I know this one!

By lawyers taking cases all the way up to the Supreme Court if necessary.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Rude words after the jump.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/supreme-court-upholds-freedom-of-speech-in-obsceni,17372/

Hey, I think the sentiment behind the US Constitution is great and it's motivation is noble. My point is though, it is open to being manipulated big time. You appear to be so paranoid about the government eating away at your freedoms, you are prepared to let this scum spread their twisted opinions.

I fully expect to be able to express my opinions about the government without fear of being locked up, but I don't expect to be walking free if I'm shouting abuse and slander.

see more Political Pictures

Wolfstan wrote:Hey, I think the sentiment behind the US Constitution is great and it's motivation is noble. My point is though, it is open to being manipulated big time. You appear to be so paranoid about the government eating away at your freedoms, you are prepared to let this scum spread their twisted opinions.

I fully expect to be able to express my opinions about the government without fear of being locked up, but I don't expect to be walking free if I'm shouting abuse and slander.

We're not paranoid. We're free. Sorry you can't seem to grasp the difference. Thats ok, we are citizens of different countries.

Frazzled wrote:

Wolfstan wrote:Hey, I think the sentiment behind the US Constitution is great and it's motivation is noble. My point is though, it is open to being manipulated big time. You appear to be so paranoid about the government eating away at your freedoms, you are prepared to let this scum spread their twisted opinions.

I fully expect to be able to express my opinions about the government without fear of being locked up, but I don't expect to be walking free if I'm shouting abuse and slander.

We're not paranoid. We're free. Sorry you can't seem to grasp the difference. Thats ok, we are citizens of different countries.

Yep, free to argue the toss for, months and months and months and months and years.

Actually, I think that allowing free speech is the worst that can happen to the the Westboro Cause. If they were censored, what they said would seem lllicit and possibly sympathetic.

By allowing them to keep ranting, we actually allow for more of a frank discussion about homosexuality and homophobia in culture. Does anybody think that Westboro is doing a good job in recruiting anybody to their way of thinking?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wolfstan wrote:Hey, I think the sentiment behind the US Constitution is great and it's motivation is noble. My point is though, it is open to being manipulated big time. You appear to be so paranoid about the government eating away at your freedoms, you are prepared to let this scum spread their twisted opinions.

I fully expect to be able to express my opinions about the government without fear of being locked up, but I don't expect to be walking free if I'm shouting abuse and slander.

Ok, actual slander is not protected speech. Nothing Westboro does is slander. Legal terms have legal meanings.

Abuse is a very subjective standard. They're not following around parents, or picketing homes. They're appearing in public areas. What they're doing is mean, but we have laws for harassment, and invasion of privacy and what not.

Wolfstan wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Wolfstan wrote:Hey, I think the sentiment behind the US Constitution is great and it's motivation is noble. My point is though, it is open to being manipulated big time. You appear to be so paranoid about the government eating away at your freedoms, you are prepared to let this scum spread their twisted opinions.

I fully expect to be able to express my opinions about the government without fear of being locked up, but I don't expect to be walking free if I'm shouting abuse and slander.

We're not paranoid. We're free. Sorry you can't seem to grasp the difference. Thats ok, we are citizens of different countries.

Yep, free to argue the toss for, months and months and months and months and years.

Yep. Your point?

Polonius wrote:Actually, I think that allowing free speech is the worst that can happen to the the Westboro Cause. If they were censored, what they said would seem lllicit and possibly sympathetic.

By allowing them to keep ranting, we actually allow for more of a frank discussion about homosexuality and homophobia in culture. Does anybody think that Westboro is doing a good job in recruiting anybody to their way of thinking?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wolfstan wrote:Hey, I think the sentiment behind the US Constitution is great and it's motivation is noble. My point is though, it is open to being manipulated big time. You appear to be so paranoid about the government eating away at your freedoms, you are prepared to let this scum spread their twisted opinions.

I fully expect to be able to express my opinions about the government without fear of being locked up, but I don't expect to be walking free if I'm shouting abuse and slander.

Ok, actual slander is not protected speech. Nothing Westboro does is slander. Legal terms have legal meanings.

Abuse is a very subjective standard. They're not following around parents, or picketing homes. They're appearing in public areas. What they're doing is mean, but we have laws for harassment, and invasion of privacy and what not.

