quote Originally posted by User00013170: Ok, we go your route and we stop them from talking because you dont like what they say. I dont like what you say so you are banned from speech. The guy over there doesn't like it when the boy scouts speak so they are silenced. Oh, i dont like what the democrats say as it offends me. Wipe them off too... Where does it stop? No, everyone gets their say or no one does. Rights are absolute.

I agree, but people need and should think and take responsibitly for what they say and do to others. They might not get the reaction they hoped. People stand behind the "freedom of speech", so they think they can't be touched.

quote Originally posted by User00013170: Well, i'm standing up for that church group ( and my ) right to speak ( and not be physically attacked for it ). I happen to dislike what they are saying, but ill defend their right to say it.

[This message has been edited by kyunderdawg (edited 10-17-2012).]

quote Originally posted by User00013170: Ok, we go your route and we stop them from talking because you dont like what they say. I dont like what you say so you are banned from speech. The guy over there doesn't like it when the boy scouts speak so they are silenced. Oh, i dont like what the democrats say as it offends me. Wipe them off too... Where does it stop? No, everyone gets their say or no one does. Rights are absolute.

Forget it dude.
They know this.

They just don't believe in it.
Not in how it was intended, anyway.

The idea was not invented for POPULAR speech.
It was invented for UNPOPULAR speech.

What is so hard to understand about that?
It may have been the most important thing our forefathers believed in.

[This message has been edited by Boondawg (edited 10-17-2012).]

quote Originally posted by kyunderdawg: I agree, but people need and should think and take responsibitly for what they say and do to others. They might not get the reaction they hoped. People stand behind the "freedom of speech", so they think they can't be touched.

Yes, they should take responsibility, and i agree there are consequences to one's speech. However an illegal act is not a acceptable consequence and should not be tolerated by anyone who believes in freedom.

quote Originally posted by Boondawg: I didn't say what they do is right, I just say it is their right. I'm not supporting them, i'm supporting this country and what it stands for. And The Rule Of Law.

I'm not refering to you two. To me it seems the world has to turn the other cheak no matter what.

quote Originally posted by Boondawg: Forget it dude. They know this. They just don't believe in it. Not how it was intended, anyway.

Everyone in the western world was for speech when it was about Allah in that cartoon... But when they dont like the message like in this case, it becomes wrong. One would hope we had grown beyond this in society. At least our founders had.

quote Originally posted by kyunderdawg: Yeah, you're right. Forget it.

I added to it to make it more my point more clear:

quote Originally posted by Boondawg: Forget it dude. They know this. They just don't believe in it. Not in how it was intended, anyway. The idea was not invented for POPULAR speech. It was invented for UNPOPULAR speech. What is so hard to understand about that? It may have been the most important thing our forefathers believed in.

quote Originally posted by kyunderdawg: I'm not refering to you two. To me it seems the world has to turn the other cheak no matter what.

I never said that.. If someone pisses me off due to what they said, id not just turn the cheek. id tell them to fly a kite and perhaps hold a grudge due to their attitude.. Honoring their rights doesn't mean i have to like them...

Just like the church in question here, i think what they do is *totally* uncool and i dislike them due to it. i'm sure they feel the same about me, tho i would hope they would have the sense to accept my right to yell back.

quote Originally posted by User00013170: I never said that..

No one said you did. Are you just "the world"? I'm talking about what I see every day.

quote Originally posted by kyunderdawg: No one said you did. Are you just "the world"? I'm talking about what I see every day.

Ok, i misunderstood, most of the others were directed towards me, and sometimes i miss small details thru the cloud of pain. Sorry about that

Hmmmm, maybe I misremembered (TM)... maybe the patriotic saying was, in fact:

"If I do not agree with what you have to say, I will defend, to the death, the right of some guy I do agree with to beat you up for saying it."

Could be, I suppose...

quote Originally posted by OKflyboy: Hmmmm, maybe I misremembered (TM)... maybe the patriotic saying was, in fact: "If I do not agree with what you have to say, I will defend, to the death, the right of some guy I do agree with to beat you up for saying it." Could be, I suppose...

That's funny.

