Your opinion on the Westboro Baptist Church

[Ravineworld]

those people may be dickfaces, but as a fairly open bisexual and libertarian, I am thrilled that they are allowed to express theirr lunacy openly. As long as nobody gets physically hurt, it would be fine.

[Ceannairceach]

those people may be dickfaces, but as a fairly open bisexual and libertarian, I am thrilled that they are allowed to express theirr lunacy openly. As long as nobody gets physically hurt, it would be fine.

Free speech can only go so far; they actively advocate the death of homosexuals, which I consider a threat to my person.

[Arkhanta]

I'm reformed baptist myself, but God, those people give me the creeps. I believe homosexuality as wrong, but not in the way those people show things.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4SOQesc3q_U

[Wolfbaile]

Do I believe Homosexuality is wrong? Yes. Do I believe that God hates Homosexuals? No. In the Christianity I practice, God loves everyone, though he may not agree with what they are doing...And I am 100% positive he doesn't approve of the WBC's methods. In fact I feel as if they give the rest of Christianity a bad name. They remind me more of the inquisition than a church.

[Ceannairceach]

Do I believe Homosexuality is wrong? Yes. Do I believe that God hates Homosexuals? No. In the Christianity I practice, God loves everyone, though he may not agree with what they are doing...And I am 100% positive he doesn't approve of the WBC's methods. In fact I feel as if they give the rest of Christianity a bad name. They remind me more of the inquisition than a church.

The inquisition was supported by a church >_>

[Lubyak]

Free speech can only go so far; they actively advocate the death of homosexuals, which I consider a threat to my person.

As I understand the way the Constitution is interpreted, that doesn't qualify as a 'incitement to commit crimes'. I can stand out there and say 'all Jews should die', and 'Being a Jew should be a capital crime', and that's protected free speech. What isn't protected free speech is when I start saying that everyone shuld go into the streets with guns and start shooting every Jew they find. THAT is inciting violence and crime, and no longer protected.

As for the limits of free speech, I like the ones granted in the United States....as has been said, free speech and freedom is what the service men of this nation have died for 200 years to grant. Stripping free speech and rights from anyone, even if those people are hate filled bigots, is dishonouring those sacrifices.

Now, do I think that the WBC deserved to die a slow and painful death for what they have done? Yes, I do. However, that doesn't mean I have any right to stop them from saying what they do. If I wanted to make a stand against the WBC, I would join one of the many groups that counter protest, drowning out their hate with motorcycles and blocking their signs from the view of the family. Counter free speech with free speech, not censorship.

[The Alma Mater]

The inquisition was supported by a church >_>

"Was" ? The inquisition still exists - the current Pope was in charge of it from the 80s till his rise to papacy.
However, it mostly concerns itself with protecting childmolesting priests from prosecution - not so much with killing heathens.

[Britannia And France]

the worst thing to happen to america since the U.S invasions of Grenada and Panama

[Osthia]

They'll get theirs. I hate their guts, they hate me for being Catholic.

[The Kangaroo Republic]

The Westboro Baptist Church is just terrible. They have no respect for the dead and they hate everything.

And even the KKK hates them.

[Ceannairceach]

Free speech can only go so far; they actively advocate the death of homosexuals, which I consider a threat to my person.

As I understand the way the Constitution is interpreted, that doesn't qualify as a 'incitement to commit crimes'. I can stand out there and say 'all Jews should die', and 'Being a Jew should be a capital crime', and that's protected free speech. What isn't protected free speech is when I start saying that everyone shuld go into the streets with guns and start shooting every Jew they find. THAT is inciting violence and crime, and no longer protected.

As for the limits of free speech, I like the ones granted in the United States....as has been said, free speech and freedom is what the service men of this nation have died for 200 years to grant. Stripping free speech and rights from anyone, even if those people are hate filled bigots, is dishonouring those sacrifices.

Now, do I think that the WBC deserved to die a slow and painful death for what they have done? Yes, I do. However, that doesn't mean I have any right to stop them from saying what they do. If I wanted to make a stand against the WBC, I would join one of the many groups that counter protest, drowning out their hate with motorcycles and blocking their signs from the view of the family. Counter free speech with free speech, not censorship.

