A quarter million people petition for the Westboro Baptist Church to be reclassified as a hate group

[CrazyGirl17]

One would hope they'll one day all move to South-America to establish their own Jones Town and have a good old cyanide slushy party.

Maybe that sounds harsh, but I'm so sick of these lunatics.

Agreed, I'm all for freedom speech, but that means that there will always be crazy people who will ruin it for everyone else.

 

[kannibus]

I tried to sign this petition, only to realize that I'm a Canadian. LOL FAIL.

Regardless, I've always been slightly amused by the WBC. They remind me that all efforts to advance the human race as a whole are ultimately futile.

My only question is what happens if and when they are classified as a hate group? Are the rest of you Americans allowed to shoot them on sight?

 

[BNguyen]

One would hope they'll one day all move to South-America to establish their own Jones Town and have a good old cyanide slushy party.

Maybe that sounds harsh, but I'm so sick of these lunatics.

I'm thinking they'd rather have everyone else do that

 

[Strazdas]

Oh, look, i got people that agree with me for once. how sweet.

Banning them isn't about hate. It's about the fact that they cause harm to others, non-physical harm, but harm nevertheless.

Quite frankly, it is absurd that America has let this continue for so long, any other country would have had those cult leaders locked up years ago. They've gone beyond free-speech into pure harassment a long time ago.

then what is it about? you dont like them - ban. isnt that hate? you posting this post can cause psychological harm to me if i let it, you disagree with me my world is shattered, ima go buy a gun and go on a rampage (too soon?). what they are doing is far from what you could measure as psychological harm. and when you cant measure it you cant prove it.
quite frankly, it is absurd that america has allowed freedom to overtake order, i agree, but thats what it stand for for better or worse and going back on it now just to punish few people is not going to look good.

They're just trying to put a stop to the picketing (which I'm all for. It shouldn't be legal to cause harm at funerals just because some lawyer aparrantly sees an = sign between "picketing at funerals" and "free speech").

picketing at the same time funerals happen is a form of free speech. Well i think funerals shouln't be legal, therefore we should ban them and a lawyer saying that people have a right to a funeral is stupid.. thats poor argumentation sir.

The problem here is you can't REPEATEDLY protest the same funeral. I mean, most times you only have one for a particular person, right?

Do we have to dig up the person, hold another funeral and hope they come along again so we can finally go "A-hah! We got you!"

Seems a little absurd.

its impossible to harass a funeral. we are talking about harassing the people (in this case parents) during the event of funeral. and you dont need to dig the grave up in order to see whether it is harassment or not.

I would disagree with that actually. Christianity is very much about love and understanding even if the people who practice the religion in this day and age don't. The Church is also built on love and understanding not just blind faith though faith is a part of it. The main problem with the WBC is that they either don't understand the eternal love of God or they don't want too. Or they are just trying to make Christians look worse then they actually are. At any rate while it saddens me to see them as a hate group at this point it looks like it. Though as soon as they make a legitimate change i would ask that they be taken off the hate group list.

i think this does not fit into this topic so i wont expand much.
christianity has been about love and understanding only as far as the local preacher go (and yes i know pope has been trying to make this message lately). thats ostly because sometimes even the preachers havent read the bible or dont believe in whats written there. in which case you have to choose, whether you deny that the bible is true and make christianity about love (as many people did) or you follow the bible and dont delude yourself that it is about love (as very few people did). id like the first one better personally.
WBC is calvinist (they claim so despite their name) and therefore isnt really christians. technically they split in the 15th century. but since for many people in america any religion = christianity i can see how it may give them bad looks.

