If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Examiner)   Westboro Baptist plans a protest at a Texas A&M alumni's funeral. Students form a human wall to block them from the church *I've got some dust in my eyes*   (examiner.com) divider line 245
    More: Hero, Texas, Westboro Baptist Church, Fort Bragg, military funeral, walls, Baptist church  
•       •       •

24208 clicks; posted to Main » on 06 Jul 2012 at 8:14 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



245 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-07-06 04:16:17 PM

hillary: My dog is an amazing example of how to properly repel elephants. There has not been one elephant within miles of my house ever since I adopted the dog. Why doesn't the news report that?


I guess one would have to figure out how many elephants were within miles of your house before you adopted (congrats) your dog to see if the dog is the actual reason elephants are no longer hanging around your area.

btw just in case elephants become a major hassle in my area, what type of dog did you adopt?
 
2012-07-06 04:20:22 PM
That takes balls to pull that sh*t in heavily armed Texas.
 
2012-07-06 04:28:11 PM

Surool: That takes balls to pull that sh*t in heavily armed Texas.


In Obama's America, their 1st Amendment rights trump your 2nd Amendment rights.
 
2012-07-06 04:50:47 PM

FlyingLizardOfDoom: Surool: That takes balls to pull that sh*t in heavily armed Texas.

In Obama's America, their 1st Amendment rights trump your 2nd Amendment rights.


I see you have no f*cking clue what you are talking about. What does your derp drivel have to do with angering Texans who own guns?
 
2012-07-06 04:52:24 PM

Neondistraction: MmmmBacon: While ignoring them might work to some degree, the WBC have always found new tactics to employ that allow them to force their message on the rest of us. When the LGBT community ignored them, they started protesting military funerals, for example. If they are ignored there, the WBC will just start protesting children's funerals, or at Little League games (Stealing second base infects little kids with The Ghey, you know), etc.



I would love to seem them start protesting Little League games of any sport. Because eventually they'd run into the violently drunk/angry sports dad (you know, the kind that get into fights with other parents or refs/umpires). And no matter how it ends, it would make for an excellent story.


southparkstudios.mtvnimages.com

Cant Wait
 
2012-07-06 05:06:59 PM

Surool: FlyingLizardOfDoom: Surool: That takes balls to pull that sh*t in heavily armed Texas.

In Obama's America, their 1st Amendment rights trump your 2nd Amendment rights.

I see you have no f*cking clue what you are talking about. What does your derp drivel have to do with angering Texans who own guns?


Words can be used as projectiles with near unlimited legal protection. Bullets cannot. Ergo, they can use their "weapons" as much as they want and you can't respond with yours, proving my point.
 
2012-07-06 05:10:49 PM

FlyingLizardOfDoom: Surool: FlyingLizardOfDoom: Surool: That takes balls to pull that sh*t in heavily armed Texas.

In Obama's America, their 1st Amendment rights trump your 2nd Amendment rights.

I see you have no f*cking clue what you are talking about. What does your derp drivel have to do with angering Texans who own guns?

Words can be used as projectiles with near unlimited legal protection. Bullets cannot. Ergo, they can use their "weapons" as much as they want and you can't respond with yours, proving my point.


You have yet to make a point.
 
2012-07-06 05:11:05 PM

FlyingLizardOfDoom: Surool: FlyingLizardOfDoom: Surool: That takes balls to pull that sh*t in heavily armed Texas.

In Obama's America, their 1st Amendment rights trump your 2nd Amendment rights.

I see you have no f*cking clue what you are talking about. What does your derp drivel have to do with angering Texans who own guns?

Words can be used as projectiles with near unlimited legal protection. Bullets cannot. Ergo, they can use their "weapons" as much as they want and you can't respond with yours, proving my point.


Your point is that you should be able to murder anyone you want if they say something that annoys you?
 
2012-07-06 05:18:20 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: FlyingLizardOfDoom: Surool: FlyingLizardOfDoom: Surool: That takes balls to pull that sh*t in heavily armed Texas.

In Obama's America, their 1st Amendment rights trump your 2nd Amendment rights.

I see you have no f*cking clue what you are talking about. What does your derp drivel have to do with angering Texans who own guns?

Words can be used as projectiles with near unlimited legal protection. Bullets cannot. Ergo, they can use their "weapons" as much as they want and you can't respond with yours, proving my point.

Your point is that you should be able to murder anyone you want if they say something that annoys you?


My point is it doesn't matter if i piss off a Texan with a gun. You can't legally shoot me with bullets in retaliation for me legally shooting you with words. Unless i make a false statement, you are powerless to prevent me from speaking. And any attempts to forcibly shut me up will resort in a lawsuit that I will most surely win. That is WBC's modus operandi. And they are very very good at provoking reactions.
 
2012-07-06 05:30:59 PM

FlyingLizardOfDoom: Surool: FlyingLizardOfDoom: Surool: That takes balls to pull that sh*t in heavily armed Texas.

