REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Westboro Baptist Church headed for bankruptcy?

POSTED BY: FREDGIBLET
UPDATED: Friday, November 16, 2007 10:36
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 2036
PAGE 1 of 1

Wednesday, November 14, 2007 11:06 AM

FREDGIBLET


http://kansas.com/news/updates/story/227607.html

Short version: Westboro Baptist Church was sued for picketing a funeral and lost, they have about $1 million in assets and the fine is $10.9 million.

Super short version: Westboro Baptist Church got owned.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 14, 2007 11:07 AM

EVILDINOSAUR


yay!!

"Haha, mine is an evil laugh."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 14, 2007 11:54 AM

RIGHTEOUS9


What was the precedent of the lawsuit?

I have no love for that church, and think that their picketing of soldier's funerals was sick and mental,

so I'm not going to cry over them getting smacked for this,

but does this have any possible repercussions on legitimate protests?

What warrants invasion of privacy and personal distress? They were on public land, right?

We do sometimes have to protect the rights of those less deserving of them, if just to protect our own. I don't know enough about this case though, and am hoping they stepped over some actual legal line and that that's what they are paying for.

Andybody understand the case and its implications enough to explain them to me?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 14, 2007 11:57 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:

Originally posted by Righteous9:
Andybody understand the case and its implications enough to explain them to me?

It shut up a bunch of haters, that’s all I know. And I’m not losing any sleep over it.



Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 14, 2007 11:59 AM

STORYMARK


Couldn't have happened to a better band of predjudiced assholes.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 14, 2007 12:16 PM

FREDGIBLET


Quote:

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
It shut up a bunch of haters, that’s all I know. And I’m not losing any sleep over it.



Actually no, they have said that they will continue to protest.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 14, 2007 12:17 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:

Originally posted by fredgiblet:
Quote:

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
It shut up a bunch of haters, that’s all I know. And I’m not losing any sleep over it.



Actually no, they have said that they will continue to protest.

Damn them. Damn them and their continuing to protest.



Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 14, 2007 12:21 PM

FREDGIBLET


Quote:

Originally posted by Righteous9:
What was the precedent of the lawsuit?



I'm just guessing here but I'm betting it's based off of harassment and abuse precedents.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 14, 2007 12:29 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


I think it was invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 14, 2007 1:05 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


The daughter of the Rev who runs the Westboro Baptist Cult says she welcomes the lawsuit, that it'll be overturned, and that all the publicity of the large $$ figure is getting their message ( of hate and evil ) out to more and more folks.

I personally think it's time to call back Janet Reno from retirement and sick her and the national guard on those folks.





"Hillary tried to get a million dollars for the Woodstock museum. I understand it was a major cultural and pharmaceutical event. I couldn't attend. I was tied up at the time." - John McCain

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 14, 2007 1:52 PM

FREMDFIRMA


A man willing to deny the rights of others simply because he does not like what they do with them...

Deserves no rights himself, as he himself should first bear witness on such tyranny as he wishes to visit upon his countrymen.

You wanna shut some haters up, ya sick fucks, you can start with excercising your right to remain silent.

Not directed at you Fred, but it's come abundantly clear that some of our posters are just flat out not right in the head, hasn't it ?

Not that I agree with WBC's shockingly tasteless and offensive behavior, mind you - but I am getting right sick of tolerating some of the despicably vile people around here now that their true colors are shining through.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 14, 2007 2:16 PM

FREDGIBLET


Quote:

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
A man willing to deny the rights of others simply because he does not like what they do with them...



Well I don't recall there being a right to be abusive and harass others. On the other hand being as fuckheaded as the WBC would fall under the "they needed killing" defense in a more anarchic world.

Quote:

You wanna shut some haters up, ya sick fucks, you can start with excercising your right to remain silent.


In my experience silence doesn't really help matters, it just makes the other side bolder since they think you can't argue with them.

Quote:

Not directed at you Fred, but it's come abundantly clear that some of our posters are just flat out not right in the head, hasn't it ?


Indeed but then they probably think the same thing about us. Most people who aren't right in the head think that they are, and really who's to tell? Maybe you and\or I are the crazy ones.