Ah, there's the problem, they weren't in the correct "free speech zone".

quote Originally posted by OKflyboy: Let me qualify my flippant remarks by saying - I hate what the Westboro a-holes represent as much as the next guy. They are horrid human beings and emotionally I don't disagree with a soldier kicking their ass. In legal terms, however, Nurb is correct. The Westboro a-holes have a right to free speech, reprehensible though that speech may be, and what that soldier did was assault, justified or not. Free speech must be protected, the good with the bad. To allow what you disagree with to be silence is to give consent to, one day, silence you because someone else disagrees with you.

Bingo.

"First they came for the Westboro Baptists, I didn't speak up because I wasn't a homophobic a-hole..."

Even if my reaction is severe ( ill blame it on today's pain ) the concept everyone should agree on, else they lose their rights someday when they fall out of favor with 'the masses'. It has happened before and is so easy to fall into the trap again, and that should scare the pee out of any logical person.

It's not about what was said or what was done. It is about when it was said and where it was done. If Westboro wants to have a protest on church grounds, I agree they should have total access to everything that free speech implies. I do not believe they have those same rights in the process of dishonoring and distrupting a person's funeral. That family has the right to a peaceful ceremony, if not by actual written law then by the rights and expectations of decent humanity. If there is no written law to protect these ceremonies, that legislation needs to be put in place.

There is such a thing as disturbing the peace if no other law applies. You have the right to recite Lincoln's Gettysburg Address but if you do it at 3am in front of my house, the cops are going to haul you away.

Jonathan

quote Originally posted by Boostdreamer: It's not about what was said or what was done. It is about when it was said and where it was done. If Westboro wants to have a protest on church grounds, I agree they should have total access to everything that free speech implies. I do not believe they have those same rights in the process of dishonoring and distrupting a person's funeral. That family has the right to a peaceful ceremony, if not by actual written law then by the rights and expectations of decent humanity. If there is no written law to protect these ceremonies, that legislation needs to be put in place. There is such a thing as disturbing the peace if no other law applies. You have the right to recite Lincoln's Gettysburg Address but if you do it at 3am in front of my house, the cops are going to haul you away. Jonathan

You should read ( and try to understand ) the picture posted above, about restricting where you get to have your speech.

Reciting in front of your house on a public street isn't disturbing the peace by default, just because its 3am. It would depend on how loudly it was being recited ( and the content would be irrelevant , even tho his speech is clearly offensive to some ). You really need to get over yourself and read up on the fact that the street is public access.( unless of course you live in a gated community, then you would have a leg to stand on since its not public property. but then again, the police have no jurisdiction unless they were trespassing according to your association )

Furthermore being a 'decent human' is not a legal requirement. May be the 'right' thing to be, but in this country you can be an ass if you wish.

[This message has been edited by User00013170 (edited 10-17-2012).]

quote Originally posted by User00013170: Besides, emotions are for the weak.

Emotions are what make us human.. And keep us strong.. Having no emotion, makes you weak.

quote Originally posted by User00013170: You should read ( and try to understand ) the picture posted above, about restricting where you get to have your speech. Reciting in front of your house on a public street isn't disturbing the peace by default, just because its 3am. It would depend on how loudly it was being recited ( and the content would be irrelevant , even tho his speech is clearly offensive to some ). You really need to get over yourself and read up on the fact that the street is public access.( unless of course you live in a gated community, then you would have a leg to stand on since its not public property. but then again, the police have no jurisdiction unless they were trespassing according to your association ) Furthermore being a 'decent human' is not a legal requirement. May be the 'right' thing to be, but in this country you can be an ass if you wish.

I see the pic and I read it. I understand it. I also understand that ALL people have rights. The people laying their family member to rest have rights. Like I said, if there isn't a specific law that protects funerals from this sort of harassment, one needs to be put in place. I believe I was pretty clear about that or did you bother reading my post and attempt to understand my view?

I don't think anything I wrote implies that I'm high on myself. You have voiced your opinion, I've voiced mine. This is a discussion, is it not? I also didn't call you out or refer to you in any way. This is my first post in this thread and you felt some sort of responsibility to "set me straight". I'd say you are the one who needs to get over themselves.

I also didn't say being a decent human was a legal requirement. I will agree with one thing you said. In this country, you can be an ass if you wish. I might remind you that YOU don't have to be.

