FSTDT Forums
Community => Society and History => Topic started by: Sour Grapes on December 16, 2012, 12:35:37 am
-
Somebody has started a petition to have the Westboro Baptist Church legally reconised as a hate group (https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/legally-recognize-westboro-baptist-church-hate-group/DYf3pH2d). Not sure how much good it'll do, but... *shrugs*
-
I expect this to go about as well as any online petition has. Would being classified as a hate group really even change anything for them? The organization itself might as well be the lovechild of the KKK and NAMBLA in the eyes of the American people, and both of the aforementioned groups are legally allowed to hold rallies.
-
Seems a bit superfluous to me to formally have the WBC called what everybody already knows it is. As far as I know, having it classified as a hate group won't effect Fred and Shirley's ability to picket funerals and memorials to say disgusting things and sue innocent victims for reacting to their bullshit. Maybe they won't be able to get AS CLOSE to their victims, but they'd still be allowed to keep doing what they're doing. I'd be much more in favour of something that stops them from being allowed to do this shit.
-
I don't think I can sign that one, unfortunately, as I am a Canuck... :( Might not make any difference in how they behave, but at least they would be labeled for what they are.
-
Seems a bit superfluous to me to formally have the WBC called what everybody already knows it is. As far as I know, having it classified as a hate group won't effect Fred and Shirley's ability to picket funerals and memorials to say disgusting things and sue innocent victims for reacting to their bullshit. Maybe they won't be able to get AS CLOSE to their victims, but they'd still be allowed to keep doing what they're doing. I'd be much more in favour of something that stops them from being allowed to do this shit.
If they become officially a hate group it would probably be easier to stop them from picketing.
-
Seems a bit superfluous to me to formally have the WBC called what everybody already knows it is. As far as I know, having it classified as a hate group won't effect Fred and Shirley's ability to picket funerals and memorials to say disgusting things and sue innocent victims for reacting to their bullshit. Maybe they won't be able to get AS CLOSE to their victims, but they'd still be allowed to keep doing what they're doing. I'd be much more in favour of something that stops them from being allowed to do this shit.
If they become officially a hate group it would probably be easier to stop them from picketing.
Officially become a hate group according to who? The government, as far as I know, doesn't keep a list of active hate groups and pass legislation based on that. The Southern Poverty Law Center keeps a list of active hate groups, and their information is used by law enforcement throughout the United States, but the Westboro Baptist Church was designated a hate group ages ago. In addition, the federal government and many states have passed laws like the "Respect for America's Fallen Heroes Act" which targeted the Church's activities. Though being the First Amendment purist that I am, I don't even agree with limiting what they do since they engage in protected speech (Snyder v. Phelps).
-
Thought SPLC already labeled them a hate group.
Ironbtie-this is just....not needed?
-
This seems awfully misguided to me...why fuel the quest for notoriety that is at the very core of the Phelps agenda? He's like a real life pro wrestling baddie, the more he's hated the happier he is.
-
Officially become a hate group according to who? The government, as far as I know, doesn't keep a list of active hate groups and pass legislation based on that. The Southern Poverty Law Center keeps a list of active hate groups, and their information is used by law enforcement throughout the United States, but the Westboro Baptist Church was designated a hate group ages ago. In addition, the federal government and many states have passed laws like the "Respect for America's Fallen Heroes Act" which targeted the Church's activities. Though being the First Amendment purist that I am, I don't even agree with limiting what they do since they engage in protected speech (Snyder v. Phelps).
I don't know of any law which allows the federal government to maintain a list of "hate groups". Now of course, the FBI routinely investigates extremist groups of all varieties, so I'm sure they have some familiarity with WBC as it is.
Whoever started this petition really has no idea what they are doing.
-
Signed, like a boss. More recognition for the scum they are, never a bad thing.
-
Officially become a hate group according to who? The government, as far as I know, doesn't keep a list of active hate groups and pass legislation based on that. The Southern Poverty Law Center keeps a list of active hate groups, and their information is used by law enforcement throughout the United States, but the Westboro Baptist Church was designated a hate group ages ago. In addition, the federal government and many states have passed laws like the "Respect for America's Fallen Heroes Act" which targeted the Church's activities. Though being the First Amendment purist that I am, I don't even agree with limiting what they do since they engage in protected speech (Snyder v. Phelps).