In Obama's America, their 1st Amendment rights trump your 2nd Amendment rights.

I see you have no f*cking clue what you are talking about. What does your derp drivel have to do with angering Texans who own guns?

Words can be used as projectiles with near unlimited legal protection. Bullets cannot. Ergo, they can use their "weapons" as much as they want and you can't respond with yours, proving my point.


Proverbs 18:21 ESV /
Death and life are in the power of the tongue, and those who love it will eat its fruits.

Matthew 15:18 ESV /
But what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this defiles a person.

Proverbs 12:18 ESV /
There is one whose rash words are like sword thrusts, but the tongue of the wise brings healing.

Ephesians 4:29 ESV /
Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear.

Matthew 12:36 ESV / s
I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak,

Proverbs 16:24 ESV /
Gracious words are like a honeycomb, sweetness to the soul and health to the body.

Colossians 3:8 ESV /
But now you must put them all away: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and obscene talk from your mouth.

Proverbs 13:3 ESV /
Whoever guards his mouth preserves his life; he who opens wide his lips comes to ruin.

Matthew 12:37 ESV /
For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned."

James 1:26 ESV /
If anyone thinks he is religious and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, this person's religion is worthless.

Proverbs 15:1 ESV /
A soft answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger.

Proverbs 21:23 ESV /
Whoever keeps his mouth and his tongue keeps himself out of trouble.

Proverbs 29:20 ESV /
Do you see a man who is hasty in his words? There is more hope for a fool than for him.

Psalm 19:14 ESV
Let the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart be acceptable in your sight, O Lord, my rock and my redeemer.
 
2012-07-06 05:36:43 PM

FlyingLizardOfDoom: Keizer_Ghidorah: FlyingLizardOfDoom: Surool: FlyingLizardOfDoom: Surool: That takes balls to pull that sh*t in heavily armed Texas.

In Obama's America, their 1st Amendment rights trump your 2nd Amendment rights.

I see you have no f*cking clue what you are talking about. What does your derp drivel have to do with angering Texans who own guns?

Words can be used as projectiles with near unlimited legal protection. Bullets cannot. Ergo, they can use their "weapons" as much as they want and you can't respond with yours, proving my point.

Your point is that you should be able to murder anyone you want if they say something that annoys you?

My point is it doesn't matter if i piss off a Texan with a gun. You can't legally shoot me with bullets in retaliation for me legally shooting you with words. Unless i make a false statement, you are powerless to prevent me from speaking. And any attempts to forcibly shut me up will resort in a lawsuit that I will most surely win. That is WBC's modus operandi. And they are very very good at provoking reactions.


Which is the bad part about having freedom of speech. Not that I'm against the idea, but I tend to draw a line when it's being blatantly abused by people like WBC.

Maybe an addendum to the First Amendment that allows freedom from speech, i.e. you're not allowed to crash a gathering and spout hateful, evil, bigoted crap. But then people would argue over slippery slope, government control, the semantics of what hateful and evil and bigoted are, yadda yadda. And in the end we'll still have to let people like WBC continue their blatant abuse of the law.
 
2012-07-06 05:43:01 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: FlyingLizardOfDoom: Keizer_Ghidorah: FlyingLizardOfDoom: Surool: FlyingLizardOfDoom: Surool: That takes balls to pull that sh*t in heavily armed Texas.

In Obama's America, their 1st Amendment rights trump your 2nd Amendment rights.

I see you have no f*cking clue what you are talking about. What does your derp drivel have to do with angering Texans who own guns?

Words can be used as projectiles with near unlimited legal protection. Bullets cannot. Ergo, they can use their "weapons" as much as they want and you can't respond with yours, proving my point.

Your point is that you should be able to murder anyone you want if they say something that annoys you?

My point is it doesn't matter if i piss off a Texan with a gun. You can't legally shoot me with bullets in retaliation for me legally shooting you with words. Unless i make a false statement, you are powerless to prevent me from speaking. And any attempts to forcibly shut me up will resort in a lawsuit that I will most surely win. That is WBC's modus operandi. And they are very very good at provoking reactions.

Which is the bad part about having freedom of speech. Not that I'm against the idea, but I tend to draw a line when it's being blatantly abused by people like WBC.

Maybe an addendum to the First Amendment that allows freedom from speech, i.e. you're not allowed to crash a gathering and spout hateful, evil, bigoted crap. But then people would argue over slippery slope, government control, the semantics of what hateful and evil and bigoted are, yadda yadda. And in the end we'll still have to let people like WBC continue their blatant abuse of the law.


I agree
 
2012-07-06 06:20:32 PM

FlyingLizardOfDoom: Keizer_Ghidorah: FlyingLizardOfDoom: Surool: FlyingLizardOfDoom: Surool: That takes balls to pull that sh*t in heavily armed Texas.

