Anonymous takes on WBC again

[Deleted member 92857]

well, if it happens, just hope you remain in the popular majority. if you do, no problem. if not...well, you just might find that what YOU have to say is not looked upon so great one of these days.

as it were..."when they came for the jews, i said nothing, because i wasn't a jew, blah, blah...when they came for me, there wasn't anybody left to say anything."

personally, i won't willingly give up any of my rights to government. they can't seem to do anything else right. why trust them to know which speech to ban?

I agree with you in principle, Lonesomedave, but I think funerals should have some kind of exception. Maybe the cemetery and surrounding blocks could be considered private property for the duration of the service or something of that nature. People need privacy and room and conditions to grieve. I'd put it in the same catagory as shouting fire in a crowded theater. I'm OK if my right to free speech is temporarily suspended for funerals. It's kind of sad that it comes to that. But if people abuse their freedom (i.e. crime) they lose their freedom. Disrupting a funeral is, by most standards of decency, an abuse of freedom of speech. If one who does so loses their freedom of speech due to abuse, they get what they deserve.

On a similar note, I was really pissed at the media trying to get shots of the parents who lost children in their first moments of grief. Hopefully, there is s special place in hell for the media types who do this.

 

[::::BASSIST::::]

I am usually a person who tries to be peaceful, but in the case of WBC I'd make an exception.

My plan would be a combination of the following:

1. Drive by every 3 minutes with either a train horn or ferry boat horn (in the back of a truck) and give them a good blast.

2. Use paint guns to shoot their signs to make them unreadable.

3. Intimidate them with 50 bikers with loud motorcycles revving their engines and drowning them out.

To me, its something worth getting arrested for.

 

[LiquidMidnight]

I agree with you in principle, Lonesomedave, but I think funerals should have some kind of exception. Maybe the cemetery and surrounding blocks could be considered private property for the duration of the service or something of that nature. People need privacy and room and conditions to grieve. I'd put it in the same catagory as shouting fire in a crowded theater. I'm OK if my right to free speech is temporarily suspended for funerals. It's kind of sad that it comes to that. But if people abuse their freedom (i.e. crime) they lose their freedom. Disrupting a funeral is, by most standards of decency, an abuse of freedom of speech. If one who does so loses their freedom of speech due to abuse, they get what they deserve.

Hey now! This is TB OT! We won't have any of that reasonableness garbage here.

 

[Solarmist]

a step in what right direction?

i thought they had only used speech... have they used violence or threatened anybody? please correct me if i am wrong.

but, you say, dave, this is different...we really, really, really, really (ad infinitum) disagree with what they say. this is different than simply disagreeing with what they say. we REALLY disagree with what they say.

so, if we declare them a "hate group" (whatever that means), we can then strip away their constitutional rights?

i hate to say this, because i feel a very special bond toward the participants here in TB, but i am much more afraid of the mob mentality that i see here than i am of a small fringe group of kooks...however offensive their use of the first amendment rights is.

violence and/or the use of legal apparatus to silence those with whom we disagree is NEVER the answer, and if we succumb to the temptation to use it on these folks, watch out...it is coming soon to a mouth near you...perhaps your own.

Yes Dave - you're absolutely right, and I too usually agree with your viewpoints, but if I saw those loonies protesting those poor kids funerals - I would have a very strong urge to go after them. What an outrage - they have no concern for what those poor families have gone through, and what they will go through for the rest of their lives.

~David Lee

 

[David Jayne]

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.

You've GOT to be joking.
Lose a loved one to violence, get harassed by them in the manner I've described, and then get back to us, won't you?

 

[Batmensch]

I am usually a person who tries to be peaceful, but in the case of WBC I'd make an exception.

My plan would be a combination of the following:

1. Drive by every 3 minutes with either a train horn or ferry boat horn (in the back of a truck) and give them a good blast.

2. Use paint guns to shoot their signs to make them unreadable.

3. Intimidate them with 50 bikers with loud motorcycles revving their engines and drowning them out.

To me, its something worth getting arrested for.

And then you would have fallen for their scam. Basically they are being deliberately obnoxious in hopes of provoking some idiot (no offense) to go after them like that, and then they sue their behinds off. This comes straight from estranged family members who had enough with all the scam-boogery. This is why I don't believe this is a matter of protected speech.

