Petition to Legally reconise the WBC as a hate group

[rookie]

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.

[Rabbit of Caerbannog]

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.

[Auggziliary]

Freedom of Speech =/= Freedom to say whatever, wherever, and whenever you please.

No one is saying that. In fact Rabbit clearly stated there are limits on free speech. But what WBC does is legal, just like the KKK having a parade is legal. Of course that doesn't make them any less of shitheads.

I wasn't arguing with anyone.
There is a difference between a KKK parade and WBC. WBC pickets the mourning at the worst time possible, whereas the KKK aren't parading around civil right's memorials, or black people's and funerals. Also, the KKK is more widespread than WBC. Members of the KKK often don't let anyone know, whereas WBC members are usually forced into living 100% "christian" lives.

No but white supremacists (specifically the American Nazi Party) sued to march through Skokie, Illinois which had a large population of Holocaust survivors. Should that be banned as well?

If there was an important ceremony about the Holocaust, and many victims participated, and the KKK came in and said horrid things about them, then yes. The only reason they're there is to bully, not enlighten.

There is no clause in the First Amendment that declares an exception for non-enlightening speech.

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

The Supreme Court happens to disagree with that view:

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.

[dpareja]

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.

[rookie]

Good point, Rabbit. I stand corrected. You are right.

[Auggziliary]

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).

[rookie]

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.

[dpareja]

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).

[Auggziliary]

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.

[Rabbit of Caerbannog]

Freedom of Speech =/= Freedom to say whatever, wherever, and whenever you please.

No one is saying that. In fact Rabbit clearly stated there are limits on free speech. But what WBC does is legal, just like the KKK having a parade is legal. Of course that doesn't make them any less of shitheads.

I wasn't arguing with anyone.
There is a difference between a KKK parade and WBC. WBC pickets the mourning at the worst time possible, whereas the KKK aren't parading around civil right's memorials, or black people's and funerals. Also, the KKK is more widespread than WBC. Members of the KKK often don't let anyone know, whereas WBC members are usually forced into living 100% "christian" lives.

No but white supremacists (specifically the American Nazi Party) sued to march through Skokie, Illinois which had a large population of Holocaust survivors. Should that be banned as well?

If there was an important ceremony about the Holocaust, and many victims participated, and the KKK came in and said horrid things about them, then yes. The only reason they're there is to bully, not enlighten.

There is no clause in the First Amendment that declares an exception for non-enlightening speech.

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

The Supreme Court happens to disagree with that view:

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.

[Auggziliary]

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.

[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.

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?

[dpareja]

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.

[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?

[dpareja]

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.)