Westboro Baptist Church is thwarted!

[BabySinclair]

The beating was a bit extreme (they deserve it), but the rest of it must have just been a string of bad luck, ain't karma a *****?

 

[Christopher Callahan]

Am I the only one who thinks this is funny? One, or many, committed assault by beating that one protester, others lied about not seeing said assault and thus helped the criminal(s), others committed a crime by purposely blocking the protesters vehicles. All of this was done to deny a group their first amendment right, the same right Sgt. Rogers was entrusted to protect and died for, so that they couldn't protest at Sgt. Rogers funeral?

I can't think of many better ways to disrespect someone who died for their country then to deny a group of people their rights, once again the rights the dead man died for, in some kind of twisted way to honor said dead person.

Ever police officer involved with this should be put on leave without pay and investigated, if they are found to have actively helped to deny this group their right to protest and to have like other people get away with criminal activity then they should be fired on the spot.

As much as I disagree with this church's illogical, irrational, ignorant beliefs, they are well within their right to protest and just because you don't like what they have to say doesn't give you he right, nor the justification, to break the law. If one actually believed that it does give them that right, or justification, then that belief would just be as ignorant and illogical as the church's beliefs that they so despise.

They broke the law, but they did the right thing.
Yes those are two different things. You're smart, you should know this. You fight fire with fire. If they're hiding behined the law, you get to do that to.

 

[Callate]

Let me be blunt. I really don't think how the WBC uses their "freedom of speech" is how it was meant to be used. I recognize that that's a dangerous precedent, and maybe I'm not the one to make the judgement, but it's still how I feel about it.

This isn't like the civil rights marches of the sixties where it was important to call attention to the issue and make people recognize that things weren't all right as they were and the status quo had to change. This isn't like someone writing a letter critical of a politician, or a satire of a public figure. If we take the Phelps clan at their word, what they want is an America that condemns homosexuality in every regard; the way they go about this is not to picket institutions that might be seen as promoting a so-called "homosexual agenda" or the government bodies that impose and enforce laws that protect gay people, but merely the people on whom their tactics will inflict the maximum emotional distress. I honestly don't think they bring a single person over to their side with their tactics; I don't think the pendulum swings a single millimeter in the direction they supposedly want it to.

Their message, such as it is, is out. Its nature, specifics, and origin are clear. At this point, they are no longer in any way engaging in a discussion, what we would think of as "speech"; what they are doing is yelling in someone's ear for the sake of yelling. They are making noise not for the sake of strengthening their point or furthering their agenda or rallying their allies, but to hurt people as an expression of their rage.

I recognize the Supreme Court disagrees with the idea. I'm deeply conflicted about it myself; I'm all for free speech, even if I disagree with what's being spoken, and I fully understand that even a single exception has the potential to open the door for tyranny. But after a certain number of repetitions of the same message, maybe we need a recognition that there's a point that "free speech" becomes "assault".

 

[Fleischer]

Very good questions and comments!

Does that mean Murder is legal because it's not forbidden in the Constitution?

With the exception of treason, which you noted was within the Constitution, federal, state and local criminal codes outline what is legal and what is not.

What about the Tenth? If the Constitution was directed at all levels of the United States, why does it give all powers not delegated to the Federal Government or prohibited by it to the States or to the people? It's not speaking of what the states can do with federal permission, it's stating that which the States didn't give the Federal Government Authority over, they don't have authority government.

The reason the Federal government is limited is because the writers of the Constitution, in their great wisdom, feared an over powerful Federal government. What a State can manage and properly ensure liberty and justice, a state can do. If the Federal government is required to step in to ensure people's rights are being violated by the State, then the Federal government, as been found in subsequent cases, will step in.[/quote]

Taking it all the way, if the Federal Government trumps the legal considerations and power of the states, then why did the States vote to
create it, and why do the states have say in ratification of Amendments?

The Federal government only trumps State governments in situations where a national authority is required to administer it - such as declaring war, coining money, etc... As far as Amendments go, the way the majority of Amendments are created is by them first passing both houses of Congress by a two thirds majority. After that, the potential Amendment must be ratified by three fourths of the States. This is done so that the federal legislature - the Senate and the House of Representatives - cannot pass Amendments without a check on them from the States.

Why are Senators under the Constitution appointed representatives of their states?

Many of the founding Fathers were leery of the masses. They feared the common folk would elect people to the Senate - a legislative body of great power - that were unfit for that job. The people *did* vote for their state representatives, and *those* state representatives used to pick Senators.

 

[AKmontalvo]

*sigh* This is exactly what the WBC wants. I expect to hear about a major law suit being lodged against the town of Rankin. Violating the freedom of speech of anyone - even those with deplorable messages - is unconstitutional.

Then maybe your total freedom of speech needs to be updated. Excluding the Phelps entirely would be a good update.

