• 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

#141
DaDrew2112 said:
So you think that freedom of speech makes sense at these funerals? Well why is my freedom of speech limited on a plane when I announce I have a bomb? Your freedom of speech is more limited than you care to think.
Click to expand...

You're legally allowed to say it as far as I know, nobody can stop you, nor can you be persecuted for yelling that you have a bomb on a plane. Unless of course the airline itself has some sort of policy regarding this behavior and you accept a contractual agreement not to engage in it when you purchase your ticket, which I believe is likely the case.

You can also be held liable for the deaths you cause, and I'd be willing to bet you'd go away for a long time.

Free speech doesn't exempt you from the actions and consequences incited by your words, it just gives you the freedom to speak them in the first place. It's not a "Say whatever you want and get away with it" rule, it's a "Say what you want but keep in mind you might be better off with your mouth shut" kind of arrangement. Some people just aren't very good at it.



By saying that the WBC should be silenced, you are making a judgement that somebodies opinion and beliefs are not valid, and that they should be persecuted for those beliefs, based simply on the decision that you and many other people don't agree with them. You live in a free country where people are allowed to believe what they want to believe, no matter how unpopular, far-fetched or radical, so long as they don't break any laws by exercising these beliefs.
 
#143
I have a better idea - take away their tax exempt status. Unless I'm mistaken, they aren't affiliated with either Baptist association and without being recognized as a church their actions could be viewed as harassment.
 
#144
DaDrew2112 said:
What happens when they provoke someone in a grief stricken state to make a poor emotion fueled choice? It well within the realms of possibility. And then what, imprison said person?
Click to expand...

I sort of suspect the DA's office could possibly come down with a case of incompetence in the prosecution if such were to happen. You know, too much rich holiday food and all that.

And how do you think a jury would come down on that case?

I'm not saying that should happen at all, just that it's well within the realm of possibility.
 
#145
Always remember when dealing with WBC: They aren't a church, they're a law firm. If you block their right to free speech, they'll sue you. So they go around to areas where there's media attention looking for someone to infringe on their "rights" so they can make money.

If you've seen them protest recently, you'd also realize how much of a joke they've become. When they started, they were in people's faces provoking people. When I saw them last month protesting the Formula 1 race in Austin (False idol worship) they were standing on the side of the road about a mile away from the track holding their signs and looking bored with themselves. Most of them were on their phones doing something other than hating "false idol worshipers." Pretty sure the only person who still believes in it is Mrs. Phelps, and she's got her kids nearly at gunpoint to be at the protests.
 
#146
C.Linton said:
Yup, you can be sued for harassment, which is kinda waht the WBC is hoping for, that someone would be stupid enough to pull someothing like that, just so the WBC can sue them. Like I said earllier this whole WBC thing is a money-making scam.
Click to expand...

Kind of a problem in this case.

Assuming that someone does harass them (a grand idea if there ever was one) and they take that person and/or organization to court in a lawsuit.

Do you suppose that they could find witnesses willing to testify on their behalf? How about a sympathetic jury? Judge?

In a case as extreme as this, I really think they'd be out of luck effectively pursuing legal action.
 
#147
Simo98 said:
You're legally allowed to say it as far as I know, nobody can stop you, nor can you be persecuted for yelling that you have a bomb on a plane.
Click to expand...

Incorrect. The crime is "making terroristic threats." It's also False Information and Hoaxes, and could put you away for 5 years. This type of speech is NOT protected by the First Amendment.
 
#148
Ripper said:
Always remember when dealing with WBC: They aren't a church, they're a law firm. If you block their right to free speech, they'll sue you.
Click to expand...

They may be a law firm and may well sue. My bet though is that any such defendent in a court action could likely find a very sympathetic (i.e. pro-bono) and powerful law firm in CT for representation.

I'm not real familiar with things on the East Coast, but I've heard CT has some good lawyers. I'd be willing to stake that they'd either pitch in on a counter-suit or represent a defendent.
 
