Author Topic: Petition to Legally reconise the WBC as a hate group  (Read 28295 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

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 #30 on: December 17, 2012, 11:02:06 pm »
Freedom of Speech =/= Freedom to say whatever, wherever, and whenever you please.
No one is saying that. In fact Rabbit clearly stated there are limits on free speech. But what WBC does is legal, just like the KKK having a parade is legal. Of course that doesn't make them any less of shitheads.

I wasn't arguing with anyone.
There is a difference between a KKK parade and WBC. WBC pickets the mourning at the worst time possible, whereas the KKK aren't parading around civil right's memorials, or black people's and funerals. Also, the KKK is more widespread than WBC. Members of the KKK often don't let anyone know, whereas WBC members are usually forced into living 100% "christian" lives.
No but white supremacists (specifically the American Nazi Party) sued to march through Skokie, Illinois which had a large population of Holocaust survivors. Should that be banned as well?

If there was an important ceremony about the Holocaust, and many victims participated, and the KKK came in and said horrid things about them, then yes. The only reason they're there is to bully, not enlighten.
There is no clause in the First Amendment that declares an exception for non-enlightening speech.

There is no such thing as non-enlightening speech. There is a difference between saying something and speech. Speech is to communicate and spread ideas, and it can criticize. However, what WBC is doing isn't criticism, it's just harassment intended to hurt.
The Supreme Court happens to disagree with that view:

Quote
The “content” of Westboro’s signs plainly relates to broad issues of interest to society at large, rather than matters of “purely private concern.” Dun & Bradstreet , supra, at 759. The placards read “God Hates the USA/Thank God for 9/11,” “America is Doomed,” “Don’t Pray for the USA,” “Thank God for IEDs,” “Fag Troops,” “Semper Fi Fags,” “God Hates Fags,” “Maryland Taliban,” “Fags Doom Nations,” “Not Blessed Just Cursed,” “Thank God for Dead Soldiers,” “Pope in Hell,” “Priests Rape Boys,” “You’re Going to Hell,” and “God Hates You.” App. 3781–3787. While these messages may fall short of refined social or political commentary, the issues they highlight—the political and moral conduct of the United States and its citizens, the fate of our Nation, homosexuality in the military, and scandals involving the Catholic clergy—are matters of public import. The signs certainly convey Westboro’s position on those issues, in a manner designed, unlike the private speech in Dun & Bradstreet , to reach as broad a public audience as possible. And even if a few of the signs—such as “You’re Going to Hell” and “God Hates You”—were viewed as containing messages related to Matthew Snyder or the Snyders specifically, that would not change the fact that the overall thrust and dominant theme of Westboro’s demonstration spoke to broader public issues.

Offline Sleepy

  • Fuck Yes Sunshine In a Bag
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 4598
  • Gender: Female
  • Danger zone
Re: Petition to Legally reconise the WBC as a hate group
« Reply #31 on: December 17, 2012, 11:03:27 pm »
There is no such thing as non-enlightening speech. There is a difference between saying something and speech. Speech is to communicate and spread ideas, and it can criticize. However, what WBC is doing isn't criticism, it's just harassment intended to hurt.

Speech is simply the act of speaking, so non-enlightening speech does exist. Not everything a person says imparts knowledge to others.
Guys, this is getting creepy. Can we talk about cannibalism instead?

If a clown eats salmon on Tuesday, how much does a triangle weigh on Jupiter? Ask Mr. Wiggins for 10% off of your next dry cleaning bill. -Hades

Offline wrongfrog

  • Apprentice
  • **
  • Posts: 61
Re: Petition to Legally reconise the WBC as a hate group
« Reply #32 on: December 17, 2012, 11:48:33 pm »
What astounds me is that people actually care about the WBC.
Like, these people have zero influence in this society. Everyone who's not them collectively hates them, because they give everyone on the political spectrum something to get mad at. The only reason they're relevant is because for the past decade they've been saying crazy shit and basically acting like the modern-day Puritains, so why fucking bother? I get annoyed just by people talking about them with an "oh em gee can you BELIEVE these people?!" kind of comment, because to me they're just funny and shouldn't be taken seriously. The more seriously you take them, i.e. trying to pass fucking hate crime legislation, the greater a service you're doing to them.

Offline niam2023

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 4213
  • Gender: Male
  • The Forum Chad
Re: Petition to Legally reconise the WBC as a hate group
« Reply #33 on: December 18, 2012, 12:03:33 am »
It is not about caring about them.