ACTIONS are important, that is where WBC crossed the line several times, their actions are what defines them as a hate group regardless of what they claim, when you do nothing but hate people, and try to spread that hate, you are a hate group, I don't see why any sort of line needs to be drawn, or why you'd factor churches into this at all, since they clearly go against the religion they claim to follow, they could have been any sort of group, but if they still did what they do now, they'd be reclassified as a hate group.

do tell of their actions crossing the line. have you read the WBC bible? it is different from the one you are used to. the beleive in their own version and they follow it. in a sense of defining a church, they are as much a church as your local chapel institution. actually, there are far worse institutions, like landover baptist church that hates the WBC because "They are too liberal" http://www.landoverbaptist.net/showthread.php?p=823119823119

Well, I'm glad for you that you're the sort of person who can ignore any comment that other say to you.
But others are not like that. Humans are a social species and, as such, many people can be significantly effected by words. There's little they can do about it, it's a matter of the way their brains are built, and those laws are made to protect them.

thats bad. lets define them as haters and ban them.

 

[chadachada123]

Banning them isn't about hate. It's about the fact that they cause harm to others, non-physical harm, but harm nevertheless.

Quite frankly, it is absurd that America has let this continue for so long, any other country would have had those cult leaders locked up years ago. They've gone beyond free-speech into pure harassment a long time ago.

Do they? They picket a funeral, and then move onto the next one. That isn't harassment. Harassment (as far as legal precedent in the US goes) involves extended, repeated, intentional, directed attacks against a single person or group.

If they CONTINUED to attack a specific family, then it would be harassment. The court, every time it comes up, agrees.

Whether they're trolls or they seriously believe the shit that they spew, all they've done is piss people off, nothing more, making calls to action against them, in my opinion, silly. Just ignore them, and they'll fade away.

The problem here is you can't REPEATEDLY protest the same funeral. I mean, most times you only have one for a particular person, right?

Do we have to dig up the person, hold another funeral and hope they come along again so we can finally go "A-hah! We got you!"

Seems a little absurd.

I'm not talking just about solely funerals, though. If the WBC repeatedly went after the same family (after, beyond the funeral), THEN it would be legal harassment.

A single event doesn't qualify, even if it's multiple single events. At least, according to precedent. We can't exactly make obscure exceptions, either, even if these guys are the worst of the worst, since it could lead to government officials using their power to bully political dissidents.

Slightly unrelated, but to even ban protesting within X meters of a funeral would be too risky to free expression, since what if, say, a courthouse had a graveyard or funeral home nearby? Then it would restrict legitimate protests made by reasonable people as well.

 

[Kyrinn]

I am a little more concerned with the other popular petitions.
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petitions/popular/0/2/0/
125,000 that want Texas to withdraw from the US
90,000 that want to deport a British citizen for attacking the 2nd ammendment.
Outlawing offending religious prophets at 40,000.
And other ones that I'm surprised to see up there but not really: repeal obamacare, impeach obama, recount the election, etc.
At least the responses to these types of petitions explain why they are bad ideas/cannot be carried out.

More on topic: I'm not exactly sure what labelling them as a hate group would do in the US. I am all for taking away their status as a church and thus removing their tax-exemption; but I don't know if even that would be constitutional

 

[bananafishtoday]

You HAVE to draw a line somewhere, you can't just treat freedom of speech like an unbending rule without exception. In many cases words are harmless, but not when you're picketing a funeral for a child in front of their mourning family. What WBC does is sadistic and extremely hurtful.

I'll defend the right to spew craziness on a street corner, or in a chapel, or website, have at it. But what Westboro Baptist Church is doing is borderline harassment, something which most places have laws against.

The current line is imminent lawless action. Speech is illegal if it intends to cause a violation of the law that is both imminent and likely. Anything that falls outside this scope is legal, including hate speech.

Before that, the test went like this: "The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that the United States Congress has a right to prevent." That was enough to uphold criminal convictions for thousands upon thousands of people who spoke out against World War I.

Groups like WBC are the price we have to pay for freedom of speech, and it's well worth it I say.

 

[Something Amyss]

People should be allowed to voice their opinions

Yes, but that's a problem in and of itself. WBC doesn't stop at their opinions. They have physically obstructed people and processions and gone so far in the past as to lay hands on folks. that no longer counts as free speech.

These guys should be jailed already, but they have a bunch of lawyers in their fold, etc.

