Westboro Baptist Church

[Macx]

How do you all feel about Westboro Baptist Church? Do you agree with the their protests?

The only reason they are alive, is nobody wants them to gain strength through matrydom. How do I feel? I believe that rabid dogs should be put down & in times past a device called a brank was made just for Westboro types. . . . What do I think? I think I swore an oath to uphold the Constitution & though it pains me greatly that Obama, the Westboro Baptists and others who absolutely hate America use their 1st amendment rights to be as offensive as possible, my oath outweighs my feelings.

Of course that means I also strongly (and gleefully) support the Patriot Guard's use of their 1A rights.

 

[Infernalfist]

I don't think it is a particularly good precedent to throw people in gaol for simply voicing an opinion, no matter how repellant that message is.

You don't have the right to not be offended by others free speech.

emotional pain is just as destructive to individuals and sometimes more so than physical pain. actions that cause emotional scarring should be just as punishable as those that cause physical scarring.

 

[Infernalfist]

All of the restrictions on free speech have to do with safety (fire in a movie) or harming the image of another publicly and only then in very defined cases (liable/slander). The right to peacefully gather and protest should be protected. Even at a funeral, as bad as it may seem. They are holding signs, but I don't believe they are usually violent. I may not agree with what they do, but I refuse to start censoring them simply because what they do is distasteful. It is not a risk to safety.

That you disagree with their expression of Christianity makes it no less valid than yours. They could just as easily turn around and say that you are the one presenting a twisted version. Laws are not designed to judge who is correct on religion points of view.

how would you define safety? a grieving individual can easily be pushed beyond the levels of sanity by the scorn of hateful individuals. as we all know, insanity(even temporary) is an issue of safety. this is why we have institutions to try to keep those who aren't sane separated from the rest of our society. if you are adding stress to an environment that is already at risk for emotional and mental disruption, then you are the equivalent of adding fireworks on a campfire.

 

[nolongerhome]

emotional pain is just as destructive to individuals and sometimes more so than physical pain. actions that cause emotional scarring should be just as punishable as those that cause physical scarring.

Where do you draw the line, though?

Plenty of religious teaching can be emotionally scaring - telling people they are going to hell for eternal punishment, for example, just because they love people of their own sex - should that be illegal?

Potentially any statement, true or false, can do damage to another person. If we limited free speech to simply speech which could not cause emotional pain to others, we wouldn't be able to speak about very much at all.

 

[Jade Margery]

What they are doing at funerals is harassment, and if they are truly doing it to fuel frivolous lawsuits (I have heard this many places but never seen proof) then they are purposefully inciting violence.

Neither of these are protected forms of free speech, so far as I know. Figure someone ought to lock 'em up and get those poor kids into households where they aren't spoonfed bigotry and hate.

 

[Infernalfist]

Where do you draw the line, though?

Plenty of religious teaching can be emotionally scaring - telling people they are going to hell for eternal punishment, for example, just because they love people of their own sex - should that be illegal?

Potentially any statement, true or false, can do damage to another person. If we limited free speech to simply speech which could not cause emotional pain to others, we wouldn't be able to speak about very much at all.

people who do as the WBC advocates are doing so not for personal peace, but for the selfish purpose of justifying their dislike for those who serve in the military. The line is the fact that they aren't just saying what they want to say, they are doing it in a manner that is destructive to other people's well being.

 

[Lostwords]

WBC is not a church at all.. It is a cult.

It is a small number of people with a charasmatic leader who believe that that specific church is the only one making it to heaven, and everyone else is damned.

They do not preach the love of Jesus at all, only hate speech.

It wouldn't supprise me if they all ended up in Guyana drinking Kool aid.. (though I don't wish that on them, or anyone else)

 

[Jade Margery]

I just feel sorry for their children. No matter how strongly I believed in something, I wouldn't bring my kids to a protest for it and make them carry signs. Poor little political puppets. They can't understand what they are supposedly advocating, but they are subject to all the same ridicule and negative feedback that their parents incite just by being there. The words 'child abuse' get thrown around a lot... people have the right to raise their kids according to their own judgment, but I think it's obvious those children are regularly and deliberately put into an emotionally damaging environment. Maybe there's no law against it but it feels wrong.

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

WBC is not a church at all.. It is a cult.

It is a small number of people with a charasmatic leader who believe that that specific church is the only one making it to heaven, and everyone else is damned.

They do not preach the love of Jesus at all, only hate speech.

It wouldn't supprise me if they all ended up in Guyana drinking Kool aid.. (though I don't wish that on them, or anyone else)

Not to be a jerk or anything but wasnt christianity started by what you would describe as a cult? A charasmatic leader who believed that the only way to make it to heaven was through him and everyone else is damned?

