I'd rather we have one Marine

Darth Rotor · 3rd April 2010, 09:19 PM

Than a dozen JREF's.

Edited by Locknar:

Edited, breach of Rule 0.

http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/...y-justice.html

Akhenaten · 3rd April 2010, 09:38 PM

I hear you Darth.

Freedom of speech has nothing to do with those vile scum. Their words and actions have forfeit them ANY of the rights afforded to human beings.

They deserve no support, or even tolerance, from anyone.

Disgraceful.

Audible Click · 3rd April 2010, 09:45 PM

I agree with Darth and Akhenaten. That was hate speech and deprived a grieving family of mourning their son in peace.

LTC8K6 · 3rd April 2010, 09:50 PM

Free speech was never all inclusive. There were always limits. This was one of those limits. The family should be defended, not the foul speech.

One Eyed Jack · 3rd April 2010, 10:28 PM

Originally Posted by Akhenaten

I hear you Darth.

Freedom of speech has nothing to do with those vile scum. Their words and actions have forfeit them ANY of the rights afforded to human beings.

They deserve no support, or even tolerance, from anyone.

Disgraceful.

This type of response is precisely why we have protections for free speech. If we limit free speech to only opinions we like, well, it's not free speech is it?

I dislike these worms at Westboro as well. They are loathsome and vile people. However, if we want a country with free speech, that means free speech for everyone.

Akhenaten · 3rd April 2010, 10:35 PM

Whaddya mean 'we', white man?

paximperium · 3rd April 2010, 10:41 PM

Originally Posted by Akhenaten

Whaddya mean 'we', white man?

Great point. This is based on Free Speech issues concerning US Constitution only.

paximperium · 3rd April 2010, 10:43 PM

Originally Posted by One Eyed Jack

This type of response is precisely why we have protections for free speech. If we limit free speech to only opinions we like, well, it's not free speech is it?

I dislike these worms at Westboro as well. They are loathsome and vile people. However, if we want a country with free speech, that means free speech for everyone.

Seconded. Free speech does apply to all. Not just the speech you approve of.

LTC8K6 · 3rd April 2010, 11:18 PM

Quote:

Free speech does apply to all. Not just the speech you approve of.

But that has never been true. There have always been limits.

And for me in this case it's not the speech, it's the behavior. It's where the speech is occuring, not the speech itself.

lionking · 3rd April 2010, 11:20 PM

Originally Posted by paximperium

Seconded. Free speech does apply to all. Not just the speech you approve of.

Free speech is not unlimited, and I think you know that.

LTC8K6 · 3rd April 2010, 11:27 PM

How long can I stand on public property outside your house and yell obscenities at you?

How many obscene letters can I write to you?

Phone calls?

All of the above are either harassment or disorderly conduct or both, and I'd soon be arrested and rightly so.

Ferguson · 3rd April 2010, 11:35 PM

I agree with the court's decision. I would rather have Westboro on my street every day then "hate" speech laws putting opinions up for mob justice.
I could agree with some kind of "disturbing a funeral" law. But restricting Westboro's speech is not the path a country "of the people" would go down. If majority vote decides what speech is free, you better believe JREF's "atheist" views would be at the top of the "hate" list. In American polls we're hated more than muslims.

Also the family is not out the 16,000. Bill O'Reilly paid it.

LTC8K6 · 3rd April 2010, 11:37 PM

This board has heavy limits on my speech, because it's a private affair, and that's that.

lionking · 3rd April 2010, 11:42 PM

Originally Posted by Ferguson

I agree with the court's decision. I would rather have Westboro on my street every day then "hate" speech laws putting opinions up for mob justice.
I could agree with some kind of "disturbing a funeral" law. But restricting Westboro's speech is not the path a country "of the people" would go down. If majority vote decides what speech is free, you better believe JREF's "atheist" views would be at the top of the "hate" list. In American polls we're hated more than muslims.

Also the family is not out the 16,000. Bill O'Reilly paid it.

