Westboro Baptist Church is thwarted!

[Fleischer]

So yes, the WBC does have the right to protest, and the police are obligated to protect the protest. Clearly, that's not how it works in practice though.

I'm glad you're coming around and seeing the facts as they are. The police may be in violation of the WBC's rights, which means the WBC will sue the county of Rankin for violation of their freedom of assembly and speech. If the case goes in favor of the WBC - which I expect it will, then the people of Rankin County will be giving part of their tax money to Phelps and company. :\

 

[sheic99]

Actually, they do. They don't have to put a guard next to you, to hold off some jackass who decides to let his temper get the best of him, but guess what -- if some jackass DOES let his temper get the best of him? You can carry his ass straight to court.

For assault and only assault.

Edit: Maybe aggravated assault depending on the severity of the beating and battery also.

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.

 

[Agayek]

Just want to make sure I'm reading that right. Does that say that if a state doesn't step in to stop a mob from stepping all over people's rights (and is thus complicit), that it's OK?

Basically. TLDR version is that the Bill of Rights is not applicable to individual citizens. They can be tried for whatever crimes they commit stopping a gathering/protest/whatever, but not for actually stopping it.

 

[N3vans]

Apologies in advance for all the swearing, I feel passionately about the topic. Viewers of a nervous disposition, look away now.

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".

The bottom line is (and paraphrasing 'In Bruges' here, so its going to get a little fruity) The Westboro Baptist Church are cunts. They're cunts now, they've always been cunts and the only thing that's going to change is that they're going to be even bigger cunts. Maybe have some more **** kids.

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. That isn't an issue of free speech, it's an issue of the man pathologically being a massive bellend.

As for the 'coincidences', so what? We've all heard, load and crystal bloody clear, what the WBC has to say about anything and everything. If anything they were saved the effort of repeating themselves.

 

[Bento Box]

What? Really? Fucking really? "The Federal Constitution is the law," doesn't mean "the Federal Constitution is the law?"

I'm done with you.

You have every right to base your argument on the equality clause, but frankly, you would have done better to use the 14th Amendment which actually comes close enough to enforcing the Constitution on the States. But if you wish to ignore every aspect of history related to the creation of the document, every statement made by the individuals who wrote and signed it, and ignore the causes of the very existence of it...do so, but ignorance of all aspects does not make you correct, it simply makes you ignorant, and willfully so.

"Comes close enough?" It says, exactly, that the Federal Constitution TRUMPS any state constitution, where enumerated rights are concerned.

If your whole argument is that the constitution doesn't cover what individuals do, I call horseshit there, too -- if a mob gagged the Phelps family by making them feel threatened (and beating them), and the state was complicit, then that makes this a civil rights issue. The state doesn't get to ignore the single most important right in this whole damn country.

 

[Agayek]

I'm glad you're coming around and seeing the facts as they are. The police may be in violation of the WBC's rights, which means the WBC will sue the county of Rankin for violation of their freedom of assembly and speech. If the case goes in favor of the WBC - which I expect it will, then the people of Rankin County will be giving part of their tax money to Phelps and company. :\

I'm not coming around at all. I still fully support any and all efforts to shut down WBC and the blatant abuse of civil liberties they do.

I can, however, recognize legality and what it means. It's one of several reasons I'm against the concept of government.

 

[Fleischer]

What? Really? Fucking really? "The Federal Constitution is the law," doesn't mean "the Federal Constitution is the law?"

I'm done with you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Cruikshank

Just saying.

Just want to make sure I'm reading that right. Does that say that if a state doesn't step in to stop a mob from stepping all over people's rights (and is thus complicit), that it's OK?

Nope. The Cruiskshank case comes from a period of rife injustice in the United States. Reconstruction, the boondoggle that it was, failed in myriad ways to protect African-Americans and their rights. But that's a different subject...

Just look around for articles about the "Incorporation Doctrine" or "Incorporation of the Bill of Rights." As you will find on numerous sites:

state governments largely are held to the same standards as the federal government with regard to many constitutional rights, including the First Amendment freedoms of speech, religion, and assembly

That policy came AFTER the Cruikshank case, so the latest interpretation of the law stands.

