Author Topic: Petition to Legally reconise the WBC as a hate group  (Read 28290 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Auggziliary

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 1185
  • Gender: Female
  • Queen of the birdies
Re: Petition to Legally reconise the WBC as a hate group
« Reply #75 on: December 18, 2012, 05:00:45 pm »
Quote
I think they are absolutely genuine in trying to express their ideas. The reason they choose funerals is that it brings their issues the most attention from the media. And it works.
WBC's entire thing is about shock, not trying to convince people that being gay is wrong or whatever. If they were being genuine, then why would they choose the least effective way of getting their point across? Of course it gets them attention, but that's not the same as effectiveness. Also, you'd see them picketing other things that aren't as harmful.
They do picket other things, like gay rights events and screenings of the Laramie Project and mosques.

Quote
But why should they have the right to it? If bullying a gay person into depression gets people to pay attention to my message, do I have that right? Or should I be limited to speech not intended to harm others?
I think intended to harm is the key phrase there. The WBC does what it does to get its point across, and the "harm" suffered by funeral attendees appears to be secondary--after all, they can be bought off by being offered radio time instead of picketing. And constantly bullying, as you put it, a gay person into depression I would say is not the same as what we're dealing with here. Bullying would signify some repeated harassing behavior on a certain target which I do not feel we are dealing with in the case of funeral protests. In fact, the legal definition of harassment is "the act of systematic and/or continued unwanted and annoying actions of one party or a group, including threats and demands." The WBC, while offensive, pickets a funeral for an hour or two and then moves onto the next. Moreover, you keep saying "harm", so what is the harm in this case? Being offended?

I have no issue with them picketing those things, not legally at least.

How exactly is WBC's actions not bullying? They aren't walking up to them and saying simply "they went to hell because of these reasons". They are singing, flashing signs, yelling "you're going to hell" and other horrible remarks at the funeral. That definition of harassment fits WBC's funeral pickets perfectly.
The harm done isn't simply being disgusted, it's actually trauma. There are cases of WBC telling children that their parents or friends went to hell at the funeral. These funeral are also usually after already traumatic deaths, like 9/11 or Sandy Hook. If that's not traumatizing then I don't know what is.
The legal definition of harassment means that the action must be persistent. So if they picketed a person's house every single day it would probably qualify as harassment. Not every state has anti-bullying statutes but I believe they only target behavior in schools and the workplace. Though even those would, I'd imagine, require persistent behavior that is of a hostile nature.

As for traumatizing, you may be right but in order to recover under the law you need to prove some kind of emotional distress. Though in the Snyder case the Court ruled that the father of a soldier killed in Iraq whose funeral was picketed by the WBC could not recover based on emotional distress and intrusion upon seclusion.

How is that not persistent? They're there for hours shouting the same thing, with signs covered with bright slogans. If they didn't want to be persistent then they'd just show up to tell them what they believe happened, instead of standing there for hours singing.

Perhaps if someone doesn't want WBC protesting because they're afraid of trauma, then they could prevent them from picketing legally beforehand. I don't think it's that hard to prove emotional distress, since most people are distressed already from grief, and the picketing just adds onto it. Some people might not do anything because they don't want to be reminded of the death, or make a big deal out of it, even if they are suffering more due to WBC.
Persistent meaning more than one occasion.

And no, you cannot successfully sue someone for emotional distress that you have not yet experienced. In a court of law one must be able to prove the harm has occurred. You could, I suppose, try to sue for an injunction to bar them from protesting but I don't have much confidence in that working.

"harassment (either harris-meant or huh-rass-meant) n. the act of systematic and/or continued unwanted and annoying actions of one party or a group, including threats and demands. The purposes may vary, including racial prejudice, personal malice, an attempt to force someone to quit a job or grant sexual favors, apply illegal pressure to collect a bill, or merely gain sadistic pleasure from making someone fearful or anxious. Such activities may be the basis for a lawsuit if due to discrimination based on race or sex, a violation on the statutory limitations on collection agencies, involve revenge by an ex-spouse, or be shown to be a form of blackmail ("I'll stop bothering you, if you'll go to bed with me"). The victim may file a petition for a "stay away" (restraining) order, intended to prevent contact by the offensive party. A systematic pattern of harassment by an employee against another worker may subject the employer to a lawsuit for failure to protect the worker. "

What WBC is doing fits this definition perfectly.

"Persistence:
Noun
Firm or obstinate continuance in a course of action in spite of difficulty or opposition.
The continued or prolonged existence of something."