We have Racial and Religous Vilification laws in Australia. The sky hasn't fallen.

http://www.hreoc.gov.au/racial_discr...ification.html

LTC8K6 · 3rd April 2010, 11:46 PM

Originally Posted by Ferguson

I agree with the court's decision. I would rather have Westboro on my street every day then "hate" speech laws putting opinions up for mob justice.
I could agree with some kind of "disturbing a funeral" law. But restricting Westboro's speech is not the path a country "of the people" would go down. If majority vote decides what speech is free, you better believe JREF's "atheist" views would be at the top of the "hate" list. In American polls we're hated more than muslims.

Also the family is not out the 16,000. Bill O'Reilly paid it.

This would mean that Westboro is free to disrupt JREF events in a similar manner if they so choose. It won't really matter what they say, they will be disruptive regardless, which is their intent.

Ferguson · 3rd April 2010, 11:56 PM

Originally Posted by lionking

We have Racial and Religous Vilification laws in Australia. The sky hasn't fallen.

http://www.hreoc.gov.au/racial_discr...ification.html

Well then you're quite lucky they aren't enforced. Or has everyone who's demonstrated "contempt for" or "ridicule of" Christians been hauled off to the pokey?

P.S. Christians are childish idiots whom I have nothing but contempt for. Please arrest me, Victoria.

paximperium · 4th April 2010, 12:01 AM

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

But that has never been true. There have always been limits.

Yes but never on the content per say unless said content is harmful or specifically harassing against an individual.

Quote:

And for me in this case it's not the speech, it's the behavior. It's where the speech is occuring, not the speech itself.

As defined by whom?
What about a rally against poverty at a UN summit?
A war rally near the Vietnam Memorial?

paximperium · 4th April 2010, 12:03 AM

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

How long can I stand on public property outside your house and yell obscenities at you?

How many obscene letters can I write to you?

Phone calls?

All of the above are either harassment or disorderly conduct or both, and I'd soon be arrested and rightly so.

Have they done so against one specific family?

paximperium · 4th April 2010, 12:04 AM

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

This would mean that Westboro is free to disrupt JREF events in a similar manner if they so choose. It won't really matter what they say, they will be disruptive regardless, which is their intent.

So?

paximperium · 4th April 2010, 12:06 AM

Originally Posted by lionking

Free speech is not unlimited, and I think you know that.

I know that. The question is what the limits are.
Specifically picketing war dead which is not directed against one specific family or person is a political statement and protected by free speech.

No matter how offensive it is, the freedom to do so is important.

Ferguson · 4th April 2010, 12:07 AM

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

This would mean that Westboro is free to disrupt JREF events in a similar manner if they so choose. It won't really matter what they say, they will be disruptive regardless, which is their intent.

If they are disturbing the peace, they should be arrested for that. What they have to say is irrelevant.
Events are "disrupted" by protesters all the time. So which ones do we arrest? The ugly ones?
No one said the marketplace of ideas would be quiet and peaceful. I'm sure the streets of communist/fascist dictatorships were quite peaceful, what with Stasi and Gestapo around, but I'll take loud and obnoxious protesters to thought police 10 times out of 10.

paximperium · 4th April 2010, 12:10 AM

Originally Posted by lionking

We have Racial and Religous Vilification laws in Australia. The sky hasn't fallen.

http://www.hreoc.gov.au/racial_discr...ification.html

Or the Blasphemy Laws in Ireland?

shadron · 4th April 2010, 12:18 AM

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

But that has never been true. There have always been limits.

And for me in this case it's not the speech, it's the behavior. It's where the speech is occuring, not the speech itself.

OK, the limits are: you can't falsely yell fire in a movie house, and you can't yell obscenities at a funeral. Are there any more you can't do, or does this close the book on it?

Twenty years ago no one did what Westboro does at funerals. If you had to make the rules back then, would you have even thought about including NYOAAF? Or would you have just added it when Westboro started ranting? What is that start picketing weddings in that way? Add another line to the list? Gets kind of tedious.

Unless you can define, ahead of time what is and is not allowable, in precise terms, then your argument is hosed.

In any case, the SCOTUS disagrees.

LTC8K6 · 4th April 2010, 12:24 AM

Originally Posted by Ferguson

If they are disturbing the peace, they should be arrested for that. What they have to say is irrelevant.
Events are "disrupted" by protesters all the time. So which ones do we arrest? The ugly ones?
No one said the marketplace of ideas would be quiet and peaceful. I'm sure the streets of communist/fascist dictatorships were quite peaceful, what with Stasi and Gestapo around, but I'll take loud and obnoxious protesters to thought police 10 times out of 10.

