• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Westboro Church Protest Mega-thread

More food for thought:

Google rebuffs U.S. gov't demand for search data
Updated Fri. Jan. 20 2006 11:27 PM ET

CTV.ca News Staff

Google Inc. says it will "vigorously" fight the Bush administration's demand that it turn over information about what searches users have been asking it to perform.

The government wants a list of all requests entered into Google's search engine during an unspecified week. With an average of 70 million searches per day, that could mean tens of millions of search requests.

Full story at :http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060120/google_request_060120/20060120?hub=TopStories
 
Every right that is given to you by the American or Canadian constitutions are conditional to the fact that the exercise of your right is not preventing anyone else from exercising his. In this case, these fanatic religious nuts are without a single doubt preventing KIA military families from exercising their right to respect and peaceful gathering. It hence become civil disorder and should be treated as is.

I agree.  The charge isn't one for unpopular opinions, or the exercise of freedom of speech...but for being a dink in public.  Much like you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theatre, you can't go into an emotionally charged situation and be deliberately antangonistic...that's called incitement to riot, and it is an offence.

Don't confuse freedom of speech with license to speak.  It isn't the same.
 
Gunnar said:
I agree.  The charge isn't one for unpopular opinions, or the exercise of freedom of speech...but for being a dink in public.

Fortiunately, "bing a dink in public" is not illegal, and is, in fact, one of your constitutional rights.

Gunnar said:
  Much like you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theatre, you can't go into an emotionally charged situation and be deliberately antangonistic...that's called incitement to riot, and it is an offence.

Also wrong.  It's called sharing your opinion, not incitement to riot.  Just like I can legaly walk up to you and tell you what I think of your mother/sister/S.O./puppy, I can similarily express my opinion at a funeral.  It makes no sense to restrict that right.  Otherwise, what's to say we can't use the same line of thinking against demonstrators elsewhere?  They decide to protest in front of an armorie, the police arrest them for inciting the soldiers to riot.  They protest in front of parliament, get them for inciting the politicians to riot.

"Inciting to riot" refers to encouraging people to riot. Insulting someone, and encouraging them to be violent, are two totaly different things.  Otherwise, if I insulted you and you punched me in the head, I would be the one being arrested because I incited you to assault me.
 
Just like I can legally walk up to you and tell you what I think of your mother/sister/S.O./puppy, I can similarly express my opinion at a funeral.

Can you though?  I can be charged with harassment if i tell a female coworker that she looks nice in the red dress she's wearing. (If she doesn't like how I sounded)
If I approach someone and tell them their mother is a whore can't I be dinged for harassment or if I'm saying someone is a cheat and a liar and a child mollester can't I be charged with some kinda defamatory remarks? Or defamation of character?

These protesters aren't protesting outside of army recruitment centers, government buildings or airports. Their going to funerals with the specific desire to emotionally disturb and hurt the funeral goers.
 
48Highlander said:
Fortiunately, "bing a dink in public" is not illegal, and is, in fact, one of your constitutional rights.

But being a dink in an anonymous online forum may be illegal in the US...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/13/AR2006011301311.html
Annoying Online Posts Could Be Illegal
Free speech advocates say a new law geared to stop cyberstalking could be cause for concern.
 
48Highlander said:
"Inciting to riot" refers to encouraging people to riot. Insulting someone, and encouraging them to be violent, are two totaly different things.  Otherwise, if I insulted you and you punched me in the head, I would be the one being arrested because I incited you to assault me.

No one can legally punch you in the noggin because you insulted them. That person would be charged with assault.
 
Ghost778 said:
Can you though?  I can be charged with harassment if i tell a female coworker that she looks nice in the red dress she's wearing. (If she doesn't like how I sounded)
If I approach someone and tell them their mother is a ***** can't I be dinged for harassment or if I'm saying someone is a cheat and a liar and a child mollester can't I be charged with some kinda defamatory remarks? Or defamation of character?

These protesters aren't protesting outside of army recruitment centers, government buildings or airports. Their going to funerals with the specific desire to emotionally disturb and hurt the funeral goers.

Interesting points.  I never really thought about that as an infringment on freedom of speech before.  It'd really be nice if we could be consitstant in our attitudestowards free speech.  Why is it wrong to tell a co-worker that she has a sweet ass, but it's ok to call a soldier a baby-killer?  Seems like we have a lot of contradictory laws.