That's a fair point, but they've not suddenly started doing this, they've been at it for sometime now. If I started making offensive comments on this forum I'd get banned, which seems a bit unfair in light of the defense of the 1st Amendment.

My point is Frazz is that you would prefer to let somebody get away with being offensive rather than stop and say, "hold on a minute, freedom of speech is one thing, this is taking the p***." You're so paranoid about the government and any perceived threats to your freedom you'd rather let this scum have their say than have something in place that stops them.

As an aside, as I wrote the paragraph above I starred out some letters, just incase I broke the forum rules on language. Ironic when these people appear on your TV channels screaming this abuse, where everyone can see it, even kids.

Wolfstan wrote:

That's a fair point, but they've not suddenly started doing this, they've been at it for sometime now. If I started making offensive comments on this forum I'd get banned, which seems a bit unfair in light of the defense of the 1st Amendment.

The key difference being is that this forum is private, while Westboro is protesting in public. If they tried to come onto private property to do their protesting, the owner is within every right to tell them to gtf off his property right there and then. However, the WBC has as much right to protest on a street about whatever they want. It's the downside of freedom....sure you get open discussion, but you being free also means the crazy people are free to say whatever they want.

Also, you're not American, and as such the 1st Amendment doesn't apply to you. (joking guys)

=Shakes head= And this is why I like Plato's ideas of government the best...

Edit: Having just seen Wolfstan added a bunch on, I shall edit my reply

Yes, Americans are paranoid about losing their freedom, it's bred into our culture that our freedom is what our predecessors and fathers fought and died for in the Revolution, the Civil War and both World Wars. It's something that's deeply deeply embedded into us as a people. America also works on the idea that there is a slippery slope, and that if you ban something for being 'bad'....well what's to stop you from doing it to anything else? This, I'm fairly sure comes from our little flirtation with McCarthyism....

So yes, America will let people say whatever the hell they want, even if it is very offensive, because they have the right to do so. Is what they say hurtful? Yes, but that doesn't mean anything. Their right to say what they want is greater than my right to not be offended by people. It's not a perfect system, but we've realized we have to live with the holes that let crazy people do this stuff, just because attempting to plug them could be much much worse than just leaving them in place.

Also, you're not American, and as such the 1st Amendment doesn't apply to you. (joking guys)

I can't see why not, your lawmakers like to apply their laws to things that aren't American, off shore internet gambling sites or companies that trade with countries on your banned list. So why wouldn't a foum hosted in the US and owned by an American offer the same rights?

As mentioned before I think the US Constituation is a noble endeavour, but with flaws.

@Wolfstan: I don't think it's paranoia to say that the Government should never ban speech based on content. I think it's a fairly well reasoned decision based on the fact that allowing government to decide what can and can't be said is giving awesome power to the state, which will almost certainly be abused.

No offense, but you seem to have a pretty superficial knowledge of 1st amendment and free speech issues.

That's a fair point, but they've not suddenly started doing this, they've been at it for sometime now. If I started making offensive comments on this forum I'd get banned, which seems a bit unfair in light of the defense of the 1st Amendment.
***This is a private board. You have no rights here. But thats a common lack of understanding of what freedom of speech is. The government can't arrest you and take you away.

My point is Frazz is that you would prefer to let somebody get away with being offensive rather than stop and say, "hold on a minute, freedom of speech is one thing, this is taking the p***." You're so paranoid about the government and any perceived threats to your freedom you'd rather let this scum have their say than have something in place that stops them.
****You call it and me paranoid, which is itself a bit cookoo. We call it it freedom of speech, with a nice fat bright line keeping it from being infringed. What part of FREEDOM OF SPEECH are you not getting? If you don't like it, fine I care less than nothing. You have your country and can decide your own rights and obligations. We have ours.

In the words of the immortal bard: "Surrender? What do you think the A stands for? France?"

Wolfstan wrote:

Also, you're not American, and as such the 1st Amendment doesn't apply to you. (joking guys)

I can't see why not, your lawmakers like to apply their laws to things that aren't American, off shore internet gambling sites or companies that trade with countries on your banned list. So why wouldn't a foum hosted in the US and owned by an American offer the same rights?

As mentioned before I think the US Constituation is a noble endeavour, but with flaws.

Lol. Because the constituion, more than anything, protects private property. The 1st Amendment (and every part of the constitution except the 13th amendment) only restricts governmental action. If you are in my house, I can restrict your speech, worship, or assembly. If you invite me in, I can search your home without a warrant. Even Texas allows private property to restrict carrying weapons.