How does WBC's funeral picketing not match this definition?
I would argue, as they would, that their activity is not fueled by sadistic pleasure but rather by religious devotion (or delusion). Persistence would be continuing to harass a specific target multiple times, not one target one time. I doubt anyone would convict the WBC of harassment for a single solitary funeral picket.
They actually are trying to, but they think it's their duty. I've watched interviews with Shirley and the gang, and they believe that God wants them to try to shock and upset them, and to not to save them. They do it for attention basically, and I'm not being sarcastic when I say that. They don't care if they convince people or not, they think it's their God-given role to get attention on their batshit crazy beliefs.

It still matches the definition. It is persistent because it goes on for hours, and they shout simple, memorable slogans. Persistent doesn't have to go on for days. It's still prolonged harassment. Plus, even though it is a few hours, the grave site is almost ruined by the memory of WBC to the ones who want to visit it.
I don't think it in any way matches that definition. No one is being followed, there is no threat of physical harm, and I do not believe your definition of persistent matches what would be sufficient for a harassment conviction.

Is there presence not prolonged? Is it necessary for them to stand for hours, make songs about the dead, have picket signs, etc, in order for them to let others know what they believe?
Again with the gay bullying analogy, there is a huge difference between expressing your views, and deliberately trying to agitate and/or hurt someone because of your views. Keep in mind that WBC believes it's their role to express their views no matter what, and if that involves hurting someone then that's OK.
BITCHES! YOU BITCHES! Killing me won't bring back your God damn honey!

Offline Rabbit of Caerbannog

  • He's Got Great Big Teeth and the Holy Hand Grenade!
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 2919
  • Gender: Male
  • Hit me with your best shot! Fire awaaaay!
Re: Petition to Legally reconise the WBC as a hate group
« Reply #76 on: December 18, 2012, 05:08:27 pm »
Quote
I think they are absolutely genuine in trying to express their ideas. The reason they choose funerals is that it brings their issues the most attention from the media. And it works.
WBC's entire thing is about shock, not trying to convince people that being gay is wrong or whatever. If they were being genuine, then why would they choose the least effective way of getting their point across? Of course it gets them attention, but that's not the same as effectiveness. Also, you'd see them picketing other things that aren't as harmful.
They do picket other things, like gay rights events and screenings of the Laramie Project and mosques.

Quote
But why should they have the right to it? If bullying a gay person into depression gets people to pay attention to my message, do I have that right? Or should I be limited to speech not intended to harm others?
I think intended to harm is the key phrase there. The WBC does what it does to get its point across, and the "harm" suffered by funeral attendees appears to be secondary--after all, they can be bought off by being offered radio time instead of picketing. And constantly bullying, as you put it, a gay person into depression I would say is not the same as what we're dealing with here. Bullying would signify some repeated harassing behavior on a certain target which I do not feel we are dealing with in the case of funeral protests. In fact, the legal definition of harassment is "the act of systematic and/or continued unwanted and annoying actions of one party or a group, including threats and demands." The WBC, while offensive, pickets a funeral for an hour or two and then moves onto the next. Moreover, you keep saying "harm", so what is the harm in this case? Being offended?

I have no issue with them picketing those things, not legally at least.

How exactly is WBC's actions not bullying? They aren't walking up to them and saying simply "they went to hell because of these reasons". They are singing, flashing signs, yelling "you're going to hell" and other horrible remarks at the funeral. That definition of harassment fits WBC's funeral pickets perfectly.
The harm done isn't simply being disgusted, it's actually trauma. There are cases of WBC telling children that their parents or friends went to hell at the funeral. These funeral are also usually after already traumatic deaths, like 9/11 or Sandy Hook. If that's not traumatizing then I don't know what is.
The legal definition of harassment means that the action must be persistent. So if they picketed a person's house every single day it would probably qualify as harassment. Not every state has anti-bullying statutes but I believe they only target behavior in schools and the workplace. Though even those would, I'd imagine, require persistent behavior that is of a hostile nature.

As for traumatizing, you may be right but in order to recover under the law you need to prove some kind of emotional distress. Though in the Snyder case the Court ruled that the father of a soldier killed in Iraq whose funeral was picketed by the WBC could not recover based on emotional distress and intrusion upon seclusion.

How is that not persistent? They're there for hours shouting the same thing, with signs covered with bright slogans. If they didn't want to be persistent then they'd just show up to tell them what they believe happened, instead of standing there for hours singing.