Whoever started this petition really has no idea what they are doing.
Basically.
-
You can petition the government, but it basically does nothing.
-
You can petition the government, but it basically does nothing.
In this case, there is really nothing the gov't can do. It would be a violation of the First Amendment to make a law outlawing certain types of organizations (unless they were somehow insurrectionist).
-
Would this petition succeeding take away their status as a church? If so, it could potentially be a very good thing, since they'd no longer have a tax exemption.
-
Personally, even if the First Amendment were violated to shut them up, I would not care.
I am not a purist of the First Amendment.
It is my personal belief, formed through experience and my personal life, that excessive freedom breeds license. License to act as you wish without consequence is dangerous and that fosters nothing but maggots drawling about who slowly drain a society to death, and Europe...Europe sees this, hence why in certain countries, you could be arrested for saying things like what Westboro says.
-
Personally, even if the First Amendment were violated to shut them up, I would not care.
I am not a purist of the First Amendment.
It is my personal belief, formed through experience and my personal life, that excessive freedom breeds license. License to act as you wish without consequence is dangerous and that fosters nothing but maggots drawling about who slowly drain a society to death, and Europe...Europe sees this, hence why in certain countries, you could be arrested for saying things like what Westboro says.
Unless there is a tangible harm to the lives of others (e.g. incitement to violence) then I see no reason to limit the First Amendment. There is no right to not be offended enshrined in our Constitution.
-
It is my belief that those who are related to soldiers, men and women who gave their lives amidst their ultimate act of willpower, deserve their quiet, their rest, and the ability to see to it that their relatives are respected. Their loved ones gave their lives so that they might live peacefully, and for a cause they believed in, ultimately.
This true sacrifice should bring their loved ones this peace. Not the grief of dealing with Westboro.
While there is no tangible physical harm, Westboro harms the minds of the individuals mourning their dead, and harms the memories of the departed, an ultimate transgression deserving naught but a response of power or force against them.
-
Freedom of Speech =/= Freedom to say whatever, wherever, and whenever you please.
-
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.
-
It is my belief that those who are related to soldiers, men and women who gave their lives amidst their ultimate act of willpower, deserve their quiet, their rest, and the ability to see to it that their relatives are respected. Their loved ones gave their lives so that they might live peacefully, and for a cause they believed in, ultimately.
They also gave their lives to protect our Constitution, including our First Amendment. As someone whose immediate family members are in the military, I would be crushed if the Westboro Baptist Church protested near the funeral of my loved ones. This, however, does not mean they should be barred from expressing their repugnant views.
-
Freedom of Speech =/= Freedom to say whatever, wherever, and whenever you please.
I disagree. It's just not the freedom to say whatever, wherever, and whenever you please without consequences.
-
The constitution is an ever changing document, holding to the purity of one phrase or ideal within it against the logic of the times is not just impractical, but also possibly harmful.
Because your loved ones made the ultimate sacrifice, I would contest the right of Westboro to do as they please.
While this is my opinion, we shall see which of our opinions holds the most validity, via the will of the people. It is obvious that this issue is catching on in the public sphere. Soon, we will see what view point is ultimately representative of the will of the people.
-
Freedom of Speech =/= Freedom to say whatever, wherever, and whenever you please.
I disagree. It's just not the freedom to say whatever, wherever, and whenever you please without consequences.
I guess that's what I meant.
I think there is a difference between saying something and speech though. Westboro isn't trying to spread information, they're just trying to shock and hurt, and words happen to be their weapon. That should be considered.
-
As I like to say...
Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from the consequences of speech.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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 are good reasons to ban certain speech. If people will give you money in exchange for your "cure for cancer" that is actually just tap water, for example. If you're condemning someone to prison. If you will cause unwarranted massive panic.
"That's offensive!" should not be on that list. Because, y'know, at that point you're playing the "how offensive is too offensive" game, and that's the game were you win by being as overly sensitive as possible.
I'm not saying that the families of the people whose funerals the WBC pickets are being overly sensitive, of course. They are completely right to find it disgusting and appalling that someone would do that. But if the WBC is banned for being too offensive, that's the very point were "offensive" becomes a valid reason to ban speech. And from there, it seems just too bloody likely that the next thing that is too offensive will be a book, or a religious view, or a political position. Hell, I'm willing to bet that every single person posting in this thread has an opinion that someone, somewhere, finds just as offensive as picketing a funeral. I know I do.
