Anonymous takes on WBC again

[Solarmist]

Originally Posted by Bloodhammer

I never thought I'd see the day that WBC would be considered heroes of free speech...

^ They're not, and nobody said that.

[Lonesomedave]

Originally Posted by Bloodhammer

I never thought I'd see the day that WBC would be considered heroes of free speech...

i can't speak for anybody else, but i don't consider them heroes of anything....i consider them kooks...a very small number of kooks.

but being kooky does not deprive you of your right to free speech.

and i am still waiting for an answer to the questions i posed in my last post.

[Bloodhammer]

Well, given the inherent contentiousness of a TBOT thread, it could be construed that way.

[Simo98]

Originally Posted by MatticusMania

Could it be that WBC protesting at these funerals borders on the line of harassment?
Sure, their right to speech and assembly is constitutional, but what about the families being harassed as they try to bury their loved ones?
Its easy enough for us to ignore them, but a lot less so for the families of soldiers and murdered children, Im sure.

Certainly. Take legal measures to protect yourself in that case, get a restraining order or have them charged for harassment.

I'd just hold the funeral in a private place, where they can be denied entry with ease, rather than having a public funeral. Seems like a fairly easy fix

Originally Posted by MaHei

Think about it: You are punishable by law for slander, insult, racial discrimination and much more. Will appealing freedom of speech save your ass? Nope. This has nothing to do with government and majority opinion, it’s basic human rights.

Exactly. You still have the right to say what you want, just if you're even remotely intelligent you'll watch what you say.

[Rockin Mike]

Originally Posted by Lonesomedave

where have they done that? i asked this question before and got no answer. if they HAVE done it, you are quite correct....threats, either spoken or implied are not protected (at least that is my understanding).

so, HAVE they threatened anyone? please point it out to me, because i do not believe they have. i think this is just a red herring to shut them up. if i am wrong, i will apologize.



ps-edit....it's not like they haven't done this before. they have been protesting at soldier's funerals for years (at least, that is my understanding)....have they committed any acts of violence. i have not heard of any. they just peacefully protest...maybe shouting, but, hey, ALL protesters do that. can anybody point me to ANY acts of violence, or threats of violence anywhere in this group's history....lots of threats have been directed at them, but i don't know of any coming FROM them.

In my opinion picketing a funeral is an act of intimidation. They are not demonstrating in a public place to make their opinions known to the general public. They selected their location in order to cause fear in the attendees. Their words are inflammatory. Mentally unstable people have been led to commit ugly acts by this kind of talk. It is intended to frighten innocent folks and put people at risk.

WBC is skilled at walking the fine line between what's legal and what's not. They won a case allowing them to protest at military funerals. I will bet they would lose a case around the right to protest at civilian funerals. Those are private affairs.

You can pretty much protest the government. They can defend themselves, but when innocent folks are targeted who have neither the desire to enter conflict nor the resources to defend themselves... If it's not the role of government to defend the innocent then I'm not sure it has any role at all.

[Bloodhammer]

I'm not trying to prove Godwin's Law, but was anybody else reminded of this scene from The Blues Brothers?

Illinois Nazis

[Lonesomedave]

Originally Posted by Rockin Mike

In my opinion picketing a funeral is an act of intimidation. They are not demonstrating in a public place to make their opinions known to the general public. They selected their location in order to cause fear in the attendees. Their words are inflammatory. Mentally unstable people have been led to commit ugly acts by this kind of talk. It is intended to frighten innocent folks and put people at risk.

WBC is skilled at walking the fine line between what's legal and what's not. They won a case allowing them to protest at military funerals. I will bet they would lose a case around the right to protest at civilian funerals. Those are private affairs.

You can pretty much protest the government. They can defend themselves, but when innocent folks are targeted who have neither the desire to enter conflict nor the resources to defend themselves... If it's not the role of government to defend the innocent then I'm not sure it has any role at all.

so, after all is said and done, your answer seems to be "no, they haven't, but i still don't like what they're doing"

hey, I don't like it either, but what we personally may like or dislike is not what the law says.

one could use the "act of intimidation" to stop union protestors. they are, after all picketing a PRIVATE company. i don't think the law makes any distinction between protesting a public entity and a private one. just as the union has the right to do what it does, so do these people have right to do what they do.

by your logic, any protest at all could be an "act of intimidation"... face it, by their kooky logic, the US is being punished for (i think) allowing gay rights, and they see any misfortunes at all, upon any citizen of America, as being God's divine punishment. they are KOOKS!

but that does not strip them of constitutional rights. they have the right to assemble and peacefully protest, and unless you can show me different (and i am open to receiving evidence), i will continue to believe their protests are peaceful.

[VitalSigns]

1st amendment rights allow you free speech from the government NOT from your fellow citizens.

Moving on...

[VitalSigns]

Taken directly from twitter:


@YourAnonNews: #YAN #YAN Motel 6 Hartford - Southington, 625 Queen Street, Southington, CT 06489 #occupynewtown #opwestboro room 34 and 16 confirmed rally


A rally has started and apparently a bunch of pizzas got ordered to their rooms!

[Lonesomedave]

Originally Posted by VitalSigns

Taken directly from twitter:


@YourAnonNews: #YAN #YAN Motel 6 Hartford - Southington, 625 Queen Street, Southington, CT 06489 #occupynewtown #opwestboro room 34 and 16 confirmed rally


A rally has started and apparently a bunch of pizzas got ordered to their rooms!

so, am i to understand that THEY didn't order these pizzas...just askin', cause it seems if they didn't, the Pizza place has just suffered a total loss.....hmmmmm.

