Supreme Court claims Protesting a soldier's Funeral is protected by 1st amendent

[That One Six]

I agree entirely with the Supreme Court. Now, don't get me wrong, I absolutely loathe Westboro, and I go out of my way to make everyone else hate them, too, but, as it has been said, "I may not agree with what you have to say, but I'll fight to the death for your right to say it". Can't discriminate against the minority, even if they are hate-spewing bastards.

I love the Westboro Baptist Church. Absolutely love them. They show us what is right with America. That the nuttiest people in our country are just religious fundamentalists that SAY STUFF is amazing. It shows that if you allow free speech, the nuts will obviously be labeled as nuts but not go as far as to, say, wear explosive devices and blow themselves up at funerals.

And let's not call them "radical". We all know what it means when someone says that. "I disagree with their interpretation because it looks EVIL". Guys, it's LITERALISM. They're not making up anything, they're taking direct passages from the Bible. Sure we can toss around apologetics and pretend that the book is a love-filled yarn, but there is an immense darkside to the book. Atleast the WBC accepts the book as a whole.

The Bible, although not my literature of choice, is long. It says a lot of things. WBC only chooses the passages that apply to what they believe. I'm sure there's a dozen passages that dispute their beliefs, too. And there are better ways to express a love of free speech, I think.

There's not one Christian that accepts the whole text. But, so far as I've seen, they accept the most out of any other sect. Which is worthy of respect in some fashion. If you're going to have faith, go balls out.

I can't say you're wrong, as I don't know myself. They very well might accept a lot, but they advertise some of the darker and (in my opinion) outdated views. I cannot agree with what they stand for, but they do have the right to say it. Even when someone rips out their trachea and uses it as a jump-rope. Hmmm.... That sounds like a good idea... Care to join me? (WBC's tracheas, not yours.) =)

 

[EOD Tech]

Supporting the SCOTUS decision is only right if you would ALSO support people holding up signs, saying God is happy this person is dead, at the funerals of:

-blacks
-gays
-lesbians
-asians
-hispanics
-teachers
-nurses
-cops
-firefighters
-arabs
-muslims
-jews
-stippers
-abortion doctors
-politicians
-square dancers
-hot dog vendors
-ski instructors
-"pray the gay out" counselors
-child molesters
-tax evaders
-runaway indentured servants
-ewoks
-priests
-television chefs
-Nazis
-any five year old child
-a 9/11 first responder
-any cancer victim
-your mother
-your spouse
-a newborn baby


If none of that would bother you then carry on.

 

[FllippinIDIOT]

same incident happened in a jewish community in Illinois by where i wlive called Skokie. Neo-Nazis held an anti-semetic parade through the town and the residents demanded action against these nazis but they were protected by the 1st amendment so nothing could happen to them. but whatever, if you don't like it don't listen.

 

[cp2u]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That's the first amendment, for those of you who didn't know it in detail. It says nothing about hateful speech or funerals or anything like that. Moreover, The first sentence protects the free exercise of religion, even The WBC kind of religion. While there are a lot of arguments for and against the WBC's funeral picketing, the supreme court would cause a lot more problems for the government and the legal system by revoking freedom of speech than for stretching it, so when it comes to the first amendment, they give it the benefit of the doubt.

 

[deleted_scifidownbeat]

DELETED

 

[Cliff_m85]

Bullshit. Alito would have a point if this was the first and only funeral that the WBC protested. It isn't. THey're obviously protesting against a broad issue. Homosexuality and the military. Sure they're full of shit about their nutty belief, but they aren't attacking an individual....they're attacking a group.

That's not the way Snyder saw it, at least. What he saw was a group of maniacs holding up multiple signs, some of which disparaged the military. I'm sure, whether or not he was aware of their existence prior to the funeral, that he took the signs pretty personally. Plus, a grieving father probably is in no mood to argue political matters.

Emotions blind us, which is why we need courts. We don't think clearly when upset.

 

[whitewolf35]

Free speech should be accessible to all, it's not easy to deal with people who abuse this right, but I'm sure there can be some rules applied or manoeuvers used to help the families of the deceased grieve in peace

 

[That One Six]

-Snip-

You praise equality, but if we were to force them to stop, would we not be oppressing them? And I'm a conservative, thanks. =P

No. It would be ensuring equality because their views are spreading inequality.
It's just like the judicial system which rules that to keep everyone safe, some people need to be removed from society. To keep society equal, some people should not be allowed to express their views.
Ultimately the idea of equality is completely flawed as people aren't equal. As long as there is capitalism and education, some people will always be 'better'/more valuable than others. If democracy and the concept of equality are the same in 50 years as they are today I will be both amazed and disappointed in people.