In Obama's America, their 1st Amendment rights trump your 2nd Amendment rights.

I see you have no f*cking clue what you are talking about. What does your derp drivel have to do with angering Texans who own guns?

Words can be used as projectiles with near unlimited legal protection. Bullets cannot. Ergo, they can use their "weapons" as much as they want and you can't respond with yours, proving my point.

Your point is that you should be able to murder anyone you want if they say something that annoys you?

My point is it doesn't matter if i piss off a Texan with a gun. You can't legally shoot me with bullets in retaliation for me legally shooting you with words. Unless i make a false statement, you are powerless to prevent me from speaking. And any attempts to forcibly shut me up will resort in a lawsuit that I will most surely win. That is WBC's modus operandi. And they are very very good at provoking reactions.


As near as I can figure, you thought mistakenly that my comment was in some way serious. That is very sad for you.
 
2012-07-06 07:22:21 PM

publikenemy: Why bother? It's a church they're protecting. Why protect a church Fark atheists? Let them all be stupid right? Why not mock the Lt. Col., and all the people worshipping at the church. After all, they are stupid believers of the great spaghetti monster in the sky right?

Am I doing this right? Funny how y'all pick and choose when to make fun of Christians.


As a "fark atheist" I'd say because they're mean angry bast@#$ who want to disrupt other people's lives. I personally don't care what you believe as long as you leave me alone to live my life as I see fit. I pick my fights with believers who interfere in my or other people's lives. Sure I think you (I'm assuming you're christian from your post) wrong about the whole god thing but as long as you leave me alone you are welcome to your wrongness. Admitedly I too could be wrong and I hope you'll just leave me alone in my (unlikely) wrongness.
 
2012-07-06 07:36:06 PM

Waldo Pepper: Proverbs 18:21 ESV /
Death and life are in the power of the tongue, and those who love it will eat its fruits.

Matthew 15:18 ESV /
But what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this defiles a person.

Proverbs 12:18 ESV /
There is one whose rash words are like sword thrusts, but the tongue of the wise brings healing.

Ephesians 4:29 ESV /
Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear.

Matthew 12:36 ESV / s
I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak,

Proverbs 16:24 ESV /
Gracious words are like a honeycomb, sweetness to the soul and health to the body.

Colossians 3:8 ESV /
But now you must put them all away: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and obscene talk from your mouth.

Proverbs 13:3 ESV /
Whoever guards his mouth preserves his life; he who opens wide his lips comes to ruin.

Matthew 12:37 ESV /
For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned."

James 1:26 ESV /
If anyone thinks he is religious and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, this person's religion is worthless.

Proverbs 15:1 ESV /
A soft answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger.

Proverbs 21:23 ESV /
Whoever keeps his mouth and his tongue keeps himself out of trouble.

Proverbs 29:20 ESV /
Do you see a man who is hasty in his words? There is more hope for a fool than for him.

Psalm 19:14 ESV
Let the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart be acceptable in your sight, O Lord, my rock and my redeemer.


Darn, you missed my favorite one.

Proverbs 17:27-28 KJV

17:27 He that hath knowledge spareth his words: and a man of understanding is of an excellent spirit.
17:28 Even a fool, when he holdeth his peace, is counted wise: and he that shutteth his lips is esteemed a man of understanding.

IOW STFU noob.
 
2012-07-06 07:37:11 PM

publikenemy: Listen everyone..just debating. I'm not gonna win a 1 against 500 debate. I could give a fark what you think of me. I've had a horrible life starting from when I was 10, and continuing....addiction is the current battle I'm in so I won't take on a Fark battle. I come here to laugh not fight, and I'm not trolling. Sometimes when you're down and alone, you wanna believe in something. I don't believe in shiat and have no one to believe in. If you wanna say I have a persecution complex that's o.k., but I honestly was just debating because like I said..I'm searching.

Guess i should stick with the suicide prevention site lol...I'm out, now you have no other "trolls" to toy with hahahha.


I am also an addict. I like to communicate with others like me, if your interested see my profile, I didn't see your e-mail in your profile or I would have e-mailed you.
 
2012-07-06 07:38:13 PM
*dust rises*
 
2012-07-06 07:42:01 PM

hillary: Except that Westboro never actually protested at this funeral. So the students blocked... what? Air? This is a news story about a day in which nothing happened.


"Hey, everybody, I misunderstood TFA. My idiocy, let me show you it."
 
2012-07-06 07:58:31 PM

indarwinsshadow: I'm unfamiliar with American laws, but wouldn't or doesn't the Westboro church fall under a terrorist or hate organization? I ask, because I know they're banned from crossing the border and protesting in Canada. Are they protected by your first amendment?


The U.S. Constitution enshrines a fundamental civil liberty -- arguably our most important -- in the First Amendment, known generally as "freedom of speech." Canada does not include this in theirs. In brief, "free speech" refers to the absolute civil liberty, free from any law or restriction, that assures every citizen's right to express their own views, about absolutely anything. Even hate speech.

