• 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

SeaKingTacco said:
I'm sorry, but I disagree.  The Westboro people are ignorant and unforgiveably rude buffoons who have absolutely no shred of decency.  That said, there is no "right" not to be offended.

Unless the Westboro people are actually inciting violence, they have a right to free speech, as miserable as their message is.  If you disagree with this- consider:  Who then decides what is acceptable to say?  You?  A government agency?  How long in advance of your "free" speech does one submit draft of that speech for approval?

I'll have to disagree with you as well.  I lean more towards E.R.'s thoughts and then some.  The rights of the bereaved outweigh any rights to free speech that the Westboro's might enjoy.  They're to my mind abusing their rights with their abuse of others.  A line must come somewhere. 

If the day does come that someone loses the bubble and does something drastic to those people I hope it's caught on film so I can see the fall.  Will be as good as Predator porn.

 
The Supreme Court upheld their right to protest.

However, to quote some unknown person who was speaking about something completely different:

"Is it illegal? No. 

Is it despicable? Yes.
"
 
RDJP beat me to it.

A backgrounder on the church, includings its brushes adventures with the law, if not justice, can be found here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_Baptist_Church
 
SeaKingTacco said:
I'm sorry, but I disagree.  The Westboro people are ignorant and unforgiveably rude buffoons who have absolutely no shred of decency.  That said, there is no "right" not to be offended.

Unless the Westboro people are actually inciting violence, they have a right to free speech, as miserable as their message is.  If you disagree with this- consider:  Who then decides what is acceptable to say?  You?  A government agency?  How long in advance of your "free" speech does one submit draft of that speech for approval?

You're right of course. They have the right to protest and be assholes, I understand that.  I feel those rights are being abused and they're undeserving of being afford those rights.
I'm wrong in that belief but it's what I choose to believe.  I can't offer a good answer on who should decide what is acceptable to say and what isn't but I would love to see their right of free speech taken away from them, as hypocritical as that is.

 
I wonder how these loathsome creatures would react if a nutter shot up one of their meetings with great loss of life.  Would they then fall to their knees and thank The Sweet Lord Baby Jesus for carrying out his will, or would the reaction more resemble all those poor parents'?
 
jollyjacktar said:
I'll have to disagree with you as well.  I lean more towards E.R.'s thoughts and then some.  The rights of the bereaved outweigh any rights to free speech that the Westboro's might enjoy.  They're to my mind abusing their rights with their abuse of others.  A line must come somewhere. 

If the day does come that someone loses the bubble and does something drastic to those people I hope it's caught on film so I can see the fall.  Will be as good as Predator porn.


Then you misread my thoughts - which is my fault for not being sufficiently clear. Much as I detest those people, much as I would enjoy seeing them exposed to justice rather than protected by law, I fully support their right to do what they do, despicable though it is, because I am a liberal and I believe in more rights, not fewer, and I believe that a right is only worth something when we are forced to stand up FOR the scum at Westboro Baptist Church. You can grieve or mourn wherever you like, but if you choose to do so in public, in, say, a cemetery, then you must share the public space with people who will be unpleasant, to say the least. If free speech matters as much as many of us say it does then this, filthy, hateful, low speech must be protected.
 
Thank you for the correction, E.R.  My apologies for getting the wrong end of the stick with your post.  Especially with what follows...

I'll have to stand alone or at least with minimal company on this one.  I personally would have no quibble with them being muzzled either by law, Hannibal Lecter attire or which ever works.  Any sorrows that may be visited upon them will bring no tears from me, only joy.  If you abuse your rights then you should lose them.
 
Sheep Dog AT said:
Can't yell fire in a movie theatre.  Shouldn't be able to spread hate either.

Yelling 'fire' endangers people in a stampede. Expressing vitriol does not physically endanger people.

We DO have criminal laws against *incitement* of hatred; those who actively try to *spread* it. But that's very distinct form merely *expressing* it. Good luck writing 'you can't say that' laws that are sufficiently discriminate to target only expressions that are actually demonstrably wrong, and not merely unpopular.
 
jollyjacktar said:
Thank you for the correction, E.R.  My apologies for getting the wrong end of the stick with your post.  Especially with what follows...

I'll have to stand alone or at least with minimal company on this one.  I personally would have no quibble with them being muzzled either by law, Hannibal Lecter attire or which ever works.  Any sorrows that may be visited upon them will bring no tears from me, only joy.  If you abuse your rights then you should lose them.