Polonius wrote: Even Texas allows private property to restrict carrying weapons.

Crazy isn't it?

Wolfstan wrote:

I can't see why not, your lawmakers like to apply their laws to things that aren't American, off shore internet gambling sites or companies that trade with countries on your banned list. So why wouldn't a foum hosted in the US and owned by an American offer the same rights?

As mentioned before I think the US Constituation is a noble endeavour, but with flaws.

You need to remember that the US Constitution is not 'law' persay, but more of a contract a state signs when joining the Union. They give up certain powers they would have if they were a sovereign state, and in return they get a few things, as well as a promise from the Federal Government that they will only do a few thing as enumerated in Article 1 Section 8. The various amendments change the powers of Congress, which is why they have to get sent to the states.

So yes, the First Amendment does not say: "You can say whatever the hell you want, whenever you want, wherever you want." The 1st Amendment says that the Federal Government will not pass a law restricting free speech. But, as has been said, once you step onto private property it's all null and void, as it's no longer the Federal Government making the rules. If I recall correctly, when you signed up for dakka, you agreed to the rules, one of which was a prohibition against offensive speech. That rule trumps free speech because you agreed to it.

The Supreme Court has ruled in support of this pov with the case Morse v. Frederick (otherwise known as 'Bong Hits 4 Jesus'). The courts ruling was basically that the rules of an institution you join trump free speech. Basically, if you go to work and sign a contract that says you can't be homophobic, then go around supporting Fred Phelps, your workplace is perfectly within its rights to fire you, and free speech is no protection.

You're so paranoid about the government and any perceived threats to your freedom you'd rather let this scum have their say than have something in place that stops them.

I'd rather have idiots spouting idiotspeak and have the rights we do than shut down idiocy and give up those rights.

As if there were no idiocy in GB. Of course there are no guns, so you have the worst of both worlds IMHO.

Polonius wrote:@Wolfstan: I don't think it's paranoia to say that the Government should never ban speech based on content. I think it's a fairly well reasoned decision based on the fact that allowing government to decide what can and can't be said is giving awesome power to the state, which will almost certainly be abused.

No offense, but you seem to have a pretty superficial knowledge of 1st amendment and free speech issues.

Which is why I'm trying to understand it as it's a totally alien concept to me.

Chill Frazz, all I've done is questioned the concept of your 1st Amendment, not p****d on your porch.

Perhaps you should spend sometime reading up on our history, I think you will find that we know about oppression over here in the Uk.

Wolfstan wrote:

Polonius wrote:@Wolfstan: I don't think it's paranoia to say that the Government should never ban speech based on content. I think it's a fairly well reasoned decision based on the fact that allowing government to decide what can and can't be said is giving awesome power to the state, which will almost certainly be abused.

No offense, but you seem to have a pretty superficial knowledge of 1st amendment and free speech issues.

Which is why I'm trying to understand it as it's a totally alien concept to me.

Chill Frazz, all I've done is questioned the concept of your 1st Amendment, not p****d on your porch.

Perhaps you should spend sometime reading up on our history, I think you will find that we know about oppression over here in the Uk.

Maybe you should read up on your own history. You might find there's a reason its the USA and not GB here. Something about tyranny...

Perhaps you should moderate your tone and not call other posters paranoid.

It's very, very simple. If the people in power right now can decide that they don't like what a group is saying and ban it from being said what's to stop them from banning something else later?

Today Westboro gets shut down and shut up. Great right? Except that tomorrow they decide that anyone criticizing soldiers is banned. Ohhh kay. In fact the day after, lets just open that up and tomorrow you're not allowed to criticize any government official. Of course, now that we've done that, why not just make things all nice and content by banning every political opinion except the ones of those currently in power? I mean, we have established back with Westboro that if the majority doesn't like what you're saying we can ban what you say. So why not just keep using that precedent?

Yes, its extreme but it illustrates precisely why you cannot just start banning people from saying things you don't like. Eventually you wind up in the group that the majority doesn't like what you say and they ban you from saying it. That's the whole slippery slope concept. You can't start down that road because you set a dangerous precedent and reeling everyone back once they start down it is very, very hard.

Tyyr wrote:It's very, very simple. If the people in power right now can decide that they don't like what a group is saying and ban it from being said what's to stop them from banning something else later?

