Your opinion on the Westboro Baptist Church

[Ardathium]

The Westboro Baptist Church is a small congregation based in Topeka Kansas that could literally be described as a hate group. The congregation is believed to have under 100 members, most being related. They are notorious for picketing the funerals of dead soldiers and carrying signs that say "Thank God for 9/11" and "Semper Fi Fags." They believe the deaths of American soldiers is God's vengeance for allowing Gays in the Military. They have also picketed Michael Jackson's funeral and the funeral of my favorite rock singer, Ronnie James Dio.

Do you believe that these people are seriously ill in the head, do you believe that they should be jailed. They believe that their right to do this is promised under the Bill of Rights, but there is a fine line between the Right of Free Speech and Protest and Defamation of Character. Any reasonable person would say that they are trying to defame people with their hate for jews, gays, and basically anyone that isn't a loyal blind follower of their congregation. I personally encourage anyone who has had to deal with these loonies to press charges for defamation, eventually if enough people do it, their organization and activity will be outlawed and they'll be imprisoned.

[Siorafrica]

They're sanctimonious lunatics.

[SaintB]

WBC is one of NSGs favorite least favorite things....

[Takaram]

WBC is one of NSGs favorite least favorite things....

Indeed, it's almost scary the consensus that we get on them.

[Georgism]

I support them just to be like rebellious and stuff

[Tekania]

The Westboro Baptist Church is a small congregation based in Topeka Kansas that could literally be described as a hate group. The congregation is believed to have under 100 members, most being related. They are notorious for picketing the funerals of dead soldiers and carrying signs that say "Thank God for 9/11" and "Semper Fi Fags." They believe the deaths of American soldiers is God's vengeance for allowing Gays in the Military. They have also picketed Michael Jackson's funeral and the funeral of my favorite rock singer, Ronnie James Dio.

Do you believe that these people are seriously ill in the head, do you believe that they should be jailed. They believe that their right to do this is promised under the Bill of Rights, but there is a fine line between the Right of Free Speech and Protest and Defamation of Character. Any reasonable person would say that they are trying to defame people with their hate for jews, gays, and basically anyone that isn't a loyal blind follower of their congregation. I personally encourage anyone who has had to deal with these loonies to press charges for defamation, eventually if enough people do it, their organization and activity will be outlawed and they'll be imprisoned.

The WBC personifies Social Conservatism, assuming Social Conservatism were consistent in its beliefs.

[The Cat-Tribe]

The Westboro Baptist Church is a small congregation based in Topeka Kansas that could literally be described as a hate group. The congregation is believed to have under 100 members, most being related. They are notorious for picketing the funerals of dead soldiers and carrying signs that say "Thank God for 9/11" and "Semper Fi Fags." They believe the deaths of American soldiers is God's vengeance for allowing Gays in the Military. They have also picketed Michael Jackson's funeral and the funeral of my favorite rock singer, Ronnie James Dio.

Do you believe that these people are seriously ill in the head, do you believe that they should be jailed. They believe that their right to do this is promised under the Bill of Rights, but there is a fine line between the Right of Free Speech and Protest and Defamation of Character. Any reasonable person would say that they are trying to defame people with their hate for jews, gays, and basically anyone that isn't a loyal blind follower of their congregation. I personally encourage anyone who has had to deal with these loonies to press charges for defamation, eventually if enough people do it, their organization and activity will be outlawed and they'll be imprisoned.

Although I fully agree that actions of the WBC and the Phelps family are abhorrent and indefensible, defamation is usually not a crime** and (as I'll get to) their speech is protected by the First Amendment. So, no what you suggest won't get them "imprisoned." Nor should it.

Also, you should try actually reading the 8-1 decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. ___ (2011). So should anyone thinking about joining your crusade of frivilous complaints against the WBC.

As the Court in Snyder explains:

"If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable." Texas v. Johnson, 491 U. S. 397, 414 (1989). Indeed, "the point of all speech protection ... is to shield just those choices of content that in someone's eyes are misguided, or even hurtful." Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston, Inc., 515 U. S. 557, 574 (1995). . . . "In public debate [we] must tolerate insulting, and even outrageous, speech in order to provide adequate 'breathing space' to the freedoms protected by the First Amendment." Boos v. Barry, 485 U. S. 312, 322 (1988) (some internal quotation marks omitted).

