A lot has been written about WBC's right to protected speech. But as I have taught my children, exercising rights comes with the notion of exercising those rights responsibly.
For those who have a brain and choose to use it, yes, you are correct. However, in a free society, we cannot designate (nor trust) a group or person to use their own definition of what speech should be allowed (as "responsible") and what speech should be disallowed ("as irresponsible").
USNR1315 said:
If the folks at WBC choose not to exercise their rights responsibly and cause action to be brought upon them, then I hope they won't mind if I LMFAO if someone reminds them in a way they can't interpret as neighborly.
Cheers...
Hmm. Again, an advocacy of violence against a group, who are using their 1st Amendment rights, because we disagree with the content of their speech.
How about.....a group of military supporters or military vets getting attacked by OWL (even spit upon, like a CG officer was in Boston) because OWL doesn't agree with their speech?
You OK with that? Would you LMFAO when that happens? Of course not.
But that is the exact same thing - violence against a speaker because you disagree with their position or the content of their "speech."
It's hypocritical to continue to approve of "their 1st Amendment right to speak" yet tacitly approve (by LMFAO or crying crocodile tears) the use of violence against said speaker because you don't like their message.
This group's method, behavior, and speech content is vile, repugnant, disgusting, and depraved. And any (and all) non-violent methods to block them, silence them, or otherwise shield those who they protest against should be utilized. I'll even go further and state that I approve of the illegal cyber-warfare (non-violent) methods used by th3j35t3r (well know hactivist) to shut down their websites, just as he shuts down the websites of jihadi and other terrorist-networking websites.
But when society begins to advocate violence against anyone because you don't like their message, indeed, the "slippery slope" is the ground you stand upon.
Because somewhere, someone out there disagrees vehemently with what YOU believe is protected speech (a patriotic message, a political candidate's position, Coke or Pepsi, etc) and they would have he same right to attack you for your views as well.
PS - the "people of SW Virginia" are no different from the people in Anniston AL, or Fort Worth TX, or Billings MT, or Westminster MD (where the original SCOTUS case began, Snyder v Phelps) - they all find this group vulgar and worthless.
PPS - What limits WBC in their travels is money, not fear of something at the destination. They don't have the cash to travel to every site they put on their schedule. They've been attacked before, and the perpetrators have always gone to jail, as every event they attend is well-policed and almost always videotaped.
