Good News About the Westboro Wackos

ReverendDexter wrote:

bravenrace wrote: It's what's legal versus our knowledge as human beings of what's right and wrong.

Okay, being that morals are ambiguous, how would you LEGALLY address the issue of the WBC protests?

How would I do it? Public menace and harassment. While not the same thing techically speaking, if I go around waving my hootus at everyone, with the declaration of independence on it, that's not free speech anymore, that's public indecency. If I go waving around my hootus at people with the declaration of independence written on it at a funeral, and continue to do it at multiple funerals, that's harassment as far as I can tell. Sure, they've only got signs stating "GOD HATES FAGS" and the like, but what's to put FAG on a different swear/idecent word than say "berkeley" or "E36 M3" I can't have any of those on my liscense plate, and i'd probably get in trouble if I wrote them all over the front of my house. I'd damn sure get in trouble if I wrote "God hates n**" all over the place, not to mention end up dead in a ditch. Who's to say fag as a word isn't more derogatory or inflammatory than any of the other words they use?

The other problem you have with them is they get the double whammy of protection, both freedom of speech AND freedom of religion.

And it would be very difficult to argue any of the religion aspects (they are well versed at arguing them also).

keethrax wrote:

mndsm wrote: How do you know where that line is? I have to say- I think the guy getting his ass handed to him good or not, was a wake up call to the rest of the group. People are going to watch that story VERY closely, on both sides, and it could likely determine what happens to the WBC both physically and legally in the future.

I'd bet you a tidy sum that the guy who got the beating harassed exactly *nobody* beforehand despite the story. The WBC is very selective about what they say, where, and to whom. It's all very, very calculated. It's much, much more likely that the locals knew the WBC guys were in town, saw the KS plates, and the locals were the ones doing both the harassing and the beating. Remember, this happened ahead of time. And as later events would indicate, there was a much better solution for keeping most of them away from the funeral. Why do you (and a few others here) have this fantasy that this is anything new, and therefore that this case is somehow different than the dozens of others that the WBC uses to fund itself? Nobody noteworthy on either side is watching this "VERY closely," because it's nothing new and has nothing to do with what happens the the WBC "physically and legally in the future." Well, OK, the word "nothing" is a bit strong. How about: It has no more to do with those things than any other case they've been in. It's not new, unique, or special in any way.

The reason I believe it's something new is the simple fact that someone finally got the smarts/balls to prevent the protest from happening. Legally or morally right, they did it. I'm personally REALLY tired of these namby pamby shiny happy people protesting the funerals of the very people that DIED to protect the rights they use to protest the funerals in the first place. I think it may well inspire other people to take action in such a way, assuming this case is litigated and the WBC is not awarded dough.....

Or, it could be like southpark Principal Victoria once said "You have to fight cancer (to wendy, in reference to Cartman) no matter what the consequences, because cancer will not stop until it has won or lost". Far as I'm concerned, WBC is cancer. Do they have the right to do it? Yes. Have they done it entirely legally the entire time? Yes. Do other citizens have the right to choose what they do and do not believe? Yes. Should we be forced to listen to their drivel, even though they have the right to say it? NO. Let em protest in the middle of a berkeleyin field for all I care, just keep em away from me.

I see this as a case of the WBC people using the "laws" to protect what they are doing, but I like the truck block scenario. Is it "legal"? Not sure, don't care; they should get blocked at every turn they show up. And with no violence so they can't continue to use slimeball lawyers to profit. Note I don't think all lawyers are slimeballs for the record before I get tongue whipped.

aircooled wrote: The other problem you have with them is they get the double whammy of protection, both freedom of speech AND freedom of religion. And it would be very difficult to argue any of the religion aspects (they are well versed at arguing them also).

You're absolutely right there, your religion is your freedom.... that's one of the tough things. But I bet i'd still get in trouble if my religion dictated I waved my hootus around with the declaration of independence on it......

aircooled wrote: Here's something to think about: They used to do similar things to black people...

Um, who are you referring to as "they"?

Aircooled, mndsm, I appreciate your answers, but I'm very specifically looking for bravenrace's.

I'd really like to know what he feels is the best approach to this, because what I read in his posts is "Everyone should give up some part of their rights because some small percentage of people abuse them". It's a position that I intrinsically cannot agree with based upon my current morals, knowledge, and experience of the world, and I'd like to know the logic behind it so that I can improve myself and my understanding of how the world works.