A private funeral is now a marketplace of ideas?

Is TAM-whatever also a marketplace for Westboro's ideas?

How about this board? Can Westboro participate in this marketplace with their ideas?

LTC8K6 · 4th April 2010, 12:32 AM

Originally Posted by shadron

OK, the limits are: you can't falsely yell fire in a movie house, and you can't yell obscenities at a funeral. Are there any more you can't do, or does this close the book on it?

Twenty years ago no one did what Westboro does at funerals. If you had to make the rules back then, would you have even thought about including NYOAAF? Or would you have just added it when Westboro started ranting? What is that start picketing weddings in that way? Add another line to the list? Gets kind of tedious.

Unless you can define, ahead of time what is and is not allowable, in precise terms, then your argument is hosed.

In any case, the SCOTUS disagrees.

I already can't yell obscenities at your house, so why would I be allowed to yell them at your funeral? I can't hold a big protest at your house. It would interfere with you living your life. I'd be arrested as disorderly. It's crystal clear that my free speech has reasonable limits.

Try holding a big protest at Westboro and interfering with their services. I'll bet your free speech ends right about there.

If there are any rules, they need to be enforced evenly, and there clearly are rules.

Ferguson · 4th April 2010, 12:33 AM

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

A private funeral is now a marketplace of ideas?

Apparently.

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

Is TAM-whatever also a marketplace for Westboro's ideas?

Sure.

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

How about this board? Can Westboro participate in this marketplace with their ideas?

Absolutely.

Uncayimmy · 4th April 2010, 12:37 AM

How many people responding in this thread have read the court's decision?

LTC8K6 · 4th April 2010, 12:38 AM

Originally Posted by Ferguson

Apparently.

Sure.

Absolutely.

There's no way Westboro can discuss their ideas here...

I can't even discuss their ideas here.

Ferguson · 4th April 2010, 12:40 AM

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

Try holding a big protest at Westboro and interfering with their services. I'll bet your free speech ends right about there.

Why would it? People protested catholic churches over sex abuse, without being arrested. Whenever neo-nazis meet up, there are hundreds or thousands of protesters, and police to "defend" them. Depending on what you mean by "interfering with their services," I don't see how there would be a problem.

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

If there are any rules, they need to be enforced evenly, and there clearly are rules.

I agree completely with that. Show me the non-violent funeral protesters that have been prosecuted under US law and I'll change my opinion on the court's decision in an instant.

Ferguson · 4th April 2010, 12:45 AM

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

There's no way Westboro can discuss their ideas here...

I can't even discuss their ideas here.

That God hates homosexuals and punishes the US through war? I've read waayyy more bat**** stuff on JREF than that. I've read way more bat**** stuff than that in the bible. And people give that thing to children.

LTC8K6 · 4th April 2010, 12:49 AM

Quote:

How many people responding in this thread have read the court's decision?

Has nothing to do with why I posted here...

It sounds to me like there's an unfamiliarity with Westboro, their ideas, and the way they protest.

I am gobsmacked at the claim that they would be allowed to discuss their ideas here.

At any rate, I can see that I'm not going to get anywhere here, but I said what I wanted to say.

LTC8K6 · 4th April 2010, 12:50 AM

Originally Posted by Ferguson

That God hates homosexuals and punishes the US through war? I've read waayyy more bat**** stuff on JREF than that. I've read way more bat**** stuff than that in the bible. And people give that thing to children.

Your post is censored, and they don't say "homosexual"...

Undesired Walrus · 4th April 2010, 12:55 AM

What, fags? Seems easy to say to me.

Ferguson · 4th April 2010, 12:59 AM

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

Has nothing to do with why I posted here...
It sounds to me like there's an unfamiliarity with Westboro, their ideas, and the way they protest.

I'm quite familiar with them, and hate them passionately, I have nothing but disdain for them. What does that have to do with the law?

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

I am gobsmacked at the claim that they would be allowed to discuss their ideas here.