Further wisdom on this topic comes from Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.'s dissenting opinion in Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616, 630 (1919) (Holmes, J., dissenting):

Persecution for the expression of opinions seems to me perfectly logical. If you have no doubt of your premises or your power and want a certain result with all your heart you naturally express your wishes in law and sweep away all opposition. To allow opposition by speech seems to indicate that you think the speech impotent, as when a man says that he has squared the circle, or that you do not care whole heartedly for the result, or that you doubt either your power or your premises. But when men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to believe even more than they believe the very foundations of their own conduct that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas-that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out. That at any rate is the theory of our Constitution. It is an experiment, as all life is an experiment. Every year if not every day we have to wager our salvation upon some prophecy based upon imperfect knowledge. While that experiment is part of our system I think that we should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expression of opinions that we loathe and believe to be fraught with death, unless they so imminently threaten immediate interference with the lawful and pressing purposes of the law that an immediate check is required to save the country.

Or the wisdom of Justice Brandeis in Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357, 376-77 (1927) (Brandeis, J., concurring) (emphasis added):

Fear of serious injury cannot alone justify suppression of free speech and assembly. Men feared witches and burnt women. It is the function of speech to free men from the bondage of irrational fears. To justify suppression of free speech there must be reasonable ground to fear that serious evil will result if free speech is practiced. There must be reasonable ground to believe that the danger apprehended is imminent. There must be reasonable ground to believe that the evil to be prevented is a serious one. . . . Those who won our independence by revolution were not cowards. They did not fear political change. They did not exalt order at the cost of liberty. To courageous, self-reliant men, with confidence in the power of free and fearless reasoning applied through the processes of popular government, no danger flowing from speech can be deemed clear and present, unless the incidence of the evil apprehended is so imminent that it may befall before there is opportunity for full discussion. If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.

** A few states have statutes against criminal defamation, but they are fairly narrow in breadth. Nonetheless, I forgot about them in my original post.

Note/Clarification: I am making at least two distinct points here:

1. The OP is suggesting specific legal action against the WBC and I am saying as a matter of law that has no foundation.

2. I am making a purely ethical argument that happens to also coincide with First Amendment law. I quote SCOTUS cases because, as I say, they are wise statements from learned and experienced men who have given the subject much thought and because they neatly summarize greater concepts. I am not saying they are right because they are law. I am saying they are right because they are correct.

[Peisandros]

Look at that fancy written constitution - pretty!

As for OP, yeah the WBC is no good to anyone. I absolutely agree that the 'powers at be' ought to be attempting to curtail their hate speech and fear mongering. But, with that fancy constitution (as CT set out wonderfully above) that's just not the case. Would be easier to do in a common law country where defamation is a crime.

[Ardathium]

The Westboro Baptist Church is a small congregation based in Topeka Kansas that could literally be described as a hate group. The congregation is believed to have under 100 members, most being related. They are notorious for picketing the funerals of dead soldiers and carrying signs that say "Thank God for 9/11" and "Semper Fi Fags." They believe the deaths of American soldiers is God's vengeance for allowing Gays in the Military. They have also picketed Michael Jackson's funeral and the funeral of my favorite rock singer, Ronnie James Dio.

Do you believe that these people are seriously ill in the head, do you believe that they should be jailed. They believe that their right to do this is promised under the Bill of Rights, but there is a fine line between the Right of Free Speech and Protest and Defamation of Character. Any reasonable person would say that they are trying to defame people with their hate for jews, gays, and basically anyone that isn't a loyal blind follower of their congregation. I personally encourage anyone who has had to deal with these loonies to press charges for defamation, eventually if enough people do it, their organization and activity will be outlawed and they'll be imprisoned.

Although I fully agree that actions of the WBC and the Phelps family are abhorrent and indefensible, defamation is not a crime and (as I'll get to) their speech is protected by the First Amendment. So, no what you suggest won't get them "imprisoned." Nor should it.

Also, you should try actually reading the 8-1 decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. ___ (2011). So should anyone thinking about joining your crusade of frivilous complaints against the WBC.

