School shooting funeral protests!

[Butters 0]

I can just see it now ...

Person kills all but one of Westboro Baptists. Person claims God told them to kill all Westboro Baptists because America tolerates homosexual behaviour. Remaining Westboro Baptist agrees with person and is protesting the funerals.

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

But, let's assume that I make a false statement about you that is so heinous, vulgar and shocking that some locals believe it, seek you out, and beat the hell out of you.

Obviously, it would not be right to make a law preventing me from saying false things, or banning the espousing of views about people, ideas, etc. But, if you suffered damage from those statements I made, especially if false, don't you think I should be on the hook for it? If not for me, you would not have had those medical bills, loss of income, etc. Why should I get off scot-free?

So how is that applicable to gay haters protesting in front of a funeral for little girls? They aren't slandering the dead children. So how is it applicable? You're just saying isn't it great if someone sues them until it hurts, even though there's no damage being done here. IOW, the end justifies the means.

[freethefly 6]

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/Assembly/topic.aspx?topic=funeral_protests

A law was passed here in Missouri that has a time restriction. Other states have also passed such laws. St. Joseph, Mo. has passed a local ordinance. Phelps group is challenging these laws. On a legal note they are right (damn, just saying that makes me feel like shit), on a moral note they are lower than worm nuts. Wouldn't mind hearing that the whole lot of them run off of the road and... Would be a funeral worth celebrating at.

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[kallend 2,182]

Quote

Quote

That can also be abused - check out the "free speech zones" they've been corralling people into at political events lately. so that's not a perfect solution either.

And on college campuses all across the nation. Its super common for a university to have a "free speech zone" and for you to get in serious trouble for staging ANYthing outside of those zones. Unless its something that's pro-university or pro-universty-sports.

Really? We don't have that, and neither does any other university in Chicago that I know of. According to Halvorssen of The First Amendment Center, there are "dozens" of colleges and universities with such zones. Given over 3,000 colleges and universities in the US, that doesn't seem "super common" to me.

Free speech zones first sprang up in the late '60s in a few public universities, in a vain attempt to stifle student protests over the Vietnam War.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

So how is that applicable to gay haters protesting in front of a funeral for little girls? They aren't slandering the dead children. So how is it applicable?

Everyone seems to agree that the conduct is outrageous. I don't find protesting at funerals that the dead were killed by God because they supported fags to be the sort of petty triviality, hurt feelings or other bad manners, annoyances or indignities that a resonable person is expected to endure.

I would go on to say that the protests are intended to cause emotional harm to the families of the dead. I'd go so far as to say that the families are pretty emotionally sensitive at funerals. I'd call it malicious.

Would I suffer from sever or extreme emotional distress from it? Probably not, but some may.

I think there IS damage to these poor people goign on here. It's why it's so controversial. People are calling for laws to ban it. Why? Because plenty of people out there think that no person should have to tolerate these assholes at a funeral.

Reasonable minds may differ. Trust me, I don't think it's worth much. But, if someone there is really hurting and these protests drive the stake into their hearts, I think it's what they intend to do. If it DOES cause damage, then it should be recoverable.

That's all.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Andy9o8 3]

Quote

I am not familiar with the US Constitution but I am curious as to whether you have something similar to our Notwithstanding Clause which allows temporary laws to be implemented "notwithstanding" the charter in unique cases like this.

Short answer: No.

[DZJ 0]

As far as I can see the only way to keep these people in check is to ignore them. Every mention they get online, in the print media or on radio/TV is free publicity that sustains their bizarre organisation. It would seem nothing can be done using existing law to prevent from spreading their bile (even mounting civil lawsuits would provide them more attention in the fighting of them), so the only alternative is to cut off the oxygen of publicity.

[billvon 3,132]

>As far as I can see the only way to keep these people in check is to ignore them.

That is 100% absolutely true, and it will never happen. Look at how worked up people here get about the issue. Ignore them and they go away - but some people are incapable of ignoring stuff like this, and thus the Westboro Baptists win.

[Rainbo 0]

Bill, do you really think that any religious extremist group is going to go away simply by ignoring them?

Rainbo
TheSpeedTriple - Speed is everything
"Blessed are those who can give without remembering, and take without forgetting."

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Bill, do you really think that any religious extremist group is going to go away simply by ignoring them?

Nope. Ignoring them is like declaring war on them - they just intensify their activities.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 3,132]

>Bill, do you really think that any religious extremist group is going to
>go away simply by ignoring them?

Go away, as in die out? Nope, they'll still be around.

Go away, as in become powerless and unknown? Yes.

There are idiots like this throughout the world. We choose which ones to give a stage to.

[Richards 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I am not familiar with the US Constitution but I am curious as to whether you have something similar to our Notwithstanding Clause which allows temporary laws to be implemented "notwithstanding" the charter in unique cases like this.

Short answer: No.

Could you possibly see a use for one? The idea is valid when you think that any Constitution/Charter is written by mere humans who are flawed by design. Surely their must be a means of addressing issues like this. Ours has been abused but it has also been used for valid reasons too. I think the pro's do outwiegh the cons.

Richards

My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

[miked10270 0]

It strikes me, from what I've seen of the Westboro Baptist Church, that they are far more concerned with PUBLICITY than God. I assume this from the way they target certain funerals.

