and spew their garbage, and let Americans see and reject their ugly philosophy for what it is.
Pope From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 22, posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 1402 times:
Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 19): Because they VOLUNTEERED, then died, in the service of their country. To me, that is the ultimate sacrifice, no matter what the conflict.
They do deserve the extra protection from lunatics like this. Everyone deserves it, but I agree with the over-riding sentiment here-our men and women who have lost their lives in the service of this nation deserve it more than anyone.
Just my view, man.
Falcon, I think most people agree with you that these guys deserve the utmost of respect for the sacrifice they've made - certainly I do. However, the 1st Amendment is written not for the benefit of most people, nor for the benefit of a couple of people, nor for the benefit of a few people, but for the benefit of that one person who wants to communicate his idea - no matter how offensive the rest of us might find it.
That being said, while the government shouldn't be in the business of regulating content based speech, I think that the average Joe should go and kick these guy's ass. If arrested, I think they'd fare relatively well amongst a jury of their peers.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 566 posts, 
From Bahamas, joined Feb 2005, 1254 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Vatican City, joined Apr 2000, 6346 posts, 
From Sweden, joined Feb 2005, 3706 posts, 
From Belgium, joined Sep 2004, 2299 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
