Westboro Baptist Church protests in Joplin, MO
 

Article about the protest

WBC's press release as posted on their web site - which states, "THANK GOD FOR 125 DEAD IN JOPLIN".

These guys are some seriously sick fucks (but we knew that). :mad:

According to this their evilness was thwarted.

http://news.gather.com/viewArticle.a...81474979383365

Sweet. http://cache.autoanything.com/images...bs_up_icon.gif

A friend of mine along with her daughter went to counter protest so I will have to ask her what happened.

If the second article is true that this group has been hindered from protesting, then wouldnt these sickos be within their rights to file lawsuits because they were prevented from their first amendment rights to assemble & protest (no matter how despicable)?

They can file all the lawsuits they want against a bunch of truckers who can all say "oh jeepers, I ran out of gas and couldn't move my vehicle. So sorry."

My friend who posted about this on FB only mentioned about the truckers/bikers at the Flying J and nothing about the HWP. That part sounds off.

They probably will, it's what they do. But the passive agressive counter-response is becoming common to them. Problem is that that is going to backfire/explode and someone's going to get hurt.

One town had pretty much the entire town in on it, cops included, and it hit a point where it was no longer 'payback' and became abuse. Abuse of asshole bigots, but abuse.

Damn thing's a cult.

If people would stop giving these tools attention, they would shrivel up and die.

That is amazing.

Awesome! :)

Why isn't what these people are doing considered harassment? They aren't peacefully protesting, but are a public nuissance. Shouldn't there be some way to stop them?

Snyder v. Phelps (the Wiki version)

And actually, given that they're not engaging in violence, they are peacefully protesting. Just because it's terribly offensive doesn't mean it's not peaceful.

I remember when that case was finished. I disagree with the judge, but that's my opinion. I am definitely not a lawyer or a judge. I still believe this falls under the same sort of idea as cyber bullying. You can't be a cyber bully and say awful stuff, but you can stand in public and do the same??? :confused:

I giggle when I think of how the folks in Mississippi handled it. :D

http://www.ihatethemedia.com/a-simpl...ral-protesters

There's a level of irony here I'm not even going to address.

That said, no it's not cyber bullying or the equivalent. They're not making calls
to the people's houses, they're protesting in a public area. Similarly they're not targeting an individual, just exploiting an individual's death.

What we call "cyberbullying" is really harassment, something that is completely illegal IRL, but just as saying something mean on the internet or having jackassy opinions on the internet does not make one a cyberbully, having jackassy opinions in the real world doesn't equal harassment either.

You can say "god hates fags" online all you like, as evidenced by WBC's website. Similarly you can go in public and yell it and carry signs.

I'm of the opinion that any law prohibiting WBC would be detrimental to free speech.

Well I didn't say it was cyber bullying but the same idea. I, personally, do believe that they are targeting individual people and harassing them. I don't think them being dead should mean that things change. Again just how I see it. In my opinion freedom of speech is intended for people to be able to say what they want about the government and not go to jail. When you start doing and saying things that harm other people (mental harm here) then something has to stop. Words can insight violent and there have been reports of people beating the crap out of them. It would be easy for this to get out of control one day.

Oklahoma handled it well. They've passed a law that puts protests further from funerals than before (500 ft to 1000 ft) and you can't protest within 2 hours of a funeral. It's at least something to give them families the peace they deserve.

And I find irony in this...

http://www.christiandemocratsofameri...aptist-church/

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion.

But FWIW, the "judge" was the Supreme Court of the United States, by an 8-1 vote.

And no, it is not the same idea as cyber-bullying. These are public protests related to matters of public interest (deaths of soldiers, natural disasters -- or, in the church's view, God's indictment of modern society and culture) in public places with the necessary permits. Those with opposite views are also free to voice their opinion in public places. Free speech wins. The fact that it could get out of hand one day is beside the point. As long as it doesn't, it can't and shouldn't be punished. That's prior restraint of free speech.

