warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
For the same reason it's illegal to "disturb the peace"
Snyder v. Phelps Decided
- Thread starter Moss
- Start date
For the same reason it's illegal to "disturb the peace"
Formaldehyde
Both Fair And Balanced
Did the protestors in Egypt "disturb the peace"?
From your sig:
"We will not be silenced, whether you're a Christian, whether you're a Muslim, whether you're an atheist, you will demand your goddamn rights, and we will have our rights, one way or another! We will never be silenced!" - A protester in Egypt
From your sig:
"We will not be silenced, whether you're a Christian, whether you're a Muslim, whether you're an atheist, you will demand your goddamn rights, and we will have our rights, one way or another! We will never be silenced!" - A protester in Egypt
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
Unless your advocating the WBC overthrow the government in its bid to establish its beliefs as opposed to working within the confines of it......wth does Egypt have to do with this topic?
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
Yes, what they did was illegal. So? What the hell does this have to do with Egypt?
Formaldehyde
Both Fair And Balanced
Why are essentially the same people so frequently opposed to their own constitution? Hasn't this now been "proven" by the Supremes?
It certainly wouldn't be "illegal" in this country to protest. They demanded their "rights" even though they apparently didn't even exist at the time, and still don't.
How can you approve their protests and be so opposed to these? Shouldn't Americans, and even Canadians, have the same "rights" you apparently find so vital for Egyptians to have?
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
Westboro doesn't protest, they harass.
Whiskey_Lord
Deity
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2008
- Messages
- 2,163
Phelps is a slippery little snake. He knows about law enough so that what he does never counts as harassment legally. It's still harassment in principle though.
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
Are you implying that the members of the WBC are somehow equative to Egyptians wanting to be rid of a dictator?
What the hell kind of analogy are you trying to draw here?
Formaldehyde
Both Fair And Balanced
How is it harassment to lawfully stand on public land at one location and peacefully protest, instead of continually following someone around or acting in a similar manner?
Did you ever have a problem with Phelps "harassing" gays at all in similar ways until he decided to target the families of victims of the recent wars?
Are you still trying to flex that absurd strawman by deliberately quote mining my comments?
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
Its not a strawman, but a request for you to make sense out of the gibberish your're writing. If you refuse to do so, so be it, but Warpus and others are wondering what this has to do with the OP as well. If you want to explain how it does go for it. But if you would rather cry about us asking such tough questions, and call everything a strawman or personal attack, fine, you just did that. No need to carry it on any further.
Formaldehyde
Both Fair And Balanced
Nobody else seems to have a problem with it, especially after I specifically clarified what I meant. Perhaps it is yet again due to your continual attempts to deliberate misterpret my comments?
And what about you? Do you agree with the Supremes "proving" that this was quite constitutional and legal for them to do? Don't you now completely support Phelps in these endeavors since you have specifically sworn to uphold and defend that same Constitution? Doesn't your sense of "law and order" demand that you do so?
Or would you again prefer to try discussing me instead of the actual topic, as you so frequently do?
Never knew you were a PC leftist.
Decided correctly. These speech cases are always funny to me as everyone is appalled that we protect the speech of Nazis and racists and various other scum. That’s the point of the 1st amendment, you don’t need protection to express the view that kittens are cute. You better be very careful with the notion of hate speech because there is a lot of it on the air and it is almost exclusively right wing.
Formaldehyde
Both Fair And Balanced
That's a very good point. If the US ever did amend the Constitution to make the First Amendment no longer cover "hate speech", as so many other ostensibly free countries have done, it would basically wreck the far-right while causing little or no harm to anybody else.
Just look at whom England is now trying to keep out. It is the bigots, the racists, and the religious fanatics who advocate hatemongering.
And look at what would likely happen to Fox News. They would probably be beseiged with lawsuits claiming they were violating the rights of various groups while advocating hatred towards them. Glenn Beck would be on the phone with his attorneys constantly, and so would all the other talking heads.
Just look at whom England is now trying to keep out. It is the bigots, the racists, and the religious fanatics who advocate hatemongering.
And look at what would likely happen to Fox News. They would probably be beseiged with lawsuits claiming they were violating the rights of various groups while advocating hatred towards them. Glenn Beck would be on the phone with his attorneys constantly, and so would all the other talking heads.
NickyJ
Retired Narrator
You are incorrect in assuming nobody else cares. For example, I myself still have yet to be shown how being disrespectful at soldiers' funerals has anything to do with Egyptians. Care to actually explain?
So looking at the obvious implications you are making, and then asking how you draw that conclusion is "deliberate misinterpretation"?
Huh?
Mr. Dictator
A Chain-Smoking Fox
Why have principles if they're not stood by?
Free speech wins again.
Free speech wins again.
Yes, I know it is... though I don't think a broad based hate speech amendment would pass. I think a narrowly defined amendment which protected funerals would have less trouble becoming a new amendment. Virtually everyone in this country hates the WBC.
Similar threads
- Locked