Jonathan

quote Originally posted by OKflyboy: Let me qualify my flippant remarks by saying - I hate what the Westboro a-holes represent as much as the next guy. They are horrid human beings and emotionally I don't disagree with a soldier kicking their ass. In legal terms, however, Nurb is correct. The Westboro a-holes have a right to free speech, reprehensible though that speech may be, and what that soldier did was assault, justified or not. Free speech must be protected, the good with the bad. To allow what you disagree with to be silenced is to give consent to, one day, allow someone to silence you.

I think everyone has taken me the wrong way here. Or I some how totally mislead you guys with my text. I AGREE with what you all are saying, but IN MY OPINION, the soldier was in the wrong and the 'church' didn't have the common sense to NOT protest. YES, it is freedom of speech and I defend that, but like I said, freedom of speech can have consequences. Good God! I'm not sayin' to have selective freedom of speech.

just wondering about those who claim these westboro folk are not christians.
I thought christians were anti-gay? and isnt that what these BS spectacles are all about? but, that matters little - what really matters is:
who are you to judge someone as christian or not? I thought the base attribute for being a christian is accepting Jesus Christ as your savior. these azzholes have done that. Just like the KKK. none of you are in any position to deny the truth of someones elses faith. I can accept a statement like "they are not my kind of christians".

these people are christians, and doing what they beleive their god expects of them. and, even as backward as they seem to us - they are 10x more civilized than them christians who burned witches & scalped indians.

quote Originally posted by kyunderdawg: Has the world gotten used to tuckin' their tail and runnin' ? Who stands up anymore?

Ya stand up, and then take the punishment for it like a man. Sometimes its worth it.

But so far he was released without charges, as the story says.

what the world needs is more snipers

quote Originally posted by Jonesy: Emotions are what make us human.. And keep us strong.. Having no emotion, makes you weak.

Some of us feel just the exact opposite.

Just more active ones.

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: I thought christians were anti-gay? and isnt that what these BS spectacles are all about? but, that matters little - what really matters is: who are you to judge someone as christian or not? I thought the base attribute for being a christian is accepting Jesus Christ as your savior. these azzholes have done that. Just like the KKK. none of you are in any position to deny the truth of someones elses faith. I can accept a statement like "they are not my kind of christians". these people are christians, and doing what they beleive their god expects of them. and, even as backward as they seem to us - they are 10x more civilized than them christians who burned witches & scalped indians.

The PRECISE words are important.

So I will PRECISELY answer your questions.


Christians are SUPPOSED to believe that HOMOSEXUALITY is wrong. But since you are defining everyone that CLAIMS to be a christian as therefore a christian, there are A LOT of people who call themselves christians but decide to ignore the clear, irrefutable teaching in the Bible that homosexuality is wrong.

Second thing. Believing that something that someone does is wrong DOES NOT mean that you are ANTI that person. That is SUCH a common fallacy, and you should know better.


Examples:

I believe heterosexual sex outside of marriage is wrong. I am not anti-promiscuous heterosexual.
I believe drinking alcohol is wrong. I am not anti-drinker.
I believe cigarette smoking is wrong. I am not anti-smoker.

And I believe homosexual sex is wrong. But I am not anti-homosexual.
But for the Westboro Baptist group, they misread scripture and believe that homosexuals are bringing God's judgement on the U.S. So, yes, that is what the spectacle they are creating is about.

A read of the account in Genesis about Sodom and Gomorrah would make it clear that God doesn't judge an entire city on the behavior of homosexuals (or other sins as defined in the Bible), but by how many RIGHTEOUS people were living in the city, and how the RIGHTEOUS were living. But you wouldn't be able to convince the Westboro bunch of that.
Regardless, I am more than a little surprised at a lot of you.

Yes, the Westoboro group are heinous. Yes, I LOVE the U.S., and the flag that represents it. And I love our soldiers.


But I can't let those loves and dislikes I have, and my emotions around them, make me disregard the laws of the land and the constitution that those laws are based on.

The soldier attacked a citizen who the constitution and laws said could do what he was doing, and the soldier violated his (in my opinion disgusting but my opinion is irrelevant) rights and broke the laws.