Their ideas are rather run of the mill Old Testament. It's their choice of language and tactics that are so offensive. I've seen similar and what I would consider quite insane ideas on JREF (have you read yrreg or the reincarnation thread

).

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

Your post is censored, and they don't say "homosexual"...

And this is relevant? I thought it was their ideas that couldn't be discussed?

LTC8K6 · 4th April 2010, 01:00 AM

Originally Posted by Undesired Walrus

What, fags? Seems easy to say to me.

Context, and I'm already tired of the game.

Alan · 4th April 2010, 01:07 AM

You mean "god hates fags"?

God Hates Fags.

It seems to not be censored.

There are people on the JREF forum who write things that are on par with that in terms of hatred. It doesn't seem like you are right.

Undesired Walrus · 4th April 2010, 01:09 AM

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

Context, and I'm already tired of the game.

Arcade22 has said much worse. Still here.

Safe-Keeper · 4th April 2010, 01:27 AM

I frankly don't see how it can be such a huge blow to freedom of speech to not be allowed to dishonour the dead within hearing distance of their funeral service.

There's lots of places where you can't do what you want. You can't march into a congressional hearing with a buddy, have a seat and start chatting about Swedish politics. You can't stand outside an elementary school and yell obscenities. If Westboro has the right to do what they do, I want the right to sit outside the playground of a kindergarten and talk loudly about graphic butchering methods.

Ferguson · 4th April 2010, 01:40 AM

Originally Posted by Alan

You mean "god hates fags"?

God Hates Fags.

It seems to not be censored.

Yes, I should have said it too, but there have been a few bizarre AAH dumps lately and I didn't want to risk torpedoing a good thread.

Originally Posted by Safe-Keeper

I frankly don't see how it can be such a huge blow to freedom of speech to not be allowed to dishonour the dead within hearing distance of their funeral service.

I have no problem with a "disrupting a funeral service" misdemeanor, as long as speech content is irrelevant.

Originally Posted by Safe-Keeper

There's lots of places where you can't do what you want. You can't march into a congressional hearing with a buddy, have a seat and start chatting about Swedish politics. You can't stand outside an elementary school and yell obscenities. If Westboro has the right to do what they do, I want the right to sit outside the playground of a kindergarten and talk loudly about graphic butchering methods.

Have you been to a kindergarten playground? You'd look like a nun compared to the language elementary-schoolers throw around.

One Eyed Jack · 4th April 2010, 07:33 AM

Originally Posted by Safe-Keeper

I want the right to sit outside the playground of a kindergarten and talk loudly about graphic butchering methods.

Have you ever spent much time with kids of this age? They would think you were awesome and ask if the guts would spill out and wiggle around like worms.

On a side note, I used to work for a company owned by a couple of religious conservatives. They would go on about not letting their children watch shows which depicted homosexuals. They felt this was damaging. With the same breath, their faces would light up as they discussed how the whole family never misses an episode of CSI... you know, CSI, where every episode opens with a decomposing, mutilated, or sexually assaulted corpse shown in graphic detail.

Are these the types of people that we want to decide what is appropriate speech? I ask because they are the type that traditionally flock to opportunities to do so.

3rd April 2010, 09:38 PM	#2
Akhenaten Heretic Pharaoh Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Pi-Broadford, Australia Posts: 24,641	I hear you Darth. Freedom of speech has nothing to do with those vile scum. Their words and actions have forfeit them ANY of the rights afforded to human beings. They deserve no support, or even tolerance, from anyone. Disgraceful.
	__________________ Life is mostly Froth and Bubble - Adam Lindsay Gordon The Australasian Skeptics Forum

3rd April 2010, 09:45 PM	#3
Audible Click The gap in the plot Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: BFE Posts: 3,546	I agree with Darth and Akhenaten. That was hate speech and deprived a grieving family of mourning their son in peace.
	__________________ "Thank you, darling heart. Love you." Baba Australasian Skeptics Forum Last edited by Audible Click; 3rd April 2010 at 09:51 PM.

3rd April 2010, 09:50 PM	#4
LTC8K6 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail Posts: 12,616	Free speech was never all inclusive. There were always limits. This was one of those limits. The family should be defended, not the foul speech.
	__________________ What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing. 2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break?