As the Court in Snyder explains:

"If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable." Texas v. Johnson, 491 U. S. 397, 414 (1989). Indeed, "the point of all speech protection ... is to shield just those choices of content that in someone's eyes are misguided, or even hurtful." Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston, Inc., 515 U. S. 557, 574 (1995). . . . "In public debate [we] must tolerate insulting, and even outrageous, speech in order to provide adequate 'breathing space' to the freedoms protected by the First Amendment." Boos v. Barry, 485 U. S. 312, 322 (1988) (some internal quotation marks omitted).

Further wisdom on this topic comes from Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.'s dissenting opinion in Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616, 630 (1919) (Holmes, J., dissenting):

Persecution for the expression of opinions seems to me perfectly logical. If you have no doubt of your premises or your power and want a certain result with all your heart you naturally express your wishes in law and sweep away all opposition. To allow opposition by speech seems to indicate that you think the speech impotent, as when a man says that he has squared the circle, or that you do not care whole heartedly for the result, or that you doubt either your power or your premises. But when men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to believe even more than they believe the very foundations of their own conduct that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas-that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out. That at any rate is the theory of our Constitution. It is an experiment, as all life is an experiment. Every year if not every day we have to wager our salvation upon some prophecy based upon imperfect knowledge. While that experiment is part of our system I think that we should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expression of opinions that we loathe and believe to be fraught with death, unless they so imminently threaten immediate interference with the lawful and pressing purposes of the law that an immediate check is required to save the country.

Or the wisdom of Justice Brandeis in Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357, 376-77 (1927) (Brandeis, J., concurring) (emphasis added):

Fear of serious injury cannot alone justify suppression of free speech and assembly. Men feared witches and burnt women. It is the function of speech to free men from the bondage of irrational fears. To justify suppression of free speech there must be reasonable ground to fear that serious evil will result if free speech is practiced. There must be reasonable ground to believe that the danger apprehended is imminent. There must be reasonable ground to believe that the evil to be prevented is a serious one. . . . Those who won our independence by revolution were not cowards. They did not fear political change. They did not exalt order at the cost of liberty. To courageous, self-reliant men, with confidence in the power of free and fearless reasoning applied through the processes of popular government, no danger flowing from speech can be deemed clear and present, unless the incidence of the evil apprehended is so imminent that it may befall before there is opportunity for full discussion. If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.

You probably wouldn't be saying this if your son or daughters was in the military and died in action and the funeral was being interrupted by these hateful cultists

[Tekania]

You probably wouldn't be saying this if your son or daughters was in the military and died in action and the funeral was being interrupted by these hateful cultists

Free speech is a fundamental right. Revoking it to protect the sensibilities of some parents of a dead service members only seeks to show that said service members death and service was completely meaningless. I believe in consistency, so I would hold this view even then. And as I am a veteran myself I take offense to people like you who would remove the value of my service to this nation.

[Norstal]

You probably wouldn't be saying this if your son or daughters was in the military and died in action and the funeral was being interrupted by these hateful cultists

He's a lawyer. And lawyers uphold the law. If you don't like the law, then too bad.

[The Cat-Tribe]

Although I fully agree that actions of the WBC and the Phelps family are abhorrent and indefensible, defamation is not a crime and (as I'll get to) their speech is protected by the First Amendment. So, no what you suggest won't get them "imprisoned." Nor should it.

Also, you should try actually reading the 8-1 decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. ___ (2011). So should anyone thinking about joining your crusade of frivilous complaints against the WBC.

As the Court in Snyder explains:

"If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable." Texas v. Johnson, 491 U. S. 397, 414 (1989). Indeed, "the point of all speech protection ... is to shield just those choices of content that in someone's eyes are misguided, or even hurtful." Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston, Inc., 515 U. S. 557, 574 (1995). . . . "In public debate [we] must tolerate insulting, and even outrageous, speech in order to provide adequate 'breathing space' to the freedoms protected by the First Amendment." Boos v. Barry, 485 U. S. 312, 322 (1988) (some internal quotation marks omitted).