I feel that it's along the same lines of people who claim to be defending the safety of their children by having them subjected to the TSA's screening procedures (aka porn-scanner and grope-down), which again, is something I intrinsically cannot agree with with my current morals and understanding of the world.

I've asked for this before, but the thread was fairly heated, and he ducked out of it before I got an answer (to be fair, I think I posted it after he had said he wouldn't be posting in that thread anymore). I'm perfectly happy to "agree to disagree" when I can understand exactly what the position is that I'm disagreeing with.

mndsm wrote: The reason I believe it's something new is the simple fact that someone finally got the smarts/balls to prevent the protest from happening. Legally or morally right, they did it.

Sigh.

They've been stopped cold before. Multiple times. Those ones tend to be the bigger payouts, so forgive me for not celebrating.

Your cancer analogy is apt, to fight a cancer is painful, but must be done.

However, you're missing a key point, the painful but effective way to fight them is to ignore them. It;s painful because they're going to do horrible things, and taking it is painful. "Fighting" them in the sense you refer to is the easy way out. It's less painful, and we all get to go "hey, good job" but in the end, feeds them and the cancer grows.

cardiacdog wrote: I see this as a case of the WBC people using the "laws" to protect what they are doing, but I like the truck block scenario. Is it "legal"? Not sure, don't care; they should get blocked at every turn they show up. And with no violence so they can't continue to use slimeball lawyers to profit. Note I don't think all lawyers are slimeballs for the record before I get tongue whipped.

Legal? Probably not. But as long as there's no collusion on the part of the cops themselves, and there's no need for there to be to make it work so long as the cops contract out wrecker service, as far as I can figure the penalty is probably a parking ticket. You break the law, the cops do their job, take your lumps (pay the ticket) and away we go.

Hell, as it was likely in a parking lot, its probably not even illegal if the motel owner doesn't want to do anything about it. But that probably exposes him to a suit, which is what we're trying to avoid. So the smart move for the owner is to call the cops to come ticket the trucks.

You could probably even do it without the wrecker's explicit help simply by calling them out to the boonies somewhere.

It might even work short term, so it's not all bad. But there are plenty or workarounds they can use. As such, over the long term it just means more media coverage for them. And more media coverage means a greater chance of something they can sue about happening. Which in turn means more lawsuits, of which they'll win a nontrivial proportion. Which means more funding so the cycle can keep going, and they can keep skimming their profit out of the little perpetual motion hate machine they've got going

<. Which means more funding so the cycle can keep going, and they can keep skimming their profit out of the little perpetual motion hate machine they've got going

Isn't that the really ironic part? A "church" using these kind of tactics in the name of religion...trust me, I understand that over the course of history, some really nasty things have been and are done in the name of religion. Glad that these wingnuts aren't my denomination or else I'd been changing it up.

cardiacdog wrote: <. Which means more funding so the cycle can keep going, and they can keep skimming their profit out of the little perpetual motion hate machine they've got going Isn't that the really ironic part? A "church" using these kind of tactics in the name of religion...trust me, I understand that over the course of history, some really nasty things have been and are done in the name of religion. Glad that these wingnuts aren't my denomination or else I'd been changing it up.

Well, despite the B in WBC, they're completely their own "denomination" if you can even call them that. So unless you're a lawyer or too stupid to write your own name (I've met quite a few of them, those really are the only two options) I think you're pretty safe. You're writing ability is clearly more advanced. Wait... You're not a lawyer, are you?

As so many of the posts here indicate, their money making machine is ticking over like a charm.

Abomination might be a better description, and no I'm not a lawyer....but I do have some friends who are lawyers

E36 M3 happens all the time in the hood, gangland etc.: butt waxings, alleged witnesses who saw nothing, police getting bad info, prolly even some parking infractions. Many are incomplete or go unsolved. Of course those cases aren't necessarily going to be put under the microscope like this high profile WBC case will be now that the lawyers and the national media are involved.

carzan wrote:

aircooled wrote: Here's something to think about: They used to do similar things to black people...

Um, who are you referring to as "they"?

fasted58 wrote: E36 M3 happens all the time in the hood, gangland etc.: butt waxings, alleged witnesses who saw nothing, police getting bad info, prolly even some parking infractions. Many are incomplete or go unsolved. Of course those cases aren't necessarily going to be put under the microscope like this high profile WBC case will be now that the lawyers and the national media are involved.