I find the conclusion of the Court's opinion insightful:

Westboro believes that America is morally flawed; many Americans might feel the same about Westboro. Westboro’s funeral picketing is certainly hurtful and its contribution to public discourse may be negligible. But Westboro addressed matters of public import on public property, in a peaceful manner, in full compliance with the guidance of local officials. The speech was indeed planned to coincide with Matthew Snyder’s funeral, but did not itself disrupt that funeral, and Westboro’s choice to conduct its picketing at that time and place did not alter the nature of its speech.

Speech is powerful. It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and—as it did here—inflict great pain. On the facts before us, we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker. As a Nation we have chosen a different course—to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate. That choice requires that we shield Westboro from tort liability for its picketing in this case.

Yeah I get that. I am well aware of what the courts have said or how they see it. As I've repeatedly said, this is my opinion on the matter. You can quote everything in the world but that doesn't mean I'll agree. Personally, I think it's a stretch to call what they are doing matters of public import. I also don't believe what they are saying falls under peaceful. These people have a right to a peaceful funeral for their loved ones. I wonder why their rights are protected?

And like I said, I respect your right to your opinion, even though I disagree with it.

But frankly, I fail to see how WB's protest, however hateful and unChristian I think they might be, wouldn't be considered peaceful. In the context of a protest/free speech matter, peaceful means "not violent."

I agree that the bereaved have a right to a peaceful funeral. That is a significant moral and ethical right. But it is not a constitutional right. Free speech, on the other hand, is.

What they are doing isn't peaceful. They are methodically and purposefully harassing people. I'm really surprised it doesn't fall under hate speech. Violence can be more than physical in my opinion. What they are doing is mentally violent. There might be a claim that this is freedom of speech, but I think it goes too far. The constitution also addresses "domestic tranquility." These families definitely don't get tranquility.

I repeatedly stated that this is my opinion to make the point that I'm not trying to debate the US Constitution. While I'm sure if I really felt the need I could quote this or that to make a point, that's not what I'm getting at. I'm just stating my opinion on the matter. I think there should be some way to stop them. Period.

I already said how we stop them. We (including the media) need to ignore them. Attention is what drives them. We are all guilty of feeding this beast.

I get that. Really, I do. I'm just pointing out that your opinion is does not reflect the way the First Amendment is interpreted by the courts. While you very well may hold the opinion that the First Amendment should be interpreted differently, the reality is that it is not. And in my opinion, it's a cop-out to say "I'm stating my opinion, not debating the Constitution." You're stating your opinion about a constitutional right. Own it and go for it.

My opinion is that it is a good thing the First Amendment isn't interpreted consistently with your opinion. A right of free speech that fails to include speech the majority finds deeply offensive is a meaningless right.

And by the way, as for it not being considered hate speech, laws criminalizing hate speech are unconstitutional, because they violate the First Amendment.

Exactly.

Besides all the other stuff you said, which I of course agree with because you're MC and awesome, I REALLY agree with this (as do our courts). The anti-hate speech laws in Europe don't really end up feeling all that different from anti-blasphemy laws elsewhere. I'd rather suffer through WBC and Neo Nazi groups and the like than ban speech.

http://images.wikia.com/cybernations...nquisition.jpg

Nobody expects the Spanish inquisition!

Having never lived through this sort of thing we just can't comprehend how incredibly awful the concept of having things you SAY be a CRIME really is. I'll take WBC making idiots of themselves any day.

:) I'm all for Free Speech.

As long as WBC doesn't yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater, call an NIC fraternity a "frat," or call their country a "cunt."

So WBC also protested in front of Arlington National Cemetery yesterday and in addition to the usual counter protesters, the Ku Klux Klan was there to protest them (WBC).

Hate vs. Hate - It was like watching WWE Smackdown in a parallel universe or something.

I don't know if you ever read the book Virgins, but something like this happens - the book is set in the 1950s and basically the neo-nazis and communists end up whaling on each other. (It is a humorous novel.)

See, I object to that because it should be calling your country a 'count' or possibly a 'cou' but you can't just drop a letter to try and sound witty.

Silly frat boys with their silly sayings.

I knowwwwwww. Yay for the First Amendment.