Supreme Court Supports Hate Speech

[Bettypooh]

Sorry for the double post, but I wanted to seperate my thoughts.

I agree with the Supreme Court's ruling. Not because I believe the WBC's message is anything but a vile, disgusting, deliberate, inaccurate, and heretical prooftexting of the Word of God, but because of the slippery slope that refusing to allow it would set our country's foot upon. All of constitutional law is based on clearly defined tests, but how do you define hate, or any other emotion for that matter? Are we going to define it as something offensive? Well lets look at how offensive has changed in the last 50 years, and how political correctness has turned anything we say publically into a potential landmine. Remember, whether or not something is offensive/harrassing (legally) has nothing to do with the intent of the speaker but the interpretation of the listener. Its not a far stretch to say that if we outlaw "hate speech" today, that it would not become a substantial limit on speech in the future. Hate speech laws can and would have a direct "chilling effect" on political speech for fear that someone somewhere would take it as hate speech. And that, according to Justice William Brennan in Lamont v. Postmaster General is a direct violation of the 1st Amendment.

I always appreciate the depths of your thoughts even when I disagree with you (which in this case I don't ) It is precisely this depth of thought which has to be applied to get the correct answers to questions of what freedoms must be inviolable. Yet I still think that you will agree that at some point, freedom of speech becomes inciting harm through convincing others to wrongful action. That legal principle has long been held to when persons are convicted of inciting riots Each of us will see that point at a different place, yet it is up to us as a whole society to draw that line, and to ensure that our Government follows along with our wishes Nobody said Freedom and Equality was easy, in fact the reverse has been oft quoted and oft proven Just as it has been oft proven that those who do not stand up for their beliefs will always lost the right to believe them Those who stand up will count; those who do not will get run over easily as they lay down The Bible is full of examples where Christians suffered personally in their willingness to stand for their beliefs and we have seen zillions of similar examples post-publication. We know that this is necessary for good to overcome evil which is why the Bible instructs us to do that. It is not the nicest thing to think about, nor is it an easy thing to do. That is why you rarely hear it being preached from pulpits who are more worried about drawing in more people to their beliefs than they are in placing the whole of their religions publicly on their sleeves where it belongs for all to see. Would that more 'christians' actually do that instead of just speaking it, more would come to join their strength.

As we've discussed before, our beliefs are different, but you are stellar in living what you speak- with all my respect for that KUDOS!

Bettypooh

[DiaperBoyKR]

I always appreciate the depths of your thoughts even when I disagree with you (which in this case I don't ) It is precisely this depth of thought which has to be applied to get the correct answers to questions of what freedoms must be inviolable. Yet I still think that you will agree that at some point, freedom of speech becomes inciting harm through convincing others to wrongful action. That legal principle has long been held to when persons are convicted of inciting riots Each of us will see that point at a different place, yet it is up to us as a whole society to draw that line, and to ensure that our Government follows along with our wishes Nobody said Freedom and Equality was easy, in fact the reverse has been oft quoted and oft proven Just as it has been oft proven that those who do not stand up for their beliefs will always lost the right to believe them Those who stand up will count; those who do not will get run over easily as they lay down The Bible is full of examples where Christians suffered personally in their willingness to stand for their beliefs and we have seen zillions of similar examples post-publication. We know that this is necessary for good to overcome evil which is why the Bible instructs us to do that. It is not the nicest thing to think about, nor is it an easy thing to do. That is why you rarely hear it being preached from pulpits who are more worried about drawing in more people to their beliefs than they are in placing the whole of their religions publicly on their sleeves where it belongs for all to see. Would that more 'christians' actually do that instead of just speaking it, more would come to join their strength.

As we've discussed before, our beliefs are different, but you are stellar in living what you speak- with all my respect for that KUDOS!

Bettypooh

Thanks I always enjoy discussing viewpoints with you too Betty....rarely is it that one finds opponents on the intarwebz that don't like to engage in ad hominem.

