Anonymous takes on WBC again

[kanonfodr]

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/we-w...hook-funerals/

YEEEEE HAWWWW!!!!

Peace,
Greg

[Topspin]

This should be good.

[Lady Kayri]

In this case, go Anonymous!

I have come to the conclusion that the WBC follows the words of Satan, not God, though.

[i_got_a_mohawk]

I suspect it's more a case of following an angry and abusive old man, having been beaten into submission through childhood.

As someone who doesn't hold a religious faith, I don't see the WBC as a religious entity.

[Eric Perry]

I love this!

[kjpollo]

The first funerals are today for 2 of the children. I wonder if these monsters will dare to show up.

This is WAY out of character for me, but if some guys showed up and laid a beat down on them, I'd be cheering loud and long.

My heart is still hurting and for ANYONE to turn this into their own soapbox makes me utterly sick. Those people are nearly as f'ed up as the shooter. (notice I said NEARLY)

[Lonesomedave]

let me play devil's advocate for a moment...

while I deplore what WBC have done in the past, and what they said they are going to do in the future...what they have done is just words. in other words, SPEECH.

the first amendment exists to protect the unpopular opinion, the popular one doesn't need protection.

what anonymous has done is go to the government, in order to shut down someone else's free speech... i hope they are not successful.

if we can unilaterally declare someone not to have constitutional rights because we don't like what they say, we may all wake up one day to find someone doesn't like what WE have to say, and can muzzle us.

this is a slippery slope, and to wish violence upon the wbc or to try and silence them legally, i feel, would be a grave mistake.

[Clark Dark]

These people at the WBC are the worst kind of human floaters I've ever seen. I hope Anonymous utterly destroys them.

[iamlowsound]

Originally Posted by Lonesomedave

let me play devil's advocate for a moment...

while I deplore what WBC have done in the past, and what they said they are going to do in the future...what they have done is just words. in other words, SPEECH.

the first amendment exists to protect the unpopular opinion, the popular one doesn't need protection.

what anonymous has done is go to the government, in order to shut down someone else's free speech... i hope they are not successful.

if we can unilaterally declare someone not to have constitutional rights because we don't like what they say, we may all wake up one day to find someone doesn't like what WE have to say, and can muzzle us.

this is a slippery slope, and to wish violence upon the wbc or to try and silence them legally, i feel, would be a grave mistake.

Does the First Amendment protect hate speech? Because in Canada, our right to free speech doesn't protect hate speech.

lowsound

[Lonesomedave]

Originally Posted by iamlowsound

Does the First Amendment protect hate speech? Because in Canada, our right to free speech doesn't protect hate speech.

lowsound

the first amendment protects ALL speech, with only very limited exceptions...the classic example being to shout "fire" in a crowded theater when, in fact, there is no fire.

what is hate speech, and who defines it? i think once you allow that exception, and give some government official the right to say who can say what, you have jumped off the cliff and there is no more free speech.

[dmusic148]

Originally Posted by kjpollo

The first funerals are today for 2 of the children. I wonder if these monsters will dare to show up.

This is WAY out of character for me, but if some guys showed up and laid a beat down on them, I'd be cheering loud and long.

I'm just down the road. If they do show up, you might see me on the news tonight. I'm not having it.

[kjpollo]

Originally Posted by dmusic148

I'm just down the road. If they do show up, you might see me on the news tonight. I'm not having it.

One of the funerals was down in Fairfield, I'm not sure about the other one.

[Unprofessional]

Originally Posted by Lonesomedave

... what is hate speech, and who defines it? i think once you allow that exception, and give some government official the right to say who can say what, you have jumped off the cliff and there is no more free speech.

You are correct, sir. Nothing is free. Tolerating loudmouth $$$holes is the price we pay for having the First Amendment.

[Eric Perry]

Following reports of some of the Occupy movements (along with several other things I won't mention here), it appears that our free speech has become quite selective.

[hrodbert696]

Westboro Baptist has a total membership of about 40 people, not some megachurch with thousands of members. My small-town presbyterian church is over twice their size. They are really not significant. The only thing that makes them even vaguely significant is the attention that the media and the internet heaps on them. This is an obvious case of "if you just ignore them, they will go away." All the attention, however, negative, only encourages them. How about if you all take the pledge to be the first, and ignore any and all news involving them?

[steamthief]

Originally Posted by Lonesomedave

the first amendment protects ALL speech, with only very limited exceptions...the classic example being to shout "fire" in a crowded theater when, in fact, there is no fire.

what is hate speech, and who defines it? i think once you allow that exception, and give some government official the right to say who can say what, you have jumped off the cliff and there is no more free speech.

WBC is free to say what they like, but it doesn't negate the fact that some speech begs for an ass-whipping.

[SBsoundguy]

WBC is free to say what they want but the first amendment doesn't protect them from the consequences of them exercising that right.

[iamlowsound]

Originally Posted by Lonesomedave

the first amendment protects ALL speech, with only very limited exceptions...the classic example being to shout "fire" in a crowded theater when, in fact, there is no fire.

what is hate speech, and who defines it? i think once you allow that exception, and give some government official the right to say who can say what, you have jumped off the cliff and there is no more free speech.

This is how it works in Canada, and it seems to work very well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_Canada

lowsound

[Munjibunga]

Originally Posted by Lonesomedave

let me play devil's advocate for a moment...

while I deplore what WBC have done in the past, and what they said they are going to do in the future...what they have done is just words. in other words, SPEECH.

the first amendment exists to protect the unpopular opinion, the popular one doesn't need protection.

what anonymous has done is go to the government, in order to shut down someone else's free speech... i hope they are not successful.

if we can unilaterally declare someone not to have constitutional rights because we don't like what they say, we may all wake up one day to find someone doesn't like what WE have to say, and can muzzle us.

this is a slippery slope, and to wish violence upon the wbc or to try and silence them legally, i feel, would be a grave mistake.

Hate speech, to be exact. I'd take a chance on losing a little freedom of speech to shut them up.

[Munjibunga]

1.

Originally Posted by steamthief

WBC is free to say what they like, but it doesn't negate the fact that some speech begs for an ass-whipping.

2.

Originally Posted by SBsoundguy

WBC is free to say what they want but the first amendment doesn't protect them from the consequences of them exercising that right.

Number 2 is the politically correct way of saying what Number 1 said. Number 1 is what Number 2 is really thinking.