Quote:

Not that I agree with WBC's shockingly tasteless and offensive behavior, mind you - but I am getting right sick of tolerating some of the despicably vile people around here now that their true colors are shining through.


I relatively recently started visiting a couple of other bulletin boards, one of them is actively moderated, it's a very different experience.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 14, 2007 2:34 PM

FREMDFIRMA


Meh, I hate moderated boards... got thrown off the last one for saying that muslims are people, not animals, and their religion is no more cruel nor violent than christianity in places, it's just all in the practice therof, and really, both sides sounded like a bunch of old school doctor who Daleks.

"The High Road" isn't very high unless you're a racist right wing conservative fundamentalist christian... and it shows, still, even in spite of radical actions taken to minimize the conduct that offended so many, which is especially ironic given the beliefs and ancestry of their sysadmin.

I don't do heavily moderated boards, too much experience with moderator bias, some of it from inside - was assisting in the operation of a now defunct site and IRC server intended to be a safe haven from the usual net nastiness and caught the server admin playing favorites and keeping/misusing instead of deleting and ignoring, logs and personal info...

Can you say Operator Revolt ? which is how said site quickly became defunct.

And I am not at all very well liked even by other Anarchists cause when it comes to my person, property and safety, I do believe in violence, lots of it, immediately and without mercy.

I like Hakens hands off policy, cause once you remove ALL consqeuence from someones actions... ahhh.. then we get to see who they REALLY are, don't we ?

And a lot of us, self included, ain't exactly the most pleasant of folk, true - but the root is a respect issue, gotta give some to get some, and while I might passionately disagree with you on stuff, Fred... that's a far cry from certain folk who want everyone who doesn't agree with them shipped off to the gulag, you know ?

And THAT, is startin to piss. me. off.

-F

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 14, 2007 2:38 PM

SERGEANTX


Quote:

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Not that I agree with WBC's shockingly tasteless and offensive behavior, mind you - but I am getting right sick of tolerating some of the despicably vile people around here now that their true colors are shining through.



Fair to say Frem, but having lived in the backyard of Phred Phelps for years, I can tell you he crosses the line. If there is such a thing as abusing freedom of speech this fuckhead is guilty as charged.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 14, 2007 3:10 PM

FREDGIBLET


Quote:

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Meh, I hate moderated boards... got thrown off the last one for saying that muslims are people, not animals, and their religion is no more cruel nor violent than christianity in places, it's just all in the practice therof, and really, both sides sounded like a bunch of old school doctor who Daleks...I don't do heavily moderated boards, too much experience with moderator bias, some of it from inside - was assisting in the operation of a now defunct site and IRC server intended to be a safe haven from the usual net nastiness and caught the server admin playing favorites and keeping/misusing instead of deleting and ignoring, logs and personal info...I like Hakens hands off policy, cause once you remove ALL consqeuence from someones actions... ahhh.. then we get to see who they REALLY are, don't we ?



Have you ever been to 4chan? They have a variety of boards with rules about what topics you can talk about but no real rules about the discussions that ensue. One board, /b/ the "random" board basically has one rule "don't post anything that will get us in trouble if we have it on our server" which from my experience basically boils down to "don't post child porn". Everything else goes, everything. It's an imageboard so when you start a thread you have to post a picture, but the picture doesn't have to be related to the topic and afterwards there's no requirements. Additionally you can (and the vast majority of people do) post anonymously with the only record being your IP address. It is a nearly true anarchy.

To anyone who is thinking about going to 4chan I have this to say, I've seen several people who said "I can't be disgusted/shocked/offended, I'm not afraid" and then return to say "I was wrong", 4chan is the asshole of the internet, the worst threads in RWED would be considered child's play in /b/. Chances are that your first visit will elicit a "I don't see what the big deal is" but sooner or later you WILL see something that you will never be able to unsee, maybe tubgirl, maybe goatse, maybe 2girls1cup, but sooner or later you will see something that will make you wish you'd never been to 4chan.

You have been warned.