 

[Bento Box]

Just want to make sure I'm reading that right. Does that say that if a state doesn't step in to stop a mob from stepping all over people's rights (and is thus complicit), that it's OK?

Basically. TLDR version is that the Bill of Rights is not applicable to individual citizens. They can be tried for whatever crimes they commit stopping a gathering/protest/whatever, but not for actually stopping it.

I suppose I can mostly dig that -- makes that angel counter-protest a little less flaky, if nothing else.

I mean, it doesn't do anything about the irony of their imagery, but it does distinguish from if their PVC wings had also been spud cannons. >_>

I'll laugh if someone does that. I'll still call them law-breaking shitheads, but I'll laugh.

In all honesty, though, if people can find legal means of stopping the Phelps, I'm all for that. Rankin county didn't. They battered and threatened. I'm not suite sure where I started conflating legal means and illegal means (and I'm not sure I did).

 

[Gaming King]

This article is about a town in Mississippi called Rankin. Who thwarted the Westboro Baptist Church from protesting another funeral.

http://www.blackfive.net/main/2011/04/westboro-baptists-defeated.html#more

My hat is off to the town of Rankin. I just hope more people and places begin doing more against the church.

Fuck yeah, but please don't call them a "church," because that's only a front. And we all know it.

 

[Buizel91]

"It seems that certain Rankin county pickup trucks were parked directly behind any car that had Kansas plates in the hotel parking lot and the drivers mysteriously disappeared until after the funeral was over"

I lol'd

Anyway good going Ranking, nice to see the Phelps family should start thinking twice about what they do.

On a slightly un-realted not...WTF what does this even say!

 

[Bento Box]

This article is about a town in Mississippi called Rankin. Who thwarted the Westboro Baptist Church from protesting another funeral.

http://www.blackfive.net/main/2011/04/westboro-baptists-defeated.html#more

My hat is off to the town of Rankin. I just hope more people and places begin doing more against the church.

Fuck yeah, but please don't call them a "church," because that's only a front. And we all know it.

We don't "all know it." What is the difference between WBC and Saddleback? Only the noise of their conviction, and the pH of their vitriol. They believe the same things; WBC is just louder.

 

[smallthemouse]

This article is about a town in Mississippi called Rankin. Who thwarted the Westboro Baptist Church from protesting another funeral.

http://www.blackfive.net/main/2011/04/westboro-baptists-defeated.html#more

My hat is off to the town of Rankin. I just hope more people and places begin doing more against the church.

Fuck yeah, but please don't call them a "church," because that's only a front. And we all know it.

We don't "all know it." What is the difference between WBC and Saddleback? Only the noise of their conviction, and the pH of their vitriol. They believe the same things; WBC is just louder.

If it was your family member, you would not be defending them.

 

[Scipio1770]

Really I see this as a shallow, and hollow nothing. I won't even call it a victory of any kind. I do not see what there is to celebrate when people are resorting to violence, and/or abusing the law. They had no right to attack W.B.C., or hold them. Really the fact that I have to defend the W.B.C. is a sad commentary in and of itself. I despise Communism, but I'm not going to start attacking Communist.

Let me make a quick point, and leave it at that, and the point is there are only 72 people in the W.B.C.'s congregation. We should not be giving 72 crazy people this kind of attention; it only empowers them to continue. I can guarantee you that right now they are quoting "Matthew 10:22 "All men will hate you because of me, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved."

and Luke 6:22 "Blessed are you when people hate you, avoid you, insult you, and slander you because you are committed to the Son of Man."

Really the best thing you can do about these people is ignore them completely, [sarcasm]but thank you Mississippi for making them feel good about themselves, and empowering there cause.[sarcasm end]

Fuck! He's totally right.

not at all. Ignoring a tumor only invites it to spread.

The WBC survives solely by agitating society enough to drain money out of it through lawsuits. By giving the group the blind eye, the US has allowed the WBC to perfect it's method. The WBC has learned to target funerals and schools, travel to more easily provoked communities, and countless other tactics to successfully play the legal system.