Perhaps if someone doesn't want WBC protesting because they're afraid of trauma, then they could prevent them from picketing legally beforehand. I don't think it's that hard to prove emotional distress, since most people are distressed already from grief, and the picketing just adds onto it. Some people might not do anything because they don't want to be reminded of the death, or make a big deal out of it, even if they are suffering more due to WBC.
Persistent meaning more than one occasion.

And no, you cannot successfully sue someone for emotional distress that you have not yet experienced. In a court of law one must be able to prove the harm has occurred. You could, I suppose, try to sue for an injunction to bar them from protesting but I don't have much confidence in that working.

"harassment (either harris-meant or huh-rass-meant) n. the act of systematic and/or continued unwanted and annoying actions of one party or a group, including threats and demands. The purposes may vary, including racial prejudice, personal malice, an attempt to force someone to quit a job or grant sexual favors, apply illegal pressure to collect a bill, or merely gain sadistic pleasure from making someone fearful or anxious. Such activities may be the basis for a lawsuit if due to discrimination based on race or sex, a violation on the statutory limitations on collection agencies, involve revenge by an ex-spouse, or be shown to be a form of blackmail ("I'll stop bothering you, if you'll go to bed with me"). The victim may file a petition for a "stay away" (restraining) order, intended to prevent contact by the offensive party. A systematic pattern of harassment by an employee against another worker may subject the employer to a lawsuit for failure to protect the worker. "

What WBC is doing fits this definition perfectly.

"Persistence:
Noun
Firm or obstinate continuance in a course of action in spite of difficulty or opposition.
The continued or prolonged existence of something."

How does WBC's funeral picketing not match this definition?
I would argue, as they would, that their activity is not fueled by sadistic pleasure but rather by religious devotion (or delusion). Persistence would be continuing to harass a specific target multiple times, not one target one time. I doubt anyone would convict the WBC of harassment for a single solitary funeral picket.
They actually are trying to, but they think it's their duty. I've watched interviews with Shirley and the gang, and they believe that God wants them to try to shock and upset them, and to not to save them. They do it for attention basically, and I'm not being sarcastic when I say that. They don't care if they convince people or not, they think it's their God-given role to get attention on their batshit crazy beliefs.

It still matches the definition. It is persistent because it goes on for hours, and they shout simple, memorable slogans. Persistent doesn't have to go on for days. It's still prolonged harassment. Plus, even though it is a few hours, the grave site is almost ruined by the memory of WBC to the ones who want to visit it.
I don't think it in any way matches that definition. No one is being followed, there is no threat of physical harm, and I do not believe your definition of persistent matches what would be sufficient for a harassment conviction.

Is there presence not prolonged? Is it necessary for them to stand for hours, make songs about the dead, have picket signs, etc, in order for them to let others know what they believe?
Necessary? No. But it doesn't have to be necessary. It may be unnecessary to burn the flag, but that's constitutional. It may be unnecessary to wear a shirt that says "Fuck the draft", but that's constitutional. It may be unnecessary to march through a town filled with Holocaust survivors while dressed in full Nazi regalia but that's constitutional. So no it is not necessary, but I suppose we'll just disagree on whether or not picketing funerals should be protected. And as for their presence being prolonged, it is but not enough for me to consider it genuine harassment. And I've already said that bullying is repetitive behavior directed against a specific individual or group so I don't find your analogy applicable.

Offline Auggziliary

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 1185
  • Gender: Female
  • Queen of the birdies
Re: Petition to Legally reconise the WBC as a hate group
« Reply #77 on: December 18, 2012, 05:29:46 pm »
The analogy doesn't fit I realize now, because the teenager in the situation was fine until the bullying, whereas the victims are already grieving.
Also, burning the flag and wearing a "fuck the draft" shirt isn't actually aimed at people anyways, so that's not comparable. The Holocaust one isn't comparable either since there are many WBC members, not just one guy; the Holocaust happened a long time ago, so the victims have had time for their emotional wounds to scar; WBC targets individual people and families, whereas a Nazi parade is for an entire town; people can ignore the guy in the Nazi suit; and the Nazi is only marching in his uniform, not shouting about his views or trying to get attention.

If a gay kid was bullied in school and then commited suicide, and people at the school wore shirts that said "Fag deserved it" and "Fags go to hell" and followed around the student's siblings while yelling about how their brother was a fag who did all sorts of awful sexual acts(in detail) at them, should that be legal too? Even if it's only a day, do you think that should be allowed?
BITCHES! YOU BITCHES! Killing me won't bring back your God damn honey!