So we should all aspire to gangland levels as long as the target is someone we don't like?

I know you said nothing of the sort, but others pretty much are saying exactly that.

aircooled wrote:

carzan wrote:

aircooled wrote: Here's something to think about: They used to do similar things to black people...

Um, who are you referring to as "they"?

Was that an answer?

keethrax wrote:

z31maniac wrote:

914Driver wrote: Aircooled, black people had it tough I'll give you that, and history cannot be changed however; black people did not leave their {home-area-State-whatever} to intentionally disrespect a dead soldier and their family.

Still not really the point. Black people don't choose to be black. Shiny happy people, CHOOSE to be shiny happy people. These people don't HAVE to protest these events. They CHOOSE to put themselves in those situations.

So it;'s all about choice. Anything that goes against the majority by choice (and therefore angers more people than not) is not allowed. Got it. Protests are only kosher if the majority agrees. And rights are only protected if they're popular. Again, what they're doing is reprehensible, and I'd dance a jig (if I knew how) if their bus burst into flames while tooling down the highway. But that's not the issue.

All these arguments have to come to a logical conclusion at some point. I am a firm believer in free speech, since there is a pretty good chance I'd be in a gulag somewhere had I been born in a different country. I draw the line at what I think is a logical extreme. Gay rights I'm good with. NAMBLA, I think, steps over the line. Naked pics of hot young women above the age of consent, I'm good. Naked pics of raping 3 year olds, not so much.

At some point, when your choices offend a large enough majority, you should be stifled.

keethrax wrote:

fasted58 wrote: E36 M3 happens all the time in the hood, gangland etc.: butt waxings, alleged witnesses who saw nothing, police getting bad info, prolly even some parking infractions. Many are incomplete or go unsolved. Of course those cases aren't necessarily going to be put under the microscope like this high profile WBC case will be now that the lawyers and the national media are involved.

So we should all aspire to gangland levels as long as the targets someone we don't like? I know you said nothing of the sort, but others pretty much are saying exactly that.

See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil seems to be the norm in some cases ... that's ALL I'm saying.

Streetwiseguy wrote: At some point, when your choices offend a large enough majority, you should be stifled.

If you honestly can't differentiate between your examples and this, I feel sorry for you.

fasted58 wrote:

keethrax wrote:

fasted58 wrote: E36 M3 happens all the time in the hood, gangland etc.: butt waxings, alleged witnesses who saw nothing, police getting bad info, prolly even some parking infractions. Many are incomplete or go unsolved. Of course those cases aren't necessarily going to be put under the microscope like this high profile WBC case will be now that the lawyers and the national media are involved.

So we should all aspire to gangland levels as long as the targets someone we don't like? I know you said nothing of the sort, but others pretty much are saying exactly that.

See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil seems to be the norm in some cases ... that's ALL I'm saying.

I did point out that you weren't saying that.

The deal with these guys is so complicated. Man, I totally get that it's "wrong" to prevent them from doing something legal. No, really, it is. I'm not kidding when I say that. I absolutely understand that. But, when I think about it, I want to do this...

DILYSI Dave wrote:

It's just almost impossible to have consistant thought about this bunch. I respect their right... but, no, not really. I just think they're ass holes.

And yeah, that's wrong. I own that.

Hey, I'm human. What can you do? It's like when I think about someone doing something to one of my kids. I'd want them to have a fair trial. Then I'd want to shoot them in the head.

Streetwiseguy wrote: At some point, when your choices offend a large enough majority, you should be stifled.

That pretty much invalidates anything being a right. The whole point of a right is that no matter how unpopular of a manner you use it, it cannot be taken away from you.

That's part of the problem here. ANY line in the sand is arbitrary and vulnerable to being on a very slippery slope.

It's only freedom if other people can use it in a manner you disagree with.

Hey, wait.

You know how they shut down the streets when politicians are around for National Security? What if a Representative or Senator from the state were to start attending all military funerals. Then the Secret Service cleared the funeral route, you know, for National Security? I know they don't do that all the time, but given the shooting in Arizona and the volatile nature of these funerals, they could make a case for it, don't you think? And if someone intentionally encroached on that area they could be brought up on Federal charges, couldn't they?

They can have their protest, just not on the secured route. They get their rights and the family gets some peace, plus a decent bit of respect from an elected official.

Just a thought.

In reply to keethrax: Yes, you are correct.

If I ever drive through Brandon, Miss., I'm buying the whole town beers.