The only way to eliminate this tumor is either to freeze it, extract it, or eradicate it. By that i mean to freeze financial assets and take away tax exempt status of a church, extract from society by only allowing WBC protests in certain public areas away from their targets, or eradicate.. through less than legal means.

God damn it, this is so simple -- JUST BECAUSE YOU DISAGREE WITH SOMEONE, DOES NOT GIVE YOU THE RIGHT TO CHANGE WHICH RIGHTS THEY HAVE.

By what RIGHT would you freeze their assets? They've done nothing illegal.
By what RIGHT would you kill their tax exempt status as a church? Don' get me wrong -- I think that ALL religious institutions should have their tax exemptions revoked, but how do you decide to support, say, Pat Robertson's ministries, and not Fred Phelps'?

Also, they are already required to stay a certain distance from the funeral, just like any public display must.

1. freezing financial assets. with the proper funding and legal backing, WBC could be brought to court for their use of predatory lawsuits (notice this would be an entirely separate case from their protesting), whether or not the case wins, their finances gained from these lawsuits could be frozen for the investigation. Court cases take a long time to finish, and therefore in the right hands WBC could be financially held down for quite some time. All done through the code of law.

2. taking away tax exempt status. In order to maintain a tax exempt status, churches must prove that the organization's main purpose is that of worship and secondary communitarian goals. If the WBC can be proven to use most of it's resources towards political activities (such as protests) instead of church functions, then it is no longer legally recognized as a church and therefore taxed. all done through the code of law.

 

[Scars Unseen]

What I don't get is how the virulent protestation of a private funeral doesn't count as harassment. Contrary to popular belief, free speech is not absolute. I think that these people should be sued into oblivion.

Of course, beating the fuck out of them works too.

 

[Dfskelleton]

The sad thing is that the WBC is like an irritating, long lasting rash: irritating and pointless, and there's not a lot you can do to get rid of it for good. You can only temporarily subdue the pain.
Here's the sucky thing about the WBC: They WANT people to do stuff like this. They're getting attention, which is all they need, good or bad. As hard as it may be, the best thing to do is ignore them. Maybe one day they'll simply fade into old stories about "The idiots who thought God hated everyone"

 

[Fleischer]

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...

 

[Iron Lightning]

I think everyone needs to stop being a baby about this and saying "BUT THEY BROKE THE LAW WAA WAA WAA"

Oh I agree, it's clearly childish to demand that people obey the law. I guess judges should start telling rape victims to stop being such babies, all their rapists did was break the law.

If it was your family member whose soldier funeral was being picketed you would not be taking your moral/constitutional high ground, and would be calling for more than a couple parked cars.

Well, I daresay that if someone in my family died fighting to protect the rights guaranteed to us by the constitution I would be very pissed off if at his funeral people made an effort to deny others those same rights.

The primary point of the first amendment was so that the citizens are not allowed to be silenced for criticizing the government, not protecting a couple people with universally opposed views.

Nope, sorry this is just completely incorrect. The first amendment says nothing whatsoever about discriminating between forms of speech. In fact, even if the WBC didn't plan to say anything the actions of the corrupt officers of Rankin county would still be infringing on their right to peacefully assemble.

This is not comparable to civil rights or womens rights where it is ethically obvious oppression. Nobody in 50 years is going to be looking back and saying "Wow I can't believe we didn't let these lunatics protest funerals, how wrong we were."

It was only seen to be obvious oppression with the benefit of hindsight. Many reputable "scientific" institutions at the time held the belief that women and black people were, by their nature, inferior to white males. It was thought that they were simply too stupid to be trusted with important decisions (such as voting.) Most people believed that the government's actions were no more oppressive than having a responsible adult babysit and make decisions for a mentally-handicapped person.

If, in the hypothetical future, we find ourselves in an Orwellian dystopia wherein the right to the freedoms of speech and peaceful assembly no longer exist then we might look back and see that the time when we decided to restrict the speech of a few assholes because we didn't like what they were saying was the time when it all started to go wrong.

Everyone needs to grow a pair and realize that getting a little beating (he was fine enough to be questioned by the police about who was assaulting him, so he couldn't have been that injured in the first place) or having your car blocked is not the worst thing that can happen to you.