Offline Rabbit of Caerbannog

  • He's Got Great Big Teeth and the Holy Hand Grenade!
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 2919
  • Gender: Male
  • Hit me with your best shot! Fire awaaaay!
Re: Petition to Legally reconise the WBC as a hate group
« Reply #78 on: December 18, 2012, 05:58:55 pm »
The analogy doesn't fit I realize now, because the teenager in the situation was fine until the bullying, whereas the victims are already grieving.
Also, burning the flag and wearing a "fuck the draft" shirt isn't actually aimed at people anyways, so that's not comparable. The Holocaust one isn't comparable either since there are many WBC members, not just one guy; the Holocaust happened a long time ago, so the victims have had time for their emotional wounds to scar; WBC targets individual people and families, whereas a Nazi parade is for an entire town; people can ignore the guy in the Nazi suit; and the Nazi is only marching in his uniform, not shouting about his views or trying to get attention.
The only comparison I was making there was that those actions may not be deemed "necessary" to get one's point across. And in the actual Skokie case it was a large group of Nazis marching.

Quote
If a gay kid was bullied in school and then commited suicide, and people at the school wore shirts that said "Fag deserved it" and "Fags go to hell" and followed around the student's siblings while yelling about how their brother was a fag who did all sorts of awful sexual acts(in detail) at them, should that be legal too? Even if it's only a day, do you think that should be allowed?
A school is a different case since the Supreme Court has recognized that students may have certain rights curtailed. Following someone around and shouting at them would probably be harassment (following someone in a public place was part of that statute I quoted earlier). Wearing anti-gay T-shirts I would allow depending on the phrasing of the shirt in a school. For example I would support the right of a student to wear something like this or this or one that said Leviticus 18:22. I guess it depends on how it's phrased, but I tend to be more lenient than most people are when it comes to student free speech, since I did a lot of provocative artwork back in high school, some of which was not allowed to be displayed.

Offline R. U. Sirius

  • He Who Must Be Smooched By Cute FSTDT Forumgirls
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 2896
  • Gender: Male
  • Just look at me. Who could distrust this face?
Re: Petition to Legally reconise the WBC as a hate group
« Reply #79 on: December 18, 2012, 06:48:31 pm »
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/12/17/anonymous-hacks-westboro-baptist-church-sandy-hook_n_2315727.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular

Short version: After WBC threatened to picket a vigil for the victims of Newtown, Anonymous took action.

It goes against my normal morals, but I find myself somewhat disappointed that no Gunpowder Plot is in the offing for WBC.
http://www.gofundme.com/kw5o78
My GoFundMe campaign. Donations are greatly appreciated.

http://imgur.com/user/RUSirius1/submitted
My Imgur account. Upvotes always appreciated

If you look at it logically, cannibalism has great potential to simultaneously solve our overpopulation and food shortage problems.

Offline Rabbit of Caerbannog

  • He's Got Great Big Teeth and the Holy Hand Grenade!
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 2919
  • Gender: Male
  • Hit me with your best shot! Fire awaaaay!
Re: Petition to Legally reconise the WBC as a hate group
« Reply #80 on: December 18, 2012, 07:02:13 pm »
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/12/17/anonymous-hacks-westboro-baptist-church-sandy-hook_n_2315727.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular

Short version: After WBC threatened to picket a vigil for the victims of Newtown, Anonymous took action.
Now that's how you deal with the WBC. That and what the Patriot Guard Riders do.

Offline Auggziliary

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 1185
  • Gender: Female
  • Queen of the birdies
Re: Petition to Legally reconise the WBC as a hate group
« Reply #81 on: December 18, 2012, 10:11:44 pm »
The analogy doesn't fit I realize now, because the teenager in the situation was fine until the bullying, whereas the victims are already grieving.
Also, burning the flag and wearing a "fuck the draft" shirt isn't actually aimed at people anyways, so that's not comparable. The Holocaust one isn't comparable either since there are many WBC members, not just one guy; the Holocaust happened a long time ago, so the victims have had time for their emotional wounds to scar; WBC targets individual people and families, whereas a Nazi parade is for an entire town; people can ignore the guy in the Nazi suit; and the Nazi is only marching in his uniform, not shouting about his views or trying to get attention.
The only comparison I was making there was that those actions may not be deemed "necessary" to get one's point across. And in the actual Skokie case it was a large group of Nazis marching.