There are very few and very narrow restrictions on this right to expression, limited to public safety (often exemplified as "yelling 'Fire!' in a crowded theatre"), sedition (defined as "advocating the *violent* overthrow of the government" -- advocating nonviolent revolution is entirely protected), and advocating for infringing upon the civil rights of others. (E.g., it's perfectly fine to say how much you hate hipsters, but if you explicitly advocate for actions that would violate their civil rights, you've gone too far.)

In the U.S., unlike in Canada, no one can be legally charged or punished for 'hate speech' -- it's legally valid, however odious, to publicly hate people. So-called 'hate groups' (as, for example, tracked by the Southern Poverty Law Center and some government agencies) are legal. They are watched, however, partly to track social and political trends related to hate, but also because historically, at least, some hate groups have broken the law. (The KKK, for example, is entirely legal. Lynching people, however, or even advocating for it, is not.)
 
2012-07-06 08:01:52 PM

God Is My Co-Pirate: .HAMMERTOE: publikenemy: Why bother? It's a church they're protecting. Why protect a church Fark atheists? Let them all be stupid right? Why not mock the Lt. Col., and all the people worshipping at the church. After all, they are stupid believers of the great spaghetti monster in the sky right?

Am I doing this right? Funny how y'all pick and choose when to make fun of Christians.

Some ignorance just goes above and beyond vanilla religion and desperately needs to be met head-on. (Apply to the forehead.) While we oppose the hypocrisy of religion on general, we vehemently oppose those who seek to use religion as a cover for hatred, bigotry, corruption, pedophilia, greed, or any other base action which needs dragging out into the light of day and exposing.


It's the age-old argument of how to deal with trolls. Most of the time you want to ignore them because it's not worth 1) giving them attention, and 2) giving yourself an aneurism.

Sometimes, though, they start shiat so putrid that you just have to stand up and say "what is wrong with you? stop that."

In the absence of a real-life banhammer (how I wish...) we'll just have to keep debating.


WBC and their ilk consider any serious responce fuel. The only useful responce, therefore, is to mock them. And not with insults, which is just an analogue (and a very poor one) of serious responce. Comic Con had it right. They're really the only ones who ever have. Ignoring them is best, because any attention they get is good. But if you can't ignore them, ruthlessly lampoon them.
 
2012-07-06 08:05:04 PM

MonkeyAngst: randomjsa: optikeye: The sooner everyone starts to simply ignore these people the better.
The gay community realized this years ago. So now, WBC is moving on to other targets.
They're attention whores, and trolls. Any attention just feeds them.

That's not quite right.

They basically run around doing this crap so they can sue and take people to court if anyone tries to stop them from doing this crap. That's how they make a fair amount of their money. The gay community didn't so much ignore them as they figured out how not to get sued by them... And THAT'S why WBC moved on to new targets.

I've heard that stated, but I haven't found anything indicating it's true. They have sued, and they've won some money, but according to the SPLC website they've lost more than they've won, which doesn't sound like a very good business model.


Well, except that if your legal assistance is free -- and theirs always is -- then it's not that bad a gamble, because the losses are much shorter than the gains, infrequent as they may be. Spam and Nigerian scams work on the same principle -- most attempts will result in no hits at all, and some cost -- but they are clearly profitable, or no one would do it.
 
2012-07-06 08:15:19 PM

johnnyrocket: Is this Westboro thing some kind of art project or long running punk'd episode? These people can't be an actual organization that believe their signs, can they?


It's a cult, of sorts. The old man is pathologically hateful ("addicted to hate," according to his own estranged son), and his spawn are apparently either brainwashed or just insane. (Bear in mind that some forms of mental illness tend to run in families.) They are also very sharp lawyers, and so it's no joke to go up against them in any manner. They all live together in a gated compound on one city block in Topeka, and most of them are related to each other by blood or marriage, but for a few true believers who've joined them.

It may be easier or less troubling to imagine they are professional trolls or some kind of very bizarre performance artists. (It's even been suggested that they might be *pro* gay, and do all this to drum up support for gay rights through extreme negative psychology.) But human nature being what it is, it seems very unlikely, given the complicating factors of time and numbers: this many people all agreeing to do the same thing for this long, and with this much dedication, are almost certainly exactly what they present themselves to be.

On their site (use protection if you go, and I'm not joking when I say that), the old man lays out a fascinating exegesis in the FAQ. It mostly proves that you can get the Bible to say pretty much anything you want it to, but it also shows that at least in the Biblical terms they subscribe to, their view is hard to dispute. Which also helps to support the consideration that they really are true believers.
 
2012-07-06 08:25:51 PM

ThrobblefootSpectre: Personally, I consider the day that burning a U.S. flag in front of a bunch of disabled war vets became legal, to be the day that "fighting speech" no longer existed at all.


