Westboro Church Protest Mega-thread

[Michael Dorosh]

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.

You HAVE to be joking.  Your 19 year old son gets killed in Iraq and you want to bury him quietly and peacefully, when all of a sudden the ding-dong brigade shows up with signs saying he deserved to die because his country doesn't discriminate against homosexuals (which is irrelevant to your son because odds are 99 to 1 he was heterosexual to begin with), and just when they get wound up some other dudes on motorcycles roll in and start waving flags  - and this is your idea of the way to handle things?

There is NO SUCH THING AS ABSOLUTE FREE SPEECH.  You can't yell "fire" in a crowded theatre, and if the US Senate has their way, there will be no "right" to demonstrate at some poor bastards funeral, either. 

As it should be.

 

[mo-litia]

Michael,

I completely disagree with you.  Free speech must be held above all other constraints on society, as it is in the US, or a country runs the risk of becoming the politically correct banana republic that Canada is today.

Never suppress free speech - no matter how odious it may be. 

 

[Mike Bobbitt]

That's a bit ironic coming from someone who just reported a post...

 

[George Wallace]

Mike

You beat me to it.  Funny how his posts are "Freedom of Speech", but Michael can't exercise the same "Freedom". 

If you are going to Report a Post to Moderator, don't be a hypocrite.  Where do 'your freedoms' begin and end?

 

[mo-litia]

Talk about airing dirty laundry.  I've seen people here disciplined for far less; but when one of your 'yes-men' steps out of line, then that's okay in your books, not to mention shouting me down in public over a PM where I was just asking you to apply YOUR rules in a fair manner.

Typical army.ca nonsense...don't bother standing up for yourself UNLESS you're part on the 'in-group'.

The DS here ought to be more impartial - a LOT more impartial.

 

[the 48th regulator]

So should crusaders that cry free speech is an unlimited right, when not used agaisnt them.

dileas

tess

 

[Mike Bobbitt]

It's not airing dirty laundry, it's free speech.

In all seriousness, I reviwed the post and your complaint. I did not see where the Conduct Guidelines were breached, feel free to post (or PM) me with the specifics.

 

[mo-litia]

Arrggh!

I think the main issue here is differing world views that are NEVER going to find much common ground to stand on...and yes, the complaint is dropped...free speech and all. 

I just hope this is remembered the next time that I step on someone's toes here...because I'll freely admit that baiting Easterners is rather enjoyable for a Redneck Albertan.  :dontpanic:

 

[Zoomie]

but when one of your 'yes-men' steps out of line, then that's okay in your books,

You don't know how far off the mark you could possibly be in this matter.  Michael Dorosh is a long-time member of these means as has contributed a fair bit - but he is "his own man" and toes his own line.

Mo-litia, your comments irk me and I don't know you from a hole in the wall.  Your stance on free-speech is admirable, but I find it hard to imagine you existing in the CF.  I don't how the Loyal Eddies do it, but in the CF we don't practice free speech (at all) and we usually do not publicly denigrate the country to which we are laying our lives on the line for...  I would humbly suggest that you practice a little less free speech before my irksome attitude becomes more official...

 

[mo-litia]

Mo-litia, your comments irk me and I don't know you from a hole in the wall.  ...  I would humbly suggest that you practice a little less free speech before my irksome attitude becomes more official...

Aww shucks.  Guess I reckon I'll be a good ole' boy now that you've helped me see the light.

On second thought, no.  Go become as 'official' as you want - I've done nothing to be ashamed of.  :threat:

 

[Hunter]

MO - I'm dying of curiosity to know what you thought could have POSSIBLY contravened the guidelines in that post.  Was it because his point was valid and he shot you down?  I would think you would be used to that by now.  Suck it up buttercup.  

Freedom of speech is not absolute, and it comes with a great deal of responsibility.  Your right to free speech stops as soon as you start infringing on someone else's right.  Like, for example, when burying your son I believe you have the right not to hear Fred Phelps and his gang of idiots chanting 'god hates fags'.