Of course, as far as I can tell, that's not what this petition would accomplish. It doesn't seem like it would actually accomplish anything at all, "legally recognised hate group" doesn't seem to be a real thing. But still, the arguments in this thread keep popping up every now and then and they piss me off every time.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/09-751.ZS.html) with that view:
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
^ 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.
-
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.
-
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 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/09-751.ZS.html) with that view:
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.
-
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 (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).
-
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 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/09-751.ZS.html) with that view:
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.
-
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.
-
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 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/09-751.ZS.html) with that view:
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.
-
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 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/09-751.ZS.html) with that view:
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.
-
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.
It seems like there's something missing from the discussion. How close you're allowed to get to a funeral for the purposes of being a dick isn't a federal decision. Often it's not even state dictated. But mostly it's local. Every city, town, burg, ville, and shithole in America has their own little rules and regulations, usually called ordinances. Some say there's no alcohol, others say no loud music from cars, the list goes on and on. But as long as WBC follows these ordinances to the letter, I see no real big problem. Because one day I might feel the need to protest something I find unacceptable yet my views might be unpopular. And I want the same laws protecting them to be there for me.
-
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.
It seems like there's something missing from the discussion. How close you're allowed to get to a funeral for the purposes of being a dick isn't a federal decision. Often it's not even state dictated. But mostly it's local. Every city, town, burg, ville, and shithole in America has their own little rules and regulations, usually called ordinances. Some say there's no alcohol, others say no loud music from cars, the list goes on and on. But as long as WBC follows these ordinances to the letter, I see no real big problem. Because one day I might feel the need to protest something I find unacceptable yet my views might be unpopular. And I want the same laws protecting them to be there for me.
Right now the Respect for America's Fallen Heroes Act sets up restrictions for protesting funerals in cemeteries owned by the National Cemetery Association. Other than that it is state and local as you said.
-
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 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/09-751.ZS.html) with that view:
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.
I said most, not always. Of course they express ideas, but most of their actions are harassment, not genuinely trying to express an idea. Like I said, there is a difference between harassment and controversial ideas. I don't care about what they are saying alone, it's the fact that they are interrupting funerals and harassing the mourning. If these people actually wanted to save people from hell there are much more effective and less harmful ways to do so.
-
The thing is, what speech signifies and what impact it has varies according to the context in which it is communicated. The medium is part of the speech (McLuhan's famous quote "The medium is the message") and you understand the speech differently depending on that medium (McLuhan's book "The Medium is the Massage"--this was originally a typo by the printer, but McLuhan decided to keep it). The WBC can have God Hates Fags as their website all they want, but that's just not going to have the same impact as it will when it's expressed at a funeral, and thus that context (website vs funeral) is part of the speech, and so is (or should be, at least) protected.
-
Good point, Rabbit. I stand corrected. You are right.
-
The thing is, what speech signifies and what impact it has varies according to the context in which it is communicated. The medium is part of the speech (McLuhan's famous quote "The medium is the message") and you understand the speech differently depending on that medium (McLuhan's book "The Medium is the Massage"--this was originally a typo by the printer, but McLuhan decided to keep it). The WBC can have God Hates Fags as their website all they want, but that's just not going to have the same impact as it will when it's expressed at a funeral, and thus that context (website vs funeral) is part of the speech, and so is (or should be, at least) protected.
How is the context of the speech part of the speech? Yes it effects it, but that doesn't mean it's part of it. The color of a room can effect how a painting looks, but that doesn't mean the color of the room is part of that painting.
Again, if a kid wants to express his/her hatred of homosexuality at school, they must say it at an appropriate time and in an appropriate manner. Going around harassing other gay students is speech, and it has more of an impact, but he/she doesn't have the right to it because it's actually harming others. WBC can go as far as they want, but they can't actually harm others. By harm, I don't mean offense, I mean actually psychological harm. The limit of speech, in my opinon, begins when the speech entirely depends on the negative reaction of others (at that point I don't consider it speech either, since speech has to have some independence anyways).
