surgicalghost13
5-Year Member
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2011
- Messages
- 39
what a disgusting bunch of sick bastards. somebody needs to put an IED in the Westboro Baptist Church.
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that the First Amendment protects fundamentalist church members who mount anti-gay protests outside military funerals, despite the pain they cause grieving families.
The court voted 8-1 in favor of the Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kan. The decision upheld an appeals court ruling that threw out a $5 million judgment to the father of a dead Marine who sued church members after they picketed his son’s funeral.
"Speech is powerful," Roberts wrote. "It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and -- as it did here -- inflict great pain."
"On the facts before us, we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker. As a nation we have chosen a different course -- to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate," he said. "That choice requires that we shield Westboro from tort liability for its picketing in this case."
What the supreme court said was that their right to free speech is protected from the government's interference. Speech is never free of consequences and I for one expect that at some point the perverted acts of the misguided fools at the Westboro Baptist chuch are subjected to the collective anger of their fellow citizens who are also free to engage in their speech and activities in response. One hopes that response falls within legal limits, but if not- my tears for the Westboro bigots will be 100% crocodile.
In other words, you would tacitly approve of an illegal action to suppress the legal speech of American citizens, because you happen to disagree with the content.
Scary.
And a "slippery-slope" position to hold.
I read it differently, there is nothing illegal about a LEGAL counter-protest. I am pretty sure there were counter-protests against Westboro to include formed a protective wall to prevent Westboro protest from reaching the event.
bruno said:One hopes that response falls within legal limits, but if not- my tears for the Westboro bigots will be 100% crocodile.
I agree with your premise, but that's not what I was responding to in bruno's response.
I also advocate all legal methods to stop these wack-jobs from inflicting any more pain on the families of the dead.
But I was responding to this:
The "but if not" statement would indicate that, while he hopes the response would be a LEGAL response, if it didn't he would be fine with it (crocodile tears indicating an insincere or fake sadness).
That, and the statement by "bob80q" about bombing the WBC with an IED seem a little drastic in a free society that allegedly has a 1st Amendment protecting speech, even repugnant speech we may disagree with.
That's all.
WBC supports itself largely from the lawsuits they win against those who take action against them. Those who act out in an illegal manner against them are probably going to see their life savings go to lawyers' fees and the WBC cause.
...in internet lingo, don't feed the trolls!
Boo Hoo: There are my crocodile tears. The difference between theory and real world victims is pretty important. I have little to no use for those who don't understand that freedom of speech often winds up as a black eye when one decides that "you can't talk that way about my mother; sister, wife, daughter" etc... These jackasses don't have the "right" to target innocent victims regardless of what the Supreme Court says is their legal right, and if the good citizens of Rockbridge County or Topeka Kansas decide that they are not going to stand by and watch their fellow citizens be molested, then I'm with them - not the theory mongers who would stand aside wringing their hands and saying " isn't that just a shame that they have to be targeted by these terrible people. That's just too bad- oh my goodness. So sorry but that's the way it is." So spare me the bleating about "slippery slopes".
BTW- why don't you ask me if I would stand by and watch a court let a guy off on a technicality after he had physically harmed one of my family? I'm not Mike Dukakis, and I have no use for those who will watch injustice happen because the "system" is the important thing as opposed to the victim being the important thing. I guarantee that the next trial would be mine- and I will be a willing martyr- unlike the families here who apparently are going to be martyrs in your cause of "free speech" whether or not they deserve to be.
Westboro Babtist is a living example of the power of Free Speech in this country and to the degree we as citizens will fight to protect it no matter how disgusting it might be.
Jcleppe said:They are a small minority who will hopefully be drowned out by a larger majority exercising their Free Speech. Note that I said "Drowned out" not eliminated, they are free to yell, we are free to yell louder.
Agree. But it's hypocritical to state that violence to suppress their right to speak is acceptable, no matter how much we may disagree with it.
Agree. Every legal means should be used to counter their demonstrations, signs, or verbal assault on the families.
The line is crossed when violence is suggested as an acceptable method to suppress their Constitutional free speech rights. Especially by those who "claim" to support that right.