Legislation against Westboro? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message


GreedyTop -> Legislation against Westboro? (4/15/2011 12:43:53 AM)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/14/senators-try-to-bar-westboro-protests_n_849244.html?icid=main%7Chtmlws-main-n%7Cdl13%7Csec3_lnk3%7C209833




shamedslut -> RE: Legislation against Westboro? (4/15/2011 1:27:20 AM)

sooo... it would have violated the first ammendment if they banned them a little while ago, ,but now it doesn't? PHEW, glad those smart politicians understand it because i certainly don't!
they are idiots though, hope something is done to stop them...




JohnWarren -> RE: Legislation against Westboro? (4/15/2011 1:58:37 AM)

They'll certainly have the shortest trial in history if anyone gets arrested unless the judge is an idiot.   I think the politicians think popularity trumps constitutionality.  This is a terrible road to go down.  Even if I hate those bigoted bastards, I can see why constitutional rights have to be absolute.  Popular causes don't need rights.  "Good" and popular people don't need rights.  The problem is that sometimes unpopular things have to be said.  "Burning down the bar to get rid of the rats" comes to mind.




hlen5 -> RE: Legislation against Westboro? (4/15/2011 3:47:27 AM)

The WBC isn't being denied their free speech rights, the legislation would prevent ANYONE from demonstrating so close and soon before (or after) a service person's funeral. I don't know if I support the legislation, but it's a nice sidestep around those pesky laws.

ETA: Fast Reply




DesFIP -> RE: Legislation against Westboro? (4/15/2011 4:42:56 AM)

Pity they aren't extending it to all funerals. This just bars protests at military, still allows it if a gay kid is killed in a hate crime.




Termyn8or -> RE: Legislation against Westboro? (4/15/2011 5:28:14 AM)

FR

"Senators are pursuing the legislation after the Supreme Court ruled recently that such protests could not be barred because doing so would violate the First Amendment's protection for free speech.


Story continues below" It's only the Constitution after all. Doesn't mean a thing any other time, why should it now ?  What's more you have to get permits for protests these days almost everywhere. No Constitution there.  I got an idea. Just hold the funeral on private property and when they come shoot the MFs. Problem solved and no lawsuits. Just make sure the no trespassing signs are up first. Insinuating that God's wrath is coming down instills fear in some, so Castle doctrine should apply.  T^T




DomImus -> RE: Legislation against Westboro? (4/15/2011 5:55:03 AM)

The US Constitution guarantees the right to bear arms. States still get to regulate this firearms ownership as they deem necessary through licensing and permits and restriction on where firearms may be carried. This legislation is no different. It does not prohibit - it seeks to regulate it. Free speech is already regulated. Nobody can enter my property for the purposes of exercising their free speech. If their are on my property and I don't approve of their speech I can compel them to leave.

I don't know what pains me more. The bullshit the WBC spews or when people toss the "C" word around when they clearly have not read it and don't understand it.






pahunkboy -> RE: Legislation against Westboro? (4/15/2011 6:17:49 AM)

FR-  what a joke.  We kill them and then honor then- like  a human sacrifice for blood oil.

I dont care for this proposed law.

IMO existing laws can be used.  Locally-  this WOULD BE HARASSMENT.   Which the courts in this valley take seriously.

Why should we have to legislate common decency and decorum, again?

They could however expand the amount of feet they must stand behind...  or put them in a free speech zone/cage.   -just sayn-

I think westbots argue the case against themself.  BTW-  I dont think they showed up here-  9 amish were killed in a fire... kids... and westbots were going to come.




Marc2b -> RE: Legislation against Westboro? (4/15/2011 7:35:45 AM)

First things first: I loath… utterly loath… the WBC. They represent the worst form of deluded, self-flattering arrogance and cruelty that I despise. From a personally emotional reaction I would like to rip off Phelps’ head, gouge out his eyes, and skull fuck him (yes, I stole that from that movie with R. Lee Ermey… but it is such a satisfying visual). I would like to cut out their tongues and staple their lips shut… then rip out the staples and do it again. I hope that when Phelps dies he goes to Heaven… that’s right… Heaven! Where, upon arrival, God will hand him a bucket and a mop and assign him to spend eternity as a janitor in Heaven’s gay bathhouse! Won’t that just get his fucking goat? Poor Freddy, cleaning up the messes beneath the glory holes while some of the very people he badmouthed (and thought would be in Hell) enjoy a good steam! For added measure, George Carlin can do a routine about Phelps every night in Heaven’s comedy club.

As emotionaly satisfying as such fantasies are, we must allow reason to temper emotion. My understanding of the recently dismissed lawsuit is that the Phelps clan didn’t actually protest at the funeral but along a planned funeral route that was not actually taken by the funeral procession. It was the father of the deceased seeing the signs and hearing their vile venom on the news that launched the lawsuit. So I’m not sure if that suit (the dismissal of which I am in agreement with) really has any bearing on this law.

I firmly believe that one person’s rights stop where the next person’s rights begin. This is why it is illegal to shout fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire. Your freedom of speech ends where my right to NOT be trampled by panicked people begins. So the question really is a simple one: do people have the right to conduct a funeral in peace? Does your right to free speech end with my right to participate in a private ceremony? I would have to say yes.

The fact that the funeral takes place in public is not really an issue. I have the right to walk down a street without some asshole screeching at me. That would be considered harassment. The right to free speech is NOT the right to be listened to. The same principle applies here. Society at large already implicitly recognizes a right of people to hold a funeral in peace in the fact that the vast majority of us would never consider imposing ourselves on the funeral of strangers. Most of us would never cut into the middle of a funeral procession and for those few assholes who would, we have laws against doing so.