-
Auggz, what about "shock jocks"? Or like Andrew Dice Clay? Or that musical the South Park guys did about Mormonism? Or the Madonna "painted" in dung? All are set up to be as offensive as they can get away with. All covered by free speech. I'm not picking on you, I know there is a line. But I'm not sure exactly where the line is.
-
The thing is, what speech signifies and what impact it has varies according to the context in which it is communicated. The medium is part of the speech (McLuhan's famous quote "The medium is the message") and you understand the speech differently depending on that medium (McLuhan's book "The Medium is the Massage"--this was originally a typo by the printer, but McLuhan decided to keep it). The WBC can have God Hates Fags as their website all they want, but that's just not going to have the same impact as it will when it's expressed at a funeral, and thus that context (website vs funeral) is part of the speech, and so is (or should be, at least) protected.
How is the context of the speech part of the speech? Yes it effects it, but that doesn't mean it's part of it. The color of a room can effect how a painting looks, but that doesn't mean the color of the room is part of that painting.
Again, if a kid wants to express his/her hatred of homosexuality at school, they must say it at an appropriate time and in an appropriate manner. Going around harassing other gay students is speech, and it has more of an impact, but he/she doesn't have the right to it because it's actually harming others. WBC can go as far as they want, but they can't actually harm others. By harm, I don't mean offense, I mean actually psychological harm. The limit of speech, in my opinon, begins when the speech entirely depends on the negative reaction of others (at that point I don't consider it speech either, since speech has to have some independence anyways).
Speech expresses an idea. If the idea expressed changes, the speech must in some way have changed.
Having a website called God Hates Fags expresses that you think that God hates homosexuals and want the world to see it.
Going to a funeral and saying "God hates fags" expresses the idea that not only does God hate homosexuals, but that this hatred is in some way linked to the funeral, which is different than what the website expresses, and, as intended, it provokes a much more negative reaction in others (something that a statement on said website saying "God hates fags and caused/allowed/etc someone to kill twenty children in Newtown, Connecticut to show it" doesn't, at least not as strong a reaction).
You can't divorce the speech from the context in which it's made because the context in which it's made changes the meaning. The medium is an intrinsic part of the message and it makes the message affect us in a different way (ie it massages you into viewing the message differently).
-
Auggz, what about "shock jocks"? Or like Andrew Dice Clay? Or that musical the South Park guys did about Mormonism? Or the Madonna "painted" in dung? All are set up to be as offensive as they can get away with. All covered by free speech. I'm not picking on you, I know there is a line. But I'm not sure exactly where the line is.
I don't mind shock, I just mind when it involved intentionally trying to hurt someone. The examples you gave were to offend, but not genuinely harm. Plus their audience is much bigger, and the issues aren't as offensive. Most Mormons might feel offended by that play, but they aren't going to suffer from psychological trauma, or commit suicide. WBC obviously isn't trying to save anyone from hell, they're just there to say "HA, we told you so!".
On a somewhat unrelated note, they guy that painted Madonna in poo wasn't trying to insult. He used elephant poo because in Africa, it's a blessing. People just took it wrong because they saw poopy faced Madonna and didn't bother to ask the artist why he did that.
-
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 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/09-751.ZS.html) with that view:
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.
I said most, not always. Of course they express ideas, but most of their actions are harassment, not genuinely trying to express an idea.
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.
-
The thing is, what speech signifies and what impact it has varies according to the context in which it is communicated. The medium is part of the speech (McLuhan's famous quote "The medium is the message") and you understand the speech differently depending on that medium (McLuhan's book "The Medium is the Massage"--this was originally a typo by the printer, but McLuhan decided to keep it). The WBC can have God Hates Fags as their website all they want, but that's just not going to have the same impact as it will when it's expressed at a funeral, and thus that context (website vs funeral) is part of the speech, and so is (or should be, at least) protected.
How is the context of the speech part of the speech? Yes it effects it, but that doesn't mean it's part of it. The color of a room can effect how a painting looks, but that doesn't mean the color of the room is part of that painting.