Quote
If a gay kid was bullied in school and then commited suicide, and people at the school wore shirts that said "Fag deserved it" and "Fags go to hell" and followed around the student's siblings while yelling about how their brother was a fag who did all sorts of awful sexual acts(in detail) at them, should that be legal too? Even if it's only a day, do you think that should be allowed?
A school is a different case since the Supreme Court has recognized that students may have certain rights curtailed. Following someone around and shouting at them would probably be harassment (following someone in a public place was part of that statute I quoted earlier). Wearing anti-gay T-shirts I would allow depending on the phrasing of the shirt in a school. For example I would support the right of a student to wear something like this or this or one that said Leviticus 18:22. I guess it depends on how it's phrased, but I tend to be more lenient than most people are when it comes to student free speech, since I did a lot of provocative artwork back in high school, some of which was not allowed to be displayed.

The t-shirts you said you were OK with were just criticisms of homosexuality. I don't care what WBC is believes, and they have every right to express those views, but WBC is harassing people at funerals. Also, you only presented 1st degree harassment, 2nd degree harassment fits what WBC is doing.
BITCHES! YOU BITCHES! Killing me won't bring back your God damn honey!

Offline Rabbit of Caerbannog

  • He's Got Great Big Teeth and the Holy Hand Grenade!
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 2919
  • Gender: Male
  • Hit me with your best shot! Fire awaaaay!
Re: Petition to Legally reconise the WBC as a hate group
« Reply #82 on: December 18, 2012, 10:54:42 pm »
The analogy doesn't fit I realize now, because the teenager in the situation was fine until the bullying, whereas the victims are already grieving.
Also, burning the flag and wearing a "fuck the draft" shirt isn't actually aimed at people anyways, so that's not comparable. The Holocaust one isn't comparable either since there are many WBC members, not just one guy; the Holocaust happened a long time ago, so the victims have had time for their emotional wounds to scar; WBC targets individual people and families, whereas a Nazi parade is for an entire town; people can ignore the guy in the Nazi suit; and the Nazi is only marching in his uniform, not shouting about his views or trying to get attention.
The only comparison I was making there was that those actions may not be deemed "necessary" to get one's point across. And in the actual Skokie case it was a large group of Nazis marching.

Quote
If a gay kid was bullied in school and then commited suicide, and people at the school wore shirts that said "Fag deserved it" and "Fags go to hell" and followed around the student's siblings while yelling about how their brother was a fag who did all sorts of awful sexual acts(in detail) at them, should that be legal too? Even if it's only a day, do you think that should be allowed?
A school is a different case since the Supreme Court has recognized that students may have certain rights curtailed. Following someone around and shouting at them would probably be harassment (following someone in a public place was part of that statute I quoted earlier). Wearing anti-gay T-shirts I would allow depending on the phrasing of the shirt in a school. For example I would support the right of a student to wear something like this or this or one that said Leviticus 18:22. I guess it depends on how it's phrased, but I tend to be more lenient than most people are when it comes to student free speech, since I did a lot of provocative artwork back in high school, some of which was not allowed to be displayed.

The t-shirts you said you were OK with were just criticisms of homosexuality. I don't care what WBC is believes, and they have every right to express those views, but WBC is harassing people at funerals.
Yes, I defended shirts that were critical of (and I would say insulting towards) homosexuality.

Quote
Also, you only presented 1st degree harassment, 2nd degree harassment fits what WBC is doing.
Let me the definition of harassment in the second degree:

Quote
A person is guilty of harassment in the second degree when, with intent to harass, annoy or alarm another person:
 He or she strikes, shoves, kicks or otherwise subjects such other person to physical contact, or attempts or threatens to do the same; or
He or she follows a person in or about a public place or places; or
 He or she engages in a course of conduct or repeatedly commits acts which alarm or seriously annoy such other person and which serve no legitimate purpose.
 
Subdivisions two and three of this section shall not apply to activities regulated by the national labor relations act, as amended, the railway labor act, as amended, or the federal employment labor management act, as amended.

Well let's see, the WBC doesn't strike, shove or kick anyone. They don't follow them about a public place or places. They don't repeatedly commit acts which alarm or seriously annoy. The only possible application would be engaging in a course of of conduct which alarms or seriously annoys another person and which serves no legitimate purpose. However I could argue that a political/religious protest is not devoid of a legitimate purpose.

Offline Auggziliary

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 1185
  • Gender: Female
  • Queen of the birdies
Re: Petition to Legally reconise the WBC as a hate group
« Reply #83 on: December 18, 2012, 11:14:31 pm »
The analogy doesn't fit I realize now, because the teenager in the situation was fine until the bullying, whereas the victims are already grieving.
Also, burning the flag and wearing a "fuck the draft" shirt isn't actually aimed at people anyways, so that's not comparable. The Holocaust one isn't comparable either since there are many WBC members, not just one guy; the Holocaust happened a long time ago, so the victims have had time for their emotional wounds to scar; WBC targets individual people and families, whereas a Nazi parade is for an entire town; people can ignore the guy in the Nazi suit; and the Nazi is only marching in his uniform, not shouting about his views or trying to get attention.
The only comparison I was making there was that those actions may not be deemed "necessary" to get one's point across. And in the actual Skokie case it was a large group of Nazis marching.