The question isn't whether the inspiration for an infraction is illegal, but whether the alleged severity thereof fully mitigates the liability of the responder. The concept of "fighting words" doesn't ask if it's illegal for me to call your mother a whore, but if my doing so makes it okay for you to hit me because I said it.
 
2012-07-06 08:29:37 PM

FlyingLizardOfDoom: Gramma: FlyingLizardOfDoom: Gramma: Lee Jackson Beauregard: Barricaded Gunman: publikenemy: Why bother? It's a church they're protecting. Why protect a church Fark atheists? Let them all be stupid right? Why not mock the Lt. Col., and all the people worshipping at the church. After all, they are stupid believers of the great spaghetti monster in the sky right? Am I doing this right? Funny how y'all pick and choose when to make fun of Christians.

fark you and your retarded "y'all." Is that better?

They's plenty wrong with y'all, but they ain't nothin' wrong with "y'all".

You - second person singular
y'all - second person plural
all y'all - every person present
makes more sense than using 'you' for every case.

except that y'all is a contraction of you all, and implies everyone in the group. All y'all is redundant.

"y'all" isn't used that way, though. At least not in Texas. Y'all is used to mean the plural 'you'. If you mean everybody, you have to siip an 'all' in front of "'y'all. "

which is why its a redneck plural. Here in California, if it is used at all, its used properly. Anyone says "All Y'all" is laughed at as a hick.


Are you trying to win some contest to see how annoying you can be?
 
2012-07-06 08:36:20 PM

FlyingLizardOfDoom: HAMMERTOE: Waldo Pepper: where in the Christian Bible does it state that today's believers should sacrifice their first born?

Surely you know the story of Abraham and Isaac, don't you?

And surely you know that God was only testing Abraham and never intended for him to go through with it?


I guess for their children's sake, we'll have to hope and pray that the God some people may imagine to be testing their faith commands them to stop in time.
 
2012-07-06 08:40:13 PM

FlyingLizardOfDoom: Lorelle: publikenemy: Why bother? It's a church they're protecting. Why protect a church Fark atheists? Let them all be stupid right? Why not mock the Lt. Col., and all the people worshipping at the church. After all, they are stupid believers of the great spaghetti monster in the sky right?

Am I doing this right? Funny how y'all pick and choose when to make fun of Christians.

It's not about protecting the church, it's about protecting a family's right to grieve in peace without being harassed by a group of assholes.

/atheist

I agree

/Calvinist


Agree.

/agnostic
 
2012-07-06 08:53:09 PM

Langdon Alger: I think it's funny as an Aggie, we call ourselves "former students" not "alumni"


Forgive me for saying so, but that saddens me a little. I'd like to think that anyone who's been to school never stops being a student.
 
2012-07-06 08:54:41 PM

LiberalEastCoastElitist: I still don't get how making an arse out of yourself at a private funeral that has nothing to do with you falls under protected speech.


Anything not proscribed by law is legal.

I'm guessing you don't get a lot of things.
 
2012-07-06 09:11:31 PM

Sylvia_Bandersnatch: Anything not proscribed by law is legal.

I'm guessing you don't get a lot of things.


Are disorderly conduct and harassment legal? I'm guessing you didn't like my handle and wanted to make a oh so witty comment.

Disorderly conduct - A person who recklessly, knowingly, or intentionally:
(1) engages in fighting or in tumultuous conduct;
(2) makes unreasonable noise and continues to do so after being asked to stop; or
(3) disrupts a lawful assembly of persons

Harassment - commonly understood as behaviour intended to disturb or upset, and it is characteristically repetitive. In the legal sense, it is intentional behaviour which is found threatening or disturbing.

Enjoy, courtesy of Wikipedia.
 
2012-07-06 09:24:03 PM

publikenemy: Why bother? It's a church they're protecting. Why protect a church Fark atheists? Let them all be stupid right? Why not mock the Lt. Col., and all the people worshipping at the church. After all, they are stupid believers of the great spaghetti monster in the sky right?

Am I doing this right? Funny how y'all pick and choose when to make fun of Christians.


That's because, in general, most human beings have a thought process level higher than 'this person is not like me IS ENEMY MUST KILL NOW MUST KILL!!!11!!'. Tell me, what's it like being from another planet?
 
2012-07-06 09:47:12 PM

LiberalEastCoastElitist: Sylvia_Bandersnatch: Anything not proscribed by law is legal.

I'm guessing you don't get a lot of things.

Are disorderly conduct and harassment legal? I'm guessing you didn't like my handle and wanted to make a oh so witty comment.

Disorderly conduct - A person who recklessly, knowingly, or intentionally:
(1) engages in fighting or in tumultuous conduct;
(2) makes unreasonable noise and continues to do so after being asked to stop; or
(3) disrupts a lawful assembly of persons

Harassment - commonly understood as behaviour intended to disturb or upset, and it is characteristically repetitive. In the legal sense, it is intentional behaviour which is found threatening or disturbing.