It is about annihilating the complete disservice they are doing the great act of will committed by the departed soldiers, and getting it over with quickly.

These maggots will not be addressed when speaking of the bill, and with their speech silenced by hate crime legislation, would fade away, and be forgotten as is deserved by their lot.
Living Life, Lifting, Waiting for Summer

Offline wrongfrog

  • Apprentice
  • **
  • Posts: 61
Re: Petition to Legally reconise the WBC as a hate group
« Reply #34 on: December 18, 2012, 12:12:11 am »
It is not about caring about them.

It is about annihilating the complete disservice they are doing the great act of will committed by the departed soldiers, and getting it over with quickly.

These maggots will not be addressed when speaking of the bill, and with their speech silenced by hate crime legislation, would fade away, and be forgotten as is deserved by their lot.
But who's to say that hate crime legislation will necessarily eliminate their speech? They're complete shitheads, yes, but I don't see why we have to focus so much on them. Instead of giving them the reactions they seek, why not just ignore them? Sure, they're disrespectful as hell and it's extremely dickish of them and they should not disrespect our soldiers like they do, but all they do is shout things. That's it. They're not the KKK in the 1860s, they're a small group of Puritans who know how to piss off people for media attention. That's the point I'm trying to make; that by reacting with demands for hate crime legislation and such, we're just giving them prominence and putting them on a pedestal when there really is no need to.

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 #35 on: December 18, 2012, 12:43:01 am »
It is not about caring about them.

It is about annihilating the complete disservice they are doing the great act of will committed by the departed soldiers, and getting it over with quickly.

These maggots will not be addressed when speaking of the bill, and with their speech silenced by hate crime legislation, would fade away, and be forgotten as is deserved by their lot.
It would be truly disturbing to have any group's speech silenced by a hate crime bill.

Offline ironbite

  • Overlord of all that is good in Iacon City
  • Kakarot
  • ******
  • Posts: 10686
  • Gender: Male
  • Stuck in the middle with you.
Re: Petition to Legally reconise the WBC as a hate group
« Reply #36 on: December 18, 2012, 02:13:56 am »
Speech should never be limited.  Doing so is the sign that society is sick and needs cleansing.  That said, you should not be able to hid behind a book of fairy tales because you know your speech is going to go too far.

Ironbite-and if the WBC does march on Newtown....they might end up biting off more then then can ever chew.

Offline niam2023

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 4213
  • Gender: Male
  • The Forum Chad
Re: Petition to Legally reconise the WBC as a hate group
« Reply #37 on: December 18, 2012, 03:37:34 am »
^ Then I suppose Europe is currently sick, as a society, and needs cleansing.

I recall, distinctly, a racist who got in trouble in Finland for saying things on Facebook. That...is what I wish would occur here.

My principles are, admittedly, alien. It does not surprise or dismay me that what I consider right and good, you consider sickening and disturbing.

I do not view any current, one law or standard as inviolate or sacred.

I understand, somewhat, why you would disagree and believe strongly in the freedom of others to say as they please. If that is your Will, then I will do naught to change it.
« Last Edit: December 18, 2012, 03:56:32 am by niam2023 »
Living Life, Lifting, Waiting for Summer

Offline Auggziliary

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 1185
  • Gender: Female
  • Queen of the birdies
Re: Petition to Legally reconise the WBC as a hate group
« Reply #38 on: December 18, 2012, 09:58:27 am »
There is no such thing as non-enlightening speech. There is a difference between saying something and speech. Speech is to communicate and spread ideas, and it can criticize. However, what WBC is doing isn't criticism, it's just harassment intended to hurt.

Speech is simply the act of speaking, so non-enlightening speech does exist. Not everything a person says imparts knowledge to others.

Speech = expression through language, so there is no such thing as non-enlightening speech. It all "enlightens" one way or another, no matter how trivial some speech seems. This is why yelling fire in a theater when there isn't a fire isn't always considered speech. What WBC is doing is only intended to get some reaction, it seems. I'm not saying they should be entirely silenced, but perhaps prevented from picketing or shouting near funerals, and at the friends and family members for a certain time.
BITCHES! YOU BITCHES! Killing me won't bring back your God damn honey!