Further wisdom on this topic comes from Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.'s dissenting opinion in Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616, 630 (1919) (Holmes, J., dissenting):

Persecution for the expression of opinions seems to me perfectly logical. If you have no doubt of your premises or your power and want a certain result with all your heart you naturally express your wishes in law and sweep away all opposition. To allow opposition by speech seems to indicate that you think the speech impotent, as when a man says that he has squared the circle, or that you do not care whole heartedly for the result, or that you doubt either your power or your premises. But when men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to believe even more than they believe the very foundations of their own conduct that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas-that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out. That at any rate is the theory of our Constitution. It is an experiment, as all life is an experiment. Every year if not every day we have to wager our salvation upon some prophecy based upon imperfect knowledge. While that experiment is part of our system I think that we should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expression of opinions that we loathe and believe to be fraught with death, unless they so imminently threaten immediate interference with the lawful and pressing purposes of the law that an immediate check is required to save the country.

Or the wisdom of Justice Brandeis in Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357, 376-77 (1927) (Brandeis, J., concurring) (emphasis added):

Fear of serious injury cannot alone justify suppression of free speech and assembly. Men feared witches and burnt women. It is the function of speech to free men from the bondage of irrational fears. To justify suppression of free speech there must be reasonable ground to fear that serious evil will result if free speech is practiced. There must be reasonable ground to believe that the danger apprehended is imminent. There must be reasonable ground to believe that the evil to be prevented is a serious one. . . . Those who won our independence by revolution were not cowards. They did not fear political change. They did not exalt order at the cost of liberty. To courageous, self-reliant men, with confidence in the power of free and fearless reasoning applied through the processes of popular government, no danger flowing from speech can be deemed clear and present, unless the incidence of the evil apprehended is so imminent that it may befall before there is opportunity for full discussion. If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.

You probably wouldn't be saying this if your son or daughters was in the military and died in action and the funeral was being interrupted by these hateful cultists

I hope and believe I would. Freedom shouldn't be subject to our worst instincts and our most vulnerable and irrational moments.

I have close family members in the military. I hope they do not die in action and hope their funeral was not protested, if they were.

But I would also hope that my judgment would not be clouded by emotion into supporting tyrrany, nor would others use my plight to stir up support for tyrrany.

My family actually knew Carrie French, one of the early military victims of the WBC protests. That does not change my opinion.

Finally, many states and the federal government have passed laws limiting the time, place, and manner of funeral protests. The WBC cannot "interrupt" a funeral. Nor, to my knowledge, have they ever done so. In the Snyder case, the grieving father plaintiff didn't even see the protests on the day of the funeral!!

[The Cat-Tribe]

You probably wouldn't be saying this if your son or daughters was in the military and died in action and the funeral was being interrupted by these hateful cultists

He's a lawyer. And lawyers uphold the law. If you don't like the law, then too bad.

I believed in these things long before I became a lawyer. Hopefully, anyone who believes in free expression believes in them as well -- whether they are the law or not.

[SaintB]

You probably wouldn't be saying this if your son or daughters was in the military and died in action and the funeral was being interrupted by these hateful cultists

Yeah he would, so would I, so would most people who believe in the right to free speech. We'd hate their very existence but we wouldn't stop them and we'd bring up the exact same points.

[Ardathium]

You probably wouldn't be saying this if your son or daughters was in the military and died in action and the funeral was being interrupted by these hateful cultists

Free speech is a fundamental right. Revoking it to protect the sensibilities of some parents of a dead service members only seeks to show that said service members death and service was completely meaningless. I believe in consistency, so I would hold this view even then. And as I am a veteran myself I take offense to people like you who would remove the value of my service to this nation.

So you would actually enjoy someone standing over your grave telling your family and loved ones that you are burning in hell just because the American Military allows Gays to serve. Honestly, it makes no sense. My reasoning for this is the idea of protecting the legacy of a citizen who gave his life for this country and that his legacy should not be scarred even in the slightest manner by a hate filled propagandist church and that the soldiers family has a right to attend their family members service with peace and privacy without the interference of these a**holes. But to each his own, I never meant to offend you or anyone else, I personally feel when it comes to morals and traditions within our nation's military service that the rights of the family of a fallen soldier far exceeds the rights of a psychotic hate filled cult who's only goal in life is to make everyone else miserable. If that is the case, the family should determine whether the protest should occur. If you want these idiots to protest at your funeral, tell your family to invite them when you die.

[Unhealthy2]

I like them. They show fundamentalist Christianity for what it really is. Either admit you don't believe the whole bible, or join the WBC.