I don't see any extenuating circumstances why the soldier should not have been charged. It is shameful to me that he wasn't.


And those of you that condone it, where are you now drawing the lines of allowing people to break the law for what other things you want?

quote Originally posted by frontal lobe: And those of you that condone it, where are you now drawing the lines of allowing people to break the law for what other things you want?

you answered your own question of where their line is.

quote Originally posted by User00013170: you answered your own question of where their line is.

Yes. On this issue.

Where are they going to draw it on the next issue they object to? And why do they get to decide where the line is, when the law of the land draws it at a different place than theirs?

quote Originally posted by frontal lobe: Yes. On this issue. Where are they going to draw it on the next issue they object to? And why do they get to decide where the line is, when the law of the land draws it at a different place than theirs?

I meant that their line always will move to where they support the outcome, regardless of the issue.

And they get to decide because they are hypocrites. Isn't it clear?

quote Originally posted by frontal lobe: The PRECISE words are important. So I will PRECISELY answer your questions. Christians are SUPPOSED to believe that HOMOSEXUALITY is wrong. But since you are defining everyone that CLAIMS to be a christian as therefore a christian, there are A LOT of people who call themselves christians but decide to ignore the clear, irrefutable teaching in the Bible that homosexuality is wrong. Second thing. Believing that something that someone does is wrong DOES NOT mean that you are ANTI that person. That is SUCH a common fallacy, and you should know better. Examples: I believe heterosexual sex outside of marriage is wrong. I am not anti-promiscuous heterosexual. I believe drinking alcohol is wrong. I am not anti-drinker. I believe cigarette smoking is wrong. I am not anti-smoker. And I believe homosexual sex is wrong. But I am not anti-homosexual. But for the Westboro Baptist group, they misread scripture and believe that homosexuals are bringing God's judgement on the U.S. So, yes, that is what the spectacle they are creating is about. A read of the account in Genesis about Sodom and Gomorrah would make it clear that God doesn't judge an entire city on the behavior of homosexuals (or other sins as defined in the Bible), but by how many RIGHTEOUS people were living in the city, and how the RIGHTEOUS were living. But you wouldn't be able to convince the Westboro bunch of that. Regardless, I am more than a little surprised at a lot of you. Yes, the Westoboro group are heinous. Yes, I LOVE the U.S., and the flag that represents it. And I love our soldiers. But I can't let those loves and dislikes I have, and my emotions around them, make me disregard the laws of the land and the constitution that those laws are based on. The soldier attacked a citizen who the constitution and laws said could do what he was doing, and the soldier violated his (in my opinion disgusting but my opinion is irrelevant) rights and broke the laws. I don't see any extenuating circumstances why the soldier should not have been charged. It is shameful to me that he wasn't. And those of you that condone it, where are you now drawing the lines of allowing people to break the law for what other things you want?

Wow.

Great stuff.

[This message has been edited by theBDub (edited 10-19-2012).]

quote Originally posted by frontal lobe: The soldier attacked a citizen who the constitution and laws said could do what he was doing, and the soldier violated his (in my opinion disgusting but my opinion is irrelevant) rights and broke the laws. I don't see any extenuating circumstances why the soldier should not have been charged. It is shameful to me that he wasn't.

Maybe, maybe not. Where did this happen and what are the laws there?

http://www.kansascity.com/2...st-church-dealt.html

Jonathan

quote Originally posted by Boostdreamer: Maybe, maybe not. Where did this happen and what are the laws there? http://www.kansascity.com/2...st-church-dealt.html Jonathan

Yeah, I didn't look into the details of this situation. I was going by the soldier being arrested.


My comments were based on the assumption that what the guy was doing WAS legal, and that responses to people in the thread that were also assuming that what he was doing was legal.


Now if the courts, in the course of the constitutional process, want to change the laws, I have no objection to that. I believe in the laws and constitutional process.