Also, I would like to see the concept of "fighting words" used against them. Part of their gimmick is to antagonise, get attacked, and then sue. The thing is, what they do really does constitute fighting words a lot, a concept recognised by the Supreme Court as a legit exception to free speech.

There's beenat least one case of it, but the Supreme Court ruled in favour of WBC. However, it was on pretty narrow grounds and regarding a law banning their protests.

The major point I'd make, however, is that this hasn't been a free speech issue for quite some time. If they didn't hide behind freedom of religion, if they weren't a "church," they would have been jailed a long time ago for the stuff they've pulled. Unless they did it to an abortion clinic, because seriously, nobody enforces those laws.

 

[Colt47]

Naw, WBBC just needs to be shut down. It's like having someone continuously sling insults and verbally harass people going down a street.

They are toeing the freedom of speech line on purpose and what it ultimately comes down to is what the purpose of having a line for freedom of speech is. If they only went to the line once in a blue moon, than it isn't an issue. However, they calculate and go to it every single time to maximize their hate speech. Essentially, they are abusing the law to their own end.

If it came to a vote, I'd actively vote for their organization to be forcibly disbanded and for members of the church to have their freedom of speech rights limited. They've abused the countries laws and legislation far too much to be given leniency.

 

[Rawne1980]

Looks like i'm going to be "that guy"....

America, your country is seriously fucked up.

Constant shootings, bat shit nuts cultists (and WBC IS a cult, make no mistake), nuts as fuck religious folks (hello Harold and your followers who sell their houses when you say the world will end THAT'S NORMAL) and politicians that don't know their arse from their elbow (Sarah Palin, i'm not just looking at you but you were an embarrassment to Alaska you numpty).

Oh, I almost forgot the NRA. An association that thinks putting more guns on the streets, and into the hands of civilians that have no idea what they are doing with them, is a good idea .... WHAT COULD POSSIBLY GO WRONG.

I have nothing against America but by fuck is your country bizarre.

 

[Abomination]

The problem here is you can't REPEATEDLY protest the same funeral. I mean, most times you only have one for a particular person, right?

Do we have to dig up the person, hold another funeral and hope they come along again so we can finally go "A-hah! We got you!"

Seems a little absurd.

I'm not talking just about solely funerals, though. If the WBC repeatedly went after the same family (after, beyond the funeral), THEN it would be legal harassment.

A single event doesn't qualify, even if it's multiple single events. At least, according to precedent. We can't exactly make obscure exceptions, either, even if these guys are the worst of the worst, since it could lead to government officials using their power to bully political dissidents.

Slightly unrelated, but to even ban protesting within X meters of a funeral would be too risky to free expression, since what if, say, a courthouse had a graveyard or funeral home nearby? Then it would restrict legitimate protests made by reasonable people as well.

This is why it should be made legislation directed squarely at the WBC declaring them a hate group. They are repeatedly harassing DIFFERENT people. They are repeatedly harassing citizens of the United States. A single person can't blow the whistle on them but a NATION can.

They might be obeying the letter of the law but they sure as hell are shitting all over the spirit of it. And that's what legislation is for, to identify the parts missed or issues overlooked in the initial write up and plug the gaps.

 

[bananafishtoday]

Also, I would like to see the concept of "fighting words" used against them. Part of their gimmick is to antagonise, get attacked, and then sue. The thing is, what they do really does constitute fighting words a lot, a concept recognised by the Supreme Court as a legit exception to free speech.

There's beenat least one case of it, but the Supreme Court ruled in favour of WBC. However, it was on pretty narrow grounds and regarding a law banning their protests.

The Court decided a case (Snyder v. Phelps, 2011) 8-1 in favor of WBC where the parents of a soldier whose funeral had been picketed sued for emotional distress. Alito actually cited fighting words in his dissent, but the rest of the Court disagreed. They saw the signs as public pronouncements rather than targeted attacks. Regardless, they were 100 yards away, not even visible from the funeral.

The scope of "fighting words" has been constantly narrowing since its original mention in 1942 though.

 

[Abomination]

when this obviously isn't what the Founding Fathers intended.