I don't believe you understood me; I don't advocate limiting free speech, but instead taking it as threats of violence. They quote bible passages and raise signs that hope for the deaths of soldiers, American leadership, and other groups they hate, and though most of what they say are quotes, all of them are violent. Britain blocked them from entering the nation because their protests have a habit of inciting violence or hate. Now, I don't advocate the stifling of hate speech, but when you call for the death of an entire group of people or otherwise subjugation of them, its going far past the already-set limitations of free speech. They are a cult, not a religion, and just as we don't allow certain self-proclaimed religions to kill themselves or sacrifice other humans, we shouldn't allow them to protest where it may incite violence or crime.

[Peisandros]

Counter free speech with free speech, not censorship.

But censorship is so much easier? I've never really understood the American attitude with free speech to be honest. It's nice and all, but I don't think it requires ardent protection.

[The lepearchauns]

Id like to share that they actually FLEW TO BUFFALO to protest the funerals of those lost in a plane crash in Clarence NY! SO my friends at the University at Buffalo gathered an angry mob of our own and creted a wall between them and the families...we were kinda hoping it broke into violence...we outnumbered them 3 to 1

[The Southern Dictators]

The Westboro Baptist Church is just terrible. They have no respect for the dead and they hate everything...

But censorship is so much easier? I've never really understood the American attitude with free speech to be honest. It's nice and all, but I don't think it requires ardent protection.

These^

[Ravineworld]

I'm reformed baptist myself, but God, those people give me the creeps. I believe homosexuality as wrong, but not in the way those people show things.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4SOQesc3q_U

why do you believe homosexuality is wrong

[Lubyak]

I don't believe you understood me; I don't advocate limiting free speech, but instead taking it as threats of violence. They quote bible passages and raise signs that hope for the deaths of soldiers, American leadership, and other groups they hate, and though most of what they say are quotes, all of them are violent. Britain blocked them from entering the nation because their protests have a habit of inciting violence or hate. Now, I don't advocate the stifling of hate speech, but when you call for the death of an entire group of people or otherwise subjugation of them, its going far past the already-set limitations of free speech. They are a cult, not a religion, and just as we don't allow certain self-proclaimed religions to kill themselves or sacrifice other humans, we shouldn't allow them to protest where it may incite violence or crime..

Oh no, no. Only the first paragraph of my response was an actual response to your post. The other two paragraphs were me stating my own beliefs on the issue. Sorry for the confusion.

I still stand by what I said though in that, to my knowledge, they do not call upon anyone to actively go out and kill/commit crimes against gays, or any of the myriad groups of people they hate. They say that God hates them and that their burning in hell, and they think that being gay should be a capital crime, but they're still not actively calling for crimes against gays.

I've realized that the WBC is not stupid...a lot of their members are lawyers, and they know the laws they're dealing with. I swear they're purpousefully wording their acts to make sure they don't fall into any libel, slander, or inciting crime.

Now, I see what you're arguing, but I worry about the slippery slope. If we say that the WBC is not allowed to protest or speak out because they may be inciting violence or crime...when do we stop? I was at the RNC in Minneapolis back in 2008, and even though I was just 16 then, some of the shouts and jees thrown my way, as well as the actions of the protesters were enough to make me fear for my safety. ....should that be banned to because it has the possibility of inciting violence or crime? I think most people would say 'no'...the problem is, what's the objective clear difference between protesters at the RNC, and the WBC? I doubt a clear one can be found.

[Ceannairceach]

I'm reformed baptist myself, but God, those people give me the creeps. I believe homosexuality as wrong, but not in the way those people show things.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4SOQesc3q_U

why do you believe homosexuality is wrong

Because they follow the not-to-be-a-Moral-Code OT, and read mistranslated bibles, oh, and follow the so-didn't-meet-Jesus Paul. This is mainly Catholics, I believe, but it seems to extend to other groups of Christians as well.

[The Alma Mater]

Counter free speech with free speech, not censorship.

But censorship is so much easier? I've never really understood the American attitude with free speech to be honest. It's nice and all, but I don't think it requires ardent protection.

