Free Speach? WBC Related
Printed From: Tippmann Paintball
Category: News And Views
Forum Name: Thoughts and Opinions
Forum Description: Got something you need to say?
URL: http://www.tippmannsports.com/forum/wwf77a/forum_posts.asp?TID=166296
Printed Date: 14 May 2026 at 1:26am
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.04 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Free Speach? WBC Related
Posted By: usafpilot07
Subject: Free Speach? WBC Related
Date Posted: 19 April 2007 at 5:07pm
|
I just wanted to see what people thought about the WBC's "constitutional protection," as liberally granted through the first amendment. People say that no action can be taken towards the group because they have a right to free speech, but where is the line drawn? There is no way that this could be considered simply an issue of free speech. It stops being free speach when you shout to believers in Christ that God sent a man to kill their children. This is more than a public protest, it is a psychological attack on the families of the victims. When does it stop? Racists can be arrested for verbally abusing a minority. Bigots can be arrested for screaming at gays. Why can't these cretins be arrested for tormenting these families? The thing that strikes my heart the most is who the victims were. These were not soldiers, overseas protecting our rights; These were not Police Officers, trying to make our streets safer; These were not security guards, stopping a threat to others. No, these were innocent students, who had no idea what they were in for. Any death of an innocent person is a tragedy, but when it isn't even someone who volunteered their life to protect others... It's nothing short of a cold blooded senseless murder. Screw them. Discuss. ------------- Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo |
Replies:
Posted By: *Stealth*
Date Posted: 19 April 2007 at 5:09pm
------------- |
Posted By: Predatorr
Date Posted: 19 April 2007 at 5:10pm
| Personally, I'd like to go back to vigilante justice of ages past. If I lived near Blacksburg, and went to the service, and happened to see WBC "protesting", I'd have an overwhelming urge to hit them. And I'd probably cash in on it. As for free speech, I'm waiting for a lawsuit to come up with them, one where the supreme court gets involved and makes it a standard, IE. New York Times v. Sullivan. I think that this should be seriosuly looked at, as it's a personal attack. |
Posted By: *Stealth*
Date Posted: 19 April 2007 at 5:14pm
I bet your penis is huge. ------------- |
Predatorr wrote:Posted By: Tae Kwon Do
Date Posted: 19 April 2007 at 5:19pm
I don't think that is correct. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Predatorr
Date Posted: 19 April 2007 at 5:19pm
...I'm an immature and irrational teenager, my brother is a soldier serving right now overseas. I take anything WBC says offensively for their open hate of soldiers: my father, mother, brother all served / are serving, and I'll be serving after college. Naturally I have heartburn towards the WBC, and I noticed how you didn't bother to quote the actual intelligent thing I had to say about free speech. Sure what I said was stupid at the very least, but if you were in my situation, I'm sure you'd feel the same way. |
Posted By: *Stealth*
Date Posted: 19 April 2007 at 5:25pm
I just had a good friend die in Iraq, so shush. The fact of the matter is, though they are hystericaly misguided, it is WBC's right to protest what ever they like, be it bigoted, racist, or heartless. Infact, your Father, Mother, and Brother all fought to protect, and help try to liberate other countrites for that right. Free speech is free speech, even if you don't like it. ------------- |
Posted By: Clark Kent
Date Posted: 19 April 2007 at 5:26pm
|
Other than the occasional over-zealous DA, this is a complete myth. There are some circumstances where words can be illegal, but they are very special exceptions, and the ones you list do not, generally speaking, qualify. EDIT - and ditto to Stealth /thread |
Posted By: Predatorr
Date Posted: 19 April 2007 at 5:30pm
Sorry for your loss, Yeah, I understand that we fight to protect a right that when circumstances are right, we don't want certain people to have. It's one of the catch 22's of our nation, people can do so much, so many things we find "wrong" and be perfectly within the law. I wasn't talking about this, I was talking about how my little rant was a bit childish, but I also had something intelligent to say. Anyways, there's nothing that can be legally done to prevent them from at the very least protesting at funerals? It's pretty freaking messed up |
Posted By: Clark Kent
Date Posted: 19 April 2007 at 5:33pm
|
That's not a "catch 22" - that's exactly the way it was meant to be. That's the whole point.