I agree with you in fundament about the need to draw the line somewhere. The problem that I see is that as the government is the arbiter of law, not merely the manifestation of the will of the people, that legal bar needs to be drawn farily high, and it is. It would not be legal for you or I to walk into a crowded airport concourse for example and shout "I HAVE A BOMB STRAPPED TO MY CHEST!!!!" whether we did or not and expect that it would fall under our freedom of speech. This presents a clear and present danger to self and others, and could cause a truly high likelihood or riot or excess. Of course something like that should be censored.

The problem in letting everything rest completely with the will of the majority is the simple fact that it can lead to dangerous places. If you asked most people in the US, WBC is an abhorrent organization, and they would not be opposed to shutting them down for hate speech. Similar sentiments for the KKK, Neo-Nazi groups, Anti-Semitic groups, various other outspoken anti-LGBT groups, etc. But the problem is that once you establish a precedent of shutting down or shutting up an organization based on the will of the majority, it makes it easier to take the next step. What happens if in 20 years, the popular will moves that the Boy Scouts be shut down because they oppose having openly gay scoutmasters in Troops? Or, to hit closer to home, all kink or fetish related websites are to be immediately shut down because they are evidence of sexual perversion? Even though it doesn't seem likely now, I don't think its a far reach to say that it could.

I agree that specifically in the case of WBC, it should be especially up to Christians to oppose them, in whatever way they can. You're right in that I'm not highly familiar with WBC's methods, as I've been overseas for most of the time they've been in public eye and operating. What I knew of them was that they were fairly organized, but normally announced their plans at the last second if at all. I'll be honest and admit that most Christians in America would not be willing to go out of their way to participate in a counter demonstration (for several reasons, but I'm not going to go into them....thats another rant). I personally would be willing to do whatever it takes to oppose them. But I feel that that is my job as an individual citizen, not the governments. I seriously think that citizens (not just in our country but around the world) have passed off their duties to the government because its simply easier.

[dlover49]

Has any one thought about the role the media have in this controversy? THis reminds me of the preacher in Fla. last year who wnted to burn the Koran. He had less thn 100 members in his congregation if I remember correctly but garnered international attention. If the despicable WBC did not get the attention of the nation, perhaps they would stop. Just think of the money wasted to travel which could be put to charitable uses. Restricting free speech is a slippery slope and the Supreme Court has ru;ed this way consistently. We do not need a return to the Alien and Sedition acts of 1799.

[Yvhuce]

The right to bear arms, is not the right to commit murder.

It's not murder if it's people protesting at a funeral. It's pest control.

[BBB]

It's not murder if it's people protesting at a funeral. It's pest control.

I've noticed that there are a few people very unlike myself on this website who take the role of firearm ownership very lightly and say irresponsible things.

[abypk82]

The Supreme Court has a history of defending free speech and the first amendment. WBC is a ridiculous "organization," and I have yet to meet anyone who agrees with their message or motives. I don't blame the court defending the 1st Amendment. Those idiots are trying to do nothing except inflaming hatred....of themselves...Tires Slashed This is one example of how communities across this country respond to these people...

[sarah_ab]

christianity is not a church or a religion, it is a word that describes a belief system...

religions are when someone takes the general belief system and creates a set of rules and laws and rituals surrounding it..

christianity cannot 'deal' with the problem, because it is an abstract... however individual christian religions can and are dealing with it, but making statements condeming this behavior and stating they are in no way associated with him.

[Leilin]

christianity is not a church or a religion, it is a word that describes a belief system...

religions are when someone takes the general belief system and creates a set of rules and laws and rituals surrounding it..

christianity cannot 'deal' with the problem, because it is an abstract... however individual christian religions can and are dealing with it, but making statements condeming this behavior and stating they are in no way associated with him.

In fairness, other individual "Christian religions" are also saying nothing at all, or, worse, tacetly supporting that nutbar by parroting similar messages.