Bad Kitten! Bad! *spraybottle*

Founding Fathers' (supposed) Intentions should not EVER be used as a form of pro or con for legislation. The one thing we can be certain of is they would WANT their opinions to be challenged - not upheld like some divine mandate. Also they were alive like 250 odd years ago, they didn't even know what germs were.

 

[HardkorSB]

You HAVE to draw a line somewhere, you can't just treat freedom of speech like an unbending rule without exception. In many cases words are harmless, but not when you're picketing a funeral for a child in front of their mourning family. What WBC does is sadistic and extremely hurtful.

I'll defend the right to spew craziness on a street corner, or in a chapel, or website, have at it. But what Westboro Baptist Church is doing is borderline harassment, something which most places have laws against.

The only thing they're harassing people with is hell.
By your logic, fundamentalist Christians can do the same and silence the LGBT movement since, in their minds, it not only offends them but their god as well. They can even go to hell for not doing anything to stop them. It's their duty to silence them.
What about people like Dawkins or Hitchens? They're offensive as fuck. They should go to jail as well.
People who routinely talk shit about Justin Bieber and other popular artists, lock them up.

Point is, everything offends someone.
There's an old saying for that:
"Stick and stones may break my bones BUT WORDS WILL NEVER HARM ME". Ever heard of that one? It's what many people say to their kids to teach them that words are just words.

 

[chadachada123]

I'm not talking just about solely funerals, though. If the WBC repeatedly went after the same family (after, beyond the funeral), THEN it would be legal harassment.

A single event doesn't qualify, even if it's multiple single events. At least, according to precedent. We can't exactly make obscure exceptions, either, even if these guys are the worst of the worst, since it could lead to government officials using their power to bully political dissidents.

Slightly unrelated, but to even ban protesting within X meters of a funeral would be too risky to free expression, since what if, say, a courthouse had a graveyard or funeral home nearby? Then it would restrict legitimate protests made by reasonable people as well.

This is why it should be made legislation directed squarely at the WBC declaring them a hate group. They are repeatedly harassing DIFFERENT people. They are repeatedly harassing citizens of the United States. A single person can't blow the whistle on them but a NATION can.

They might be obeying the letter of the law but they sure as hell are shitting all over the spirit of it. And that's what legislation is for, to identify the parts missed or issues overlooked in the initial write up and plug the gaps.

The United States can't do that, though. Singling out a single group would absolutely be considered an infringement of their rights to any judge worth their weight in salt.

You can't just make legislation saying, "Yeah, just ignore the rights of these people specifically, that's okay." That's the whole reason we have a Constitution to begin with, because if we allowed this, there would be nothing preventing other people from having their rights taken away by an oppressive leadership.

There IS a legal way to do it, but it would require a Constitutional amendment, with the approval of 3/4 of the states. We've done it 28 times already for issues ranging from free speech to slavery to making the voting age 18 for federal elections. It's made to be difficult (and state-approved) to prevent both Tyranny of the Majority AND to prevent the Federal government from giving themselves more power than they are allowed (not that they care anyway, but whatever).

 

[Commissar Sae]

I think this conversation has gone in the wrong direction. The petition is not calling to censor them, but to change their title from a church to a hateful organization. They would still be allowed to say what they wanted, but they would no longer get a tax credit for being a church.

They would still be allowed to do their pointless and offensive work, they would just have to pay more for the right to do it.

 

[Zack Alklazaris]

i honestly feel sorry for a good chunk of the members raised in this cult. after seeing the louis theroux documentaries on them i came to see that while what they do is vile in the extreme alot of these people have been raised in a closed environment from birth, have been told constantly that if they dont toe the line they are going to hell, that purely by their association they have no friends, etc outside the cult and for a good chunk of them the only real contact on a "normal" basis they have with outsiders is with reporters and journalists which seems to be one of the very few ways they end up marrying as dating is sinfu and wrong to them.

its a horrifically abusive environment to be raised in.

I really hope they take this seriously, its one thing to be publicly against a group of people. Its another to physically start harassing them.