#150
Ripper said:
Always remember when dealing with WBC: They aren't a church, they're a law firm. If you block their right to free speech, they'll sue you. So they go around to areas where there's media attention looking for someone to infringe on their "rights" so they can make money.
Click to expand...

SoonerMatt said:
I have a better idea - take away their tax exempt status. Unless I'm mistaken, they aren't affiliated with either Baptist association and without being recognized as a church their actions could be viewed as harassment.
Click to expand...

This^

They shouldn't be able to hide behind religion just to be tax exempt and get the benefit of a doubt. They're not trying to convert people. They're trying to take their money.

NWB said:
Kind of a problem in this case.

Assuming that someone does harass them (a grand idea if there ever was one) and they take that person and/or organization to court in a lawsuit.

Do you suppose that they could find witnesses willing to testify on their behalf? How about a sympathetic jury? Judge?

In a case as extreme as this, I really think they'd be out of luck effectively pursuing legal action.
Click to expand...

I think the idea is to sue, so that it's a civil issue - not to press charges and make it a criminal issue.
 
#151
Lonesomedave said:
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?
Click to expand...

As much as I hate this group and if saw this first hand honestly couldn't say I wouldn't kill a few of them. This is absolutely right.
 
#153
Bloodhammer said:
I think the idea is to sue, so that it's a civil issue - not to press charges and make it a criminal issue.
Click to expand...

Right, but in civil court you still need findings of fact, depositions and the like, and they may have significant trouble finding people willing to corroborate their case. I don't know why I included a jury there. Do they even use jurys in civil cases?
 
#154
Ripper said:
Always remember when dealing with WBC: They aren't a church, they're a law firm. If you block their right to free speech, they'll sue you. So they go around to areas where there's media attention looking for someone to infringe on their "rights" so they can make money.
Click to expand...

It's very hard to imagine that such people exist; people who would deliberately harass, provoke and humiliate others who are in the throes of the worst suffering imaginable simply to make a buck.
I really think there must be some actual belief system at work. No one could be that evil.
Could they?
 
#155
A-Step-Towards said:
Good. If someone was protesting the funeral of my dead brother, sister or any loved one I would personally beat one of them with there own sign. You dont pull crap like that.
Click to expand...
This is the reality of the situation. And like Snyder vs Phelps has previously illustrated, this scenario: "I sort of suspect the DA's office could possibly come down with a case of incompetence in the prosecution if such were to happen. You know, too much rich holiday food and all that.

And how do you think a jury would come down on that case?

I'm not saying that should happen at all, just that it's well within the realm of possibility."
to me seems unlikely. I'm not well versed in law by any means, however, isn't there a law against antagonizing a situation to this degree? To me this is the same as going into a store with a toy gun anticipating you be shot solely in order to sue for assault. Like I said before, we're abandoning children and heroes.
 
#157
Someone posted a video on my Facebook. I can't post the link here because perhaps it is questionable content (no swear words though, which are bleeped out) but it is Russell Brand interviewing WBC thugs. Search for "Russell Brand Interviews Westboro Baptist Church" if you want to see it. VERY well done by Russell.
 
#159
A gay friend of mine (normally, I wouldn't use that -or any qualifier - except that in this context, it's relevant) who lived in New Orleans for a few years told me that the WBC people regularly protest gay pride rallies there. He says that they (the ralliers) have a ton of fun photo-bombing them and just generally screwing with them with pranks and what not. According to him, the LGBT folks dumped glitter on the WBC protesters from the roof of a building one year! They were covered in it! He said they looked hopeless at that point and the police would do nothing to help them.
 
#160
Bloodhammer said:
A gay friend of mine (normally, I wouldn't use that -or any qualifier - except that in this context, it's relevant) who lived in New Orleans for a few years told me that the WBC people regularly protest gay pride rallies there. He says that they (the ralliers) have a ton of fun photo-bombing them and just generally screwing with them with pranks and what not. According to him, the LGBT folks dumped glitter on the WBC protesters from the roof of a building one year! They were covered in it! He said they looked hopeless at that point and the police would do nothing to help them.
Click to expand...

Like
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back