[Yvhuce]

I've noticed that there are a few people very unlike myself on this website who take the role of firearm ownership very lightly and say irresponsible things.

I can assure you that it's not a stance taken lightly... And it's not just the ramblings of one nutjob, but rather the consensus of said nutjob's family and community in general... And a lot of the people who've come to that consensus keep guns and ammo in their vehicles. Usually a rifle in the gun rack and ammo either behind the seat, or in the glove box, or a handgun and ammo under the seat. And if the family were expecting the funeral to be disrupted, we'd be passing out rifles and ammo to all those who can shoot 'em... The point is that you don't screw around with what people consider to be sacred, or you'd better be willing to die if you do. And know that the dead would want the living to do this...

Perhaps you should start a topic on what you view to be "the roll of firearm ownership" and we can try to have a civil discussion on that? I don't think it would properly fit in this particular topic, which has a more emotional baggage. It's always better to discuss stuff like firearms away from emotionally charged topics. That way, it tends not to degrade so much into name calling or whatever...

[Bettypooh]

.... I feel that that is my job as an individual citizen, not the governments. I seriously think that citizens (not just in our country but around the world) have passed off their duties to the government because its simply easier.

So true One thing America's founding fathers didn't allow for was for the populace to not be civic minded Back when having freedom meant seeing the death of someone you knew (maybe even some of your family members) everyone was civic-minded. There was no "not caring" like there is in the complacent now So as a whole we are getting what we're asking for and nobody likes it except the politicians who are gaining on us If they had their way the 'line of acceptable speech' would be drawn far on our side of the fence, so I'm glad SCOTUS ruled against that, but I still think society as a whole needs to do the demarcation, since society as a whole will have to live with the results. We have the power to cause that to happen, but we will hurt ourselves worse than our enemy if we use that power unwisely and I'm not so certain that the average American has that level of wisdom anymore

Bettypooh

[underwhere]

Wars are fought largely as en economic profiteering drive of the capitalist elite. People who choose to serve in the military may think they are serving their country. Perhaps they even are, but when was the last war raged to make sure that hungry people could eat? (Corn being utilised for ethanol production as a gasoline additive is, in fact, causing food shortages in many parts of the world.) When was the last war raged to make sure that contagious diseases would be annihilated? Now compare: When was the last war raged over control of oil resources, or water resources? As a general rule, wars are typically waged by the political and economic elite to gain a higher degree of economic superiority.

If you have any doubts, how many people typically serve in the military who could otherwise afford a lifestyle choice not to do so? Right now, the US military is recruiting people on the premise of paying for a portion of college loans, which in our current economic system might never be paid back completely. College graduates are working at McDonalds, if they can even find a job doing that. How long will it take to pay back student loans on that kind of work?

I have no issues with protesting the military, or what the military has come to stand for. It doesn't stand for me, thats for sure. I am not economically rewarded or imperiled by the outcome of wars, but then again, I am not a member of the economic elite who will exploit working class people everywhere as long as I can get away with doing so.

I'm all for protesting, anywhere, with any message, even if I strongly disagree with the message. I might join a counter protest.

Remember this: most laws are created by the economic elite to serve the interests of the economic elite. The reason why such "crazies" are permitted to continue to protest is because they will never do anything to change the balance of economic power. If anything, situations like this tend to be a distraction from the root causes.

Who really benefits from war? Who really benefits when people die in war?

[sarah_ab]

there is a difference. etween protesting the government and protesting a grieving family whose child, as you said, most likely joined the military as a way to pay for education to get a better job....

protest the government all you want but when that protest impinges on basic human dignity when that protest interupts a religious ceremony - because most funerals have an aspect of religion , when that protest violates the privacy of a family mourning .... i find that to be unethical personally ... and yes the protests are done outside the cemetary on public roads and it is legal so i agree legally they should not be stopped .... morally and ethically i feel they should

[underwhere]

I may agree with you morally and ethically, sarah, but I wouldn't dare try to define morality or ethics within any legal framework. That has happened before in a wide variety of historical atrocities. Because of that, I'd rather let things like this slide. People can, and should, protest all they want, but just as strongly, anybody who objects to the actions of the protester should feel free to protest against the protester.