There's been several times in the past that I've voiced my own thoughts on the solution to them, and their "so great belief in freedom of speech and religious assembly."

1. Get one of those online religious minister certificates.

2. FIND OUT WHERE THOSE BASTARDS LIVE AND SLEEP!

3. Hold a 24/7 religious meeting according to your deeply held beliefs in the ultimate power of LOUD rock music in an appropriate place with appripriate amplifiers.

It must be legal... If you need a precedent, the US government did the same thing to General Noriega, didn't they?

Mike.

Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable.

Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.

[Richards 0]

Quote

There's been several times in the past that I've voiced my own thoughts on the solution to them, and their "so great belief in freedom of speech and religious assembly."

1. Get one of those online religious minister certificates.

2. FIND OUT WHERE THOSE BASTARDS LIVE AND SLEEP!

3. Hold a 24/7 religious meeting according to your deeply held beliefs in the ultimate power of LOUD rock music in an appropriate place with appripriate amplifiers.

It must be legal... If you need a precedent, the US government did the same thing to General Noriega, didn't they?

Mike.

[DZJ 0]

Quote

Bill, do you really think that any religious extremist group is going to go away simply by ignoring them?

Personally I consider these people first and foremost to be attention seekers. Their 'religion' seems to be a means, not an end.

[SpeedRacer 1]

yep, I think that's right.

I think that whole "church" is really just a front for a big con game: Step 1: Be as obnoxious as possible. Step 2: When someone assaults you, sue them for big $$$$. (Step 3: Steal underpants)

We would all do well to stop posting about these assholes. The KKK & the Nazis are out there, but everyone ignores them because it is assumed that the vast majority of people agree that they're just hopeless assholes who can be collectively despised, but mostly just ignored.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[billvon 3,132]

>2. FIND OUT WHERE THOSE BASTARDS LIVE AND SLEEP!

Would be fun, but I would fear that they'd just get a news truck out there to cover it - and they win again.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I think there IS damage to these poor people goign on here. It's why it's so controversial. People are calling for laws to ban it. Why? Because plenty of people out there think that no person should have to tolerate these assholes at a funeral.

Proving once again why rights and majority opinion should have little to do with each other.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Don't you have any powers over there to arrest to prevent a breach of the peace like we do in UK?

"Disturbance of the Peace" as it's widely known here is more oriented towards the literal volume of an event or protest.

Protests that are properly organized cannot be broken (our Constitution guarantees the right to assemble), regardless of taste or tact.

Groups protesting against Bush are routinely limited to areas away from his presence. Surely similar restrictions could be applied in other situations (like this).

While the protest area thing has been going on for the last dozen years or so, I believe it's only applicable to political rallies...

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Erroll 80]

Quote

.... mere humans who are flawed by design.

Evolution, Creationism, or Intelligent Design? A whole new thread!

[Andy9o8 3]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

I am not familiar with the US Constitution but I am curious as to whether you have something similar to our Notwithstanding Clause which allows temporary laws to be implemented "notwithstanding" the charter in unique cases like this.

Short answer: No.

Could you possibly see a use for one? The idea is valid when you think that any Constitution/Charter is written by mere humans who are flawed by design. Surely their must be a means of addressing issues like this. Ours has been abused but it has also been used for valid reasons too. I think the pro's do outwiegh the cons.

Richards

Again, no. And you hinted at the very reason why not – the potential for abuse.
The US Constitution, very much by deliberate design, is difficult to amend. Not impossible by any means, but it's a very cumbersome process, which is why, in history, some proposed amendments have failed. It is the bedrock principle of American jurisprudence that the US Constitution reigns supreme and, in theory at least, is inviolate; and any law of the land or legal process (like a certain police procedures, administrative regulations, etc.) that do violate it are subject to being nullified on grounds of unconstitutionality. It's a system which, on balance, has served the US nation well for over 200 years. To us, it's part and parcel of The Rule of Law which is the fundamental foundation of any healthy democratic nation-state.

Side note: through US history, there have been examples of the Executive branch enacting, and sometimes getting away with, "emergency" suspensions of Constitutional protections such as habeas corpus. This was done during our Civil War and during World Wars I and II; it happened to a certain extent during the "Red Scares" of the 1950's; and universally the verdict of history is that those were grave errors. Many, including myself, see the Executive branch trying to do much the same thing now in the "war on terrorism", and find ourselves appalled by it.

[Richards 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

.... mere humans who are flawed by design.

Evolution, Creationism, or Intelligent Design? A whole new thread!

Wow. Does that mean I subconsciously tried to hijack the thread? I'm out of control.

Richards

My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

[windcatcher 0]

Lawrocket, why does God allow them to do things like protest funerals?
Because He gave us a free will. We are allowed to commit whatever acts we want while on earth. ( You wouldn't want to be a robot, now would you? )

The Phelps may be claiming they're doing God's work, but I think they're wrong on so many levels. The Bible speaks of a group, called "Pharisees," they claim to be religious, yet know nothing of God's love and mercy.
The only thing I see when I look at the Phelps is that they're Pharisees. Spouting off scripture and manipulating it in an evil way.
They will face judgement for their actions though, rest assured.

Mother to the cutest little thing in the world...

[Skyrad 0]

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[windcatcher 0]

Sorry, that is NOT typical of Christians. Typical of people who CALL themselves Christians.
Not actual followers of Christ.

Mother to the cutest little thing in the world...