I stick with John Stuart Mill: "If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind." (I used that as a signature line here on Army.ca for a few years.)

The SOBs in Westboro Baptist are exercising (rather than abusing) a "freedom" we, mostly, regard, as important if not vital in a liberal democracy. I'm happy enough to argue FOR a conservative or Confucian form of democracy in which e.g. "freedom of speech" and "freedom of assembly" might be heavily restricted (and at least one such exists), but I'm not sure most Army.ca members would want to live there.
 
Meh. You had to know some asshole was going to do something to get attention over this. The solace I take from situations like these with deadbeats from WBC is that their personal info is being spread around the web like wildfire and they've probably had 30,000 pizzas ordered in their name.

Don't want that sort of shit happening to you? Don't make yourself a target.

I'm not condoning breaking the law, but I suuuuuuure like seeing the fallout this one time.
 
Sheep Dog AT said:
So when does it become abuse?


When, for example, it incites someone to physical violence; as said earlier: neither you nor I nor even a grieving parent or spouse has any right to not be offended.
 
It is unfortunate that people like this understand that they have the right of free speech and exercise that right without understanding that they have a responsibility to exercise that right in a manner that respects other members of the community.
 
If I was a member of the WBC and I was planning on picketing the funerals of the shooting that just took place I'd be worried about parents who lost their only child.
 
cupper said:
It is unfortunate that people like this understand that they have the right of free speech and exercise that right without understanding that they have a responsibility to exercise that right in a manner that respects other members of the community.

:nod:

+300 Milpoints inbound.

That's the nub of it: we have rights and the liberal state is obliged to protect us when we exercise them; we also ought to have responsibilities ... but only we, as individuals, can exercise those.
 
Brihard said:
Yelling 'fire' endangers people in a stampede. Expressing vitriol does not physically endanger people...

Not totally true.  Vitriole, verbal harassment, verbal/emotional bullying...it is a slippery slope to say that verbal or physical intimidation/presence does not physically endanger people. 

Furthermore, does this imply that infliction of mental anguish on a person is socially acceptable?


Food for thought.

Regards
G2G
 
E.R. Campbell said:
. You can grieve or mourn wherever you like, but if you choose to do so in public, in, say, a cemetery, then you must share the public space with people who will be unpleasant, to say the least. If free speech matters as much as many of us say it does then this, filthy, hateful, low speech must be protected.

Bullshit,........who says cemeteries are public spaces?? 
 
Good2Golf said:
Not totally true.  Vitriole, verbal harassment, verbal/emotional bullying...it is a slippery slope to say that verbal or physical intimidation/presence does not physically endanger people. 

Furthermore, does this imply that infliction of mental anguish on a person is socially acceptable?


Food for thought.

Regards
G2G

There is a difference between 'socially acceptable' and something so clearly harmful as to allow for the curtailment of basic expression. Trust me, this is far from the first instance where I've given this very deep thought. Well, we collectively were on the receiving end of it a few years back- remember Salman Hossain? Ultimately it wasn't his 'Canadian Soldiers should be fair game' comments that got him indicted, it was his advocating of genocide against Jews which specifically fell afoul of the criminal code.

The problem with any laws intended to curtail expression for perfectly laudible reasons is the issue of discrimination and the huge danger of 'collateral damage'. To legislate against a Charter right, law must pass the test developed in R. v. Oakes:
First, the measures adopted must be carefully designed to achieve the objective in question. They must not be arbitrary, unfair or based on irrational considerations. In short, they must be rationally connected to the objective. Second, the means, even if rationally connected to the objective in this first sense, should impair "as little as possible" the right or freedom in question. Third, there must be a proportionality between the effects of the measures which are responsible for limiting the Charter right or freedom, and the objective which has been identified as of "sufficient importance".

Free expression is arguably the most critical of our rights in order to protect all the others from legislative depredation. I'm very, very concerned about anything that threatens it, and accept limitations only in circumstances of the strictest necessity.
 
I agree with ERC that freedom of speech must be protected at all costs. To quote Ezra Levant, when he was facing off against the CHRC, "Freedom is the foundation of all rights.  Take away all my rights except for freedom of speech, and I can win them all back." When something like what happened to Ken McElroy does take place, I won't shed a tear. I will never do something to restrict the freedom of speech of anyone, but nor will I protect those that use their right to attack others. Its a very slippery slope, and I agree that there is no one I would trust to decide what I can or cannot say. All I can say is sometimes justice doesn't require a written law.
 
Back
Top