Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Anonymous takes on WBC again
- Thread starter kanonfodr
- Start date
Link Removed
holyground.net is a guide to local places of worship. It lists WBC's congregation size as "26-50" under the picture of the building with the "God hates fags" sign.
Wow, wish I knew about this thread earlier. I've been following this whole thing as its been developing on Twitter.
I don't use Twitter...anything new happening? I know they got a death certificate in the spokeswoman's name...her credit is ruined
Peace,
Greg
Turning hate speech in canada into insidious subterfuge.
I'd rather know who and where the nut-bars are rather than have them sneak up on me .
To those who say 'it's just words - freedom of speech' yadda yadda - it's a bit more than that when they are at a soldier's funeral with family in attendance, jeering and waving signs saying 'God hates you - he deserved to die' etc.
Call it a slippery slope if you want, but I think most reasonable people, including most of the posters in this thread, the 'majority,' wouldn't mind seeing some kind of restriction applied to this particular form of 'expression.' Some things are simply, obviously, undeniably 'wrong.'
Call it a slippery slope if you want, but I think most reasonable people, including most of the posters in this thread, the 'majority,' wouldn't mind seeing some kind of restriction applied to this particular form of 'expression.' Some things are simply, obviously, undeniably 'wrong.'
I agree. Thats why I picket across the street from these types with even better signs.
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.
The media can ignore them (and should), but Id imagine its not quite so easy when youre putting your loved ones in the ground and have to hear "God hates fags", especially so when they say that your loved ones died because of such tripe.
didn't read the whole thread (disclaimer)
i thought the first amendment protects speech from government interference, not from unpopular opinion...
and, as you and others have pointed out, there are legal limits even on that right from governmental interference.
on the flip side, i'm sure many people get 'muzzled' in the u.s. wbc just has really effective attorneys.
i thought the first amendment protects speech from government interference, not from unpopular opinion...
and, as you and others have pointed out, there are legal limits even on that right from governmental interference.
on the flip side, i'm sure many people get 'muzzled' in the u.s. wbc just has really effective attorneys.
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.
I'm always disappointed when I see Americans calling for the enactment of laws that would enable the prosecution of someone for their thoughts. It does not bode well for the country, I'm afraid.
True democracy is a messy business and there is nothing in the Constitution guaranteeing your freedom from discomfort. I do not have to love you but I do have to respect your constitutional rights. In exchange for that, you have to do the same for me. That's how it is supposed to work. This is especially true if we detest each other's thoughts.
True democracy is a messy business and there is nothing in the Constitution guaranteeing your freedom from discomfort. I do not have to love you but I do have to respect your constitutional rights. In exchange for that, you have to do the same for me. That's how it is supposed to work. This is especially true if we detest each other's thoughts.
no, it's not "a bit more than that"...it's exactly that...you just don't like it. you want to characterize it as different because you really, really, realley (see above) don't like it....you you want to say it's something it's not. these people are no different than union people picketing and shouting...they just have different targets.
the majority...hmmmm...well, i guess the "majority's always right...right?
the majority of Germans thought it was just great what the nazis proposed (and did) to the jews.
the majority of southerners were A-OK with segregation, and the vile treatment of black americans.
the majority of the English thought establishment of a state religion was just fine and it was OK to tax all other religions,
the majority of muslims think the same way as above, NOW.
the majority of people in the 16th century thought it was fine to burn suspected witches.
the majority of people now want the freedom to practice their own religion.
up until very recently, the majority of americans thought persecution of gay individuals (and anti-homosexual laws) were great.
that is why the constitution and it's protections exist...to shield unpopular minorities from the whims of the majority.
you obviously have not read what i have posted, so i will give it to you again in a nutshell:
who decides what speech to ban...government bureaucrats, right? i don't trust 'em.
it is indeed a slippery slope...once the majority is allowed to run roughshod, who is to say where it will end?
you either believe in free speech or you don't...and if we take it away from these kooks, watch out...you may find yourself on the receiving end before very long...and you will have given the government the right to do it, yourself...after all, you, yourself, said it was acceptable to muzzle other's free speech....why should you be an exception?
Its a common misconception to treat freedom of speech as something absolute. Freedom of speech ends where it infringes upon the rights of others, for example the right to not be discriminated against because of race, religion, gender etc.
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, its basic human rights.
How far this applies to WBC everyone can form their own opinion.
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, its basic human rights.
How far this applies to WBC everyone can form their own opinion.
no, it's not "a bit more than that"...it's exactly that...you just don't like it. you want to characterize it as different because you really, really, realley (see above) don't like it....you you want to say it's something it's not. these people are no different than union people picketing and shouting...they just have different targets.
the majority...hmmmm...well, i guess the "majority's always right...right?
the majority of Germans thought it was just great what the nazis proposed (and did) to the jews.
the majority of southerners were A-OK with segregation, and the vile treatment of black americans.
the majority of the English thought establishment of a state religion was just fine and it was OK to tax all other religions,
the majority of muslims think the same way as above, NOW.
the majority of people in the 16th century thought it was fine to burn suspected witches.
the majority of people now want the freedom to practice their own religion.
up until very recently, the majority of americans thought persecution of gay individuals (and anti-homosexual laws) were great.
that is why the constitution and it's protections exist...to shield unpopular minorities from the whims of the majority.
you obviously have not read what i have posted, so i will give it to you again in a nutshell:
who decides what speech to ban...government bureaucrats, right? i don't trust 'em.
it is indeed a slippery slope...once the majority is allowed to run roughshod, who is to say where it will end?
you either believe in free speech or you don't...and if we take it away from these kooks, watch out...you may find yourself on the receiving end before very long...and you will have given the government the right to do it, yourself...after all, you, yourself, said it was acceptable to muzzle other's free speech....why should you be an exception?
Well said. Are you reading my thoughts and then typing them more eloquently than I could?
In this case, I agree with the "ignore it and it will eventually go away" plan of action
Anonymous and the like taking action against these guys would serve to further bolster their faith that they are somehow doing "The Lord's work"
The funniest thing to me is that the KKK was planning to counter-protest. The KKK(!) saying "Come on guys, have a heart and quit being a ****head" The end is surely nigh
Not really.
You're civilly liable in slander cases - and truth is an absolute defense as well as "public figures" being subject to "parody" being a defense.
An individual is perfectly within their legal rights to insult anyone they'd like or racially discriminate.
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.
+1 to this. However, if the WBC members begin "disappearing" one by one, will anyone go looking for them?
These people need to be dealt with on a community based level. I actually find myself holding back what I actually want to say feeling as if I'd bring myself to their level, but, I truly want this particular group to go away.
Leave the government out of it. Let a few former Marines and soldiers deal with them. This country guarantees freedom of speech. However, there are consequences for what you are free to say.