Now there one would think some protection would be possible, but probably only to the extent of a minimum distance or something... |
Posted By: Glassjaw
Date Posted: 19 April 2007 at 5:52pm
|
Despite it is free speech, couldn't their picketing at VT be considered inciting riot because I wouldn't doubt some sort of incident happening?
------------- |
Posted By: Hitman
Date Posted: 19 April 2007 at 9:54pm
|
I wonder how long it will be until WBC pisses off the wrong person and is killed one by one. I want to know how they would spin it with their skewed view.
------------- |
Posted By: oldsoldier
Date Posted: 19 April 2007 at 10:09pm
|
There are no bad words, bad thoughts, bad intentions, but no bad words. "George Carlin circa 1971" ------------- 
|
Posted By: carl_the_sniper
Date Posted: 19 April 2007 at 10:10pm
|
The world is ending! All memebers of the WBC are being taken to heaven by god! ------------- <just say no to unnecessarily sexualized sigs> |
Posted By: karll
Date Posted: 19 April 2007 at 10:30pm
They'd probably see themselves as matyrs, and it would only help to fuel their fire. ------------- PlentifulBalls "It's cool, I'll be dead before I'm not pretty." Gatyr "Stupid things exist." 
|
Posted By: Brian Fellows
Date Posted: 20 April 2007 at 2:57am
|
In the words of Richard "Lowtax" Kyanka: "I forgot what I was going to say, but I thank God Benjamin Franklin fought in WWI so I could have the right to say it." |
Posted By: Darur
Date Posted: 20 April 2007 at 3:40am
|
This thread got me wondering. If schools cannot stop freedom of speech, then how is it they have rules and even laws against verbal harassment in schools? Wouldn't similar harassment laws apply here? Also, as much as I dislike WBC, I do believe they have the right to spew their idiocy. The other day I was listening to some liberal talk show and their callers were all saying there should be "limits" on freedom of speech because its being "abused". (this was all about the blown-out of proportion Imus deal, but lets stay on topic.) ------------- Real Men play Tuba [IMG]http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/1859/newsmall6xz.jpg"> PH33R TEH 1337 Dwarf! http://www.tippmann.com/forum/wwf77a/log_off_user.asp" rel="nofollow - DONT CLICK ME!!1 |
Posted By: ShortyBP
Date Posted: 20 April 2007 at 8:40am
|
I must say that, I feel that I need to express my freedom of speech in response to WBC protests.
I speak with rocks. Heavy ones, that are usually thrown. |
Posted By: ShortyBP
Date Posted: 20 April 2007 at 8:43am
And I'd have no problem with that. Because once they're offed... who will they be martyrs to? Mow em down with a truck... and you don't fuel the fire... you snuff it. And if some new group comes along to protest the demise of WBC... fine. So long as they themselves don't follow WBCs lead of harrassing funerals, more power to them. But if they do... then I can only hope there's another chrome bumper out there ready to eat them for breakfast. |
Posted By: c4cypher
Date Posted: 20 April 2007 at 9:53am
|
About time you responded to the topic on hand. As much as I hate to agree with one idiot defending other idiots, but you're right. The WBC is stupid, almost criminally so ... but not quite. Reprisal against them, despite their message, is wrong, they DO have the freedom to promote their message, to protest, regardless of how offensive it is to me. Such is the nature of Freedom of Speach, and I support it, regardless of some of the causes it protects. USAF ... I know that it sucks, I wish these people would spread their hate in the quiet recesses of their own home, but they insist on spreading their filth around where it hurts. I'm not 100% on the law, but if they started protesting at a meeting or a feuneral or service, I'm sure the people running the service have a legal right to ask them to leave, and if they don't ... law enforcement can take over. I hate the entire concept of 'hate crimes' ... a crime is a crime, regardless of the motivation. Crimes should be prosecuted equally, no matter who was targeted or why. If these WBC tampons reserve the right to protest gay servicemen, or the evils that supposedly caused VT ... or whatever, then I reserve the right to publicly call them stupid, ignorant pricks, but I do not have the right to assault them for their message. |