In that light I see nothing unconstitutional about a law that says: “Hey! Assholes! Leave those people alone! Stay back at least three hundred yards, fuckers!” If Phelps wants to rant and rail against homosexuals and soldiers from his pulpit… he is free to do so. If he wants to go to a public park or stand in front of city hall and tell everyone that God hates everybody but him… he is free to do so. If he wants to shout invective at grieving friends and family at a funeral… society is free to tell him to shut the fuck up and get out!

The law should, however, apply to all funerals, not just those of soldiers.




kdsub -> RE: Legislation against Westboro? (4/15/2011 9:58:00 AM)

Maybe a better idea would be to get some of those motorcycle gangs to start protesting outside supreme court judges homes... You know 7 in the morning noon and evening "God Hates the Constitution because you protect homo haters"

Butch




hlen5 -> RE: Legislation against Westboro? (4/15/2011 11:37:20 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DesFIP

Pity they aren't extending it to all funerals. This just bars protests at military, still allows it if a gay kid is killed in a hate crime.


I didn't pay attention to that part. Good Catch!!




ResidentSadist -> RE: Legislation against Westboro? (4/15/2011 12:48:41 PM)

That kind of crap is enough to make you miss the old west where assholes protesting like that would get lynched or shot or both.


ETA:

I believe in freedom of speech but I also believe in being accountable for what you say.  Fucking with some soldier's family and friends while they are toting the body to bury it is really asking to get hurt. 

I still believe that it would be a better world if we gave everyone a gun and took away all the clothing.  All the assholes would be dead in 90 days and there would nothing left to fight about because it would be obvious who had the biggest dick.




Termyn8or -> RE: Legislation against Westboro? (4/16/2011 3:04:50 AM)

"The bullshit the WBC spews or when people toss the "C" word around when they clearly have not read it and don't understand it. "

Pardon me ?

I can compel them to leave HOW ?

Don't dick me around here. How the fuck could you say I don't understand the Constitution ? You wouldn't even type it.

T^T




Termyn8or -> RE: Legislation against Westboro? (4/16/2011 3:07:16 AM)

"That kind of crap is enough to make you miss the old west where assholes protesting like that would get lynched or shot or both. "

Damn right. It's called community standards. Witches weren't burned everywhere you know.

T^T




Termyn8or -> RE: Legislation against Westboro? (4/16/2011 3:09:51 AM)

"George Carlin can do a routine about Phelps every night in Heaven’s comedy club. "

Now THAT is something to die for.

T^T




DomImus -> RE: Legislation against Westboro? (4/16/2011 7:22:08 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

"The bullshit the WBC spews or when people toss the "C" word around when they clearly have not read it and don't understand it. "

Pardon me ?

I can compel them to leave HOW ?

Don't dick me around here. How the fuck could you say I don't understand the Constitution ? You wouldn't even type it.

T^T


If you think the WBC's constitutional rights to free speech are being denied by this potential legislation then you do not understand the Constitution, in my opinion. Let's suppose you have serious disagreements with Obama's fiscal policies and you wish to address him personally on the matter in the oval office. Not gonna happen. Have your rights to freedom of speech been denied? Nope.

Compel them to leave? I ask them to leave. It's priivate property. If they do not I summon the authorities who remove them by force, if necessary.




LafayetteLady -> RE: Legislation against Westboro? (4/16/2011 8:12:54 AM)

~FAST REPLY~

I saw a video recenty (on youtube I think) about motorcycle gangs who do provide "security" for military funerals by creating a physical buffer between the hate groups and the bereaved family. I applaud their activities.

I believe that our soldiers deserve our respect regardless of whether or not we agree with where our military is or what they are doing. People need to recognize the reality that the military personnel they are disrespecting don't make the decisions. They simply wanted to serve and protect their country. They chose to protect these assholes right to say what they want. They aren't protesting the decision maker's funerals. Interestingly enough, the government will go out of their way to protect the families of THOSE people against such funeral protests.

Having said that, I believe that EVERYONE should have the right to grieve for their loved ones at a funeral, even the families of convicted felons. The deceased can't hear protestors' words and the families aren't (typically) responsible for the deceased's actions.

It's sad that as a society we have chosen to protect the "rights" of so view so they can disrespect a funeral.




CreepyStalker -> RE: Legislation against Westboro? (4/16/2011 10:14:27 AM)

What a bloody stupid idea.

I'm quite fond of the Westboro lot. As arseholes go, you've gotta give them credit for having the gumption to hate everyone. There's plenty of half-arsed nutcase Churches who seems to get away with it by picking popular prejudices like gays and abortions, at least Westboro go all out and make it obvious they're being dicks.

Banning them from Millitary funerals will probably mean they'll go back to just picketing victims of homophobic and transphobic murders. I have no idea how this figures as any less horrific, but apparently it seems to. I rather hope they come up with something new and unpleasant to piss everyone off with instead though.




tazzygirl -> RE: Legislation against Westboro? (4/16/2011 10:43:11 AM)

~FR

If everyone ignored them, including the media, they would go home.




Muttling -> RE: Legislation against Westboro? (4/16/2011 10:44:12 AM)

I think Westboro is guilty of inciting riot and I'm amazed that they haven't been met with violence yet.




Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
7.800293E-02