Enjoy, courtesy of Wikipedia.


No, those infractions are obviously not legal. And yes, disrupting a "private" funeral may be actionable. But I think you misunderstand what "private" means in this case. (I assume you're commenting in context of WBC activities.)

I believe you when you say, "I still don't get how making an arse out of yourself at a private funeral that has nothing to do with you falls under protected speech." I don't disagree at all with your statement that you don't get it. I'm just saying that the reason you don't get it is because you don't 'get' the law. But more to the point, it seems to me that you mean to imply that those charged with interpreting and enforcing the law must not "get it," rather than you. If so, I would argue that you are mistaken.

/legal assistant
 
2012-07-06 09:49:29 PM

LordJiro: Radical Christians are the reason why two people who love eachother cannot marry if they're the same gender. Radical Christians are why, until VERY recently, I couldn't buy beer on Sunday. Radical Christians are why several states are pushing bullshiat anti-abortion laws.

Religious fundamentalism is a disease ...and you only have to look at certain countries in the Middle East to see how that disease can kill a country. And it CAN happen here.


It's amazing you're that naive. It's not "Radical Christians". It's people that use Christianity as their excuse. Trust me, if they couldn't blame the Bible, they'd find something else.
 
2012-07-06 09:53:24 PM

Sylvia_Bandersnatch: I believe you when you say, "I still don't get how making an arse out of yourself at a private funeral that has nothing to do with you falls under protected speech." I don't disagree at all with your statement that you don't get it. I'm just saying that the reason you don't get it is because you don't 'get' the law. But more to the point, it seems to me that you mean to imply that those charged with interpreting and enforcing the law must not "get it," rather than you. If so, I would argue that you are mistaken.


Thank you for the 5 sentence paragraph where you failed to say anything new.

Sylvia_Bandersnatch: /legal assistant


It shows.
 
2012-07-06 10:00:05 PM

Loreweaver: Optimus Primate: Pontious Pilates: According to the article, WBC didn't even show up! What a bunch of spineless douchebags. Can't even stick to their attention whoring guns.

Spineless douchebags? Hardly. The WBC is anything but spineless. This is a brilliant strategy on their part, and actually achieves their desired attention whoring goals perfectly without them having to spend a penny or even make any effort. They have opted for this "press release/no show" gambit quite a bit lately...and it works like a charm.

Until people start simply ignoring them, like any troll, they will never go away.

At the same time, if no one shows up to block these trolls, and WBC *does* show up, they will have yet another chance to destroy the lives of a grieving family.

WBC does not stop at just public protests the funerals. They also like to frequently eviscerate the grieving families on their website, then continue to harass the families for days on end, rubbing salt in the wound, just because they can get away with it.

They may be attention whores, but they are also hateful little sadists that masturbate to the suffering they cause those families. Ignoring them may get rid of the attention whore part, but that fact remains they still wish to inflict pain on everyone around them, and they will find other means to do so.

For that reason, I find I can't just ignore them. It only gives them the opportunity to do far more harmful things while no one is looking.


I appreciate how you feel about this, but you are misusing a lot of these words. The WBC has never 'eviscerated' anyone. And they have never legally perpetrated harassment, either. They're odious little trolls, but they are law-abiding citizens. It's sometimes argued that the fact that they "get away with it" is proof that the law itself is deeply flawed, but I vehemently argue the opposite: It proves that Freedom of Speech, as an American principle, is strong, and our endurance of this most extreme exercise thereof proves that we are strong. Other countries would lock these fools up, or silence them. We are better than that, for the fact that we do not.

The very hard thing about civil liberties is that we all have them. This, then, is the price of such high freedom: There will be times when we must be strong enough, principled enough, disciplined enough, and devoted enough to upholding and defending our liberties that we will endure even this. The alternative -- the remedies that are too often suggested -- are dark to consider. What if it is *your* speech that someone wishes to censor next? And if your speech, what other liberties may be negotiable, suppressable, disposable? What, if any, American principles are absolute? Surely, even a man in chains must have the freedom to speak his mind, whatever he may have to say, even if no one else wants to hear or listen, or if no one else agrees. And since we all want that right, we must be willing to defend it for EVERYONE else.
 
2012-07-06 10:07:53 PM

Sylvia_Bandersnatch: And since we all want that right, we must be willing to defend it for EVERYONE else.


OK, kiddie porn, technical details for making nuclear bombs, and Hillary Clinton's last speculum finding it is. I'm going to be selling popcorn and used cars during your mom's funeral, I hope you're cool with that.
 
2012-07-06 11:07:40 PM

Optimus Primate: Spineless douchebags? Hardly. The WBC is anything but spineless. This is a brilliant strategy on their part, and actually achieves their desired attention whoring goals perfectly without them having to spend a penny or even make any effort.


Whiny, spoiled little self-entitled instant-gratification Gen-X brats. Can't even be bothered to perform their own little stunts. "We'll get the press to do all the work for us!"
 
2012-07-06 11:21:48 PM

Sylvia_Bandersnatch: Loreweaver: Optimus Primate: Pontious Pilates: According to the article, WBC didn't even show up! What a bunch of spineless douchebags. Can't even stick to their attention whoring guns.

Spineless douchebags? Hardly. The WBC is anything but spineless. This is a brilliant strategy on their part, and actually achieves their desired attention whoring goals perfectly without them having to spend a penny or even make any effort. They have opted for this "press release/no show" gambit quite a bit lately...and it works like a charm.

Until people start simply ignoring them, like any troll, they will never go away.

At the same time, if no one shows up to block these trolls, and WBC *does* show up, they will have yet another chance to destroy the lives of a grieving family.

WBC does not stop at just public protests the funerals. They also like to frequently eviscerate the grieving families on their website, then continue to harass the families for days on end, rubbing salt in the wound, just because they can get away with it.

They may be attention whores, but they are also hateful little sadists that masturbate to the suffering they cause those families. Ignoring them may get rid of the attention whore part, but that fact remains they still wish to inflict pain on everyone around them, and they will find other means to do so.

For that reason, I find I can't just ignore them. It only gives them the opportunity to do far more harmful things while no one is looking.

I appreciate how you feel about this, but you are misusing a lot of these words. The WBC has never 'eviscerated' anyone. And they have never legally perpetrated harassment, either. They're odious little trolls, but they are law-abiding citizens. It's sometimes argued that the fact that they "get away with it" is proof that the law itself is deeply flawed, but I vehemently argue the opposite: It proves that Freedom of Speech, as an American principle, is strong, and our endurance of this most extreme exercise th ...


I'm sorry, but when you're blatantly and happily using your freedom to fark around with people, cause a scene, and inflict emotional damage on others, then that freedom needs to be temporarily taken away. Like a misbehaving child smashing things with his baseball bat, you take away the bat until he learns not to misuse it.

I'm all for free speech, but when it's being used for nothing other than preaching hate, bigotry, and idiocy, then they've shown that they failed to properly use their freedom. We can argue ethics and semantics all day long, but I feel that those who can't use something properly shouldn't be allowed access to it.
 
2012-07-07 01:20:01 AM

hillary: My dog is an amazing example of how to properly repel elephants. There has not been one elephant within miles of my house ever since I adopted the dog. Why doesn't the news report that?


Really? I am plagued by elephants here in Chicago. Guess cats are not good at elephant prevention. On the other hand, no vikings or ninjas! So the cats are good at that at least.
 
2012-07-07 01:22:10 AM

FlyingLizardOfDoom: Surool: That takes balls to pull that sh*t in heavily armed Texas.

In Obama's America, their 1st Amendment rights trump your 2nd Amendment rights.


Fixed that for you.
 
2012-07-07 02:24:52 AM
Mind=blown! I know Ryan, the guy who organized this. He is an incredible person.
 
2012-07-07 04:01:02 AM

KidneyStone: MmmmBacon: While ignoring them might work to some degree, the WBC have always found new tactics to employ that allow them to force their message on the rest of us. When the LGBT community ignored them, they started protesting military funerals, for example. If they are ignored there, the WBC will just start protesting children's funerals, or at Little League games (Stealing second base infects little kids with The Ghey, you know), etc.

WBC knows how to push buttons, and if you take one away, they will just push another. And anyway, people of good conscience should not simply ignore Evil when presented with it. Evil such as the WBC should be actively resisted, exposed whenever they crawl out from under their rocks, and not allowed to succeed in any way.

You'd be so much more believable if you had knowledge of the matter about which you pontificate. They've protested at many a child's funeral.

They need to be completely ignored and the media needs to stop producing coverage of them.

And sure as shiat Fark should stop greenlighting articles about them but hey, just like MSM, more outrage means more clicks and more ads viewed


Of course they have protested at children's funerals, but it isn't their primary schtick. Those are outliers at best, with their primary target being military funerals. That's where their 'bread & butter' is right now. That was my point, but way to focus on one statement to try to undermine my whole point.

/golfclap.
 
2012-07-07 08:43:39 AM

Keizer_Ghidorah: I'm sorry, but when you're blatantly and happily using your freedom to fark around with people, cause a scene, and inflict emotional damage on others, then that freedom needs to be temporarily taken away. Like a misbehaving child smashing things with his baseball bat, you take away the bat until he learns not to misuse it.

I'm all for free speech, but when it's being used for nothing other than preaching hate, bigotry, and idiocy, then they've shown that they failed to properly use their freedom. We can argue ethics and semantics all day long, but I feel that those who can't use something properly shouldn't be allowed access to it.


Again, I really do appreciate how you feel about it. But I must argue the law here, and I don't mean just the letter of the law. What you're arguing here are subjective qualities that are extremely difficult to codify -- and extremely dangerous to codify, without very substantial and very strict safeguards.

One way to argue this, for example, is that anyone's speech *might* be their sincere, heartfelt view, no matter how it may come across to others, and who is anyone else to say otherwise, and infringe upon that speaker's civil liberties? Hell, I'd be happy to silence at least half the idiots just on Fark. What constitutes 'actionable' conduct, as you so unambiguously say should be legally restrictable and even actionable, is very much a matter of viewpoint. And our First Amendment protection of free speech is meant to protect that for *everyone*, not just people you like and agree with. It is not for you to decide when and how anyone else's expressed views transgress some invisible line where it becomes a criminal act. Not for you, me, or anyone. It is not for us to decide who is 'properly' exercising their civil liberties and who is not.

This is how it must be, in order for all of us to enjoy this very important freedom. And it does mean that we have to endure the nonviolent hatred of some very sick-minded people from time to time. That's part of the price of being a citizen in a free country. There are other counties that would more readily agree with your view. Canada, for example, where citizens can be and sometimes are charged and even jailed for 'hate speech'. I don't know how they decide that, but I hope I never have to find out.

Again, I appreciate how you *feel* about this -- these people's antics disgust me, too. But I do not see this as an excuse to whittle away even more of our civil rights. Believe me, it's entirely possible to forge a well-behaved society; it's been done before. But if you study history, you'll see that such societies aren't much fun to live in. (Depending who you are, of course: If you're among those in power, it can be great fun, I'm sure. The odds aren't very good, though, and power is often short-lived.) Like it or not, freedom is for everyone. Some people will indeed abuse that, but that's the price of it. Deal with it.
 
2012-07-07 08:52:40 AM

MmmmBacon: KidneyStone: MmmmBacon: While ignoring them might work to some degree, the WBC have always found new tactics to employ that allow them to force their message on the rest of us. When the LGBT community ignored them, they started protesting military funerals, for example. If they are ignored there, the WBC will just start protesting children's funerals, or at Little League games (Stealing second base infects little kids with The Ghey, you know), etc.

WBC knows how to push buttons, and if you take one away, they will just push another. And anyway, people of good conscience should not simply ignore Evil when presented with it. Evil such as the WBC should be actively resisted, exposed whenever they crawl out from under their rocks, and not allowed to succeed in any way.

You'd be so much more believable if you had knowledge of the matter about which you pontificate. They've protested at many a child's funeral.

They need to be completely ignored and the media needs to stop producing coverage of them.

And sure as shiat Fark should stop greenlighting articles about them but hey, just like MSM, more outrage means more clicks and more ads viewed

Of course they have protested at children's funerals, but it isn't their primary schtick. Those are outliers at best, with their primary target being military funerals. That's where their 'bread & butter' is right now. That was my point, but way to focus on one statement to try to undermine my whole point.

/golfclap.


I think this is the wrong way to look at it. They can and certainly will stoop to the morally villainous to get the reactions they crave. Children's funerals today, children's day schools tomorrow. At this point, I wouldn't put anything past them. This is a challenge for our time, though, and we've already failed several other critical tests along these lines: Terrorists sought to victimise our entire nation, and they've largely succeeded so far, by convincing us to suspend our own liberties for the illusory sake of 'safety': safety means very little if you can't enjoy the freedom you're supposed to have instead, and the world won't ever be safe for anyone, or free for fearful people. Now we've got people ready to gut freedom of speech so that they won't have to be offended. Just stop and think about this, everyone: these are idiots holding *signs* and occasionally yelling some idiocy at anyone nearby. They're not armed. They have never committed an act of violence upon anyone, nor advocated for it. Hell, the old man could go any second, and his daughter is just crazy. We're really going to tinker with the First Amendment because of these trolls? Can't we possibly be better and smarter than that?
 
2012-07-07 11:26:33 AM

Langdon Alger: I think it's funny as an Aggie, we call ourselves "former students" not "alumni"


And the rest of the world calls you dumbshiat farmers.
 
2012-07-07 08:38:00 PM

MmmmBacon: While ignoring them might work to some degree, the WBC have always found new tactics to employ that allow them to force their message on the rest of us. When the LGBT community ignored them, they started protesting military funerals, for example. If they are ignored there, the WBC will just start protesting children's funerals, or at Little League games (Stealing second base infects little kids with The Ghey, you know), etc.

WBC knows how to push buttons, and if you take one away, they will just push another. And anyway, people of good conscience should not simply ignore Evil when presented with it. Evil such as the WBC should be actively resisted, exposed whenever they crawl out from under their rocks, and not allowed to succeed in any way.


And yet, if I hose them down with a Tommy gun and make the world an 387% friendlier and more compassionate place in the space of fifteen seconds, I'm the one that would be sent to jail. Does that seem right to you?
 
Displayed 45 of 245 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report