Quote
If a gay kid was bullied in school and then commited suicide, and people at the school wore shirts that said "Fag deserved it" and "Fags go to hell" and followed around the student's siblings while yelling about how their brother was a fag who did all sorts of awful sexual acts(in detail) at them, should that be legal too? Even if it's only a day, do you think that should be allowed?
A school is a different case since the Supreme Court has recognized that students may have certain rights curtailed. Following someone around and shouting at them would probably be harassment (following someone in a public place was part of that statute I quoted earlier). Wearing anti-gay T-shirts I would allow depending on the phrasing of the shirt in a school. For example I would support the right of a student to wear something like this or this or one that said Leviticus 18:22. I guess it depends on how it's phrased, but I tend to be more lenient than most people are when it comes to student free speech, since I did a lot of provocative artwork back in high school, some of which was not allowed to be displayed.

The t-shirts you said you were OK with were just criticisms of homosexuality. I don't care what WBC is believes, and they have every right to express those views, but WBC is harassing people at funerals.
Yes, I defended shirts that were critical of (and I would say insulting towards) homosexuality.

Quote
Also, you only presented 1st degree harassment, 2nd degree harassment fits what WBC is doing.
Let me the definition of harassment in the second degree:

Quote
A person is guilty of harassment in the second degree when, with intent to harass, annoy or alarm another person:
 He or she strikes, shoves, kicks or otherwise subjects such other person to physical contact, or attempts or threatens to do the same; or
He or she follows a person in or about a public place or places; or
 He or she engages in a course of conduct or repeatedly commits acts which alarm or seriously annoy such other person and which serve no legitimate purpose.
 
Subdivisions two and three of this section shall not apply to activities regulated by the national labor relations act, as amended, the railway labor act, as amended, or the federal employment labor management act, as amended.

Well let's see, the WBC doesn't strike, shove or kick anyone. They don't follow them about a public place or places. They don't repeatedly commit acts which alarm or seriously annoy. The only possible application would be engaging in a course of of conduct which alarms or seriously annoys another person and which serves no legitimate purpose. However I could argue that a political/religious protest is not devoid of a legitimate purpose.
Those shirts are hardly comparable to what WBC does.
Erm, WBC is repeatedly commiting acts which alarm and seriously annoy, and they have no legitimate purpose (just because their religion tells them to doesn't make it any more legitimate). They aren't standing around trying to make a point, they are trying to get a reaction. They aren't holding up signs with only Biblical quotes, they are shouting in megaphones, singing, and directly insulting the deceased and their family members.
WBC is following the families, they are tracking down where their funerals are, and only show up when they families are there. They aim their songs/signs/etc at the members there too, not just people passing by.
They do attempt to directly provoke the family members, such as telling the sons/daughters of the deceased that they're going to hell.

Also, why are you supporting anonymous in this? While I did get a good laugh out of what they did, it's a pretty obvious example of harassment and violating free speech.
BITCHES! YOU BITCHES! Killing me won't bring back your God damn honey!

Offline Rabbit of Caerbannog

  • He's Got Great Big Teeth and the Holy Hand Grenade!
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 2919
  • Gender: Male
  • Hit me with your best shot! Fire awaaaay!
Re: Petition to Legally reconise the WBC as a hate group
« Reply #84 on: December 18, 2012, 11:43:26 pm »
The analogy doesn't fit I realize now, because the teenager in the situation was fine until the bullying, whereas the victims are already grieving.
Also, burning the flag and wearing a "fuck the draft" shirt isn't actually aimed at people anyways, so that's not comparable. The Holocaust one isn't comparable either since there are many WBC members, not just one guy; the Holocaust happened a long time ago, so the victims have had time for their emotional wounds to scar; WBC targets individual people and families, whereas a Nazi parade is for an entire town; people can ignore the guy in the Nazi suit; and the Nazi is only marching in his uniform, not shouting about his views or trying to get attention.
The only comparison I was making there was that those actions may not be deemed "necessary" to get one's point across. And in the actual Skokie case it was a large group of Nazis marching.