 

[mo-litia]

MO - I'm dying of curiosity to know what you thought could have POSSIBLY contravened the guidelines in that post.  Was it because his point was valid and he shot you down?  I would think you would be used to that by now.  Suck it up buttercup.  

Freedom of speech is not absolute, and it comes with a great deal of responsibility.  Your right to free speech stops as soon as you start infringing on someone else's right.  Like, for example, when burying your son I believe you have the right not to hear Fred Phelps and his gang of idiots chanting 'god hates fags'.

The matter is dropped.  FYI, it had nothing to do with what you are referring to.  It's just that the guidelines here are so ambiguous that your telling me to 'Suck it up, buttercup' could be construed as abusive if taken in the proper context.  :boring:

Freedom of speech SHOULD be absolute-and I think these bikers are taking the correct response to an issue that irks them.  They, unlike you, recognize that the anti-war protesters have a right to protest WHEREVER they want.  They also know that they, the bikers, are well within their rights to make a powerful show of support for the military by attending these funerals.

This is how it should be.  To ban ANY protesters would be the true insult to the soldiers that are being buried.  I am sure none of them signed up for the military thinking that their deaths would, in a small way, be responsible for a further erosion of civil liberties and the right to free speech in their country.

 

[Danjanou]

....I'll freely admit that baiting Easterners is rather enjoyable for a Redneck Albertan.  :dontpanic:

Speaking as one of the poor Easterners here, it's technically only baiting if you're getting a rise out of us, and you ain't, sorry. Hey but thanks for playing. 8)

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

..and just so everyone knows,please feel free to punch out any protesters at my funeral.....

 

[Danjanou]

..and just so everyone knows,please feel free to punch out any protesters at my funeral.....

So noted, I may have to write that one down though to remember it, because I'm hoping that day is in the distant future.

 

[Cloud Cover]

Freedom of speech SHOULD be absolute-

But it isn't. Accept that and move on because you can't change it.

  They also know that they, the bikers, are well within their rights to make a powerful show of support for the military by attending these funerals.

Its the family that needs support at this point, not the military.
The most important thing you can have is family. These poor people have earned the right to grieve in peace and privacy.   

Bruce et al- punches are for wakes and reading of the will, not funerals.

 

[mo-litia]

The most important thing you can have is family. These poor people have earned the right to grieve in peace and privacy.   

Yes they have-but not at the expense of other's rights to protest peacefully.

That's it for me, unless someone else has some new light that they wish to shed on this matter.

 

[Michael OLeary]

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.

......

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.

Please define "peacefully" in your free speech context that would allow these people to grieve without unwelcome distractions.

Please imagine such a demonstration at the funeral of a close relation of your own as you describe how both can occur simultaneously at the same place.

 

[mo-litia]

Please define "peacefully" in your free speech context that would allow these people to grieve without unwelcome distractions.

Please imagine such a demonstration at the funeral of a close relation of your own as you describe how both can occur simultaneously at the same place.

peace·ful    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (psfl)
adj.
Undisturbed by strife, turmoil, or disagreement; tranquil. See Synonyms at calm.
Inclined or disposed to peace; peaceable.
Of or characteristic of a condition of peace.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
peaceful·ly adv.
peaceful·ness n.

I would take it to mean-in this context-that a protest should be allowed to proceed so long as they do not physically harm, block, or intimidate those attending such a funeral. 

That is the right of the protesters.  They are obviously respecting the rights of others in this regard as their have been no arrests-to my knowledge-of any protesters at funerals.

If we ban protesting at funerals, what's next?  Banning criticisms of the government?  Religion?  This is not a road that a free society wishes to embark on.

 

[Michael OLeary]

Would you support that the description of the funeral in the article meets that definition?  Do the feelings of the grieving family have any merit to be considered?

And would you, personally, support such behaviour disrupting (by undue jeers and chants) your own mother's funeral? And defend their right to do so against your own relatives' protests that it is disrespectful?

Of course, it's easy to say you would when it's just typing on the internet.