I realize the difference and all but really who has the right to say they are wrong besides god at the final judgement?

 

[b&wpac4]

how would you define safety? a grieving individual can easily be pushed beyond the levels of sanity by the scorn of hateful individuals. as we all know, insanity(even temporary) is an issue of safety.

We can't make the distinction there. I could argue that any action you take could, in theory, lead someone to become so enraged that they lose control. They are not doing what they are doing with the intention of causing a situation where someone could be hurt due to a panic or whatever, so it isn't the same safety concern.

 

[BeagleMomSC]

The problem with the WBC is not their views, it's not about how stupid or wrong their views are either, it's about their tactics. They don't "peacefully" protest funerals. They use tactics that can easily incite violence.. and THAT is the part that should be illegal. If they just stood outside the funerals and held signs, that's one thing.. as much as I would still hate it, they are free to voice their opinion. They should NOT be free to harass and interrupt a funeral with hate speech.
If the KKK was protesting outside a black leaders funeral, what do you think the outcome of that would be??

 

[b&wpac4]

If the KKK was protesting outside a black leaders funeral, what do you think the outcome of that would be??

Police protection for the KKK.

 

[Freemind]

Police protection for the KKK.

This is why we live in a great country. Even evil and hateful people have the right to free speech.

If we suddenly decided that they couldn't protest, whose to say that fire and brimestone street screamers are any better. And then what about just street evangelists, they're preaching a message that people don't agree with, and may be offended by.

As much as I think WBC is evil, and I want to light them on fire, it is their right to do what they're doing. If their protesting was made illegal, it would be because the government has decided that people who dissagree with them do not have the right to speak out. And once that has been established, it would extend to more and more people until no one was allowed to say anything that the government doesn't approve of.

We would very literaly be living under Big Brother.

 

[Infernalfist]

We can't make the distinction there. I could argue that any action you take could, in theory, lead someone to become so enraged that they lose control. They are not doing what they are doing with the intention of causing a situation where someone could be hurt due to a panic or whatever, so it isn't the same safety concern.

intent has very little to do with the well being of others. one does not intent to hurt anyone when they drive while under the influence of alcohol, but it is illegal because it has the potential to do quite a bit of harm. i would easily give up the right to protest a funeral if it means that noone else be able to. there is no reason for it and there is no justification for it's preservation.

 

[Infernalfist]

This is why we live in a great country. Even evil and hateful people have the right to free speech.

If we suddenly decided that they couldn't protest, whose to say that fire and brimestone street screamers are any better. And then what about just street evangelists, they're preaching a message that people don't agree with, and may be offended by.

As much as I think WBC is evil, and I want to light them on fire, it is their right to do what they're doing. If their protesting was made illegal, it would be because the government has decided that people who dissagree with them do not have the right to speak out. And once that has been established, it would extend to more and more people until no one was allowed to say anything that the government doesn't approve of.

We would very literaly be living under Big Brother.

the issue with this paranoid argument is the fact that we are still a democracy and the majority still has the say. the fact of the matter is, i have not heard one person agree with what these people are doing and the only argument against stopping it is that it is a freedom that they don't want to give up. i find this thought process to be ridiculous. these people are causing harm to others and many sit back and watch because "it is their right". it is a weak and pathetic argument and i have very little respect for the act of embracing it.

 

[b&wpac4]

intent has very little to do with the well being of others. one does not intent to hurt anyone when they drive while under the influence of alcohol, but it is illegal because it has the potential to do quite a bit of harm. i would easily give up the right to protest a funeral if it means that noone else be able to. there is no reason for it and there is no justification for it's preservation.

Driving is not a right. I have a suspended license due to medical issues, so I guess you can say I know this better than most. So, as you do not have the right to drive, you do not have the right to drink while driving, so them making it illegal for safety reasons does not infringe upon a right that does not exist.

That you would be willing to give up the right is immaterial. The Constitution is there to protect speech. I find it more important to protect speech that I disagree with than speech I agree with.

 

[theblackcat]

Westboro is an embarrassment to all thoughtful, empathetic people, religious and non. Holding extreme and controversial views is one thing, but acting in ways deliberately intended to add pain to people already suffering, such as through protests at military funerals, is just disgusting. It doesn't matter who you are or what agenda you hold to: when you go to a funeral where a grieving family is mourning their loss and shout obscenities or slander the deceased, that is simply wrong. Like all groups, they are entitled to free speech, but just about everyone can agree that expressing that level of hatred, intolerance and bigotry, and acting up to the point of harassment, is morally wrong even if it doesn't violate any laws.