Westboro Baptist Church is thwarted!

[Fleischer]

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.

Yep. Sarcasm is pretty hard to detect on the internets.

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.

I am writing what I see as honest. I have no need to shame other people, via internet or otherwise. I am picking out the fallacies and incorrect statements in your posts.

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...

It's okay - no one is perfect. We all miss events, especially when do not happen in the country you live in. The case [http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/146971-supreme-court-rules-westboro-church-protected-by-first-amendment] happened fairly recently.

Everyone is allowed to their opinion. I just focus more so on the facts when I engage in a debate.

 

[Ilyak1986]

By the way:

The amendment prohibits the making of any law "respecting an establishment of religion", impeding the free exercise of religion, infringing on the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.
Originally, the First Amendment applied only to laws enacted by the Congress. However, starting with Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925), the Supreme Court has held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies the First Amendment to each state, including any local government.

So, basically...right of free speech my ass. The only thing it does is protect these rat bastards from the GOVERNMENT punishing them for anything they say.

But if the people themselves decide to be assholes to assholes, well, that's just too bad. Frankly, I'm actually pleased that one of them got assaulted and the authorities turned a blind eye. In my opinion, there's a place for a little violence in this world.

 

[Jodah]

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.

I wasn't really talkin about the assault, more the car thing. Though still, the assault isn't against the first amendment. Its still illegal and I don't condone it its just punished for different reasons.

 

[Fleischer]

'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.

Regarding "influencing legislation," I don't know of a single bill that the WBC has been in favor of. So that one is shot down.

Second, the WBC is not campaigning for or against anyone. They very carefully avoid sponsoring AND/OR berating any political figure. Again, shot down.

Thanks.

 

[Fleischer]

But if the people themselves decide to be assholes to assholes, well, that's just too bad.

It isn't just "too bad." The State is required to protect a citizen's civil rights - including Freedom of Speech, and failing that, the Federal government can be called in to step in. Read through the Fourteenth Amendment if you don't believe me.

 

[sheic99]

Maybe even a hate crime?

That would be tough to prove, whether he was hit because he was [race] or if because of the things he was saying.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if the Phelps camp tries to use Anti-Hate Crime legislation to persecute the person(s) that assaulted a member of the WBC. Do not forget that the majority of Fred Phelp's children are lawyers...

It's still fairly hard to prove that they attacked them for their Christian beliefs and not for calling their dead son a fag.

Every thread about the WBC is a victory to them. Don't you realise that this is exactly what they want us to be doing. They want us to be offended and pissed off and they want us to run to the internet and talk about them and spread what they have been doing.

Just ignore them. Everything will go away if you do.

It doesn't matter one way or the other if we talk about them. The churches like this one tend to fairly short lived, relatively speaking. Fred Phelps is the sole leader of his congregation that when he dies, the church will fall apart without his leadership.

 

[Fleischer]

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".

You completely countermand yourself there. You can't be "all for free speech," and then turn around and say you want some speech limited. And yes, I am a firm advocate of freedom of speech because I must remain vigilant against the depredation of my civil liberties, and the creeping advances of potential tyrants, despots and dictators.

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".

There are some things you cannot say: You wish to harm the President; that you will harm someone else, as well as bullying people; and some other instances I can't think of currently.

 

[Double A]

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.

Or someone could just kill the stupid bastards, making the world a better place for everyone.

Not that I would do that...

While I don't think many people wishes them dead, I doubt a single tear would be shed if they all instantly disintegrated into a cloud of water vapor that got sucked into space and started orbiting the Sun.

 

[Ilyak1986]

But if the people themselves decide to be assholes to assholes, well, that's just too bad.

It isn't just "too bad." The State is required to protect a citizen's civil rights - including Freedom of Speech, and failing that, the Federal government can be called in to step in. Read through the Fourteenth Amendment if you don't believe me.

From wikipedia:

Its Due Process Clause prohibits state and local governments from depriving persons of life, liberty, or property without certain steps being taken to ensure fairness. This clause has been used to make most of the Bill of Rights applicable to the states, as well as to recognize substantive and procedural rights.

So once again, this isn't the government (at any level) depriving anyone of anything. Individuals may, but they're not government employees.

 

[N3vans]

I am writing what I see as honest. I have no need to shame other people, via internet or otherwise. I am picking out the fallacies and incorrect statements in your posts.


Everyone is allowed to their opinion. I just focus more so on the facts when I engage in a debate.

Evidently. But I can see how the whole outlandish 'dry British wit' concept can be difficult to pick up on to an outsider, especially in text. But really come on, you are on a gaming forum 'on the internets', not everyone is going to engage purely in a dry ethical debate. What I said was clearly not meant to be taken as literal truth. So word to the wise, playing the neutral objectivity card is all well and good, but without appreciating that not everyone is going to do the same it just comes accross as bloody patronising.

 

[duchaked]

HAHAHA got 'em

(also, if WBC is pushing the edge of their rights, then the actions made by this town have a ways to go before they even come close to the edge)

 

[Iron Lightning]

Well if thats the case then you must go and tell the police about every single traffic violation you've ever committed and pay your five million dollars in speeding tickets.

Right, because clearly traffic violations are on the same level as assault. There's a classification of laws known as "petty offenses" which all consist of minor things such as speeding or stealing a candy bar that are mostly just there so that the police department can better fund itself by issuing minor fines. Forgive me if I was being overly axiomatic, it was not my intention to say that all minor and victimless laws need to be obeyed at all times. However, it was my intention to say that all of the more serious laws ought to be obeyed at all times, such as the law against assault.

