Why are they targeting this particular funeral? Has anything been said about the other 5 that will take place? I think it's disgusting that anyone would even think of disrupting a funeral. No matter who it is or where it's held. And I can think of many terrible things I'd like to do to the shooter. Oh he'd live to tell about it. But he'd be wishing he were dead. That's just my opinion.
Westboro Baptist Church will picket funeral of "911 girl" killed in Arizona
Crapola it's essentially anything that will cause a stir. These people are despicable.
Sooner I think we are in general agreement. I seriously love the idea of angels surrounding them and drowning them out with peace and love.
I also frankly embrace the notion of some self sacrificing soul kicking their asses.
*Sigh* I can't get on the old post to write what I wanted to write.
Apparently, the picketing of the funeral is being called off. It seems the church only wanted publicity. Quite a way of getting it, I say...
I say it's time decent people from all over the country start picketing the Westboro Baptist Church. Take turns, dawn until dark 7 days a week. Follow them around in their daily activities.
No. Simon's wrong and will always be wrong when it comes to the exercise of free speech in the United States. Speech and the thoughts that prompt them are the only things that completely belong to each of us and no person, no organization, no government should be able to tell you what to say or think.
Why not? If what you are saying is completely objectional to normal society? Do you really have free speech? Really? Hint: you're kidding yourself if you think you do. Go stand in front of the whitehouse and shout that Al-Queda are wonderful. Enjoy your stay in prison / trip to Guantanamo bay (or did they close that now?). The fact is that there are a hundred and one things the government will happily get on your back for, most of them political.
So why, if the government won't allow some speech ... will it allow the WBC speech or NAMBLA for instance or pedophiles wanting to give others instruction on how to achieve their vile intentions?
(oh, and I'll ignore the 'thinking' part ... I'm not suggesting that we legislate what people 'think')
That's the reason the WBC website and all the other hate spewing malcontents should be allowed to say what they say.
Why? You haven't logically explained the consequences of not allowing it. You seem to draw some conclusion that isn't there and insinuate that if they aren't allowed to say what they want that suddenly reasonable people won't be able to say what they want either. Hmmmn, sounds very much like "legalizing marijuana will make people take heroin' or 'if vietnam turns communist then all the world will'.
Conversely, the family has the right to a peaceful dignified service to say goodbye to their loved one and I fully agree that noone should be allowed to interrupt their grieving.
And doesn't that clearly, to any sane, sansible, reasonable person take precedent? Isn't it an ever so easy decision to make and so obvious? Why is it so difficult in America?
So, you have a contradiction on the surface. You can't take away free speech but the family deserves a peaceful service.
No, there is no contradiction. People should, in general, enjoy free speech - particularly freedom of political expression. But it shouldn't be used as a shield to excuse vile hate-speech or where the speech impinges on the personal freedoms of others.
You keep the WBC away from the funerals that they like to picket, and you temporarily suspend where they can exercise their free speech.
Woah ... so your solution is to temporarilly take away their free-speech? Why not make it permanent? Why should it be not allowed one minute but allowed the next? Why one funeral but not another? Your solution is to do the very thing I am suggesting that you then argue shouldn't be done.
A nice compromise I think that doesn't remove or infringe on their free speech.
Well, it does. But then I think we all agree that is what should happen. You just want some arbitrary time limit affecting a certain group whereas I think it's more practical to have a limit on the objectionable behavior. Actually, mine sounds fairer and less discriminatory.
However, if you pass hate-speech legislation you make the very verbalization of any of a number of subjects illegal.
Correct. Why shouldn't some things be illegal?
You are trying to control peoples thought process. This is a line in the sand that must not be crossed, ever.
First of all, the government, advertisers and the media are all trying to control people's thought process but thats immaterial - I don't care if someone sits rocking themselves with crazy thoughts, but I do care if they go off and do crazy things. Secondly, it's empty rhetoric and you haven't argued any case of *why* this has to be a line and *why* that line must not be crossed. In fact, didn't you just advocate crossing this very line a few paragraphs ago?!
So, I stand by my original assertion that no one can argue that freespeech without limit is sensible or a good idea or that limiting free speech is necesarilly the evil that you have been indoctrinated to believe that it is.
However, the concept of absolute free-speech is a godsend to a legal system that makes a fortune off it. And that is why you have the free-speech you do and not the one you need.
I have had the unfortunate task of dealing with this group on an official level. First off, regardless of what you think of religion, Christians, etc., don't confuse what this group does as typically Christian or "church-like". They are not affiliated with any denomination, despite the Baptist name, and their "membership" is limited.
The "church" makes a living off of suing local government and counter-protest groups that "violate" their right to free speech. Several members of WBC (of which the majority are Phelps family members) are attorneys. Having to deal with them was quite interesting...they turn the vitriol on and off like a light switch. Out of the spotlight and "off the clock" they are quite cooperative, but when they have an audience they become the verbal and visual offenders we have seen on television. They will sue counter-protestors for violating their rights and sue the local government and police for not protecting their right to protest.
To give them any recognition just fuels their further activities...if Arizona's enactment of the law keeping the protestors further away from funerals holds up to legal challenge, it will go a long way towards negating the shock value of these type of demonstrations.