Offline Auggziliary

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 1185
  • Gender: Female
  • Queen of the birdies
Re: Petition to Legally reconise the WBC as a hate group
« Reply #39 on: December 18, 2012, 10:12:00 am »
Freedom of Speech =/= Freedom to say whatever, wherever, and whenever you please.
No one is saying that. In fact Rabbit clearly stated there are limits on free speech. But what WBC does is legal, just like the KKK having a parade is legal. Of course that doesn't make them any less of shitheads.

I wasn't arguing with anyone.
There is a difference between a KKK parade and WBC. WBC pickets the mourning at the worst time possible, whereas the KKK aren't parading around civil right's memorials, or black people's and funerals. Also, the KKK is more widespread than WBC. Members of the KKK often don't let anyone know, whereas WBC members are usually forced into living 100% "christian" lives.
No but white supremacists (specifically the American Nazi Party) sued to march through Skokie, Illinois which had a large population of Holocaust survivors. Should that be banned as well?

If there was an important ceremony about the Holocaust, and many victims participated, and the KKK came in and said horrid things about them, then yes. The only reason they're there is to bully, not enlighten.
There is no clause in the First Amendment that declares an exception for non-enlightening speech.

There is no such thing as non-enlightening speech. There is a difference between saying something and speech. Speech is to communicate and spread ideas, and it can criticize. However, what WBC is doing isn't criticism, it's just harassment intended to hurt.
The Supreme Court happens to disagree with that view:

Quote
The “content” of Westboro’s signs plainly relates to broad issues of interest to society at large, rather than matters of “purely private concern.” Dun & Bradstreet , supra, at 759. The placards read “God Hates the USA/Thank God for 9/11,” “America is Doomed,” “Don’t Pray for the USA,” “Thank God for IEDs,” “Fag Troops,” “Semper Fi Fags,” “God Hates Fags,” “Maryland Taliban,” “Fags Doom Nations,” “Not Blessed Just Cursed,” “Thank God for Dead Soldiers,” “Pope in Hell,” “Priests Rape Boys,” “You’re Going to Hell,” and “God Hates You.” App. 3781–3787. While these messages may fall short of refined social or political commentary, the issues they highlight—the political and moral conduct of the United States and its citizens, the fate of our Nation, homosexuality in the military, and scandals involving the Catholic clergy—are matters of public import. The signs certainly convey Westboro’s position on those issues, in a manner designed, unlike the private speech in Dun & Bradstreet , to reach as broad a public audience as possible. And even if a few of the signs—such as “You’re Going to Hell” and “God Hates You”—were viewed as containing messages related to Matthew Snyder or the Snyders specifically, that would not change the fact that the overall thrust and dominant theme of Westboro’s demonstration spoke to broader public issues.

What does that have to do with my argument anyways? In this case, I understand why they ruled that, but I think it should change a bit now. If I could pick, I'd let WBC say whatever they want, but they'd have to keep away from funerals and the friends and family for some time. The issue with me isn't their message, it's how they're executing their message. If what they were saying was really "speech", then there shouldn't have an issue with limiting where and when they can say it. Their message is still the same whether it traumatizes a child of a soldier or not.

What they are doing is comparable to bullying. If a student expresses their views that being gay is wrong, then there's no problem. But when students follow around a gay student and bully him relentlessly, something needs to be done.
BITCHES! YOU BITCHES! Killing me won't bring back your God damn honey!

Offline mellenORL

  • Pedal Pushing Puppy Peon
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 3876
  • Gender: Female
Re: Petition to Legally reconise the WBC as a hate group
« Reply #40 on: December 18, 2012, 10:34:52 am »
Understand that I hate the way the device linked to below has been used by governments to break up legitimate protest rallies....but in the case of WBC, I wish somebody would make a smaller version that a counterprotester could carry and deploy at these sick fucks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Range_Acoustic_Device

Just loop in their own hateful shouts using a a long range pickup mic, and play it back at 'em (hopefully with lots of fugly feedback noise).
Quote from: Ultimate Chatbot That Totally Passes The Turing Test
I sympathize completely. However, to use against us. Let me ask you a troll. On the one who pulled it. But here's the question: where do I think it might as well have stepped out of all people would cling to a layman.

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 #41 on: December 18, 2012, 10:40:01 am »
Freedom of Speech =/= Freedom to say whatever, wherever, and whenever you please.
No one is saying that. In fact Rabbit clearly stated there are limits on free speech. But what WBC does is legal, just like the KKK having a parade is legal. Of course that doesn't make them any less of shitheads.