First, lets get one thing perfectly clear, the man who tackled the flag burner DID NOT violate his constitutional rights. Constitutional rights can truly only be violated by the government. Constitutional protections and limitations concern what rights the people have and what laws the government cannot break. That is why constitutional protections are codified in certain situations, like the civil rights act, and equal opportunity in housing act, because it allows the government to punish those who engage in discriminatory behavior. The man who tackled the flag burner violated local laws and ordinances against assault an battery. The man who tackled the flag burner can violate the man's right to free speech in any way he wants that does not violate the law. As a private business owner, I can restrict the speech of my employees and there is nothing they can do about it except quit, unless the speech I am trying to restrict is protected speech i.e whistlblowing, criminal, etc. I can discriminate against who ever I want as long as it doesn't violate state, local and federal laws that have been drafted regarding discrimination. I can violate any constitutional right or freedom I want as a private individualk, I cannot violate the laws that are put in place to protect those freedoms.

In this case, the Cuhurch's right to free speech was not violated. The government allowed them to protest, and afforded them the protection of the law, as evidence by the law enforcment officials who are there. The right to free speech does not mean that your speech may not have consequences attached to it, like a consumer not buying your product if you come out against gay marriage, a la Chick fil a, or getting tackled by an offended soldier, as here. In the Chick fil a case, the law cannot force people to eat chick fil a as a means to protect the owner of chick fil a's right to say what he wantsa about gay marriage, but they can require him to be non-discriminatory in his hiring practices and who he serves as customers, through the civil rights laws. the law CAN attempt to protect the Westboro speaker from getting assaulted, and can arrest the person who assaulted him, because the tackler violatred state statutes against assault and battery, not because the man vilated his free speech.

Addisitonally, if the state or local municipality can come up with a legitimate overluying public interest in restricting the time and place for certain times of speech, such as inflammatory speech, they can pass reasponable limits regarding the time and place of the speech.

Your "right" to free speech in this country is neither all encompassing nor does it apply to individuals, just to the laws that governmental entities pass in an attempt to restrict the speech.


I apologise for the spelling errors, I have been out of the office a few days and am attempting to multi-task....lol

[This message has been edited by Tytehead (edited 10-19-2012).]

LOL! That BS didn't work in Canada! WBC is not very active here anymore! :P Bunch of tools...

quote Originally posted by Tytehead: First, lets get one thing perfectly clear, the man who tackled the flag burner DID NOT violate his constitutional rights. Constitutional rights can truly only be violated by the government. Constitutional protections and limitations concern what rights the people have and what laws the government cannot break. That is why constitutional protections are codified in certain situations, like the civil rights act, and equal opportunity in housing act, because it allows the government to punish those who engage in discriminatory behavior. The man who tackled the flag burner violated local laws and ordinances against assault an battery. The man who tackled the flag burner can violate the man's right to free speech in any way he wants that does not violate the law. As a private business owner, I can restrict the speech of my employees and there is nothing they can do about it except quit, unless the speech I am trying to restrict is protected speech i.e whistlblowing, criminal, etc. I can discriminate against who ever I want as long as it doesn't violate state, local and federal laws that have been drafted regarding discrimination. I can violate any constitutional right or freedom I want as a private individualk, I cannot violate the laws that are put in place to protect those freedoms. In this case, the Cuhurch's right to free speech was not violated. The government allowed them to protest, and afforded them the protection of the law, as evidence by the law enforcment officials who are there. The right to free speech does not mean that your speech may not have consequences attached to it, like a consumer not buying your product if you come out against gay marriage, a la Chick fil a, or getting tackled by an offended soldier, as here. In the Chick fil a case, the law cannot force people to eat chick fil a as a means to protect the owner of chick fil a's right to say what he wantsa about gay marriage, but they can require him to be non-discriminatory in his hiring practices and who he serves as customers, through the civil rights laws. the law CAN attempt to protect the Westboro speaker from getting assaulted, and can arrest the person who assaulted him, because the tackler violatred state statutes against assault and battery, not because the man vilated his free speech. Addisitonally, if the state or local municipality can come up with a legitimate overluying public interest in restricting the time and place for certain times of speech, such as inflammatory speech, they can pass reasponable limits regarding the time and place of the speech. Your "right" to free speech in this country is neither all encompassing nor does it apply to individuals, just to the laws that governmental entities pass in an attempt to restrict the speech.

Nice post. Do you have a background in law?

2.5 I have been trying to figure it out as a practicing attorney for the last 19 years....almost have a handle on it. And I did win the book award in con law in law school, so..that and $3.50 will get me a coffee at Starbucks....lol.