3rd April 2010, 10:28 PM	#5
One Eyed Jack Scholar Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 70	Originally Posted by Akhenaten I hear you Darth. Freedom of speech has nothing to do with those vile scum. Their words and actions have forfeit them ANY of the rights afforded to human beings. They deserve no support, or even tolerance, from anyone. Disgraceful. This type of response is precisely why we have protections for free speech. If we limit free speech to only opinions we like, well, it's not free speech is it? I dislike these worms at Westboro as well. They are loathsome and vile people. However, if we want a country with free speech, that means free speech for everyone.
One Eyed Jack Scholar Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 70

3rd April 2010, 10:35 PM	#6
Akhenaten Heretic Pharaoh Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Pi-Broadford, Australia Posts: 24,641	Whaddya mean 'we', white man?
	__________________ Life is mostly Froth and Bubble - Adam Lindsay Gordon The Australasian Skeptics Forum

3rd April 2010, 10:41 PM	#7
paximperium Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2008 Location: Silicon Valley-Stuck between Google and Apple Posts: 10,727	Originally Posted by Akhenaten Whaddya mean 'we', white man? Great point. This is based on Free Speech issues concerning US Constitution only.
	__________________ "The method of science is tried and true. It is not perfect, it's just the best we have. And to abandon it with its skeptical protocols is the pathway to a dark age." -Carl Sagan "They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance."-Terry Pratchett Last edited by paximperium; 3rd April 2010 at 10:44 PM.

3rd April 2010, 10:43 PM	#8
paximperium Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2008 Location: Silicon Valley-Stuck between Google and Apple Posts: 10,727	Originally Posted by One Eyed Jack This type of response is precisely why we have protections for free speech. If we limit free speech to only opinions we like, well, it's not free speech is it? I dislike these worms at Westboro as well. They are loathsome and vile people. However, if we want a country with free speech, that means free speech for everyone. Seconded. Free speech does apply to all. Not just the speech you approve of.
	__________________ "The method of science is tried and true. It is not perfect, it's just the best we have. And to abandon it with its skeptical protocols is the pathway to a dark age." -Carl Sagan "They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance."-Terry Pratchett

3rd April 2010, 11:18 PM	#9
LTC8K6 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail Posts: 12,616	Quote: Free speech does apply to all. Not just the speech you approve of. But that has never been true. There have always been limits. And for me in this case it's not the speech, it's the behavior. It's where the speech is occuring, not the speech itself.
	__________________ What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing. 2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break?

3rd April 2010, 11:20 PM	#10
lionking In the Peanut Gallery Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Melbourne Posts: 29,650	Originally Posted by paximperium Seconded. Free speech does apply to all. Not just the speech you approve of. Free speech is not unlimited, and I think you know that.
	__________________ A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. Sir Winston Churchill

3rd April 2010, 11:27 PM	#11
LTC8K6 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail Posts: 12,616	How long can I stand on public property outside your house and yell obscenities at you? How many obscene letters can I write to you? Phone calls? All of the above are either harassment or disorderly conduct or both, and I'd soon be arrested and rightly so.
	__________________ What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing. 2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break?

3rd April 2010, 11:35 PM	#12
Ferguson Muse Join Date: May 2009 Location: Lansing, MI Posts: 830	I agree with the court's decision. I would rather have Westboro on my street every day then "hate" speech laws putting opinions up for mob justice. I could agree with some kind of "disturbing a funeral" law. But restricting Westboro's speech is not the path a country "of the people" would go down. If majority vote decides what speech is free, you better believe JREF's "atheist" views would be at the top of the "hate" list. In American polls we're hated more than muslims. Also the family is not out the 16,000. Bill O'Reilly paid it.

3rd April 2010, 11:37 PM	#13
LTC8K6 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail Posts: 12,616	This board has heavy limits on my speech, because it's a private affair, and that's that.
	__________________ What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing. 2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break?