See my previous post about if it was your family member who died.

I have seen it and I maintain that I believe I have the ethical strength to avoid being a hypocrite. That, and I know that the best way to deal with this brand of complete wankers is to ignore them.

Hindsight was exactly what i was talking about, we are NEVER going to look back and think, that WBC and their 72 members were right. Please read carefully.

You wrote: "obvious oppression." This implies that those oppressed we're obviously seen as oppressed back in the day. If I misinterpreted you and your point was really about how we can only see that women and blacks we're oppressed with hindsight then I'm glad that we agree that the majority opinion can not be trusted since it only sees clearly with hindsight. By that logic, there is no reason to oppress anyone on the basis of majority opinion since it is so often incorrect. Also, if you wish to change the law so that it does not offer freedom of speech to the WBC then you are setting a very dangerous precedent. If that meaning was not your intention, then please write carefully.

The first amendment's *****PRIMARY***** purpose was that we can speak out against the government. Remember who wrote this stuff, people who just got out of a monarchy where they might be killed for speaking against the king. You think they would hesitate to murder people like WBC if they protested the dead colonist soldiers in General Washington's army (a massive celebrity at the time) during the American Revolution?

So... you think the founding fathers were murderous hypocrites that wouldn't hesitate to discard the ideals that they fought so hard for the instant someone made them angry?

If we assume that the amendment's "primary" purpose was to allow people to speak out against the government then why does that mean that we should discount the first amendment's "secondary" purposes? The first amendment says nothing about only protecting speech against the government. You have no grounds for saying that we should ignore any part of the first amendment.

As for the beating, yes it is ok, he did not die. Tell me, were you ever punished when you were a kid, or were you sent to your room to think about what youve done? Grow up, there is violence in the world, and this is hardly the situation to be defending this guy. And it is not like being beaten during a store robbery or a mugging, there you are within your rights to be defended, as you did nothing wrong. Don't poke a grizzly bear and cry for pity when it mauls your ass.

Oh, so now it's okay because he survived the beating, clearly. I'm sorry, but in the adult world we generally don't beat each other up just because one party said some nasty words. Why are you drawing an analogy with capital punishment of children? Do you wish to live in a world where the police beat you for saying a dirty word? For not going to bed on time? For yelling at someone? Because clearly everyone needs to be treated as a child their whole lives. Legally, people have the right to beat up another party only in self-defense. Self-defense does not mean defending your feelings. Also, I don't think it's unreasonable of me to expect more civilized behavior from my fellow man than a grizzly bear.

One more thing, please learn to use apostrophes.

 

[KingCrInuYasha]

As much as I despise these jerks, I think the methods Rankin used wasn't the most appropriate; these are the kind of people who get off on this kind of attention.

Also, I find it kind of funny that a group like the WBC praises the use of the First Amendment, when, if given significant political power, would throw it out the window first chance they get when it comes to those that oppose them.

 

[Scipio1770]

'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.

Regarding "influencing legislation," I don't know of a single bill that the WBC has been in favor of. So that one is shot down.

Second, the WBC is not campaigning for or against anyone. They very carefully avoid sponsoring AND/OR berating any political figure. Again, shot down.

Thanks.

all it takes is one slip up.

 

[Iron Lightning]

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.

Heh, don't worry about it my friend, I was just messing with ya, I know you weren't being serious. At least your fantasies don't involve first-degree murder like those of some people on this thread.

I agree with you insofar as that we should do whatever we can legally do to stop the WBC. I just don't advocate the illegal actions that Rankin county took. Those actions are both despicable and ineffective, as they give grounds for the lawsuits with which WBC finances itself and gives them the attention that they crave. Beating them up was the best thing Rankin county could've done for the WBC short of throwing them a big fucking parade with a cash prize at the end.

 

[The Rookie Gamer]

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.

I was about to bring this up. I hate to side with WBC, but what happened to them was a bit extreme, especially the beating. Having bikers would have sent a much better message.

 

[Fleischer]

From wikipedia:

Its Due Process Clause prohibits state and local governments from depriving persons of life, liberty, or property without certain steps being taken to ensure fairness. This clause has been used to make most of the Bill of Rights applicable to the states, as well as to recognize substantive and procedural rights.

So once again, this isn't the government (at any level) depriving anyone of anything. Individuals may, but they're not government employees.

I'll quote the Fourteenth Amendment for you:

Section 1. ...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.

Privileges entails your civil liberties, such as freedom of speech and assembly.

Not only can a State not deprive you of your rights, but the The State is required to protect those rights...against OTHERS!

/bows

 

[Adremmalech]

Good times. I can just imagine the tow trucks bringing those cars to the impound, where their owners are already waiting. One of them is smoking a cigar and says "I love it when a plan comes together".

 

[Fleischer]

all it takes is one slip up.

Hah - I hadn't seem that image before. Nice find!

 

[JordanMillward_1]

Congrats to Rankin, the population of that town deserve a medal for beating down that WBO scum, and they deserved to have their cars burnt, rather than just blocked in.

I'm just glad that members of the WBO are banned from entering the UK. They've demonstrated themselves to be discriminatory scum of the highest order, and if they did come over, they'd be in prison for hate crimes before you could say "That Phelps guy? Yea, he's my *****. Now bend over...".