Petition to Legally reconise the WBC as a hate group

[Rabbit of Caerbannog]

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?

[Auggziliary]

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.

[Auggziliary]

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.

[dpareja]

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.)

[Auggziliary]

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.)

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.

[dpareja]

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.)

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.

[Rabbit of Caerbannog]

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.

[Auggziliary]

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.

[Rabbit of Caerbannog]

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.

[Auggziliary]

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?

[Rabbit of Caerbannog]

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.

[Rabbit of Caerbannog]

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 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.

[Auggziliary]

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.

[Rabbit of Caerbannog]

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.

[Auggziliary]

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 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."