On the other hand I suppose technicaly I COULD sue/charge the next college student who insults me while I'm in uniform.  It'd be fun to see what sort of legal precedent that sets.  I'm sure the left-wing would be up in arms about the gestapo persecuting their freedom of speech, but the way they choose to speak IS a form of "harrasement".

Jumper said:
No one can legally punch you in the noggin because you insulted them. That person would be charged with assault.

I know, I think maybe you mis-read what I was saying.
 
Why is it wrong to tell a co-worker that she has a sweet ass, but it's OK to call a soldier a baby-killer?  Seems like we have a lot of contradictory laws.

So true!
People can get in a soldiers face and call them baby killers and murderers. They can show up at funerals and laugh in the faces of parents who just lost a son or daughter. Tell them their kid died because god hates fags and the US doesn't hang homosexuals from a tree SO god is killing their children who are soldiers.

Yet, tell a co-worker they look hot and your job is on the line.

Ridiculous
 
I think the point that is the most relevant of classifying this action as legal or illegal hasn't been noticed :

These protesters aren't protesting outside of army recruitment centers, government buildings or airports. Their going to funerals with the specific desire to emotionally disturb and hurt the funeral goers.
-By Ghost778 on Yesterday at 23:48:11

One of the right guarateed by our constitutions is the right to privacy, wich cannot be dissiated from the freedom of speech in my humble opinion. In this case, since the hillbilly regroupment is aiming specifically at disturbing a private event, in a very morally questionable manner on top of it, it is invading the mourning  assembly's right for privacy. It such a manifestation was held in a public place and not targeting any particular individual (i.e. in front of a recruting center, at the gates of a military base), it would be an opinion and their right to express it, as stupid as it can be.

Douke
 
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I know, the only "right to privacy" guaranteed by the charter is protection of that right from the government.  You have no right to privacy as far as other citizens are concerned.
 
I am pretty sure you are wrong on that point, just like you are legitimate to call the police if neighbours are making too much noise (even though it is theorically their right to do so and that they are on their own land and not yours, it is invading your privacy and in consequence their rights stops where yours start.). But I will not commit to saying I am 100% sure of it, I have never specifically and deeply studied our laws and constitution.

Douke
 
48Highlander said:
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I know, the only "right to privacy" guaranteed by the charter is protection of that right from the government.  You have no right to privacy as far as other citizens are concerned.

48th, it is not spelled out in the charter but if you return to the reasoning of "your freedoms are only yours as long as they do not infringe on my freedoms". Society deems what is acceptable then enacts legislation to punish those who defy what is deemed acceptable. Legislation of this sort can be found at the municipal level ie 'noise bylaws'. Where there is not munnicipal legislation there is provincial legislation, which in Victoria was recently challenged in that police stopped and searched passengers on city buses for alcohol going to a public festival(they lost) as it is deemed a lawful exercise of justice to guarantee the rights of the festival participants. As to privacy from other citizens " No Tresspassing " means just that whetter it be in the initially thought format or in the modern context of information gathering. Look closely at some of the fine print on documents these days. All carry a disclaimer on where and who the collected information is going to be used. Further in this line many public and private organizations have a 'Officer' in charge of freedom of information access. It is he/she who determines wether your request for violating some one else's privacy is justified or not.
 
Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act for criticism and review.

From cnn.com:

Bikers roll to military funerals to oppose anti-gay protests

FORT CAMPBELL, Kentucky (AP) -- Wearing vests covered in military patches, a band of motorcyclists rolls around the country from one soldier's funeral to another, cheering respectfully to overshadow jeers from church protesters.

They call themselves the Patriot Guard Riders, and they are more than 5,000 strong, forming to counter anti-gay protests held by the Rev. Fred Phelps at military funerals.

Phelps believes American deaths in Iraq are divine punishment for a country that he says harbors homosexuals. His protesters carry signs thanking God for so-called IEDs -- explosives that are a major killer of soldiers in Iraq.

The bikers shield the families of dead soldiers from the protesters, and overshadow the jeers with patriotic chants and a sea of red, white and blue flags.

