Discussion in 'Off Topic' started by surgicalghost13, Jul 9, 2012.
what a disgusting bunch of sick bastards. somebody needs to put an IED in the Westboro Baptist Church.
Unfortunately the Corps isn't there to help protect Lt Prasnicki's family from these twisted creeps. However the town of Lexington and Rockbridge County is a pretty conservative place and hopefully will turn out in masse to show their love and support for the Prasnicki family.
This group threatened to protest at the funeral of an Aggie Army officer last week. Below is a link to an article talking about how the Aggie family dealt with it:
Please note, the group ended up not showing up to protest, but A&M was ready. Gig 'em Aggies!
Disgusting speech, no matter how distasteful we may find it, is also known as protected speech, according to SCOTUS.
Lt. Stephen Prasnicki makes me proud to be an American. Although I never met him, I mourn his loss. I am comforted by the knowledge that there are many fine young people in our country who are willing to take his place.
Westboro Baptist Church is correct when they claim he sacrificed his life to defend their right to preach their queer message from their dunghill. The thought makes me cry and laugh at the same time.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
My reserve of good will towards them has been depleted LONG ago. They celebrated the mass murder of college students at NIU, at the memorial service for one of the victims. That should tell you enough about this "church."
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.
That being said, I have Faith that there is a VERY WARM place in the afterlife reserved for the members of this.....Sorry I can't use the word Church without cringing.
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.
Boy you got that right, the leader's daughter is an attorney that spends most of her time and energy on these lawsuits, they incur no legal bills themselves and take the cases they are sure to win thus funding their operations, it's quite the dirty little machine they have working.
Scary thoughts, indeed.
You do understand the difference between "you can't talk that way to my mother" and the govt position on free speech and the right to it?
Either way, the advocacy of violence to suppress unpopular, repugnant, or inflammatory speech is indeed scary.
Let's all have a poke at them, we disagree, that'll teach 'em.
What other parts of the Constitution should we ignore?
Or "just the parts that YOU don't like" good enough for you?
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.
Supporters, Not Protestors, Show Up At Prasnicki Funeral
From today's News Gazette:
Excellent news, thanks for posting.
As usual, the WBC morons get more publicity from pretending to protest than from actually showing up.
No, the line is only crossed only when there is some specific act/speech occurs. The freedom of speech works both ways. There is no Constitutional requirement for a citizen to come in defense of another citizen. Make a suggestion in a certain way is not a crime. Saying someone should yell fire in a crowded theater for fun is different from yelling fire in a crowded theater with no fire for fun.
Its ironic how they use the luxuries of the American system but then curse the same system that allows them perform their "religious practices". Underlines the idiocy of their "organization".
They ended up not showing up; however, the turnout for support was inspiring. There had to be over 400 people just standing outside the church ready to take peaceful action if need be. Cheers to Rockbridge County
beat me to it
Separate names with a comma.