Again, if a kid wants to express his/her hatred of homosexuality at school, they must say it at an appropriate time and in an appropriate manner. Going around harassing other gay students is speech, and it has more of an impact, but he/she doesn't have the right to it because it's actually harming others. WBC can go as far as they want, but they can't actually harm others. By harm, I don't mean offense, I mean actually psychological harm. The limit of speech, in my opinon, begins when the speech entirely depends on the negative reaction of others (at that point I don't consider it speech either, since speech has to have some independence anyways).
Speech expresses an idea. If the idea expressed changes, the speech must in some way have changed.
Having a website called God Hates Fags expresses that you think that God hates homosexuals and want the world to see it.
Going to a funeral and saying "God hates fags" expresses the idea that not only does God hate homosexuals, but that this hatred is in some way linked to the funeral, which is different than what the website expresses, and, as intended, it provokes a much more negative reaction in others (something that a statement on said website saying "God hates fags and caused/allowed/etc someone to kill twenty children in Newtown, Connecticut to show it" doesn't, at least not as strong a reaction).
You can't divorce the speech from the context in which it's made because the context in which it's made changes the meaning. The medium is an intrinsic part of the message and it makes the message affect us in a different way (ie it massages you into viewing the message differently).
It's still not a part of the speech. Just because it effects it doesn't mean it's part. Paintings' effects change drastically due to context too, but that doesn't make context the part of the painting.
Even if it is part of the speech, why do they have the right to it? One's rights end where another's begins.
Also, why can they not protest further away from those funerals, or at the graves afterwards? I never said ban them from public.
-
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.
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?
-
It's still not a part of the speech. Just because it effects it doesn't mean it's part. Paintings' effects change drastically due to context too, but that doesn't make context the part of the painting.
But it can. The artist could specifically instruct that, for instance, the painting only be hung on blue walls and remove it from galleries that don't do that.
Some musicals and plays are like that--there was a stink a while back when a German production of some play used white actors in blackface instead of black actors.
Even if it is part of the speech, why do they have the right to it? One's rights end where another's begins.
Also, why can they not protest further away from those funerals, or at the graves afterwards? I never said ban them from public.
You don't have the right not to be offended, and doing as you suggest would, once again, alter their message from the one they wish to express. The emotional reaction they provoke is part of their message.
-
It's still not a part of the speech. Just because it effects it doesn't mean it's part. Paintings' effects change drastically due to context too, but that doesn't make context the part of the painting.
But it can. The artist could specifically instruct that, for instance, the painting only be hung on blue walls and remove it from galleries that don't do that.
Some musicals and plays are like that--there was a stink a while back when a German production of some play used white actors in blackface instead of black actors.
Even if it is part of the speech, why do they have the right to it? One's rights end where another's begins.
Also, why can they not protest further away from those funerals, or at the graves afterwards? I never said ban them from public.
You don't have the right not to be offended, and doing as you suggest would, once again, alter their message from the one they wish to express. The emotional reaction they provoke is part of their message.
That's the artist and the gallery's business. Also, it's still the environment, not the art itself (unless you're talking about installation pieces). If the members of the funeral don't want to be part of WBC's speech, then they should have every right not to be then.
Again, by offended I didn't mean casual offense. I mean potentially being psychologically harmed.
If a I bully a gay kid to the point of self harm or even suicide, is that free speech too?
-
It's still not a part of the speech. Just because it effects it doesn't mean it's part. Paintings' effects change drastically due to context too, but that doesn't make context the part of the painting.
But it can. The artist could specifically instruct that, for instance, the painting only be hung on blue walls and remove it from galleries that don't do that.
Some musicals and plays are like that--there was a stink a while back when a German production of some play used white actors in blackface instead of black actors.
Even if it is part of the speech, why do they have the right to it? One's rights end where another's begins.
Also, why can they not protest further away from those funerals, or at the graves afterwards? I never said ban them from public.
You don't have the right not to be offended, and doing as you suggest would, once again, alter their message from the one they wish to express. The emotional reaction they provoke is part of their message.
That's the artist and the gallery's business. Also, it's still the environment, not the art itself (unless you're talking about installation pieces). If the members of the funeral don't want to be part of WBC's speech, then they should have every right not to be then.
Again, by offended I didn't mean casual offense. I mean potentially being psychologically harmed.
If a I bully a gay kid to the point of self harm or even suicide, is that free speech too?
You have the right to say what you want, in whatever context you want.
You still have to face the music for it, though.