You Americans and your total freedom of speech. If they can't take a punch in the jaw for saying it, then they shouldn't say it

Just to clarify the constitutional rights of speakers for the both of you, you cannot be arrested or otherwise restricted by the government from speaking your mind, it does not however protect you from the reactions of those who find your speech deplorable that is governed by common law

Thusly 1)the people involved in the beating may face battery charges (not the end of the world at all) but anyone else is looking at little more than a moving violation which is like a 35 dollar ticket that doesnt show on your driving record.. so no worries Fleisher
2)Making fun of Americans is only hip if you know what ur talking about dogstile

 

[FFHAuthor]

Anyway, that's all the words I've got in me tonight. The number of times i had to backspace through that was downright embarrassing.

I can respect that, you make good points, I merely abide by the logic and intentions of the framers (exemplified by their statements and comments on the document) that the Constitution is a set of guidelines and restrictions on the Federal Government because of the language there-in and because of the situation that brought it about.

I understand your views, but I just can't agree with them, although I'll respect them. But I think we will both consider the other wrong no mater what points we make.

Decent enough discussion, but perhaps we can have a more amicable one in future?

 

[Superior Mind]

I'm not against anything that hinders the WBC and their constitutional rights. You know that great overused phrase "I don't agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it"? There is no way in Hell I will defend the WBC's right to say anything. Not on free speech or constitutional grounds or anything else.

Remember a few years ago when there was the issue of "free speech zones" at presidential rallys? It wasn't a big blown up issue for some reason but what it essentially meant was that at a presidential rally or appearance if you were wearing a protest t-shirt or had a non-supportive placard or were protesting in any way you could be removed and put in one of these designated "free speech zones". This was so the president wouldn't have to witness people disagreeing with him and so TV cameras wouldn't show the president on TV swamped with protesters. Let's face it, that's terrible for his image.

Now why on earth would it be seen as okay to deny protesters the right to free speech while the WBC being free to spew their hatred at a group of mourners is protected?

I hope more people take this town's semi-legal route in protecting themselves from such filth.

 

[Fleischer]

So... uhh... you feel perfectly fine with kidnapping individuals just because you don't agree with their beliefs. Why are you even on an internet forum if you react so violently to dissenting views (even if they are as stupid as the views of the WBC and a fair chunk of the internet?)

Wait a minute... I think I hear something... WHAT'S THAT SNEAKING UP BEHIN

"It rubs the lotion on its skin, or else it gets the hose again" becomes "It agrees with me, or else it gets the locked in the basement."

 

[Bobbity]

snip

I wouldn't actually. I was getting away from reality, saying what I'd dearly like to do. I'd try and emulate the town's approach, if anything, with people being parked in, detained, or whatever.

 

[Fleischer]

1. whether or not they are valid didnt really matter, the point would be to keep them tied up with paperwork and limit their strength. the lawsuits are legal but exploitive, and therefore this plan would use the same tactics against them.

You aren't making sense. Fred Phelps is a trained lawyer, and runs his own law firm. He doesn't sue people to waste time; he sues them because the WBC's cause hasn't been defeated in court. Frivolous cases are thrown out, and people can be fined for repeatedly doing this; however, this is *not* what Fred Phelps does.

2. Actually the WBC has repeatedly protested about the wars in the middle east and the legal statuses of homosexuals. Both topics relate to US foreign and domestic policy, and are clearly very politically motivated.

Churches are allowed to engage in political activity...

Without the aid of amazing pastors and priests, the Civil Rights Movement wouldn't of happened. Ever noticed the Revered in front of Martin Luther King's title?

 

[RaikuFA]

btw, couldnt the attacker say he was threatened by the WBC guy?

 

[Shuswah_Noir]

-victory dance on their behalf-

 

[N3vans]

Yes, everyone should have free speech (technicalities of the amendments aside). However, this only goes so far. When you aren't putting across anything constructive, logical or even sane in the WBC's case, then it's time to kindly "off you fuck".

Incorrect. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Phelps last year over this issue.

If you went into a bar and told someone 'I shagged your mum so hard I split her in half', they'd be well within their rights to knock your teeth out. The same applies to insulting people's intelligence in public, belittling them and generally being a wanker.

No. No. And, no. Feel free to ask a lawyer or police officer if irritating someone gives a person just grounds to commit battery and/or assault.

Look I'm not going to get into anally-retentive arguments about the finer points of legal framework, I'm neither inclined or qualified. Plus its been done enough in this thread. I see you failed to notice the sarcasm dripping off most of that post. Of course I know its illegal to beat the shit out of someone I'm not a fucking moron, but what the law states and what people do are different things as I'm sure you can appreciate. So obviously 'well within their right' was a bad choice, how about 'they'd more than likely'. I didn't realise you were going to take my post so literally and not infer meaning so you could make smart-arse comments.

As for the supreme court ruling I missed that as I live in the UK, where we have the far more sensible anti-hate speech rules so we don't have to worry about dickheads like the WBC. Also what I said about free speech clearly isn't what the amendment says, I never claimed it was. Its just my opinion on it...

 

[Scipio1770]

1. whether or not they are valid didnt really matter, the point would be to keep them tied up with paperwork and limit their strength. the lawsuits are legal but exploitive, and therefore this plan would use the same tactics against them.

You aren't making sense. Fred Phelps is a trained lawyer, and runs his own law firm. He doesn't sue people to waste time; he sues them because the WBC's cause hasn't been defeated in court. Frivolous cases are thrown out, and people can be fined for repeatedly doing this; however, this is *not* what Fred Phelps does.