I wasn't arguing with anyone.
There is a difference between a KKK parade and WBC. WBC pickets the mourning at the worst time possible, whereas the KKK aren't parading around civil right's memorials, or black people's and funerals. Also, the KKK is more widespread than WBC. Members of the KKK often don't let anyone know, whereas WBC members are usually forced into living 100% "christian" lives.
No but white supremacists (specifically the American Nazi Party) sued to march through Skokie, Illinois which had a large population of Holocaust survivors. Should that be banned as well?

If there was an important ceremony about the Holocaust, and many victims participated, and the KKK came in and said horrid things about them, then yes. The only reason they're there is to bully, not enlighten.
There is no clause in the First Amendment that declares an exception for non-enlightening speech.

There is no such thing as non-enlightening speech. There is a difference between saying something and speech. Speech is to communicate and spread ideas, and it can criticize. However, what WBC is doing isn't criticism, it's just harassment intended to hurt.
The Supreme Court happens to disagree with that view:

Quote
The “content” of Westboro’s signs plainly relates to broad issues of interest to society at large, rather than matters of “purely private concern.” Dun & Bradstreet , supra, at 759. The placards read “God Hates the USA/Thank God for 9/11,” “America is Doomed,” “Don’t Pray for the USA,” “Thank God for IEDs,” “Fag Troops,” “Semper Fi Fags,” “God Hates Fags,” “Maryland Taliban,” “Fags Doom Nations,” “Not Blessed Just Cursed,” “Thank God for Dead Soldiers,” “Pope in Hell,” “Priests Rape Boys,” “You’re Going to Hell,” and “God Hates You.” App. 3781–3787. While these messages may fall short of refined social or political commentary, the issues they highlight—the political and moral conduct of the United States and its citizens, the fate of our Nation, homosexuality in the military, and scandals involving the Catholic clergy—are matters of public import. The signs certainly convey Westboro’s position on those issues, in a manner designed, unlike the private speech in Dun & Bradstreet , to reach as broad a public audience as possible. And even if a few of the signs—such as “You’re Going to Hell” and “God Hates You”—were viewed as containing messages related to Matthew Snyder or the Snyders specifically, that would not change the fact that the overall thrust and dominant theme of Westboro’s demonstration spoke to broader public issues.

What does that have to do with my argument anyways?
You were saying that speech is used to communicate ideas and criticize that the WBC's speech did not fall in that category but rather harassment or something.

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 #42 on: December 18, 2012, 10:42:58 am »
I recall, distinctly, a racist who got in trouble in Finland for saying things on Facebook. That...is what I wish would occur here.
Well that does happen here. If you make racist comments on Facebook and your employer or school administrators get wind of it you'll surely get in trouble. You won't be punished for breaking any laws, however.

Offline Auggziliary

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 1185
  • Gender: Female
  • Queen of the birdies
Re: Petition to Legally reconise the WBC as a hate group
« Reply #43 on: December 18, 2012, 10:44:26 am »
Freedom of Speech =/= Freedom to say whatever, wherever, and whenever you please.
No one is saying that. In fact Rabbit clearly stated there are limits on free speech. But what WBC does is legal, just like the KKK having a parade is legal. Of course that doesn't make them any less of shitheads.

I wasn't arguing with anyone.
There is a difference between a KKK parade and WBC. WBC pickets the mourning at the worst time possible, whereas the KKK aren't parading around civil right's memorials, or black people's and funerals. Also, the KKK is more widespread than WBC. Members of the KKK often don't let anyone know, whereas WBC members are usually forced into living 100% "christian" lives.
No but white supremacists (specifically the American Nazi Party) sued to march through Skokie, Illinois which had a large population of Holocaust survivors. Should that be banned as well?

If there was an important ceremony about the Holocaust, and many victims participated, and the KKK came in and said horrid things about them, then yes. The only reason they're there is to bully, not enlighten.
There is no clause in the First Amendment that declares an exception for non-enlightening speech.