Whatever you say WILL hurt someones feelings somewhere - or even enrage them.
So - what free speech is allowed and what is not ?

[Lubyak]

But censorship is so much easier? I've never really understood the American attitude with free speech to be honest. It's nice and all, but I don't think it requires ardent protection.

But as I said in that post, it is an enshrined American value that you have the right to speak out. I still see the problem as, once you ban one type of speech you set a precedent that banning speech is 'ok' if enough people disagree with it....where does that take us?

The Constitution is one of America's most important documents, it helps define who we are as a nation. It is something that our servicemen and women have fought and died for over 200 years, disrespecting its enshrined freedoms--even if it's 'easier--is a slap in a face to those people.

[Ceannairceach]

But censorship is so much easier? I've never really understood the American attitude with free speech to be honest. It's nice and all, but I don't think it requires ardent protection.

Whatever you say WILL hurt someones feelings somewhere - or even enrage them.
So - what free speech is allowed and what is not ?

the kind that calls for the death of entire groups of people certainly shouldn't, in my opinion.

[The Alma Mater]

Whatever you say WILL hurt someones feelings somewhere - or even enrage them.
So - what free speech is allowed and what is not ?

the kind that calls for the death of entire groups of people certainly shouldn't, in my opinion.

Does it matter how it is phrased ?
Examples:

1. "In my opinion, the world would be a better place if all homosexuals died"
2. "Acceptance of homosexuality is a threat to humanity on par with the destruction of the rainforest"
3. Homosexuals will burn in hell for all eternity
4. Homosexuals are an abomination. A good Christian would not allow Gods vision to be smeared with their continued existence.

Should all of these be forbidden ?

[Peisandros]

But censorship is so much easier? I've never really understood the American attitude with free speech to be honest. It's nice and all, but I don't think it requires ardent protection.

Whatever you say WILL hurt someones feelings somewhere - or even enrage them.
So - what free speech is allowed and what is not ?

Well exactly - so why is it so important to protect if your going to be enraging people? Seems like a weird argument to protect free speech.

I don't know where the line should be drawn, or if a line is even possible. But I also don't think that the right to free speech should be part of an entrenched constitution. That way the government of the day is able to set reasonable guidelines.

[Ceannairceach]

the kind that calls for the death of entire groups of people certainly shouldn't, in my opinion.

Does it matter how it is phrased ?
Examples:

1. "In my opinion, the world would be a better place if all homosexuals died"
2. "Acceptance of homosexuality is a threat to humanity on par with the destruction of the rainforest"
3. Homosexuals will burn in hell for all eternity
4. Homosexuals are an abomination. A good Christian would not allow Gods vision to be smeared with their continued existence.

Should all of these be forbidden ?

Number one surely, number three no, as it is a theological statement, so I suppose the WBC isn't exactly making threats with that sentence, numbers two and four are more ambiguous.

[Peisandros]

But censorship is so much easier? I've never really understood the American attitude with free speech to be honest. It's nice and all, but I don't think it requires ardent protection.

But as I said in that post, it is an enshrined American value that you have the right to speak out. I still see the problem as, once you ban one type of speech you set a precedent that banning speech is 'ok' if enough people disagree with it....where does that take us?

The Constitution is one of America's most important documents, it helps define who we are as a nation. It is something that our servicemen and women have fought and died for over 200 years, disrespecting its enshrined freedoms--even if it's 'easier--is a slap in a face to those people.

That's all well and good, but it doesn't mean I have to agree that the right to free speech deserves to be in the constitution.

[The Alma Mater]

Does it matter how it is phrased ?
Examples:

1. "In my opinion, the world would be a better place if all homosexuals died"
2. "Acceptance of homosexuality is a threat to humanity on par with the destruction of the rainforest"
3. Homosexuals will burn in hell for all eternity
4. Homosexuals are an abomination. A good Christian would not allow Gods vision to be smeared with their continued existence.

Should all of these be forbidden ?

Number one surely, number three no, as it is a theological statement, so I suppose the WBC isn't exactly making threats with that sentence, numbers two and four are more ambiguous.

Funny. Of these, I consider 2 and 4 the ones that are most questionable. 1 after all is preceded by a clear statement that it is an opinion, not a fact.