That being said, if you stay off of /b/ and any boards that you don't know what the name means (if you do know what the name means then you will know whether or not you want to go there), then it's a fairly interesting site.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 14, 2007 3:21 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
You wanna shut some haters up, ya sick fucks, you can start with excercising your right to remain silent.

What can I say, haters love it when everyone else shuts up and lets them terrorize. I’m not commenting on the legal matters in the case. Maybe I agree with it, maybe I don’t. I haven’t seen it to know. What I do know is that countless times the WBC have hatefully acted to callously inflict pain on people, simply because they don’t agree with their opinions or the lifestyle. Something I find despicable. I certainly believe they have a right to their hatred, but the same right grants me the privilege to find their hatred disgusting.



Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 14, 2007 6:00 PM

FREMDFIRMA


If you find it so despicable then why do you practice the exact same behavior, and get upset when others are then disgusted by your own espoused hatreds ?

Can you not see the hypocrisy here, Finn ?

I know the WBC are assholes, just sayin that when you start takin rights away from folk cause you maybe don't like what they do with them - your own should be forfeit first and immediately.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 14, 2007 6:16 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
If you find it so despicable then why do you practice the exact same behavior, and get upset when others are then disgusted by your own espoused hatreds ?

Can you not see the hypocrisy here, Finn ?

There’s no hypocrisy to see. It’s all in your head, Frem.

Although considering the kinds of comments you routinely make on this board, it's somewhat interesting that you suddenly decided everyone else should keep their mouth shut.



Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 14, 2007 10:30 PM

FREMDFIRMA


Not what I said, moron.

I said if ya wanted to silence hate, maybe you should start with your own.

I don't go around like you, pretending and denying, I make it damn clear right up front, explicitly so, and you know cursed well, or should, that I don't believe in stomping on other folks rights just cause I don't agree with em...

That particular idiocy is your baliwick, not mine.

All imma doin is holding up a mirror, if you don't like the image in it, that's YOUR problem, bubba.

-F

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 15, 2007 1:02 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

I don't go around like you, pretending and denying, I make it damn clear right up front, explicitly so, and you know cursed well, or should, that I don't believe in stomping on other folks rights just cause I don't agree with em...


-F




Even with the freedoms granted by the Constitution, there are limits, in civil society , to which can be tolerated that which is called 'free speech' to exist. I think the Founders would side more often than not that we can't yell FIRE in a crowded movie house.

"Hillary tried to get a million dollars for the Woodstock museum. I understand it was a major cultural and pharmaceutical event. I couldn't attend. I was tied up at the time." - John McCain

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 15, 2007 2:38 AM

JONGSSTRAW


This is not a church...it it ONE extended family, full of inbred, toothless, neaderthal-brained cretins. I cannot understand why they chose to do their picketing at military funerals, but I do believe their core beliefs on homosexuality are at least open to debate...in a proper forum that is.

Where has the " outrage " been from GLAAD, or the other 10 million Gay groups over these people and their signs? Nowhere. God forbid ( sorry no God allowed )Gays actually had a common cause with military families...oh the horror!

This "church" group should have taken their message to Washington DC to protest, or to state capitals that have sanctioned gay marraige.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 15, 2007 4:26 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
All imma doin is holding up a mirror, if you don't like the image in it, that's YOUR problem, bubba.

I’m sure that’s what the WBC calls it too.



Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 15, 2007 6:21 AM

DEEPGIRL187


I'm glad the bastards got sued. Those families have been through enough, and to have their pain and suffering thrown in their faces is beyond cruel.

I do wonder, however, if this ruling will effect future court cases. Will someone use this as a way to shut down groups that protest globalization, gay rights, abortion, etc.? If said groups are being intentionally hurtful, that's one thing. But will some judge decide that protesters that are behaving in a agreeable manner deserve the same treatment? I guess what my long-winded statement is trying to say is will this end up affecting our right to peaceful assembly?