There is no such thing as non-enlightening speech. There is a difference between saying something and speech. Speech is to communicate and spread ideas, and it can criticize. However, what WBC is doing isn't criticism, it's just harassment intended to hurt.
The Supreme Court happens to disagree with that view:

Quote
The “content” of Westboro’s signs plainly relates to broad issues of interest to society at large, rather than matters of “purely private concern.” Dun & Bradstreet , supra, at 759. The placards read “God Hates the USA/Thank God for 9/11,” “America is Doomed,” “Don’t Pray for the USA,” “Thank God for IEDs,” “Fag Troops,” “Semper Fi Fags,” “God Hates Fags,” “Maryland Taliban,” “Fags Doom Nations,” “Not Blessed Just Cursed,” “Thank God for Dead Soldiers,” “Pope in Hell,” “Priests Rape Boys,” “You’re Going to Hell,” and “God Hates You.” App. 3781–3787. While these messages may fall short of refined social or political commentary, the issues they highlight—the political and moral conduct of the United States and its citizens, the fate of our Nation, homosexuality in the military, and scandals involving the Catholic clergy—are matters of public import. The signs certainly convey Westboro’s position on those issues, in a manner designed, unlike the private speech in Dun & Bradstreet , to reach as broad a public audience as possible. And even if a few of the signs—such as “You’re Going to Hell” and “God Hates You”—were viewed as containing messages related to Matthew Snyder or the Snyders specifically, that would not change the fact that the overall thrust and dominant theme of Westboro’s demonstration spoke to broader public issues.

What does that have to do with my argument anyways?
You were saying that speech is used to communicate ideas and that the WBC's speech did not fall in that category but rather harassment or something.

Most of their tactics involve interrupting funerals and harassing the victim's families, not expressing ideas. If they want to express their ideas, then they can do it without harassing people at funerals.
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 #44 on: December 18, 2012, 10:56:12 am »
Freedom of Speech =/= Freedom to say whatever, wherever, and whenever you please.
No one is saying that. In fact Rabbit clearly stated there are limits on free speech. But what WBC does is legal, just like the KKK having a parade is legal. Of course that doesn't make them any less of shitheads.

I wasn't arguing with anyone.
There is a difference between a KKK parade and WBC. WBC pickets the mourning at the worst time possible, whereas the KKK aren't parading around civil right's memorials, or black people's and funerals. Also, the KKK is more widespread than WBC. Members of the KKK often don't let anyone know, whereas WBC members are usually forced into living 100% "christian" lives.
No but white supremacists (specifically the American Nazi Party) sued to march through Skokie, Illinois which had a large population of Holocaust survivors. Should that be banned as well?

If there was an important ceremony about the Holocaust, and many victims participated, and the KKK came in and said horrid things about them, then yes. The only reason they're there is to bully, not enlighten.
There is no clause in the First Amendment that declares an exception for non-enlightening speech.

There is no such thing as non-enlightening speech. There is a difference between saying something and speech. Speech is to communicate and spread ideas, and it can criticize. However, what WBC is doing isn't criticism, it's just harassment intended to hurt.
The Supreme Court happens to disagree with that view:

Quote
The “content” of Westboro’s signs plainly relates to broad issues of interest to society at large, rather than matters of “purely private concern.” Dun & Bradstreet , supra, at 759. The placards read “God Hates the USA/Thank God for 9/11,” “America is Doomed,” “Don’t Pray for the USA,” “Thank God for IEDs,” “Fag Troops,” “Semper Fi Fags,” “God Hates Fags,” “Maryland Taliban,” “Fags Doom Nations,” “Not Blessed Just Cursed,” “Thank God for Dead Soldiers,” “Pope in Hell,” “Priests Rape Boys,” “You’re Going to Hell,” and “God Hates You.” App. 3781–3787. While these messages may fall short of refined social or political commentary, the issues they highlight—the political and moral conduct of the United States and its citizens, the fate of our Nation, homosexuality in the military, and scandals involving the Catholic clergy—are matters of public import. The signs certainly convey Westboro’s position on those issues, in a manner designed, unlike the private speech in Dun & Bradstreet , to reach as broad a public audience as possible. And even if a few of the signs—such as “You’re Going to Hell” and “God Hates You”—were viewed as containing messages related to Matthew Snyder or the Snyders specifically, that would not change the fact that the overall thrust and dominant theme of Westboro’s demonstration spoke to broader public issues.

What does that have to do with my argument anyways?
You were saying that speech is used to communicate ideas and that the WBC's speech did not fall in that category but rather harassment or something.

Most of their tactics involve interrupting funerals and harassing the victim's families, not expressing ideas. If they want to express their ideas, then they can do it without harassing people at funerals.
They are constantly expressing ideas. The question is whether or not they should be able to do so near a funeral for fear of offending the people in attendance. I simply believe that they should be able to do so.