[beggar98]

You guys are getting all bent out of shape for nothing. Being officially recognized as a "hate group" does not limit anyone's speech. In fact, there is no law regarding hate groups in the United States, nor is there a way to "legally" recognize any organization as a hate group. No one's First Amendment rights are at risk.

[VitalSigns]

Originally Posted by beggar98

You guys are getting all bent out of shape for nothing. Being officially recognized as a "hate group" does not limit anyone's speech. In fact, there is no law regarding hate groups in the United States, nor is there a way to "legally" recognize any organization as a hate group. No one's First Amendment rights are at risk.

There was a petition to recognize them as a hate group. Like you said I don't think there's anything in the law that defines a "hate group." Still, the petition got over 100,000 signatures.

[NWB]

Originally Posted by VitalSigns

1st amendment rights allow you free speech from the government NOT from your fellow citizens.

Moving on...

Very good point sir.

Without resorting to the least bit of violence, I could easily come up with all sorts of ideas to make their lives fairly unpleasant.

I'll wait to post anything just yet, but I'm sure my fellow TB brethren could provide some interesting ideas in this regard.

[LiquidMidnight]

Originally Posted by Lonesomedave

one could use the "act of intimidation" to stop union protestors. they are, after all picketing a PRIVATE company. i don't think the law makes any distinction between protesting a public entity and a private one. just as the union has the right to do what it does, so do these people have right to do what they do.

I'm not really sure if this is a specific incident you're talking about, but union's rights are guaranteed by the NLRA, not the Constitution. Those rights also come with stipulations. If the union violates said stipulations (e.g., secondary boycotts), it can get a visit from the regional NLRB office and might get slapped with an unfair labor practice and injunction from a judge.

[Lonesomedave]

Originally Posted by LiquidMidnight

I'm not really sure if this is a specific incident you're talking about, but union's rights are guaranteed by the NLRA, not the Constitution. Those rights also come with stipulations. If the union violates said stipulations (e.g., secondary boycotts), it can get a visit from the regional NLRB office and might get slapped with an unfair labor practice and injunction from a judge.

actually, while you are basically correct, their rights are guaranteed by the Constitution, and regulated (as are management's) by the NLRA. and, no, not talking about a specific incident, just making the point that private individuals/companies can and do get protesters all the time.

[LiquidMidnight]

Well, if you really want to split hairs, Section 7 rights are guaranteed by the Constitution insofar that the NLRA was ruled as Constitutional in 1937 as being related to interstate commerce, which was pertinent to the oversight of the federal government. However, labor relations speech is regulated by the NLRA. Employers can have ULPs filed against them for saying certain things or for restricting employees' expression of pro-union sentiments - but even that isn't black and white.

My point being, it's not as simple as "absolute free speech," particularly when it comes to the union analogy.

[Lonesomedave]

Originally Posted by LiquidMidnight

Well, if you really want to split hairs, Section 7 rights are guaranteed by the Constitution insofar that the NLRA was ruled as Constitutional in 1937 as being related to interstate commerce, which was pertinent to the oversight of the federal government. However, labor relations speech is regulated by the NLRA. Employers can have ULPs filed against them for saying certain things or for restricting employees' expression of pro-union sentiments - but even that isn't black and white.

My point being, it's not as simple as "absolute free speech," particularly when it comes to the union analogy.

wasn't trying to say so...there is no absolute right to free speech for anyone (and i know you know this)...you can't shout fire in a crowded theater if there is no fire for example.

i was using the analogy to counter the point made by some there is some kind of clear distinction between protesting what the government does and protesting private individuals.

there is a basic right to free speech and that includes the right to protest things, be they government or private.

[LiquidMidnight]

Ahh gotcha, but my point was that it's actually an NLRA distinction rather than a Constitutional distiction.

[kanonfodr]

Originally Posted by Lonesomedave

so, am i to understand that THEY didn't order these pizzas...just askin', cause it seems if they didn't, the Pizza place has just suffered a total loss.....hmmmmm.

We can always hope they were attained legally, or at the very least at the expense of the WBC.

Originally Posted by beggar98

You guys are getting all bent out of shape for nothing. Being officially recognized as a "hate group" does not limit anyone's speech. In fact, there is no law regarding hate groups in the United States, nor is there a way to "legally" recognize any organization as a hate group. No one's First Amendment rights are at risk.

Originally Posted by VitalSigns

There was a petition to recognize them as a hate group. Like you said I don't think there's anything in the law that defines a "hate group." Still, the petition got over 100,000 signatures.

Defining them as a Hate Group would remove their govt Tax Free status, and we can always hope that the gubment will also make it retroactive to their first recognized act of hatred. That will put a dent in their plans while they are paying a few million bucks.

Originally Posted by NWB

Very good point sir.

Without resorting to the least bit of violence, I could easily come up with all sorts of ideas to make their lives fairly unpleasant.

I'll wait to post anything just yet, but I'm sure my fellow TB brethren could provide some interesting ideas in this regard.

Well I was hoping that Anonymous' PII release would have included a few Socials, I guess only the inner circle gets those. What's been stumping me is how to make their life painful without much cost to anyone else. And I want it to be really upsetting...like so horrified you can't look away. But I'm also worried about putting a big burden on the postal system.

Anyone got any ideas? I though about Adam & Eve catalogs...not sure what else I could do.

Peace,
Greg

[Lonesomedave]

Originally Posted by kanonfodr

We can always hope they were attained legally, or at the very least at the expense of the WBC....

well... that was sort of my point...if the WBC did not order those pizzas, they are under no obligation to pay for them...soooo...if whoever DID order them doesn't come forward (yeah right)...the pizza place is going to be out a whole bunch of money.

wonder if Anonymous thought of that?