*****************************************************

"This is my timey-wimey detector. It goes ding when there's stuff. Also, it can boil an egg at 30 paces, whether you want it to or not, actually, so I've learned to stay away from hens. It's not pretty when they blow."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 15, 2007 6:30 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:

Originally posted by deepgirl187:
I do wonder, however, if this ruling will effect future court cases. Will someone use this as a way to shut down groups that protest globalization, gay rights, abortion, etc.? If said groups are being intentionally hurtful, that's one thing. But will some judge decide that protesters that are behaving in a agreeable manner deserve the same treatment? I guess what my long-winded statement is trying to say is will this end up affecting our right to peaceful assembly?

I doubt it, though I'm assuming. I think if anything it will set the precedent that the law frowns on cheering the death of other people because you don’t agree with them. Now granted many people seem to find it acceptable and even agreeable to cheer the death of people they don’t agree with, but for the families’ sake, the law should protect the solemnity of the funeral. If the WBC wants to picket gay people, they can express that opinion without inflicting emotional pain on those suffering the loss of loved ones.



Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 15, 2007 7:51 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


One of the things about this thread is the no-holds-barred response to the WBC, which is very much the tactic of the WBC itself.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 15, 2007 8:23 AM

FLETCH2


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
One of the things about this thread is the no-holds-barred response to the WBC, which is very much the tactic of the WBC itself.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.



They are morons. They sadistically inflict pain on others just to forward their own bigotted aims. It's not even Christian -- this isn't what the J-man would have done.

One interesting question for Rue, when we were discussing protests on public land I'd forgotten about these guys. This a free speech issue in your mind?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 15, 2007 9:58 AM

FREMDFIRMA


Deepgirl, that's what's rookin me about it too, the possibility that with the shortsighted and ignorant cheerleading of folk who don't see the dangers looming here...

That this'll wind up a hook, and a precedent, for such action against protestors of any stripe.

I dunno whether folks don't wanna see it, or are just refusing to, but the moment we start takin rights away from folk who use them in ways we do not like - we endanger our own rights at the hands of those who may not like the way WE use them.

The point for me isn't that WBC is a pack of assholes, I think that's universally acknoweldged, it's how many of our rights that folk are willing to sell down the river to "shut them up" and how that's gonna come back on us one day.

It's very dangerous ground, I just can't make that clear enough - would you like to be sued out of house and home by Blackwater, for example, for anti-war protesting.. having an anti-war bumpersticker, even ?

Same principle, different application.

-F

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 15, 2007 10:40 AM

STORYMARK


You're making on HELL of leap there.


"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 15, 2007 10:42 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Not really. A teacher lost her job over an anti-war bumper sticker a few years ago....

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 15, 2007 11:56 AM

CAUSAL


About time (for Westboro, not the teacher).

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police
- Vote JonnyQuest/Causal, for Benevolent Co-Dictator of Earth; together, toward a brighter tomorrow!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 15, 2007 12:35 PM

FREMDFIRMA


Yep, Lynne Gobbell, for having a Kerry bumpersticker.
(EDIT: No, guess that makes two, who was the teacher then ?)

http://www.slate.com/id/2106714/

One of the few things to his credit Kerry ever did was call that woman and immediately hire her onto his staff when he found out about it.

Always amused me, that did, instead of helping out Bush, their rabid and over the top support in effect handed Kerry a "gimme" on the PR front with that one.

Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.

But no, I am not kidding, I mean, look at the trouble some pissant podunk court decision without any kind of basis in fact and despite a superior courts precedence saying the exact opposite*... has caused us over the right to pack some iron.

ONE decision or precedent, is all it'd take.

-Frem
*(Speaking of Salina v. Blaksley, Kansas 1905)

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 16, 2007 6:27 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Deepgirl, that's what's rookin me about it too, the possibility that with the shortsighted and ignorant cheerleading of folk who don't see the dangers looming here...

That this'll wind up a hook, and a precedent, for such action against protestors of any stripe.

That's generally what they call the "slippery slope" fallacy.

As I understand it this was a civil case that held Westbro Church finacially accountable for their actions. That's hardly the same thing as removing their right to freedom of speech.

If someone walks up to you and calls you a C**T and you punch them in the face, you haven't removed their right to freedom of speech, you've slapped an arsehole.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 16, 2007 8:27 AM

RIGHTEOUS9


Citizen,

I'd say it is.

