Nicely Done

[rehmwa 2]

http://www.ihatethemedia.com/a-simple-way-to-stop-westboro-baptist-church-funeral-protesters


Is this already posted anywhere here?

In any case, very well handled.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[idrankwhat 0]

+1

[Kennedy 0]

Some people just need a good old-fashioned ass-kicking.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Gravitymaster 0]

So you support violence and breaking the law to wreak vengence on those with whom you disagree? Don't they have the right to have a dissenting opinion? Don't they have the same right to protest as say an anti-war group?

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

So you support violence and breaking the law to wreak vengence on those with whom you disagree? Don't they have the right to have a dissenting opinion? Don't they have the same right to protest as say an anti-war group?

I didn't say they couldn't do what they do. Let them. But they should know that there's a chance they'll get hurt because some people may react violently in response to their actions. I similarly support the right for any man to put his penis on an electric fence.

Personally I thought the creative parking and the wrecker service's response to be particularly shrewd.

[ryoder 1,590]

Quote

So you support violence and breaking the law to wreak vengence on those with whom you disagree? Don't they have the right to have a dissenting opinion? Don't they have the same right to protest as say an anti-war group?

See the first comment on the linked page.

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[lawrocket 3]

I have a HUGE problem with the government/county/police acting to censor and detain people because of the expected content of their Constitutionally protected speech. This was censorship - plain and simple. This censorship - if the story is true - was performed BY the local government.

They falsely imprisoned people to shut them doing so without probable cause. Where the fuck are we? Iran? North Korea? Take a bunch of assholes and turn them into dissidents.

I find the actions of the local government to be repugnant and abhorrent. Who's next to be censored and detained?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Andrewwhyte 1]

I suspect there will be legal action demanding that the local authorities show cause for detaining these people. Correct me if I am wrong but if you sue for violating rights does that not bypass the local courts and and go directly to the federal realm?

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

I have a HUGE problem with the government/county/police acting to censor and detain people because of the expected content of their Constitutionally protected speech. This was censorship - plain and simple. This censorship - if the story is true - was performed BY the local government.

They falsely imprisoned people to shut them doing so without probable cause. Where the fuck are we? Iran? North Korea? Take a bunch of assholes and turn them into dissidents.

I find the actions of the local government to be repugnant and abhorrent. Who's next to be censored and detained?

I see your point, and I agree with your criticism. I think you're overstating it just a bit though with the Korea/Iran comparison. To go that far we'd have to include the US and Guantanamo but that's another thread.

But to go back, don't people get detained and released for questioning by police pretty regularly? I really don't know any more about the actual line of questioning but what if the police were questioning them about their illegal parking complaint? But I agree, they could have done that without taking the group to the station. They could have conducted those interviews a half a block away from the escort route.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

I have a HUGE problem with the government/county/police acting to censor and detain people because of the expected content of their Constitutionally protected speech. This was censorship - plain and simple. This censorship - if the story is true - was performed BY the local government.

They falsely imprisoned people to shut them doing so without probable cause. Where the fuck are we? Iran? North Korea? Take a bunch of assholes and turn them into dissidents.

I find the actions of the local government to be repugnant and abhorrent. Who's next to be censored and detained?

I see your point, and I agree with your criticism. I think you're overstating it just a bit though with the Korea/Iran comparison. To go that far we'd have to include the US and Guantanamo but that's another thread.

But to go back, don't people get detained and released for questioning by police pretty regularly? I really don't know any more about the actual line of questioning but what if the police were questioning them about their illegal parking complaint? But I agree, they could have done that without taking the group to the station. They could have conducted those interviews a half a block away from the escort route.

I'm kind of surprised to hear you defending Police harrassment. Make no mistake, that's exactly what they were doing.

[rehmwa 2]

1 - the false imprisonment I don't like one bit.
2 - The local gov organizing it rather than just the locals - I don't like.
3 - The parked cars - I kinda do like.
4 - The fact that it avoided any violence or angry confrontation like everywhere else - I do like.