Quote
If a gay kid was bullied in school and then commited suicide, and people at the school wore shirts that said "Fag deserved it" and "Fags go to hell" and followed around the student's siblings while yelling about how their brother was a fag who did all sorts of awful sexual acts(in detail) at them, should that be legal too? Even if it's only a day, do you think that should be allowed?
A school is a different case since the Supreme Court has recognized that students may have certain rights curtailed. Following someone around and shouting at them would probably be harassment (following someone in a public place was part of that statute I quoted earlier). Wearing anti-gay T-shirts I would allow depending on the phrasing of the shirt in a school. For example I would support the right of a student to wear something like this or this or one that said Leviticus 18:22. I guess it depends on how it's phrased, but I tend to be more lenient than most people are when it comes to student free speech, since I did a lot of provocative artwork back in high school, some of which was not allowed to be displayed.

The t-shirts you said you were OK with were just criticisms of homosexuality. I don't care what WBC is believes, and they have every right to express those views, but WBC is harassing people at funerals.
Yes, I defended shirts that were critical of (and I would say insulting towards) homosexuality.

Quote
Also, you only presented 1st degree harassment, 2nd degree harassment fits what WBC is doing.
Let me the definition of harassment in the second degree:

Quote
A person is guilty of harassment in the second degree when, with intent to harass, annoy or alarm another person:
 He or she strikes, shoves, kicks or otherwise subjects such other person to physical contact, or attempts or threatens to do the same; or
He or she follows a person in or about a public place or places; or
 He or she engages in a course of conduct or repeatedly commits acts which alarm or seriously annoy such other person and which serve no legitimate purpose.
 
Subdivisions two and three of this section shall not apply to activities regulated by the national labor relations act, as amended, the railway labor act, as amended, or the federal employment labor management act, as amended.

Well let's see, the WBC doesn't strike, shove or kick anyone. They don't follow them about a public place or places. They don't repeatedly commit acts which alarm or seriously annoy. The only possible application would be engaging in a course of of conduct which alarms or seriously annoys another person and which serves no legitimate purpose. However I could argue that a political/religious protest is not devoid of a legitimate purpose.
Those shirts are hardly comparable to what WBC does.
You're the one who chose the school example, and I did point out that free speech rights for school children are not the same as free speech rights for people who aren't in school.

Quote
Erm, WBC is repeatedly commiting acts which alarm and seriously annoy, and they have no legitimate purpose (just because their religion tells them to doesn't make it any more legitimate).
As the Supreme Court pointed out their protests deal with serious political issues. That isn't a legitimate purpose?

Quote
They aren't standing around trying to make a point, they are trying to get a reaction. They aren't holding up signs with only Biblical quotes, they are shouting in megaphones, singing, and directly insulting the deceased and their family members.
That isn't trying to make a point?

Quote
WBC is following the families, they are tracking down where their funerals are, and only show up when they families are there.
That isn't what "following" would refer to for purposes of harassment. If you were in public and walking around and I literally followed you around wherever you went shouting at you, it would be different.

Quote
Also, why are you supporting anonymous in this? While I did get a good laugh out of what they did, it's a pretty obvious example of harassment and violating free speech.
Anonymous is pretty much chaotic good. They simply represent another way of dealing with hate groups when there is no other way to do so and--admittedly--it's hilarious whenever they do. Yes they're breaking the law, but I don't think it would be harassment they would be charged with. Also they are in no way "violating free speech".

Offline Witchyjoshy

  • SHITLORD THUNDERBASTARD!!
  • Kakarot
  • ******
  • Posts: 9044
  • Gender: Male
  • Thinks he's a bard
Re: Petition to Legally reconise the WBC as a hate group
« Reply #85 on: December 19, 2012, 02:24:37 am »
My problem with someone getting arrested and/or fined for doing something like the WBC is that it isn't too much of a stretch to extend that, to, say, anyone who insults religion.

I mean, hell, in Egypt, a guy got arrested for "blasphemy."  It's these kinds of "thought crimes" that I want to avoid.

Saying something, unless it's a direct incitement to violence (whether it's "Kill that person because they are evil" or "Come on at me bro") or in some way would cause mass panic (shouting fire in a crowded theater when there isn't fire) should never be considered a crime.
Mockery of ideas you don't comprehend or understand is the surest mark of unintelligence.

Even the worst union is better than the best Walmart.

