• 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.

Has freedom of speech gone too far?

#21
hmm....i've read the article twice and watched the original report, but i still feel that i'm missing something. Why? What was this feud between the two families that led to such an attack? You can really see the fire in that woman's eyes when she talks about how it will "rub them raw"
 
#22
The original feud started over a childs' birthday party. There was a bday party, the pusbag family sent a text msg to the other family asking if their child could come over to the party. They didn't receive a reply fast enough for their liking.
That's it.
That's what started the feud. That's why they wished death on a little girl.
Nice people
 
#23
sloasdaylight said:
[DEL]WBBC has a history of doing **** like this.[/DEL] LOLOL I DON'T READ LINKS
Click to expand...

Before I clicked the link I was 99.9% sure that this was going to be the work of the WBBC. Those people are dirtbags of the highest order.

For a family as a whole to torment a dying child over something so silly as a family feud (started over a child's birthday part no less!) makes them dirtbags of similarly terrible quality.
 
#24
Kwesi said:
Before I clicked the link I was 99.9% sure that this was going to be the work of the WBBC. Those people are dirtbags of the highest order.
Click to expand...

Fun fact--Fred Phelps was a civil rights lawyer before he started his church.

The WBBC also travel on their own dime, alert the cops to their presence, and stay outside the exclusion zones.

Frankly, they play by the rules a lot more than other groups of people that I disagree with.
 
#25
Ok, I'm as politically incorrect as I can be, and I apply common sense and restraint as much as possible. I am basically non-violent.

All that being said, there are people in this world who need a good old-fashioned a$$ whipping. The so-called protesters at soldiers funerals should be first in line and the people who showed such disrespect for a dying child should be right behind them.
Put Steven Segal on one side and Chuck Norris on the other and let them wail away until they are too tired to swing pr kick again.

I know the violence woudn't remove their stupidity and insensitivity, but it would sure make me feel better to see them get the crap beat out of them. Is that so wrong of me? Don't bother to answer. ;)
 
#26
I think these people are worthless and do deserve a good beating. However, their first amendment rights have to be upheld. I personally hold the Constitution and Bill of Rights as being more important than a single person and despite what I personally feel about those "people" they do have the right to peacefully protest.

Ok, what I said above should only apply to those protestors. Freedom of speech shouldn't to the story about the girls due to some sort of obscenity that could be found there.
 
#28
I hold all of our freedoms dear, and speech particularly. And what I'm about to post will contradict what I posted earlier...
That said; I wouldn't mind seeing funerals and burials considered private ceremonies. While they are held in public, I believe them to be a private matter, and should be respected as such legally. I don't believe anyone should have a right to 'protest' or demonstrate at a burial.
I know some will say that I am removing the WBBC's right to free speech. I disagree. What I am suggesting is that funerals be set aside as a private ceremony, not a place for public debate. They have every right to protest, and demonstrate, and hold a parade down main street just like everyone else. Is there a need to make their speech at that funeral? Wouldn't their message be the same down at courthouse square, like everybody else?

I don't know, I just feel like a funeral should be respected as private. Maybe I'm trying to talk myself into a polite way to violate speech I don't like, but I don't think so. I think funerals should be declared a private ceremony, not open to the public.
 
#29
bassrique said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusion_zone
Click to expand...

It's a good start, but with things like Facebook and youtube I wonder how much of these protests will really be kept from the family. While I do believe it would be dangerous to limit what people have to say, there has got to be something these people should be held accountable for. I just can't imagine that this is the "speech" our laws were designed to protect.
 
#34
The Last Rebel said:
I think these people are worthless and do deserve a good beating. However, their first amendment rights have to be upheld. I personally hold the Constitution and Bill of Rights as being more important than a single person and despite what I personally feel about those "people" they do have the right to peacefully protest.
Click to expand...

+1. I agree; however the founding fathers didn't lay down the Bill of Rights so maggots can get pleasure in a 7 yr old girl dying.

With any luck, $hit heads like her will fall into the Darwin Pool - the deep end!
 
#36
sloasdaylight said:
To answer your question, no, it hasn't. They're not yelling fire in a theater, or bomb on an airplane, so they're perfectly within their rights to do what they're doing. It's like flag burning or anything else that's questionable or objectionable to most. If you're going to have freedom of speech, you have to respect the right of those you find utterly reprehensible as well as the rights of those you agree with.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. The courts will decide when individual instances go too far. The first amendment is one of the most valuable parts of the US constitution.

And based on their reprehensible and disgusting behavior, IMO the members of the Westboro Church are not Christians, and are unworthy of respect.

As an aside, there may be freedom of speech, but nowhere is there a guarantee of WHERE that speech can take place. I think that cemeteries should designate a spot for protests of this nature, and that place should be well out of earshot and removed from line of sight of the funeral location. This is done at political conventions, so I don't see a conflict with the First Amendment.
 
#37
Not at all.

There are plenty of people who don't like pron, drugs, gays/lesbians/transsexuals, politics, racism, etc. shoved down their throat all day but if there's a right for people to do so, then there should be a right for those who oppose such to voice their own opinions. Just b/c you don't agree (and not saying I do or don't on any number of topics) doesn't make it less valid of an opinion and shouldn't be "less" protected.

Any race, color, creed can be hateful and are. You just don't see it always plastered on FOX or CNN b/c it doesn't sell like other topics.
 
#38
Certainly the church has a right to say what they want. But that doesn't mean they are exempt from paying a consequence for that if it is deemed by a court to be a violation of the dead soldier's families rights to bury their sons and daughters in peace. That would be considered undue harassment under civil law. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from legal action.
 
#40
Truktek2 said:
It's a good start, but with things like Facebook and youtube I wonder how much of these protests will really be kept from the family. While I do believe it would be dangerous to limit what people have to say, there has got to be something these people should be held accountable for. I just can't imagine that this is the "speech" our laws were designed to protect.
Click to expand...

There is. Their ugly abuse of our freedom to speech has made them look like monster's in the publics eye. Imagine what their other neighbors now think of them, what the people of their city think of them. Most likely these people won't be able to go out in public without someone declaring them the monsters that they are. Theyve condemned themselves.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back