(So, for instance, I have no problems with libel and slander laws: I can write or say defamatory things, but I'll still have to suffer the consequences of doing so.)
-
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.
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?
-
It's still not a part of the speech. Just because it effects it doesn't mean it's part. Paintings' effects change drastically due to context too, but that doesn't make context the part of the painting.
But it can. The artist could specifically instruct that, for instance, the painting only be hung on blue walls and remove it from galleries that don't do that.
Some musicals and plays are like that--there was a stink a while back when a German production of some play used white actors in blackface instead of black actors.
Even if it is part of the speech, why do they have the right to it? One's rights end where another's begins.
Also, why can they not protest further away from those funerals, or at the graves afterwards? I never said ban them from public.
You don't have the right not to be offended, and doing as you suggest would, once again, alter their message from the one they wish to express. The emotional reaction they provoke is part of their message.
That's the artist and the gallery's business. Also, it's still the environment, not the art itself (unless you're talking about installation pieces). If the members of the funeral don't want to be part of WBC's speech, then they should have every right not to be then.
Again, by offended I didn't mean casual offense. I mean potentially being psychologically harmed.
If a I bully a gay kid to the point of self harm or even suicide, is that free speech too?
You have the right to say what you want, in whatever context you want.
You still have to face the music for it, though.
(So, for instance, I have no problems with libel and slander laws: I can write or say defamatory things, but I'll still have to suffer the consequences of doing so.)
Unless that context infringes on another's rights.
With the painting metaphor, that's like graffiti of personal info of someone in a public park.
-
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.
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.
-
You have the right to say what you want, in whatever context you want.
You still have to face the music for it, though.
(So, for instance, I have no problems with libel and slander laws: I can write or say defamatory things, but I'll still have to suffer the consequences of doing so.)
Unless that context infringes on another's rights.
With the painting metaphor, that's like graffiti of personal info of someone in a public park.
You can do things that infringe on others' rights. But there are penalties for that and you have to pay them.
(See, for instance, this (http://www.cbc.ca/news/arts/story/2012/12/18/hollywood-hacker-sentence-prison-johansson-aguilera-chaney.html).)
-
You have the right to say what you want, in whatever context you want.
You still have to face the music for it, though.
(So, for instance, I have no problems with libel and slander laws: I can write or say defamatory things, but I'll still have to suffer the consequences of doing so.)
Unless that context infringes on another's rights.
With the painting metaphor, that's like graffiti of personal info of someone in a public park.
You can do things that infringe on others' rights. But there are penalties for that and you have to pay them.
(See, for instance, this (http://www.cbc.ca/news/arts/story/2012/12/18/hollywood-hacker-sentence-prison-johansson-aguilera-chaney.html).)
That hacker got 10 years in prison... Wait, are you saying they WBC physically picket? Because no one is arguing against that. WBC can show up for funerals and picket, but I think that there should be a legal penalty for it, and I also think it's wrong.
-
You have the right to say what you want, in whatever context you want.
You still have to face the music for it, though.
(So, for instance, I have no problems with libel and slander laws: I can write or say defamatory things, but I'll still have to suffer the consequences of doing so.)
Unless that context infringes on another's rights.
With the painting metaphor, that's like graffiti of personal info of someone in a public park.
You can do things that infringe on others' rights. But there are penalties for that and you have to pay them.
(See, for instance, this (http://www.cbc.ca/news/arts/story/2012/12/18/hollywood-hacker-sentence-prison-johansson-aguilera-chaney.html).)
That hacker got 10 years in prison... Wait, are you saying they WBC physically picket? Because no one is arguing against that. WBC can show up for funerals and picket, but I think that there should be a legal penalty for it, and I also think it's wrong.
I think the WBC should face the music when they do things like that, whatever that music is. (Not all consequences come from the government.) Civil penalties, for instance.
-
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.
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.
-
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.
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.
-
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.
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.
-
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.
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 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.
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.
-
Here's an example of a harassment statute from uslegal.com:
"A person is guilty of harassment in the first degree when he or she intentionally and repeatedly harasses another person by following such person in or about a public place or places or by engaging in a course of conduct or by repeatedly committing acts which places such person in reasonable fear of physical injury."