2. Actually the WBC has repeatedly protested about the wars in the middle east and the legal statuses of homosexuals. Both topics relate to US foreign and domestic policy, and are clearly very politically motivated.

Churches are allowed to engage in political activity...

Without the aid of amazing pastors and priests, the Civil Rights Movement wouldn't of happened. Ever noticed the Revered in front of Martin Luther King's title?

'To be tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, an organization must be organized and operated exclusively for exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3), and none of its earnings may inure to any private shareholder or individual. In addition, it may not be an action organization, i.e., it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates."

Take that up with the IRS my friend.

 

[Fleischer]

Just to clarify the constitutional rights of speakers for the both of you, you cannot be arrested or otherwise restricted by the government from speaking your mind, it does not however protect you from the reactions of those who find your speech deplorable that is governed by common law

Um...except you *are* to be protected. Look at the 14th Amendment - Citizen Rights

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

This states that you rights are to be protected by the State you are in. Also, the local police and other law enforcements officers are required to "protect and serve." The police is charged with protecting people, even those that offend others.

Thusly 1)the people involved in the beating may face battery charges (not the end of the world at all) but anyone else is looking at little more than a moving violation which is like a 35 dollar ticket that doesnt show on your driving record.. so no worries Fleisher
2)Making fun of Americans is only hip if you know what ur talking about dogstile

The people who committed that crime that crime haven't been tried, nor have they been sentenced. The punishment, if it is given, will be determined by the court, not you or I.

Dogstile? On second thought please don't explain what that means, I'd rather not having this threat stoop to insulting each other.

 

[Superior Mind]

I think the WBC being allowed to cloak itself in a constitutional amendment that is as overplayed as it is is misapplied is insulting. While everyone should be able to believe in anything they want, to impose them on others, to victimise others in the name of their own beliefs - come on, do any of you seriously believe that this was the intent of the First Amendment? The First Amendment's key purpose is to prevent persecution - prevent it. Not licence it.

The very fact that the WBC is allowed to conduct their hateful rallys while good people have to work around the law or on the fringes of it to protect themselves - that in itself is proof of the failure of the First Amendement in being applied as it is. Either people wise up to this or more towns will be forced to conduct semi-legal action like Rankin - and until then I hope they do.

 

[PrinceofPersia]

I'm torn.

On one hand, beating someone isn't exactly the best way to deal with this.

On the other hand, I can think of no other group of people who are more deserving of a good beating.

Yeah, that's what I was thinking. Still, I like this solution better:

Now that is the best way to handle the WBC. No beatings, no violence, just a humane shield.

 

[Xisin]

This is terrible.

I google'd this, and found someone who talked about how the people of Rankin county still broke the first amendment. True, I'm glad it happened, but if they're allowed to get away with it then that means anyone could.

Westboro will only be beaten when no one cares anymore.

I'm divided on this. I hate the Westboro Baptist Fraud Church. But if this county can do it to them (considering that the Supreme Court has guaranteed the WBC's RIGHT to do as they do) what's to stop them from doing this to you and me?

Still, WBC got what they deserved.

Its only against the first amendment if it is sanctioned by a governmental body. The first amendment does not prevent an individual from determining what can and cannot be said in their presence. Now the consequences of their actions based upon said determination are a different story. Basically if I don't like what you say I am free to beat the hell out of you. I will then be punished for said beating but not for preventing your freedom of speech.

Reading between the lines it seems pretty clear that everyone was together in this effort, including the police department, but unless it was officially planned by a governmental body there isn't a lot that those scumbags can do.

A man was beaten; that's not just a break of the 1st amendment. Assault can be a felony.

I don't get the point of doing something like this. It is certainly terribly rude, what they do; but no one should have the right to beat them for it.

This looks like an awfully slippery slope to me. Anytime the majority thinks something, they have the right to beat the other side up? Block in their cars? Falsely accuse them of things? It's just silly.

 

[Dogstile]

*sigh* This is exactly what the WBC wants. I expect to hear about a major law suit being lodged against the town of Rankin. Violating the freedom of speech of anyone - even those with deplorable messages - is unconstitutional.

Then maybe your total freedom of speech needs to be updated. Excluding the Phelps entirely would be a good update.

You Americans and your total freedom of speech. If they can't take a punch in the jaw for saying it, then they shouldn't say it

Just to clarify the constitutional rights of speakers for the both of you, you cannot be arrested or otherwise restricted by the government from speaking your mind, it does not however protect you from the reactions of those who find your speech deplorable that is governed by common law

Thusly 1)the people involved in the beating may face battery charges (not the end of the world at all) but anyone else is looking at little more than a moving violation which is like a 35 dollar ticket that doesnt show on your driving record.. so no worries Fleisher
2)Making fun of Americans is only hip if you know what ur talking about dogstile

This is true, but the police count as government and since they were quite handily "associated" with a crime as they turned up, the guy I quoted was right.

However 1. I was kidding and 2. I was kidding < see that, its a jokey face. It means i'm joking and that I realise what i'm saying is absolute bollocks.