Caladur's Active Character Sheet

Offline Sigmaleph

  • Ungodlike
  • Administrator
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 3615
    • sigmaleph on tumblr
Re: Petition to Legally reconise the WBC as a hate group
« Reply #86 on: December 19, 2012, 08:25:40 pm »
Shit like this and this is already happening. Not much of a stretch to think that if the WBC are arrested for protesting funerals, that sets precedent for similar shit in the US.
Σא

Offline Auggziliary

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 1185
  • Gender: Female
  • Queen of the birdies
Re: Petition to Legally reconise the WBC as a hate group
« Reply #87 on: December 22, 2012, 04:12:11 pm »
The analogy doesn't fit I realize now, because the teenager in the situation was fine until the bullying, whereas the victims are already grieving.
Also, burning the flag and wearing a "fuck the draft" shirt isn't actually aimed at people anyways, so that's not comparable. The Holocaust one isn't comparable either since there are many WBC members, not just one guy; the Holocaust happened a long time ago, so the victims have had time for their emotional wounds to scar; WBC targets individual people and families, whereas a Nazi parade is for an entire town; people can ignore the guy in the Nazi suit; and the Nazi is only marching in his uniform, not shouting about his views or trying to get attention.
The only comparison I was making there was that those actions may not be deemed "necessary" to get one's point across. And in the actual Skokie case it was a large group of Nazis marching.

Quote
If a gay kid was bullied in school and then commited suicide, and people at the school wore shirts that said "Fag deserved it" and "Fags go to hell" and followed around the student's siblings while yelling about how their brother was a fag who did all sorts of awful sexual acts(in detail) at them, should that be legal too? Even if it's only a day, do you think that should be allowed?
A school is a different case since the Supreme Court has recognized that students may have certain rights curtailed. Following someone around and shouting at them would probably be harassment (following someone in a public place was part of that statute I quoted earlier). Wearing anti-gay T-shirts I would allow depending on the phrasing of the shirt in a school. For example I would support the right of a student to wear something like this or this or one that said Leviticus 18:22. I guess it depends on how it's phrased, but I tend to be more lenient than most people are when it comes to student free speech, since I did a lot of provocative artwork back in high school, some of which was not allowed to be displayed.

The t-shirts you said you were OK with were just criticisms of homosexuality. I don't care what WBC is believes, and they have every right to express those views, but WBC is harassing people at funerals.
Yes, I defended shirts that were critical of (and I would say insulting towards) homosexuality.

Quote
Also, you only presented 1st degree harassment, 2nd degree harassment fits what WBC is doing.
Let me the definition of harassment in the second degree:

Quote
A person is guilty of harassment in the second degree when, with intent to harass, annoy or alarm another person:
 He or she strikes, shoves, kicks or otherwise subjects such other person to physical contact, or attempts or threatens to do the same; or
He or she follows a person in or about a public place or places; or
 He or she engages in a course of conduct or repeatedly commits acts which alarm or seriously annoy such other person and which serve no legitimate purpose.
 
Subdivisions two and three of this section shall not apply to activities regulated by the national labor relations act, as amended, the railway labor act, as amended, or the federal employment labor management act, as amended.

Well let's see, the WBC doesn't strike, shove or kick anyone. They don't follow them about a public place or places. They don't repeatedly commit acts which alarm or seriously annoy. The only possible application would be engaging in a course of of conduct which alarms or seriously annoys another person and which serves no legitimate purpose. However I could argue that a political/religious protest is not devoid of a legitimate purpose.
Those shirts are hardly comparable to what WBC does.
You're the one who chose the school example, and I did point out that free speech rights for school children are not the same as free speech rights for people who aren't in school.

Quote
Erm, WBC is repeatedly commiting acts which alarm and seriously annoy, and they have no legitimate purpose (just because their religion tells them to doesn't make it any more legitimate).
As the Supreme Court pointed out their protests deal with serious political issues. That isn't a legitimate purpose?

Quote
They aren't standing around trying to make a point, they are trying to get a reaction. They aren't holding up signs with only Biblical quotes, they are shouting in megaphones, singing, and directly insulting the deceased and their family members.
That isn't trying to make a point?

Quote
WBC is following the families, they are tracking down where their funerals are, and only show up when they families are there.
That isn't what "following" would refer to for purposes of harassment. If you were in public and walking around and I literally followed you around wherever you went shouting at you, it would be different.

Quote
Also, why are you supporting anonymous in this? While I did get a good laugh out of what they did, it's a pretty obvious example of harassment and violating free speech.
Anonymous is pretty much chaotic good. They simply represent another way of dealing with hate groups when there is no other way to do so and--admittedly--it's hilarious whenever they do. Yes they're breaking the law, but I don't think it would be harassment they would be charged with. Also they are in no way "violating free speech".

Does WBC not have a right to their website or something?
BITCHES! YOU BITCHES! Killing me won't bring back your God damn honey!