It's a mixed bag.

edit: screwed up a quote and lost most of this post

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

I'm kind of surprised to hear you defending Police harrassment. Make no mistake, that's exactly what they were doing.

I'm not. I thought I was pretty clear.

I said that I did not know what the line of questioning was. (do you?)

I pointed out that it could have been related to the double parking. That would have been legitimate.

I also stated that the police would not have to take them to the station to follow up.

I accept that you're tolling for a battle using a fallacious argument. But I can't help you because I only support the police actions if they are warranted and the article doesn't offer enough information to draw a conclusion one way or the other. As I said, I agree with Lawrocket, however I think the reaction was a little over the top. Rehmwa's right, it's a mixed bag.

In my opinion the BEST way for this sort of situation to be dealt with is by the media coming to the conclusion that this Church is no longer news worthy and treating it as such.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

I'm kind of surprised to hear you defending Police harrassment. Make no mistake, that's exactly what they were doing.

I'm not. I thought I was pretty clear.

I said that I did not know what the line of questioning was. (do you?)

I pointed out that it could have been related to the double parking. That would have been legitimate.

I also stated that the police would not have to take them to the station to follow up.

I accept that you're tolling for a battle using a fallacious argument. But I can't help you because I only support the police actions if they are warranted and the article doesn't offer enough information to draw a conclusion one way or the other. As I said, I agree with Lawrocket, however I think the reaction was a little over the top. Rehmwa's right, it's a mixed bag.

In my opinion the BEST way for this sort of situation to be dealt with is by the media coming to the conclusion that this Church is no longer news worthy and treating it as such.

Not "tolling" you said:

Quote

But to go back, don't people get detained and released for questioning by police pretty regularly?

That's why I thought you were defending the Police. The only reason the Police were questioning them at all was for harassment. Had nothing to do with anything else.

I agree that if the media refused to give them the publicity they want, they would go away pretty quickly.

[lawrocket 3]

Yes. People get detained all the time if they are suspected of doing something illegal. From the story, these people (yes, they are people. Assholes but they are people) were detained because they were there to be assholes. Not because they were there to break a law. Indeed, they were there to exercise a Constitutional right.

The First Amendment uisnt there to make sure that the popular speech isn't quashed. It's there to protect people just like the Westboro Baptists. I'm dismayed that people are defending the actions of police ans local government stepping on people with whom they disagree.

I HOPE they get sued.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kelpdiver 2]

I can't believe you're really trying to defend intentional, unlawful detention by the authorities. Any respect I could have had for your principled stands - history.

There is nothing to be proud of for the people of Brandon, Mississippi. The first paragraph was particularly disturbing, given the state's history of 'disappearing' protesters or civics workers (see Mississippi Burning).

Quote

A couple of days before, one of them (Westboro protestors) ran his mouth at a Brandon gas station and got his arse waxed. Police were called and the beaten man could not give much of a description of who beat him. When they canvassed the station and spoke to the large crowd that had gathered around, no one seemed to remember anything about what had happened.

Hardly different from a black lynching.

The only line of attack one might vaguely support was the parking harassment (blocking vehicles), but again, the police were part of the attack, which is untenable.

[Coreece 190]

Quote

From the story, these people (yes, they are people. Assholes but they are people) were detained because they were there to be assholes. Not because they were there to break a law.

Well I think their actions are obscene and indecent. Is there legal recourse for that?

Quote

I HOPE they get sued.

You can guarantee it...IMO, this is what they've been waiting for.

Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...

[lawrocket 3]

[Reply]So the false imprisonment I don't like one bit.
The local gov organizing it rather than just the locals - I don't like.
The parked cars - I kinda do like.
The fact that it avoided any violence or angry confrontation like everywhere else - I do like.

[lawrocket 3]

Of course. And the Westboro Baptists think homosecuality is obscene. Good thing there isn't a governmentally approved winner, for it may be that you end up on the losing end of obscenity.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Coreece 190]

Quote

Of course. And the Westboro Baptists think homosecuality is obscene. Good thing there isn't a governmentally approved winner, for it may be that you end up on the losing end of obscenity.