"You can only speak as freely as you can afford to" is the message, which is a defacto cooling of free speech.

The fcc and its outrageous fines for missing a swear word are good example of how one could cool not only free speech but any small businesses in radio, because the costs for screwing up were made exorbinantly high. Getting noticed by the fcc or by big corporations who have friends at the fcc is a financial disaster waiting to happen.

.......
Adding to clarify that we are all in agreement that these guys were assholes, but I worry that some people who would like to see a cooling of free speech love it when these guys spring up. They become a poster child for reigning free speech in.

...........

and edited to add, a second time,

as far as I understand it, you are not within your rights to hit somebody for calling you a name, nor should you be...same applies here.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 16, 2007 8:51 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Cit- Besides, whatever happened to Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me? Punching someone seems disproportionate.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 16, 2007 9:20 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by Righteous9:
Citizen,

I'd say it is.

"You can only speak as freely as you can afford to" is the message, which is a defacto cooling of free speech.

There's always consequences to ones actions, even if they're just words. I don't think this sets any sort of precedent, they can still babble on with the same crazy shit now as they did before. But, since they can't respect other peoples rights they've been punished for that, so in future maybe they'll execute their rights in a manner that doesn't prevent other people from exercising they're own.

I don't see a slippery slope from punishing Westbro for disrupting grieving families funerals, to the death of freedom of speech as we know it. They can still execute their rights, its just that they may pay heed to the fact that OTHER people have rights too in future.

This quaint idea that a persons rights should never be infringed ignores the fact that in order to allow that, someone else's will have to be curbed to a much greater extent. We've all got rights, and we all have to exercise them in a sensible manner to keep it that way. Otherwise you'll end up with an animal farm situation, all rights are equal, but some are more equal than others.

Does you're right to swing your fist superceed my right not to get punched in the face? I rather think not. So you should be punished if you hit me in the face, but that doesn't mean you're right to swing your fist has been dimminished in anyway. You can still swing your fist if you wish, just take into account the existance of other people (i.e. don't be a selfish self-righteous jerk) when you do.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 16, 2007 9:37 AM

FIVVER


Just some thoughts...

Here is the First Amendment in its entirity:

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.


Your right to freedom is speech is not a license to say anything you want. You can be held both criminally (inciting a riot, yelling fire in a crowded theater) and civily (slander, libel) accountable for it's content.

In the case of Westboro, there is no violation of their right as defined in the amendment. Congress made no law. (note: the word congress is inclusive of governments at all levels, federal, state and local.) What's happened is that a judge and jury found the plaintiffs were harmed by their speech and awarded them damages. Westboro is free to continue to protest and folks are free to sue them when they do. If a government attempts to prevent them from protesting then there IS a free speech issue. Look up the Nazi march in Skokie, Il.

As for the woman getting fired, once again, congress made no law. No first amendment violation. Having only heard one side, IMHO there's more going on than meets the eye. However, if the company came out and said that she was fired for being lazy and imcompetent then they are ripe to be sued for libel and/or slander so they are saying nothing.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 16, 2007 9:44 AM

RIGHTEOUS9



It's always a matter of what is more of an infringement. What rights concreted by our laws do you see have been infringed upon by the wacky church?

Frustrating, disgusting? Distracting, offensive, it may be all of these things...

but honestly, if a memeber of my family died, and there were wackos shouting in the background at teh funeral about how god hates fags and how my relative died because he fought for fag lovers, I'd just shake my head. It has no bearing on my mourning or on the death of my relative. My relative is still dead, and the idiots in the background have nothing to do with why that is or how sad I am about it, and they have no real power to sully his name or corrupt the perspectives of all but the most crazy of our populace...

so seriously...I'd let it go. I'd probably even do my share of laughing about it. I'll add to that...the idea of something like this happening at my own funeral tickles me to death...its so beyond the pale looney tunes...it's kind of novel to me.

I don't expect everybody to look at it like I do, but I do expect that the right not to be offended does not supercede the right to free speech.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 16, 2007 9:58 AM

RIGHTEOUS9



Fivver, I would take issue with that.