Alright everyone, it's official, as long as a beating does not send you into a coma you're perfectly fine and have no right to complain. After all, it's not the worst thing that could happen. If someone robs your house, just be thankful that they didn't decide to burn it down as well and keep your chin up.

People in other countries get beaten for far less and you're worried about the well being of a random morally bankrupt pariah?

Yeah guys, haven't you heard, people in some other countries have it worse than we do. Therefore we have no right to complain about the beating of a person. After all, he wasn't even a nice guy, and that means that he should be brutally assaulted because it's a crime not to be nice.

*bzzzzzzfssssssht*

Damn, that last paragraph just broke my sarcasmotron.

Let me conclude with a question to all of you people in this thread supporting Rankin County:

Would you still support the police if they were preventing people from dishonoring the soldiers in the middle east by protesting the wars there?

 

[Bobbity]

Damn, that's a pretty classy way of doing it.

Personally, I would have just forcibly dropped them all off in a room in a hotel, and kept them locked up for the duration of the funeral.

 

[Bento Box]

Really I see this as a shallow, and hollow nothing. I won't even call it a victory of any kind. I do not see what there is to celebrate when people are resorting to violence, and/or abusing the law. They had no right to attack W.B.C., or hold them. Really the fact that I have to defend the W.B.C. is a sad commentary in and of itself. I despise Communism, but I'm not going to start attacking Communist.

Let me make a quick point, and leave it at that, and the point is there are only 72 people in the W.B.C.'s congregation. We should not be giving 72 crazy people this kind of attention; it only empowers them to continue. I can guarantee you that right now they are quoting "Matthew 10:22 "All men will hate you because of me, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved."

and Luke 6:22 "Blessed are you when people hate you, avoid you, insult you, and slander you because you are committed to the Son of Man."

Really the best thing you can do about these people is ignore them completely, [sarcasm]but thank you Mississippi for making them feel good about themselves, and empowering there cause.[sarcasm end]

Fuck! He's totally right.

not at all. Ignoring a tumor only invites it to spread.

The WBC survives solely by agitating society enough to drain money out of it through lawsuits. By giving the group the blind eye, the US has allowed the WBC to perfect it's method. The WBC has learned to target funerals and schools, travel to more easily provoked communities, and countless other tactics to successfully play the legal system.

The only way to eliminate this tumor is either to freeze it, extract it, or eradicate it. By that i mean to freeze financial assets and take away tax exempt status of a church, extract from society by only allowing WBC protests in certain public areas away from their targets, or eradicate.. through less than legal means.

God damn it, this is so simple -- JUST BECAUSE YOU DISAGREE WITH SOMEONE, DOES NOT GIVE YOU THE RIGHT TO CHANGE WHICH RIGHTS THEY HAVE.

By what RIGHT would you freeze their assets? They've done nothing illegal.
By what RIGHT would you kill their tax exempt status as a church? Don' get me wrong -- I think that ALL religious institutions should have their tax exemptions revoked, but how do you decide to support, say, Pat Robertson's ministries, and not Fred Phelps'?

Also, they are already required to stay a certain distance from the funeral, just like any public display must.

1. freezing financial assets. with the proper funding and legal backing, WBC could be brought to court for their use of predatory lawsuits (notice this would be an entirely separate case from their protesting), whether or not the case wins, their finances gained from these lawsuits could be frozen for the investigation. Court cases take a long time to finish, and therefore in the right hands WBC could be financially held down for quite some time. All done through the code of law.

2. taking away tax exempt status. In order to maintain a tax exempt status, churches must prove that the organization's main purpose is that of worship and secondary communitarian goals. If the WBC can be proven to use most of it's resources towards political activities (such as protests) instead of church functions, then it is no longer legally recognized as a church and therefore taxed. all done through the code of law.

Getting really, really tired of typing (and I want to do something other than argue on the internet with my last couple hours of waking ) so I'll be succinct.

1. If their lawsuits are all valid, then they can't really be called predatory, and certainly not unlawful (I know you didn't use that word, but I think it's where you were pointing).

2. Just because it's a protest, doesn't make it a political activity. They aren't calling for legislation; they're protesting, and peaceably so, with zero defined political ends.

 

[Kortney]

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.