"The most important thing we can do is let families know that the nation cares," said Don Woodrick, the group's Kentucky captain. "When a total stranger gets on a motorcycle in the middle of winter and drives 300 miles to hold a flag, that makes a powerful statement."

At least 14 states are considering laws aimed at the funeral protesters, who at a recent memorial service at Fort Campbell wrapped themselves in upside-down American flags. They danced and sang impromptu songs peppered with vulgarities that condemned homosexuals and soldiers.

The Patriot Guard was also there, waving up a ruckus of support for the families across the street. Community members came in the freezing rain to chant "U-S-A, U-S-A" alongside them.

"This is just the right thing to do. This is something America didn't do in the '70s," said Kurt Mayer, the group's national spokesman. "Whether we agree with why we're over there, these soldiers are dying to protect our freedoms."

Shirley Phelps-Roper, a daughter of Fred Phelps and an attorney for the Topeka, Kansas-based church, said neither state laws nor the Patriot Guard can silence their message that God killed the soldiers because they fought for a country that embraces homosexuals.

"The scriptures are crystal clear that when God sets out to punish a nation, it is with the sword. An IED is just a broken-up sword," Phelps-Roper said. "Since that is his weapon of choice, our forum of choice has got to be a dead soldier's funeral."

The church, Westboro Baptist Church, is not affiliated with a larger denomination and is made up mostly of Fred Phelps' extended family members.

During the 1990s, church members were known mostly for picketing the funerals of AIDS victims, and they have long been tracked as a hate group by the Montgomery, Alabama-based Southern Poverty Law Center's Intelligence Project.

The project's deputy director, Heidi Beirich, said other groups have tried to counter Phelps' message, but none has been as organized as the Patriot Guard.

"I'm not sure anybody has gone to this length to stand in solidarity," she said. "It's nice that these veterans and their supporters are trying to do something. I can't imagine anything worse, your loved one is killed in Iraq and you've got to deal with Fred Phelps."

Kentucky, home to sprawling Fort Campbell along the Tennessee line, was among the first states to attempt to deal with Phelps legislatively. Its House and Senate have each passed bills that would limit people from protesting within 300 feet of a funeral or memorial service. The Senate version would also keep protesters from being within earshot of grieving friends and family members.

Richard Wilbur, a retired police detective, said his Indiana Patriot Guard group only comes to funerals if invited by family. He said he has no problem with protests against the war but sees no place for objectors at a family's final goodbye to a soldier.

"No one deserves this," he said.

Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
 
Anybody else get a little frisson when they saw the name of the group's national spokesman?

DG
 
Anybody who still wants to argue the right to absolute freedom of speech after reading that needs their head examined.

We just had a military funeral last week here; quiet and dignified and more than a little sad since he was 19 years old.  Couldn't imagine some clowns making a circus out of something like that.
 
Well Michael, just happen to have a live one on the hook right now.......
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/40068.0.html
 
the Reverend and his group should be put on a plane and air dropped into Afghanistan and Iraq.
 
Bruce Monkhouse said:
Well Michael, just happen to have a live one on the hook right now.......
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/40068.0.html

Mo-litia is at it again?  I think I better bite my tongue; that's jus tlike beating your head against a wall.  What he thinks is of little consequence, I think.
 
As much I despise these "protesters", the right to free speech is so powerful that attempts to constrain it for ANY reason are wrong.

The cartoon issue in Denmark (and now here, with the Blogosphere and Western Standard [among others] publishing the cartoons in Canada) shows just how far it can go, the Islamofascists are threatening publishers with death, and the more *ahem* culturally sensitive MSM are refusing to publish the cartoons for the simple reason that while Christians, Jews, Buddhists etc. are inclined to complain when images offensive to their religious sensibilities are published, Muslims follow up with Molotov cocktails or worse. I notice few if any followers of Islam are actually speaking against the actions of the fanatics.

The proper response to offensive free speech is MORE free speech, and these bikers have it right, they are coming in person to demonstrate their solidarity with the bereaved and provide a counterpoint to the protesters (but are not offering any violence or threats to the protesters). The true sin would be to sit quietly while someone makes offensive, incorrect or misleading statements and did nothing to counter them. With the rise of the Internet and alternative publication venues like Blogs, there is no excuse not to speak up, if the editor won't publish your letter, publish it yourself.
 
Back
Top