[sarah_ab]

thats sorta exactly what i said under.... legally its allowed,... but morally and ethically i personally dont feel its ok....

i didn't say morals and ethics and law should mix.... i said legally they should not be stopped...

but morals and ethics are a different law... and i'm not saying my morals and ethics are correct...

because those in the wbc belive their morals and ethics are correct....

so i'm just saying what i believe for myself, personally.....

[underwhere]

ok, in that case, I either misread or misunderstood, and for that, I apologise, Sarah.

[Little BabyDoll Christine]

Wars are fought largely as en economic profiteering

Ix-ney!

Most wars were about racial/ethnc, or religious/philosophical matters.. The Imperial wars of the middle East, c1200-500 BCE were all about whose city goes were top dog. Ditto the wars of Greece in the same timeframe. Ceasar was interested in conquest. The Crusades were holy wars. The Humdred Years war was mostly about dynastic issues, The Thirty Years War was in four phases going between religious and political.. The Punic Wars appear to have had their roots in economics but that was just one of several issues. WWI was over an assassination. the Napoleopnic wars were for Le Gloire. WWII in Europe was about Nazi ideology and racism. The Japanise-US phase did have strong economic underpinnings but it too had a strong tinge of ideology, in the form of a twisted image of the Samurai code and racism. The wars of the Dark Ages, from Clovis to Charlemagne were imperial-relgious as were the Muslim conquests of that same period The Soviet march across Eastern Europe seems to have been a mix of ideological fervor, Stalin's madness, revanchism and some hope of economic gain; just how they hoped to benefit economically by conquering devasted lands is beyond me

War is a costly, risky business and anyone who knows economics will know that it costs more to wage war than you can hope to get back in economic gain. The whole "military-industrial complex" does not comprise more than 5% or the US economy/ Economic gain is mostly a sop thrown to the populace to give the impression that there is some practical benefits to be ganed to get them to bear the burden in lives and treasure.

[Bettypooh]

Wars are an extension of politics- the means used when other non-violent methods are not getting the results wanted That is the fault of politics- it has nothing to do with those who honorably serve in the military The individual soldier is one aspect of what the OP addressed; to take this thread to the causation's of war should be addressed in a different thread as it is not relevant here

The deceased soldier was doing what was asked, just as they would;d have if they were asked to defend our soil against a foreign invader. In so doing, that soldier deserves our support and respect, even if we disagree with the orders he was given The WBC cannot seem to understand this principle, this separation between the honor of the individual and the dishonor of government. Their protest should have been aimed at the government who caused what they disagree with instead of the honorable Soldier who did no wrong The media would hardly have batted an eyelash had they done this, so to gain maximun media exposure they carried out a wrongful, though legal, action WBC thought it proper to counter one wrong with another wrong, which we all know is a rather stupid approach to solving problems

As a society we have to restrict certain freedoms to maintain order and give security to the populace. This is why you are not free to go any speed you like on the roads- there must be a consideration for the safety of the larger populace overriding the freedom of the individual in some circumstances As long as those limits are deemed reasonable by the populace no real harm is done to to the individual's freedom. If the populace desires that military funerals not be protested, or that protesters must maintain a certain distance from them, there is still no harm to individual rights and freedoms It is up to the populace to direct their government in the making of that decision, and at this time they have not imposed such restrictions What it boils down to is whether we, as a whole, desire to have such restrictions implemented

In the giving of individual freedom, it is necessary for those individuals to act responsibly with the freedoms they are given. If they fail to do this, those freedoms will be taken away