 

[sloasdaylight]

You've GOT to be joking.
Lose a loved one to violence, get harassed by them in the manner I've described, and then get back to us, won't you?

Emotion should not factor into law making.

 

[Deleted member 92857]

Emotion should not factor into law making.

But right, wrong, and basic human decency should.

 

[Rockin Mike]

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.

The checkpoint here is whether the speech is causing harm or risk to someone. If the speech makes someone a victim or potential victim, it's not so good.

Saying you don't like redheads, legal.
Advocating that redheads should be beaten, ostracized, or otherwise harmed, not legal.

Presenting a product for sale, legal.
Fraudulently misrepresenting the product to victimize customers, not legal.

Peaceful protest in neutral territory on a neutral day, legal.
Protest at a place or time chosen to incite trouble, not legal.

So, it's situational and has to do with harm done and/or intention to cause harm.

When WBC pickets a funeral it intends to cause emotional harm to the invited attendees, hoping to get attention by luring an opposing group into conflict, and attempting to silence others by intimidation.

"Live and Let Live" is not an opinion which is open to opposition and debate in the forum of free speech. As the principle on which free speech is founded is IS the forum of free speech. When you allow hatespeakers to intimidate others, you lose free speech itself.

 

[sloasdaylight]

But right, wrong, and basic human decency should.

Your idea of basic human decency, right, and wrong may very well be different from mine. What you consider right might be something I consider wrong, and vice-versa.

Slavery was "right", until it wasn't.
Interracial marriage was "wrong" until it wasn't.
Homosexuality was "wrong" until it wasn't.
The list of things that were right or wrong at one point in time and no longer are goes on and on and on and on.

WBC has a right to say what they want, and if I understand correctly, follows through with all the legal mumbo-jumbo they need to in order to do so, like obtaining a permit and the like if I remember properly. You and I may not like it, but that doesn't mean they don't have a right to voice their opinion.

 

[sloasdaylight]

The checkpoint here is whether the speech is causing harm or risk to someone. If the speech makes someone a victim or potential victim, it's not so good.

Saying you don't like redheads, legal.
Advocating that redheads should be beaten, ostracized, or otherwise harmed, not legal.

Presenting a product for sale, legal.
Fraudulently misrepresenting the product to victimize customers, not legal.

Peaceful protest in neutral territory on a neutral day, legal.
Protest at a place or time chosen to incite trouble, not legal.

So, it's situational and has to do with harm done and/or intention to cause harm.

When WBC pickets a funeral it intends to cause emotional harm to the invited attendees, hoping to get attention by luring an opposing group into conflict, and attempting to silence others by intimidation.

"Live and Let Live" is not an opinion which is open to opposition and debate in the forum of free speech. As the principle on which free speech is founded is IS the forum of free speech. When you allow hatespeakers to intimidate others, you lose free speech itself.

As long as the government is not backing the hatespeakers, then no, you don't. The students at Texas A&M proved this extraordinarily well when they formed a human wall against the WBC protesting a funeral of a soldier. The students exercised their right to peacefully assemble in protest of the WBC. Free Speech worked. People in CT should take a lesson from them, and do the same. Fight WBC by using the same freedom they're abusing.

 

[VitalSigns]

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

They're spokeswoman's twitter (@DearShirley I think) was hacked and its now suspended. Every member of church has been d0xed.

 

[NWB]

a step in what right direction?

i thought they had only used speech... have they used violence or threatened anybody? please correct me if i am wrong.

but, you say, dave, this is different...we really, really, really, really (ad infinitum) disagree with what they say. this is different than simply disagreeing with what they say. we REALLY disagree with what they say.

so, if we declare them a "hate group" (whatever that means), we can then strip away their constitutional rights?

i hate to say this, because i feel a very special bond toward the participants here in TB, but i am much more afraid of the mob mentality that i see here than i am of a small fringe group of kooks...however offensive their use of the first amendment rights is.

violence and/or the use of legal apparatus to silence those with whom we disagree is NEVER the answer, and if we succumb to the temptation to use it on these folks, watch out...it is coming soon to a mouth near you...perhaps your own.

Oh boy this it incredibly tough to say, but I agree with you Dave. I have to admit that freedom of speech is a cornerstone of our democracy.