3rd April 2010, 11:42 PM	#14
lionking In the Peanut Gallery Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Melbourne Posts: 29,650	Originally Posted by Ferguson I agree with the court's decision. I would rather have Westboro on my street every day then "hate" speech laws putting opinions up for mob justice. I could agree with some kind of "disturbing a funeral" law. But restricting Westboro's speech is not the path a country "of the people" would go down. If majority vote decides what speech is free, you better believe JREF's "atheist" views would be at the top of the "hate" list. In American polls we're hated more than muslims. Also the family is not out the 16,000. Bill O'Reilly paid it. We have Racial and Religous Vilification laws in Australia. The sky hasn't fallen. http://www.hreoc.gov.au/racial_discr...ification.html
	__________________ A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. Sir Winston Churchill

3rd April 2010, 11:46 PM	#15
LTC8K6 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail Posts: 12,616	Originally Posted by Ferguson I agree with the court's decision. I would rather have Westboro on my street every day then "hate" speech laws putting opinions up for mob justice. I could agree with some kind of "disturbing a funeral" law. But restricting Westboro's speech is not the path a country "of the people" would go down. If majority vote decides what speech is free, you better believe JREF's "atheist" views would be at the top of the "hate" list. In American polls we're hated more than muslims. Also the family is not out the 16,000. Bill O'Reilly paid it. This would mean that Westboro is free to disrupt JREF events in a similar manner if they so choose. It won't really matter what they say, they will be disruptive regardless, which is their intent.
	__________________ What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing. 2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break?

3rd April 2010, 11:56 PM	#16
Ferguson Muse Join Date: May 2009 Location: Lansing, MI Posts: 830	Originally Posted by lionking We have Racial and Religous Vilification laws in Australia. The sky hasn't fallen. http://www.hreoc.gov.au/racial_discr...ification.html Well then you're quite lucky they aren't enforced. Or has everyone who's demonstrated "contempt for" or "ridicule of" Christians been hauled off to the pokey? P.S. Christians are childish idiots whom I have nothing but contempt for. Please arrest me, Victoria.

4th April 2010, 12:01 AM	#17
paximperium Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2008 Location: Silicon Valley-Stuck between Google and Apple Posts: 10,727	Originally Posted by LTC8K6 But that has never been true. There have always been limits. Yes but never on the content per say unless said content is harmful or specifically harassing against an individual. Quote: And for me in this case it's not the speech, it's the behavior. It's where the speech is occuring, not the speech itself. As defined by whom? What about a rally against poverty at a UN summit? A war rally near the Vietnam Memorial?
	__________________ "The method of science is tried and true. It is not perfect, it's just the best we have. And to abandon it with its skeptical protocols is the pathway to a dark age." -Carl Sagan "They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance."-Terry Pratchett

4th April 2010, 12:03 AM	#18
paximperium Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2008 Location: Silicon Valley-Stuck between Google and Apple Posts: 10,727	Originally Posted by LTC8K6 How long can I stand on public property outside your house and yell obscenities at you? How many obscene letters can I write to you? Phone calls? All of the above are either harassment or disorderly conduct or both, and I'd soon be arrested and rightly so. Have they done so against one specific family?
	__________________ "The method of science is tried and true. It is not perfect, it's just the best we have. And to abandon it with its skeptical protocols is the pathway to a dark age." -Carl Sagan "They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance."-Terry Pratchett

4th April 2010, 12:04 AM	#19
paximperium Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2008 Location: Silicon Valley-Stuck between Google and Apple Posts: 10,727	Originally Posted by LTC8K6 This would mean that Westboro is free to disrupt JREF events in a similar manner if they so choose. It won't really matter what they say, they will be disruptive regardless, which is their intent. So?
	__________________ "The method of science is tried and true. It is not perfect, it's just the best we have. And to abandon it with its skeptical protocols is the pathway to a dark age." -Carl Sagan "They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance."-Terry Pratchett

4th April 2010, 12:06 AM	#20
paximperium Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2008 Location: Silicon Valley-Stuck between Google and Apple Posts: 10,727	Originally Posted by lionking Free speech is not unlimited, and I think you know that. I know that. The question is what the limits are. Specifically picketing war dead which is not directed against one specific family or person is a political statement and protected by free speech. No matter how offensive it is, the freedom to do so is important.
	__________________ "The method of science is tried and true. It is not perfect, it's just the best we have. And to abandon it with its skeptical protocols is the pathway to a dark age." -Carl Sagan "They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance."-Terry Pratchett

4th April 2010, 12:07 AM	#21
Ferguson Muse Join Date: May 2009 Location: Lansing, MI Posts: 830	Originally Posted by LTC8K6 This would mean that Westboro is free to disrupt JREF events in a similar manner if they so choose. It won't really matter what they say, they will be disruptive regardless, which is their intent. If they are disturbing the peace, they should be arrested for that. What they have to say is irrelevant. Events are "disrupted" by protesters all the time. So which ones do we arrest? The ugly ones? No one said the marketplace of ideas would be quiet and peaceful. I'm sure the streets of communist/fascist dictatorships were quite peaceful, what with Stasi and Gestapo around, but I'll take loud and obnoxious protesters to thought police 10 times out of 10.

4th April 2010, 12:10 AM	#22
paximperium Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2008 Location: Silicon Valley-Stuck between Google and Apple Posts: 10,727	Originally Posted by lionking We have Racial and Religous Vilification laws in Australia. The sky hasn't fallen. http://www.hreoc.gov.au/racial_discr...ification.html Or the Blasphemy Laws in Ireland?
	__________________ "The method of science is tried and true. It is not perfect, it's just the best we have. And to abandon it with its skeptical protocols is the pathway to a dark age." -Carl Sagan "They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance."-Terry Pratchett

4th April 2010, 12:18 AM	#23
shadron Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Colorado Posts: 5,717	Originally Posted by LTC8K6 But that has never been true. There have always been limits. And for me in this case it's not the speech, it's the behavior. It's where the speech is occuring, not the speech itself. OK, the limits are: you can't falsely yell fire in a movie house, and you can't yell obscenities at a funeral. Are there any more you can't do, or does this close the book on it? Twenty years ago no one did what Westboro does at funerals. If you had to make the rules back then, would you have even thought about including NYOAAF? Or would you have just added it when Westboro started ranting? What is that start picketing weddings in that way? Add another line to the list? Gets kind of tedious. Unless you can define, ahead of time what is and is not allowable, in precise terms, then your argument is hosed. In any case, the SCOTUS disagrees.

4th April 2010, 12:24 AM	#24
LTC8K6 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail Posts: 12,616	Originally Posted by Ferguson If they are disturbing the peace, they should be arrested for that. What they have to say is irrelevant. Events are "disrupted" by protesters all the time. So which ones do we arrest? The ugly ones? No one said the marketplace of ideas would be quiet and peaceful. I'm sure the streets of communist/fascist dictatorships were quite peaceful, what with Stasi and Gestapo around, but I'll take loud and obnoxious protesters to thought police 10 times out of 10. A private funeral is now a marketplace of ideas? Is TAM-whatever also a marketplace for Westboro's ideas? How about this board? Can Westboro participate in this marketplace with their ideas?
	__________________ What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing. 2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break?

4th April 2010, 12:32 AM	#25
LTC8K6 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail Posts: 12,616	Originally Posted by shadron OK, the limits are: you can't falsely yell fire in a movie house, and you can't yell obscenities at a funeral. Are there any more you can't do, or does this close the book on it? Twenty years ago no one did what Westboro does at funerals. If you had to make the rules back then, would you have even thought about including NYOAAF? Or would you have just added it when Westboro started ranting? What is that start picketing weddings in that way? Add another line to the list? Gets kind of tedious. Unless you can define, ahead of time what is and is not allowable, in precise terms, then your argument is hosed. In any case, the SCOTUS disagrees. I already can't yell obscenities at your house, so why would I be allowed to yell them at your funeral? I can't hold a big protest at your house. It would interfere with you living your life. I'd be arrested as disorderly. It's crystal clear that my free speech has reasonable limits. Try holding a big protest at Westboro and interfering with their services. I'll bet your free speech ends right about there. If there are any rules, they need to be enforced evenly, and there clearly are rules.
	__________________ What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing. 2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break?

4th April 2010, 12:33 AM	#26
Ferguson Muse Join Date: May 2009 Location: Lansing, MI Posts: 830	Originally Posted by LTC8K6 A private funeral is now a marketplace of ideas? Apparently. Originally Posted by LTC8K6 Is TAM-whatever also a marketplace for Westboro's ideas? Sure. Originally Posted by LTC8K6 How about this board? Can Westboro participate in this marketplace with their ideas? Absolutely.

4th April 2010, 12:37 AM	#27
Uncayimmy Banned Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 7,485	How many people responding in this thread have read the court's decision?
Uncayimmy Banned Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 7,485

4th April 2010, 12:38 AM	#28
LTC8K6 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail Posts: 12,616	Originally Posted by Ferguson Apparently. Sure. Absolutely. There's no way Westboro can discuss their ideas here... I can't even discuss their ideas here.
	__________________ What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing. 2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break?

4th April 2010, 12:40 AM	#29
Ferguson Muse Join Date: May 2009 Location: Lansing, MI Posts: 830	Originally Posted by LTC8K6 Try holding a big protest at Westboro and interfering with their services. I'll bet your free speech ends right about there. Why would it? People protested catholic churches over sex abuse, without being arrested. Whenever neo-nazis meet up, there are hundreds or thousands of protesters, and police to "defend" them. Depending on what you mean by "interfering with their services," I don't see how there would be a problem. Originally Posted by LTC8K6 If there are any rules, they need to be enforced evenly, and there clearly are rules. I agree completely with that. Show me the non-violent funeral protesters that have been prosecuted under US law and I'll change my opinion on the court's decision in an instant.

4th April 2010, 12:45 AM	#30
Ferguson Muse Join Date: May 2009 Location: Lansing, MI Posts: 830	Originally Posted by LTC8K6 There's no way Westboro can discuss their ideas here... I can't even discuss their ideas here. That God hates homosexuals and punishes the US through war? I've read waayyy more bat** stuff on JREF than that. I've read way more bat** stuff than that in the bible. And people give that thing to children.

4th April 2010, 12:49 AM	#31
LTC8K6 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail Posts: 12,616	Quote: How many people responding in this thread have read the court's decision? Has nothing to do with why I posted here... It sounds to me like there's an unfamiliarity with Westboro, their ideas, and the way they protest. I am gobsmacked at the claim that they would be allowed to discuss their ideas here. At any rate, I can see that I'm not going to get anywhere here, but I said what I wanted to say.
	__________________ What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing. 2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break?

4th April 2010, 12:50 AM	#32
LTC8K6 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail Posts: 12,616	Originally Posted by Ferguson That God hates homosexuals and punishes the US through war? I've read waayyy more bat** stuff on JREF than that. I've read way more bat** stuff than that in the bible. And people give that thing to children. Your post is censored, and they don't say "homosexual"...
	__________________ What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing. 2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break?

4th April 2010, 12:55 AM	#33
Undesired Walrus Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: London Posts: 10,882	What, fags? Seems easy to say to me.
	__________________ Man's material discoveries have outpaced his moral progress. - Clement Attlee, 1945

4th April 2010, 12:59 AM	#34
Ferguson Muse Join Date: May 2009 Location: Lansing, MI Posts: 830	Originally Posted by LTC8K6 Has nothing to do with why I posted here... It sounds to me like there's an unfamiliarity with Westboro, their ideas, and the way they protest. I'm quite familiar with them, and hate them passionately, I have nothing but disdain for them. What does that have to do with the law? Originally Posted by LTC8K6 I am gobsmacked at the claim that they would be allowed to discuss their ideas here. Their ideas are rather run of the mill Old Testament. It's their choice of language and tactics that are so offensive. I've seen similar and what I would consider quite insane ideas on JREF (have you read yrreg or the reincarnation thread ). Originally Posted by LTC8K6 Your post is censored, and they don't say "homosexual"... And this is relevant? I thought it was their ideas that couldn't be discussed?

4th April 2010, 01:00 AM	#35
LTC8K6 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail Posts: 12,616	Originally Posted by Undesired Walrus What, fags? Seems easy to say to me. Context, and I'm already tired of the game.
	__________________ What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing. 2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break?

4th April 2010, 01:07 AM	#36
Alan Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 3,651	You mean "god hates fags"? God Hates Fags. It seems to not be censored. There are people on the JREF forum who write things that are on par with that in terms of hatred. It doesn't seem like you are right.