We appear to have deemed the actions of the WBC as inappropriate and irresponsible here, yet few have intoned what they feel should be done about this, and even fewer have acted

There is little point in continuing this discussion until that happens. There are enough of us here to counter the effects of the WBC if we desired to do so. Can we, as a whole, decide on a proper course of action? Do we desire to do such a thing, or are we content to let the status quo reign? Those are the real question to address here, not whether some war or some military policy is proper or not which are entirely different matters irrelevant to this thread

My $0.02, your values may vary

Bettypooh

[redneck diaper boy]

Maybe I should have been a bit more specific too the point. I disagree with what many people say but I will defend their right to say it.

In my opinion, protesting a military funeral is sick. These young people gave their lives for their country and they should be honored.

This wacked out bunch from Kansas will someday meet their maker and will have to justify their actions. I do not believe that God will find them to be entertaining!

Again the thought of limiting free speech scares me. If they can limit some free expression, the authority to censor becomes limitless!

[Total Trash]

Once again, my favorite blogger makes perhaps the most astute commentary I've seen on this issue:

In an 8-1 decision announced Wednesday the Supreme Court of the United States overwhelmingly struck down a fundamental argument repeatedly made by opponents of same-sex marriage.

The high court’s sweeping decision in the strange case of Snyder v. Phelps can thus be seen as a victory for advocates of legal equality for gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgendered persons.

At the same time, this decision sweeps away one of the central fears of opponents of such legal equality, and so it can also be seen as good news for the politically conservative religious groups who have been in the vanguard of the fight to ensure that GLBT people not be granted equality under the law. The decision proves that their fears are unfounded.

...

Phelps and his followers/children have, for decades, made it their mission to preach hate. It’s hard to know whether this is a genuine religious belief based, as Phelps claims, on the litany of biblical proof-texts he treasures that proclaim God’s “hatred

[warmn_squishy]

the actions of protesting and shouting hate messages at a funeral while not physically harming anyone, do induce more mental pain and stress to the grieving family . the members of the WBC in all seriousness should and deserve to be taking into the community and stoned to death and televised.

this also applies to anyone convicted of hate crimes, neo nazis, kkk members, and so forth.

doing so would make would people think twice about trying to intimidate others.

[ForbiddenFruit]

I find it bizarre this thread should be the subject of Necromancy now and not about a month or so ago when the WBC were (tangentially) newsworthy.

As to the original comment, yeah, I'm on the side that says "We have to grit our teeth and bear it." I don't like the UK's hate speech laws (the Phelps clan and Rush Limbaugh are banned from entry), in the same way I don't like our college's No Platform Policy (that specifically says the student union will by default oppose right-wing fascism, but "Burn the bankers, burn the bodholders, fuck Europe, retake the North" is fine).

Not applying freedom of speech to unpopular speech defeats the entire point. There are those who disagree, including the escapee Nate Phelps (in an interview on Thinking Atheist he said he doesn't think it's a slippery slope), but I've yet to see any convincing velcro as safety.

Admittedly, it's easy to point and laugh at WBC (for a group so homophic, the signs are pretty fuckin' colourful) but that might not be the case if you're among the bereaved with them pretty much piling on top of you and you aren't privileged to have the Patriot Guard Riders revving their engines and acting as a buffer.

I'm surprised that the recent Honouring America's Fallen Heroes (can't remember the exact name) act hasn't been mentioned in this thread, because it places greater distance (TRIPLES the distance that's required) between protestors and funeral and cuts down the amount of time they can stick around. That's what we need, solid, measurable limits on tangible actions.

Hopefully I'll have a blast when these assholes get to Gaymercon, I'll be cosplaying Richter Belmont and if I practice well enough, I can probably break a sign or two with a whip crack

Also, remember, Fred is ooooooooold. The guy's 82 years old, and according to Nate and Fred Jr. in Addicted to Hate (here) he went through a phase of dire obesity, and then of flip-flopping between a great many fad diets on a weekly basis. He may not look shrivelled, but that ticker hasn't much time left, hell, Shirley looks worse off than him. Everyone in this thread, they're both probably gonna die within your lifetime, and thankfully without having their First Amendment walk into someone's Second Amendment (everyone who shot them so far has missed).