No matter what, someone had to lose in this case, and no matter who lost, someone was getting screwed. In this case, it's basic human compassion and morality. If the opposite had happened, people would be up in arms about how it's anyone's right to speak as they wish. I understand your ideas, but I can't fully agree.

The problem is the concept is a contradiction, like the judicial system.
To keep EVERYONE safe & living a crime free life, SOME people have to be removed from society, instantly meaning not EVERYONE is safe because SOME people have to be removed from society.

With equality you've 2 options:
1)NO LIMIT on what can be said in the name of EQUALITY, which ironically ALLOWS ideas of INEQUALITY to be spread, but saying EVERYONE'S IDEAS ARE OF EQUAL VALUE.
2)LIMIT what can be said, so INEQUALITY CANNOT be spread, but yet deeming SOME PEOPLES IDEAS OF LESS VALUE THAN OTHERS.

(Caps as they are potentially confusing points to help clarify the differences)

Freedom of speech and equality just don't mix. No matter which option you chose, you are contradicting the founding reason. Now if freedom of speech was available to say, citizens and not civilians, that would work, but I doubt that will be a reality any time soon.

That I can agree with. If equality could exist, communism would be more than just a theory. You've got to balance security with freedom. The government limits freedom, but provides security, and vice versa. In this case it's allowing free speech for everyone, even assholes, at the cost of many families' mental security.

And please don't treat me like I'm an idiot. I'm trying to be reasonable.

Apologies for any patronising tone, it seriously was not intended like that. I did as the sentences were repetitive &h also to help myself out as it's late here and I didn't want to repeat myself or simply dribble complete meaningless sh*t.

=) No worries. We both have valid arguments. No need for either of us to get upset!

 

[Dr Snakeman]

Is it just me, or does America just have no backbone sometimes? This stuff wouldn't fly in most other countries.

No, see, this is proof that we have one hell of a backbone. Even when people are total assholes, even when it seems illogical to do so, we stick to our basic principles allowing us to say whatever the hell we want to say. Period. If someone doesn't like what you have to say, it's up to them to do something about it, not the government.

That's how we roll.

 

[Therumancer]

I consider protesting a person's funeral to be harassment regardless of the message. So yeah I disagreed with this one quite a bit.

I don't like what the WBC has been up to, but I have to disagree with you here, I think the Supreme Court made the right desician, freedom of speech isn't simply "freedom of speech when I happen to agree with it". Like it or not a lot of movements started out being hated by the majority and if we stopped WBC we'd be wrecking the same freedoms that helped power and build up various civil liberties causes over the decades. The laws have to be applied equally and anything that can be used against the WBC could be used against an issue you happen to support some time down the road.

We might wind up having to agree to disagree, but I don't think banning hate speech is a good idea and never have. This seems to be a related sort of issue, and one where I think the principle is more important than the inconveience we're seeing now.

I'll also be honest in saying that I think WBC will be a self-correcting problem. I think that as an organization they are already taking some serious hits, and while I doubt they will ever entirely vanish, I think they are rapidly on their way to becoming yesterday's news.

 

[RaikuFA]

noones done my idea yet? ill post it again from another topic

"noone has done my idea yet?

make picket signs that actually break the law(stuff you can get in trouble for saying in public) and blend in ezio style in the wbc crowds then sneak out when the fists start flying

BTW, wear gloves and have a actual protester hold your sign as you get some water or something for forensics reasons. bonus points if you get a friend to get a pic of the protester holding your sign while your gone"

btw if they get rights to protest we should get one to have games classified as a art like right now

 

[ranyilliams]

This.

Seriously people need to stop complaining about other people "opinions". The reason they are called opinions is because they are not shared by everyone.

I'm not so sure you would respect other people's "opinions" if they were forcing them in your face at a brother/sister/mom/dad/dog's funeral.

Did you even read the thread?

Actually yes I did, and if people were doing this at any of my relatives funerals, i would ignore them. This kind of thing happens in life. get over it. getting upset because idiots are protesting at a funeral for someone who is fighting for their freedom is just ludicrous. the people protesting are selfish over-opinionated bigots who are grossly misinformed. Getting upset over what those idiots think is a waste of time. If they want to waste their lives protesting at funerals let them do it, and don't care, and don't listen...then they wont be able to get the message across if nobody would listen.

 

[Kortney]

This is true, and really the crux of the debate in my opinion. So we may be winding down here. I don't think most things should be black and white, but this is one of my exceptions.