Posted By: Tolgak
Date Posted: 20 April 2007 at 10:18am
|
Funerals should be declared peace zones for 48 hours before and 48 hours after a scheduled funeral. Make the peace zone 2 miles in diameter and WBC can't touch them. The 1st amendment guarantees that we can have a peaceful assembly. It doesn't say that the government is not allowed to move an assembly or lower its volume. It's broad enough to allow for exceptions to be made. Also, I don't think yelling at people at a funeral is the definition of a "peaceably assembly." It's an attempt on people's nerves at a time when peace is more important to them than ever. If it makes the entire world want to run these people over with trucks, or firebomb their houses, or tar and feather the members (all very good ideas btw), I don't see the peace behind their protests, other than they don't get physical. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Clark Kent
Date Posted: 20 April 2007 at 10:22am
| ^^^^^ That's kind of where I am coming down. As long as the WBC gets to have their say at a reasonable time and place, I don't see why they get to allowed that particular time and place. |
Posted By: Tae Kwon Do
Date Posted: 20 April 2007 at 12:44pm
Westboro Baptist Church. -------------
|
Posted By: usafpilot07
Date Posted: 20 April 2007 at 1:53pm
|
How does the first ammendant's rights to free speech and right to an assembly meet? Because groups like the KKK have to have permits and the permission of the hosting city before they are allowed to gather/march. Shouldn't the same go for this group? ------------- Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo |
Posted By: ShortyBP
Date Posted: 20 April 2007 at 1:57pm
I recall that they (WBC) actually receive police protection for their protests, at times. I thought I saw some video where they had to be rushed into a police van and whisked away from a mob... who broke the police van window as it left. Unless that was a different group... but I doubt it. |
Posted By: Clark Kent
Date Posted: 20 April 2007 at 2:00pm
|
That intersects with general non-discrimination rules. A city could have general rules about marches/parades for the sake of keeping the order, but must apply those rules consistently. They can't not give the Klan a marching permit because they don't like the Klan. But not all cities have rules like that, and certainly not the little suburbs where the funeral homes are - and besides, 15 people from WBC probably wouldn't be enough people to trigger those rules anyway. You don't need a permit to hang out with your buddies. But you are right - it does get very messy very fast. |
Posted By: Tae Kwon Do
Date Posted: 20 April 2007 at 2:43pm
Booo, double negative, boooo. -------------
|
Posted By: Clark Kent
Date Posted: 20 April 2007 at 2:48pm
|
lol - In my universe, double negatives are not only permitted, but required. Collapsing into a positive loses specificity. "Not allowed to not issue" =/= "required to issue" |
Posted By: Tae Kwon Do
Date Posted: 20 April 2007 at 3:01pm
Fixed for you. -------------
|
Posted By: *Stealth*
Date Posted: 20 April 2007 at 3:06pm
|
Journalist VS Lawyer. FIGHT! ------------- |
Posted By: Clark Kent
Date Posted: 20 April 2007 at 3:07pm
Still not correct. "Refusing" has nothing to do with it. You can't add or subtract or swap verbs at will. (Assuming what the relevant ordinance says in this case) The best I could do would be "they cannot fail to issue". |
Posted By: *Stealth*
Date Posted: 20 April 2007 at 3:09pm
|
Lawyer - 1
------------- |
Posted By: c4cypher
Date Posted: 20 April 2007 at 3:50pm
|
Despite my own position on the subject, reading this made me smile. |
Posted By: Tae Kwon Do
Date Posted: 20 April 2007 at 4:32pm
That works too. Just say no to double negatives. -------------
|
Posted By: Clark Kent
Date Posted: 20 April 2007 at 4:34pm
|
Ah- it was the literal "can't not" that bothered you. Yes, I probably could have phrased that more elegantly.
|
Posted By: Tae Kwon Do
Date Posted: 20 April 2007 at 4:39pm
Yes indeed. It was not the meaning of the words that bothers me, its the literal "can't not." I have been taught since I learned to write that double negatives are the devil. -------------
|