I used to fantasize daily about killing them, but I know that before a decade is done, Freddy's gonna be lying in his bed, smeared in his own excrement, breathing ragged, that wicked smile there as he awaits for his imagined master, and then at the final moment, it becomes a look of horror. As the infinite abyss looms for him, he will try to scream as he realises all his life, he's been horribly, horribly wrong, about everything.

[ForbiddenFruit]

Therein lies the core of many problems in America today If the Christians don't want to be identified with Phelps, it is up to them to clean their own house to get rid of him and his kind since the citizenry legally can't This same principle goes for bad cops, bad politicians, bad doctors etal. When you will not police your own kind and throw your own trash out, you deserve to be identified with the stinking trash you're willfully keeping It's that simple. If the Christians will not stop WBC, then they will find themselves thrown out with them when the citizenry finally gets tired of living with the stink Not keeping your religion in order will be it's own death knell. See what's happening with the Catholic Church and the recent scandals of abuse? The world is now beginning to act against them- not because of the actions of the few who erred, but because they didn't take care of the known situation themselves like they should have If the Christians of America care about themselves, they will go to Westboro enmasse and do some legal protesting of their own until WBC breaks apart or is reformed into what it should be. If the don't, they deserve to get what's coming for them too

Bettypooh

Eh, Christians usually distance themselves from WBC pretty much fine now, they've more or less totally disowned them (of course, this only happened after they protested soldier's funerals, targeting the bereaved of AIDS victims was perfectly fine), and the sheer wackiness of the group pretty much shows they don't even want to be associated with mainstream Christians of any house.

However, on that note, I've said something similar before, however I realise now it isn't really that simple as you and I both put Do you know what happens when moderates stand up to the 'okay' extremists like Bachmann, O' Reilly, Pat Robertson and Jerry "Gay people caused 9/11" Falwell? They get insulted like crazy. If you're not as batshit insane as then, you're called an apostate. If the moderates try to speak up, sadly they'll find themselves ostracised It's just like moderate Islam in the middle east, just with name-calling instead of Fatwas.

[pullupsboy89]

I am just going to throw this out there.

I am in the Army. I know people who have died overseas, and the Westboro Baptist Church showed up to their funerals, which I was also at.

I despise those people.

Yet, I applaud and support the decision. They have the right to say and think what they want. Agree or disagree, there is a reason it is the FIRST amendment.

At the end of the day, its one of the things that this country was founded on. It is not treason to speak ill about our president or elected officials. It is not illegal to hate people who arent like you. We all have the rights to form our own opinions, practice our own religion, and let as many people know about it as we want, or not.

(This is the part where people get mad at me). The WBC is no different then any other religion that tries to spread their "good word." The mormons go door to door, some christian sects hand out bibles, and these guys show up to funerals. A terrible message? Sure. No doubt about that. But it is their message.

You want to counter the WBC? Join the freedom riders. Those guys are nothing short of amazing. They dont taunt the WBC, they dont even acknowledge their existence. All they do is place themselves between the grieving family and friends, and the protesters. Thats how to take care of these guys.

[Diapered Jason]

While it is important to maintain civil liberties, it is possible for those liberties to infringe on other peoples liberties. That is why we have civil rights. The decision that was made here was that the WBC was not threatening other people's liberties. I would agree with that as long as the WBC members cannot protest on cemetery grounds, but rather just outside the grounds. Local law enforcement should probably be dispatched to make this so rather then volunteers if necessary. No matter what happens, the fact that will remain is most everyone is going to think the WBC is extreme. As a result, their political power is going to be null.