That said, rather than committing violence against the WBC, maybe take a lot of pictures of them, ID them, etc. Then send the pics of them protesting to their employers, around their community, etc.

The hopeful effect would be that they lose their jobs, get kicked out of every place of business (right to refuse service!), get repeatedly sent to the back of the line at the DMV, get nabbed for every traffic infraction ever devised, dog poop on their lawns, and generally ostracized.

 

[sloasdaylight]

a step in what right direction?

i thought they had only used speech... have they used violence or threatened anybody? please correct me if i am wrong.

but, you say, dave, this is different...we really, really, really, really (ad infinitum) disagree with what they say. this is different than simply disagreeing with what they say. we REALLY disagree with what they say.

so, if we declare them a "hate group" (whatever that means), we can then strip away their constitutional rights?

i hate to say this, because i feel a very special bond toward the participants here in TB, but i am much more afraid of the mob mentality that i see here than i am of a small fringe group of kooks...however offensive their use of the first amendment rights is.

violence and/or the use of legal apparatus to silence those with whom we disagree is NEVER the answer, and if we succumb to the temptation to use it on these folks, watch out...it is coming soon to a mouth near you...perhaps your own.

Quoting and emphasizing the best sentence in this thread.

 

[Deleted member 92857]

Your idea of basic human decency, right, and wrong may very well be different from mine. What you consider right might be something I consider wrong, and vice-versa.

Slavery was "right", until it wasn't.
Interracial marriage was "wrong" until it wasn't.
Homosexuality was "wrong" until it wasn't.
The list of things that were right or wrong at one point in time and no longer are goes on and on and on and on.

WBC has a right to say what they want, and if I understand correctly, follows through with all the legal mumbo-jumbo they need to in order to do so, like obtaining a permit and the like if I remember properly. You and I may not like it, but that doesn't mean they don't have a right to voice their opinion.

Freedom of speech, like all freedoms, is not without limits. There are bounds, some expressed in laws and some that are just obvious. And if they are not obvious to a particular individual, that individual has deficiencies and should be dealt with in the legal or mental health systems.

We all know the often cited shouting of fire in a crowded theater, and few would debate that. What's the difference in that and declaring funerals off limits? Some might argue that the person who can no longer legally shout fire in the theatre has had their rights curtailed, and I'd agree. But I'll also observe that a greater good was achieved, that is, people did not get trampled or injured. I'll not morn the "fire-shouters" small loss of freedom of speech.

If the same logic was applied to funerals, I would not mourn the loss of freedom of the WBC, or any other douchbags who would disrupt a funeral.

The price of freedom is that you cannot be completely free. The rights of others must be respected. Before you tell me there is no right to hold a protest-free funeral, I know. But I also know there shouldn't have to be.

 

[Rockin Mike]

As long as the government is not backing the hatespeakers, then no, you don't. The students at Texas A&M proved this extraordinarily well when they formed a human wall against the WBC protesting a funeral of a soldier. The students exercised their right to peacefully assemble in protest of the WBC. Free Speech worked. People in CT should take a lesson from them, and do the same. Fight WBC by using the same freedom they're abusing.

Intimidation is not the same as free exchange of opinions.
If WBC says my group is crazy (and goes no further) that's their opinion and they are entitled to it.
On the other hand if they threaten, or imply threats, or suggest that harm should come to my group, My group might reasonably fear standing in a human wall waiting for some nutjob sniper encouraged by hatespeech to take a few of us out.

Threats and intimidation are not protected free speech, no sir.

 

[Rockin Mike]

If the funerals are being held on private property I would expect the landowners or land managers to prosecute uninvited trespassers. Free speech wouldn't even enter into that issue.

Even if they were held in a public park I think the police could prevent WBC from entering on the grounds that it would cause a disturbance.

 

[Lonesomedave]

Intimidation is not the same as free exchange of opinions.
If WBC says my group is crazy (and goes no further) that's their opinion and they are entitled to it.
On the other hand if they threaten, or imply threats, or suggest that harm should come to my group, My group might reasonably fear standing in a human wall waiting for some nutjob sniper encouraged by hatespeech to take a few of us out.

Threats and intimidation are not protected free speech, no sir.

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.

 

[Bloodhammer]

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

 

[Rockin Mike]

Lots of unsavory folks are heroes of free speech.
As someone said above, if your speech was popular it wouldn't need to be protected.