Civil suits are a system of justice defined by congress. Laws made by congress that allow you to be rewarded for speech that was deemed harmful to you do not extend to verbal abuse, as far as I am aware, and probably shouldn't if they do.

The question this leaves unanswered is whether the church was guilty of crossing some legal boundary or whether the law regarding such suits was disregared by a sympathetic jury, based on the target of the suit being such an unlikable bunch of a-holes.

If rights of the mourners were somehow impeded on by the church's protestors, that is a wholly different story. If they were guilty of any slander or libel, that crosses the line of legal discourse, and they should be held financially liable.

If they were making people feel bad, that's hardly an infringment that warrants a payout.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 16, 2007 10:03 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by Righteous9:
I don't expect everybody to look at it like I do, but I do expect that the right not to be offended does not supercede the right to free speech.

So the right to freedom of speech is the highest possible right, never to be infringed? Does my right to scream whatever I want at the top of my lungs every night supersede your right to sleep? There's no law that explicitly says you're allowed to sleep either.

No one is stopping them from doing anything, they can even carry on protesting at other peoples funerals if they wish, but those people can hurt them back so to speak. I don't see one persons right to freedom of speech as so important that it over-rides everyone else's rights.

I also don't think what you would do in the same situation as particularly relevant, because A) it wasn't your funeral, and how you'd be affected is wholly irrelevant to how they were affected, and B) I suspect you've never actually been in that situation, so I'm not sure you can really give an accurate account of how you would react.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 16, 2007 10:11 AM

FIVVER


Righteous, take issue all you want. For a suit to be accepted for trial, the judge has to find that there is a particular statute that the suit can be tried under. For a jury to award damages they have to agree that the statute was violated and harm was done. That last sentence is a two parter. Not only was the statute broken, but harm was done. What was the statute and what was the harm? I don't know and don't care to look it up. Why don't you research it and get back to us with a specific objection?

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 16, 2007 10:15 AM

RIGHTEOUS9


You are right, I should.

but I wasn't taking issue with whether or not these guys crossed a line, I was taking issue with
your notion that a law fining people for saying certain things is not a law established by congress.

It is. So long as that law is balancing the rights of both parties, I have no problem with it, but it doesn't give a carte-blanche exception for civil lawsuits to punish for legal activity where criminal action cannot tread.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 16, 2007 10:18 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


This is a whole big mess.

Current thinking is that the Bill of Rights only protects you from the Federal government and is parsimonious as to what your 'rights' consist of. In other words, if they're not enumerated in the Bill they don't exist vis a vis the feds.

So one finds themselves under the iron boot of employers, the state, corporations etc with no apparent protection at all. How did these entities get so much power ? Anyway, as another result of the more parsimonious version of the Bill, we now have a system of as much freedom of speech as you can afford. With the bigger purse have the most freedom. I'm fairly certain it's not what the FF had in mind.



***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 16, 2007 10:27 AM

RIGHTEOUS9





I agree Citizen, there are noise laws for a reason. Because certain volumes do infringe upon the rights of others. A balance has been attempted. That balance shifts at hours after 10 oclock on weekdays, or I believe it does, for those very reasons.

There are balances in place to allow people to protest within certain boundaries of reason as well, and I would assume the church was adhering to the legal parameters, or else they would have been arrested at first opportunity.

Still, Maybe slapping these guys down is within the balance of rights, I'm just not so sure.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 16, 2007 10:36 AM

FIVVER


Righeous, the major word here is harm. You and I get into a barroom argument, call each other every name under the sun and then go our separate ways. Was the libel or slander (can't keep those peksy things right) committed? Yes. Was either of us harmed? No. I take out a full page ad in the New York times calling you those names and suddenly your friends are shunning you, customers won't patronize your business and the stress causes you to have a heart attack then you have incurred damages and harm has been done. Proving libel/slander has a very high threshold in law. Public figures like politicians and celebraties are pretty much SOL when it comes to being able to sue.

Personally I have no problem with people having the right to speak but being held responsible for the harm that speech causes.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME