Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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.

(Huffington Post)   The Westboro Baptist Church has done something that no other organization has been able to do in two years: Unite Congress   (huffingtonpost.com ) divider line
    More: Cool, Westboro, Westboro Baptist Church, obama, political rallies, Southern Poverty Law Center, Anti-Defamation League, The Law Center  
•       •       •

3371 clicks; posted to Politics » on 07 Aug 2012 at 12:06 PM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2012-08-07 03:04:21 PM  
When you're so vile that even the republicans think you're disgusting and filled with hate, hoooooo-boy!
 
2012-08-07 03:04:58 PM  
Dr Dreidel:Not in the Constitution. The rights to peaceful assembly and speech are, though. It sucks, but the WBC may (absent SCOTUS giving thumbs-up to this new law) have found a way to "win". At being supreme dicks.

You know how We The People win? By doing what we've been doing - using nothing but our bodies and good will to block the hate speech of WBC. Turning the rights of speech and peaceful assembly into tools of unification, rather than of division. By having 10-50x as many people show up to respect our fallen as do to disrespect them. We don't do it by embracing our fear and hatred.


As much as I'm tempted to roll my eyes at the "not in the Constitution" part, I can't deny that it's a solid argument. It just seems excessive to have to amend the constitution to put in some kind of funeral protection clause, just for these jackasses. I'm caught somewhere between respecting the right to assemble and believing that certain events should be able to take place uninterrupted.

And I don't think the counter-protests are a good thing either; what I want is for the families to be able to focus their attention on the person they're burying and each other. You only bury a loved one once, and it should be a time to reflect on that person and their life without ANY outside interference. If a group of vegans wanted to protest Kraft's use of animal rennet at military funerals, I'd have a problem with that too.

But it does make me wonder... Fred Phelps is gonna die someday, probably soon. And when he does, one would presume there will be a burial service. I wonder how that's going to go down.
 
2012-08-07 03:11:28 PM  

Cyclometh: Dr Dreidel: Not in the Constitution

Neither is the right to privacy. The Constitution does not have to enumerate a right for it to be one. This isn't D&D we're playing; rules lawyers can't point at the Constitution and say "it's not listed". There must be a more cogent argument.


Saying there's no right to privacy in the Constitution is like saying there's no bread in a standard pizza*. It's not called a "right to privacy", but the parameters are there - the government must show cause to interfere with your life and that you are "secure in your person". 4th + 5th + 14th (and probably parts of others, plus later rules like HIPAA) = a right to privacy. WTF do those amendments mean if not a general right to privacy?

What I mean is that there is no provision in the Constitution that says you have the right to bury your dead as you like. There's nothing covering even the individual elements (apart from religion, but AFAIK, no religion demands you bury your dead in private with no one but blood relatives present), like you have with the right to privacy.

// that's a guarantee of privacy from government snooping
// there are other laws covering private citizens' actions
// the dough in pizzas is made of the same stuff as bread
 
2012-08-07 03:35:37 PM  

flux: Dr Dreidel:Not in the Constitution. The rights to peaceful assembly and speech are, though. It sucks, but the WBC may (absent SCOTUS giving thumbs-up to this new law) have found a way to "win". At being supreme dicks.

You know how We The People win? By doing what we've been doing - using nothing but our bodies and good will to block the hate speech of WBC. Turning the rights of speech and peaceful assembly into tools of unification, rather than of division. By having 10-50x as many people show up to respect our fallen as do to disrespect them. We don't do it by embracing our fear and hatred.

As much as I'm tempted to roll my eyes at the "not in the Constitution" part, I can't deny that it's a solid argument. It just seems excessive to have to amend the constitution to put in some kind of funeral protection clause, just for these jackasses. I'm caught somewhere between respecting the right to assemble and believing that certain events should be able to take place uninterrupted.

And I don't think the counter-protests are a good thing either; what I want is for the families to be able to focus their attention on the person they're burying and each other. You only bury a loved one once, and it should be a time to reflect on that person and their life without ANY outside interference. If a group of vegans wanted to protest Kraft's use of animal rennet at military funerals, I'd have a problem with that too.

But it does make me wonder... Fred Phelps is gonna die someday, probably soon. And when he does, one would presume there will be a burial service. I wonder how that's going to go down.


It will most likely be on private property FAR away from any public access.
 
2012-08-07 03:52:39 PM  

flux:

But it does make me wonder... Fred Phelps is gonna die someday, probably soon. And when he does, one would presume there will be a burial service. I wonder how that's going to go down.


It should be interesting. My guess is WBC will be making a very public spectacle of it in the hopes of attracting someone they've offended who wants to cross a line. They would LOVE for someone to do anything they can sue for. See it heavily publicized. (And it would be f'awesome if no one showed outside of WBC members. Even if the media stayed away, it would be 10 times better. But I know that Santa is more likely to appear in my living room than for that to happen.)

CSB: I grew up in NW MO, so you always heard stories of the Phelps' folks. In college, I counterprotested them at an abortion clinic and actually got to tell Phelps that the cure for abortion was cutting off his dick. After another area protest they attended, we realized how curious we were about how these freaks lived. So, a road trip ensued.

It's real easy to tell when you're arriving upon the Phelps' compound, even though it's in the middle of no where: Guns get trained on you from the minute you get in the sight line until you get out of it. No trespassing signs serve as gate 'decor.' (You can't see much from the road...it's all tree'd and gated. It was a brick wall-type gate entry when we passed by. May have changed since then. They may have been able to afford an upgrade.) But the two guys hanging out in front of the gate checking their firearm sights told us stopping for coffee was probably 'frowned upon.'
 
2012-08-07 03:55:54 PM  
I'm a veteran and a lib who libs all the lib-long lib, so I'm getting a kick out of these replies.
 
2012-08-07 04:15:18 PM  

qorkfiend: Sure, but talking in a theater isn't illegal. Keep it up and you'll probably get kicked out, but as a private entity, the theater has the right to do that.


Public library.
 
2012-08-07 05:55:16 PM  
img52.imageshack.us
 
2012-08-07 06:16:59 PM  

Sybarite: The law counters a 2011 Supreme Court ruling, which found that displays such as Westboro's were protected under the First Amendment.


No, it just violates it. The only way to "counter" a Supreme Court ruling is to amend the Constitution.


If SCOTUS overturns a law, Congress could pass the exact same law the next day with the addition of a clause stating that federal courts have no jurisdiction of the law. Simple as that.
 
2012-08-07 07:05:58 PM  

qorkfiend: mccallcl: The Homer Tax: Specifically, how are they "interfering" with it?

By shouting and creating a disturbance. Just like talking in a theater. We could allow that to escalate into talking and counter-talking or we could just make people be quiet during the movie or get thrown out. That's what this law is doing and I'm fine with it.

Let them come back and protest the grave site, but interfering with the event is a no-no. It's not an event where reasonable people should expect to be able to make a lot of noise. It's a funeral.

Sure, but talking in a theater isn't illegal. Keep it up and you'll probably get kicked out, but as a private entity, the theater has the right to do that.

whatever, while annoying
well, yes and no, it depends what you say in the theater

Chatting to the person next to you about whatever, while annoying, definitely legal.


It's all about context.

Yelling FIRE at the top of your lungs when there is no fire.....
 
2012-08-07 09:31:16 PM  

TV's Vinnie: When you're so vile that even the republicans think you're disgusting and filled with hate, hoooooo-boy!


To be fair, the Republicans would be A-OK with the Westboro Baptist Church and their message if the church didn't protest military funerals.
 
2012-08-08 04:46:45 AM  
www.freelancewritinggigs.com

WBC are the worlds biggest trolls. The fact that this has gone to the supreme court and eaten up our legislature's time is just ridiculous. I'm sure they were a pain for military families, and I wish I lived in a place where I could wrap the funerals in sound proof barriers.

On the other hand, that's what freedom of speech is all about. You can say to whatever you want, but you have to learn to ignore the hacks and the fools and the swindlers (and they are everywhere).

Do these people really believe that celebrating a soldier's death (who gave them the right to free speech) is the proper way to protest homosexuality? I think not, I think they just know this will have the greatest shock value. Just ignore them and they will realize that their massive troll fest isn't working and give up trolling for good. Pass a law, and they'll know they're getting to you and will only find a new way to troll.

/I do have a better way to fix trolls, but it's illegal...
 
2012-08-08 10:36:12 AM  
Something does need to be done about that bunch. The problem is not their message, but that they keep trying to push it on people who don't want to hear it. And then there's how everyone knows they're gaming the legal system by being as deliberately inflammatory as possible so they can make $ off of lawsuits claiming their right to hate was violated.
 
2012-08-09 09:04:50 AM  

Cyclometh: Time, place and manner restrictions on speech are not a new thing. This one will pass Constitutional muster because it's not an overly burdensome restriction.

Eliminating the ability of the WBC to inflict pain and calling it speech is not a problem for me. Harrassment is not free speech, it's just harrassment. The WBC does not exist in a vacuum and there are victims of their actions whose rights also should be respected.


Truth. This doesn't have anything to do with the first amendment, it has to do with harassing those who are grieving. I support this 100%.
 
Displayed 14 of 164 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report