Good point...I was actually thinking that after I replied to you. I wonder if that is part of their motive?

Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...

[idrankwhat 0]

At the risk of being further being labeled as an avid supporter of police brutality I would like to address one thing.

Here's the quote from the article:

"A few made it to the funeral but were ushered away to be questioned about a crime they might have possibly been involved in. Turns out, after a few hours of questioning, that they were not involved and they were allowed to go on about their business."

What does this tell us about what actually happened? I don't see much although it infers plenty.

I can say with conviction that I don't know what happened. Is there any incriminating information here that would stand up to judicial scrutiny?

It should be noted, because my earlier clarifications and qualifications were apparently insufficient for some, this dialog is a devil's advocate response to devil's advocate question.

[nbblood 0]

I think there are a lot of people here basing what was right and what was wrong on a single, clearly-biased media source, accepting this single article as fact.

I suppose you can debate rights and wrongs given the supposition that this article is entirely accurate, but I'm gonna go out on a limb and say there's more to the story than is published in this article. Keep in mind this is the same media that does such a stellar job in reporting the facts of skydiving-related stories.

Perhaps there was a perfectly valid reason why police questioned these individuals. Perhaps that didn't happen at all. Perhaps somebody did get beat at a local convenience store. Perhaps that is quite a distortion of the truth.

All I'm saying is people are pretty quick to jump to conclusions and condemn this side or the other, based solely on a clearly-biased source media article.

My take on the 1st amendment rights is that, sure, they should be protected. I also think that rights to privacy, i.e., families conducting a funeral have just as much right to be protected. If WBC practiced their "rights" in a manner that didn't infringe on the rights of others, I imagine we wouldn't see such extremes as allegedly occurred here. Fact is they don't because they wouldn't get the reaction they seek. They know that and they purposefully intend to offend people at a time that is inappropriate. I cannot have respect whatsoever for their actions. If you stir a hornets nest, don't be surprised when you get stung.

There's no amendment in the Bill of Rights that protects funerals or internments. So the 1st amendment-at-all-costs proponents are going to argue there's no legal basis. On the other hand, didn't the family pay for the location of internment? Dind't they in a sense rent or purchase that time and space? Shouldn't their rights of privacy be protected?

Bottom line, I support WBC practicing their first amendment rights as long as they don't infringe on others'. Their tactics and intentions are clearly aimed at purposefully attacking other people under the guise of the 1st amendment. I don't think this is at all the spirit of the 1st amendment.

At the same time, my 1st amendment right allows me to call WBC the losers that they are.

Blues,
Nathan

If you wait 'til the last minute, it'll only take a minute.

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

The parking of the cars was itself false imprisonment since it prevented their movement.

Ok, hold on. I went back to re-read that part and just noticed the "Rankin County pickup trucks." I had thought it was pickup trucks from the local residents. Alright, that's different. That could make the local government culpable.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

There's no amendment in the Bill of Rights that protects funerals or internments. So the 1st amendment-at-all-costs proponents are going to argue there's no legal basis. On the other hand, didn't the family pay for the location of internment? Dind't they in a sense rent or purchase that time and space? Shouldn't their rights of privacy be protected?

No. As you wrote, there isn't any constitutional right for funerals that supercedes the freedom of assembly/speech (though it's amazing how these rights get trashed when it comes to events near the President).

[david3 0]

I have yet to find any main stream media reporting about this.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

The parking of the cars was itself false imprisonment since it prevented their movement.

Ok, hold on. I went back to re-read that part and just noticed the "Rankin County pickup trucks." I had thought it was pickup trucks from the local residents. Alright, that's different. That could make the local government culpable.

Now you are starting to get it. This is nothing but pure government harrassment and an attempt to squelch their right to free speech and peaceful assembly to protest. As offensive and wrong-headed as they seem to be, they are still entitled to their rights, period.

.