Yeah, that's fair enough and I can understand that. Quite a few Americans (including my own brother now! SHAME! ) are very funny about their constitution. But, I guess the constitution is a pretty amazing document and you're lucky to have it. So being black and white isn't so bad when talking about the constitution.

Ok, I think this is going down the "Goat hates Muslims" route and that's not the case. Let me see if I can explain myself better. I agree with you that 9/11 was not directly related to Islam and it's not rational to think so. HOWEVER, we are not talking about rationality. We are talking about emotions (at least that's the only pro-censorship argument I've seen). So either the feelings of both the fallen soldier's families and the misguided 9/11 families are equal or they are not. I don't see a way to legally differentiate between the two, do you?

That's a very good point, but I don't see why an outside source (being the Government) can't inject a little rationality into emotion. 9/11 families who are trying to supress Muslims aren't being rational at all, but I feel the people who have had their funeral protested are, in some ways, being quite rational. This is when I would support a third party looking in from an outside perspective and going on from there.

Having said that, I do admit that my perspective isn't exactly an "outside" perspective. I've lost a brother to warfare and I have two serving as we speak. One of them being a naturalised American. So you can understand why this stuff does really upset me, because I can really feel what the family has gone through. So you know what, maybe it is your judgement that has to be taken into consideration, and people who are too heavily involved (such as me) should have their opinion taken with a grain of salt.

also, you say that the protests against the Islamic center in New York are 'suppressing all of Islam' for not wanting the center right where it was. If you're going to extrapolate that incident to say that those people are against all of Islam, than I can say that you are against all of Christianity for not letting the WBC speak. That's not the case on either side (for the vast majority, anyway-there's always outliers), and I think you realize that.

But they are taking it out on all of Islam. That's my point. The little Islamic community centres around Ground Zero are beautiful places and the people there are gorgeous. I've visited one of them in particular, which I know has been running since long before the 9/11 tragedy took place. Suggesting that it is inappropriate for a community centre to be built around the corner from Ground Zero, is in a way, suppressing Islam as a whole. It is implying that Islam is the cause behind 9/11 and the attack was an attack carried out by Islam. None of this is true, obviously.

Silencing the WBC is not suppressing Christianity as a whole. It is suppressing one outrageous sect of it - akin to the suppression of the Taliban and Al Qaeda. I don't have a problem with treading on people like that, but I do understand you when you say that it's hard to draw the line between "them" and "us" sometimes. That's certainly a valid point.

I don't think anyone really wants to be protested for anything; should we just eliminate all protests?

Good point. However I think being protested upon for your political believes is less harmful than being protested upon because someone thinks your dead son is a murderer. That's where I would draw the line with protest. It doesn't sit right with me, and I get teary eyed even thinking about the pain this soldier's mother felt when these protesters arrived. It would completely break her spirit. I can't just say "ah, but they have a right to voice their opinion too!" like you can. Maybe I'm not strong enough. I just can't do it.

I think you're reading a bit too much into my words here.

I probably was and I apologise.

you've been dealing with Tarrou and Rastelin too long. I don't think you hate my government-I hate my government. You did imply we've got a long way to go though, and that's fine.

I think you're right. Forgive my hastiness in assuming you were implying I was anti-american. Some members on this website do this to nearly every political post I make.

I don't think your Muslimity (shut up, it's a word now! ;p) has much, if anything, to do with your positions in this thread.

Haha, thank you.

Can you see why I wouldn't want my ability to speak in the hands of someone who immediately assumes I hate Muslims from this conversation?

Yes I can.

My basic point is that it's impossible to come to a consensus as to where the line is regarding decency/respect/compassion/whatever you want to call it. And since the only 'bad' outcome is hurt feelings, I can't support even trying.

I think this issue transcends hurt feelings. I think it moves into the utter crushing of someone's spirit zone. I just can't, indirectly or otherwise, stand for it. No matter how hard I attempt to - I can't.

 

[Dfskelleton]

The worst part is that unfortunately, these bastards are protected. The 1st amendment means that you have the freedom of speech. Period. Unfortunately, there's no exceptions to that. You can say whatever you want, and these guys use it to their advantage. I'm not even sure how they can make these claims under the name of God. None of this is even mentioned in the bible (No, the bible never says that gays are bad, it says gay acts are bad). And, I always expected that they aren't as bitter and stupid as their signs and that they were at least intelligent, but they're just complete idiot douchebags.
If you want people to accept God, don't try and do it by telling them that he hates them.