Note how words and phrases such as "repeatedly" and "fear of physical injury" appear. This is common to prove harassment and does not apply to WBC. Unfortunately there isn't always a legal remedy to a problem, such as funeral picketing, though this law (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57533608/federal-appeals-court-allows-funeral-protest-curbs-westboro-targeted/) puts restrictions on funeral protests and was recently upheld. I disagree with the Court's assessment but we shall see what the Supreme Court says if they hear the case.
-
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.
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 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.
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.
-
Here's an example of a harassment statute from uslegal.com:
"A person is guilty of harassment in the first degree when he or she intentionally and repeatedly harasses another person by following such person in or about a public place or places or by engaging in a course of conduct or by repeatedly committing acts which places such person in reasonable fear of physical injury."
Note how words and phrases such as "repeatedly" and "fear of physical injury" appear. This is common to prove harassment and does not apply to WBC. Unfortunately there isn't always a legal remedy to a problem, such as funeral picketing, though this law (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57533608/federal-appeals-court-allows-funeral-protest-curbs-westboro-targeted/) puts restrictions on funeral protests and was recently upheld. I disagree with the Court's assessment but we shall see what the Supreme Court says if they hear the case.
That only applies to first degree harassment.
Besides, WBC's protests are repetitive, though they aren't over many days. They track down specific people and say the same thing for hours. Even if you don't consider it persistent, it's still harmful and disruptive.
"S 240.26 Harassment in the second degree.
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.
Harassment in the second degree is a violation.
S 240.30 Aggravated harassment in the second degree.
A person is guilty of aggravated harassment in the second degree when, with intent to harass, annoy, threaten or alarm another person, he or she:
Either (a) communicates with a person, anonymously or otherwise, by telephone, or by telegraph, mail or any other form of written communication, in a manner likely to cause annoyance or alarm; or (b) causes a communication to be initiated by mechanical or electronic means or otherwise with a person, anonymously or otherwise, by telephone, or by telegraph, mail or any other form of written communication, in a manner likely to cause annoyance or alarm; or
Makes a telephone call, whether or not a conversation ensues, with no purpose of legitimate communication; or
Strikes, shoves, kicks, or otherwise subjects another person to physical contact, or attempts or threatens to do the same because of a belief or perception regarding such person`s race, color, national origin, ancestry, gender, religion, religious practice, age, disability or sexual orientation, regardless of whether the belief or perception is correct; or
Commits the crime of harassment in the first degree and has previously been convicted of the crime of harassment in the first degree as defined by section 240.25 of this article within the preceding ten years.
Aggravated harassment in the second degree is a class A misdemeanor."
-
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.
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.
-
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.
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.
-
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?
-
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.
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 (http://www.christianpost.com/news/aclu-aids-student-against-ban-on-anti-gay-shirt-76191/) or this (http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/4084352-418/judge-anti-gay-shirt-ok.html) 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.
-
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.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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Guard_Riders) do.
-
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.
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 (http://www.christianpost.com/news/aclu-aids-student-against-ban-on-anti-gay-shirt-76191/) or this (http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/4084352-418/judge-anti-gay-shirt-ok.html) 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.
-
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.
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 (http://www.christianpost.com/news/aclu-aids-student-against-ban-on-anti-gay-shirt-76191/) or this (http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/4084352-418/judge-anti-gay-shirt-ok.html) 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.
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:
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.
-
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.
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 (http://www.christianpost.com/news/aclu-aids-student-against-ban-on-anti-gay-shirt-76191/) or this (http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/4084352-418/judge-anti-gay-shirt-ok.html) 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.
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:
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.
-
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.
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 (http://www.christianpost.com/news/aclu-aids-student-against-ban-on-anti-gay-shirt-76191/) or this (http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/4084352-418/judge-anti-gay-shirt-ok.html) 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.
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:
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.
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?
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?
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.
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".
-
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.
-
Shit like this (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-19863228) and this (http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/azhar-ahmed-a-tasteless-facebook-update-and-more-evidence-of-britains-terrifying-new-censorship-8204212.html) 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.
-
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.
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 (http://www.christianpost.com/news/aclu-aids-student-against-ban-on-anti-gay-shirt-76191/) or this (http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/4084352-418/judge-anti-gay-shirt-ok.html) 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.
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:
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.
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?
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?
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.
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?