[Yuktova]

I think I speak for everyone in Russia for when I say they should all be throwen in a Russian Gulag. End of story. The Gulag will sort them out!

[The Cat-Tribe]

Free speech is a fundamental right. Revoking it to protect the sensibilities of some parents of a dead service members only seeks to show that said service members death and service was completely meaningless. I believe in consistency, so I would hold this view even then. And as I am a veteran myself I take offense to people like you who would remove the value of my service to this nation.

So you would actually enjoy someone standing over your grave telling your family and loved ones that you are burning in hell just because the American Military allows Gays to serve. Honestly, it makes no sense. My reasoning for this is the idea of protecting the legacy of a citizen who gave his life for this country and that his legacy should not be scarred even in the slightest manner by a hate filled propagandist church and that the soldiers family has a right to attend their family members service with peace and privacy without the interference of these a**holes. But to each his own, I never meant to offend you or anyone else, I personally feel when it comes to morals and traditions within our nation's military service that the rights of the family of a fallen soldier far exceeds the rights of a psychotic hate filled cult who's only goal in life is to make everyone else miserable. If that is the case, the family should determine whether the protest should occur. If you want these idiots to protest at your funeral, tell your family to invite them when you die.

As abhorrent and nauseating as the actual conduct of the WBC is, you exaggerate what they do.

You have demonstrated a critical ignorance about this subject on all fronts. You don't really know about the WBC protests. You don't really know about our nation's values for which soldiers sacrifice their lives. You don't really understand the legal terms you bandied about in the OP.

You appear to be posting from ignorance and hate and then venting your spleen at anyone that doesn't slavishly agree with your misguided venom.

[SaintB]

Free speech is a fundamental right. Revoking it to protect the sensibilities of some parents of a dead service members only seeks to show that said service members death and service was completely meaningless. I believe in consistency, so I would hold this view even then. And as I am a veteran myself I take offense to people like you who would remove the value of my service to this nation.

So you would actually enjoy someone standing over your grave telling your family and loved ones that you are burning in hell just because the American Military allows Gays to serve. Honestly, it makes no sense. My reasoning for this is the idea of protecting the legacy of a citizen who gave his life for this country and that his legacy should not be scarred even in the slightest manner by a hate filled propagandist church and that the soldiers family has a right to attend their family members service with peace and privacy without the interference of these a**holes. But to each his own, I never meant to offend you or anyone else, I personally feel when it comes to morals and traditions within our nation's military service that the rights of the family of a fallen soldier far exceeds the rights of a psychotic hate filled cult who's only goal in life is to make everyone else miserable. If that is the case, the family should determine whether the protest should occur. If you want these idiots to protest at your funeral, tell your family to invite them when you die.

Everyone's rights are equal and if you truly respect the people you believe are dying for your rights (I can ALMOST say that they do with a straight face sometimes) then you have to respect people's right to act like total assholes or you are simply paying lip service to those ideals.

[United Districts of 1]

They're a whole bunch of hate spewing pigs who can screw off and get hit by a train.

[Prizyetsa]

Those guys crack me up...

[The Alma Mater]

I would like to give them kudos for actually trying to be the sort of men the Christian god wants them to be - instead of the half baked attitude of most other christians.

I would also like to kick them in the groin.

[Kirav]

They are malicious pseudo-Christians who are obsessed with damnation and sexual mores while ignoring the ethical and spiritual teachings of the faith.

For me, a pro-LGBT Irish Catholic from a military upbringing, the Westboro Baptist Church is a rare case. I vehemently oppose all hate groups, but even so, as I belong to the 'dominant' white, heterosexual, Christian establishment, hate groups are rarely opposed to me. So, not only do I dislike them for their message and practices, but I must also oppose them because, in their view, I am part of the enemy.

[The Krishnok Realms]

There's free-speech, and then there's just simple hatred.

Frankly, I believe their leaders should be locked up for their hate-mongering and their children taken away from their brain-washing (Ever seen the video of the little girl singing their "God hates the world" song? It's sickening.)

People like this are very much a beserk button for me. I'm usually a live-and-let-live kind of guy, but I have my limits.

[Ceannairceach]

Annoying trollish bastards that need to be banished to the depths of the Sarlaac Pit.