Today Westboro gets shut down and shut up. Great right? Except that tomorrow they decide that anyone criticizing soldiers is banned. Ohhh kay. In fact the day after, lets just open that up and tomorrow you're not allowed to criticize any government official. Of course, now that we've done that, why not just make things all nice and content by banning every political opinion except the ones of those currently in power? I mean, we have established back with Westboro that if the majority doesn't like what you're saying we can ban what you say. So why not just keep using that precedent?

Yes, its extreme but it illustrates precisely why you cannot just start banning people from saying things you don't like. Eventually you wind up in the group that the majority doesn't like what you say and they ban you from saying it. That's the whole slippery slope concept. You can't start down that road because you set a dangerous precedent and reeling everyone back once they start down it is very, very hard.

I'm not saying ban opinions, as that is dangerous and wrong, but some of the stuff they come out with should come under some public order offence (IMO).

Thats the thing, anything done to Westboro will only encourage them. Its like scientology, muslims, tamils or any other nut jobs, if you ignore them they will go away, dont ignore them and they will only gain more power.

Essentially there is nothing legal we can do to shut them up, so ignore them until they do something crazy then come down on them like a bag of hammers.

Its just said that we have to wait til blood is flowing before we decide to give a damn.

Wolfstan wrote:

Tyyr wrote:It's very, very simple. If the people in power right now can decide that they don't like what a group is saying and ban it from being said what's to stop them from banning something else later?

Today Westboro gets shut down and shut up. Great right? Except that tomorrow they decide that anyone criticizing soldiers is banned. Ohhh kay. In fact the day after, lets just open that up and tomorrow you're not allowed to criticize any government official. Of course, now that we've done that, why not just make things all nice and content by banning every political opinion except the ones of those currently in power? I mean, we have established back with Westboro that if the majority doesn't like what you're saying we can ban what you say. So why not just keep using that precedent?

Yes, its extreme but it illustrates precisely why you cannot just start banning people from saying things you don't like. Eventually you wind up in the group that the majority doesn't like what you say and they ban you from saying it. That's the whole slippery slope concept. You can't start down that road because you set a dangerous precedent and reeling everyone back once they start down it is very, very hard.

I'm not saying ban opinions, as that is dangerous and wrong, but some of the stuff they come out with should come under some public order offence (IMO).

But why? Do you think people should have a right to not be offended?

Ravenous D wrote:Thats the thing, anything done to Westboro will only encourage them. Its like scientology, muslims, tamils or any other nut jobs, if you ignore them they will go away, dont ignore them and they will only gain more power.

That's just genius. Lump the entire religion of Islam -- all 23% of the world's population -- in with Westboro and Scientology in the nutjob bucket.



...think that's my cue for another self-imposed exile from the OT forum...

Take a vacation to Mecca for me while you're gone. They are real tolerant of non muslims there

Any ethical judgement that boils down to "one of them was mean to one of us, so we should be mean to all of them" deserves the same level of respect as "he who smelt it, dealt it." Meaning, of course, none at all.






Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wolfstan wrote:I'm not saying ban opinions, as that is dangerous and wrong, but some of the stuff they come out with should come under some public order offence (IMO).

Here is a decent explanation of the Heckler's Veto.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heckler%27s_veto

I live in ohio, and here is our Disorderly Conduct Statute:

http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2917.11

I think you can argue that what they do fits under (A)(2), but I'm not sure it really does, at least in practice. The protest is not aimed at a specific person, it's also neither obscene nor even profane by most older defintions. It's in very poor taste, but it's hard to paint their protest as simply an attempt to inconvenience or annoy others, and not a method of making a political point.

And that's what it comes down to: if there is a political statement at the bottom of the pile of BS, the courts are going to find it and protect it.

Frazzled wrote:Not in the US, where we have an amendment to that effect. It means you are immune from criminal prosecution. Your employer can still fire your sorry ass.

I said free speach means you are immune to government consequences. You correct me by saying it means you're free from criminal prosecution...

How is that a correction and not just repeating what I said?

sebster wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Not in the US, where we have an amendment to that effect. It means you are immune from criminal prosecution. Your employer can still fire your sorry ass.

I said free speach means you are immune to government consequences. You correct me by saying it means you're free from criminal prosecution...

How is that a correction and not just repeating what I said?

There are a whol slew of consequences besides criminal prosecution.

Frazzled wrote:

sebster wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Not in the US, where we have an amendment to that effect. It means you are immune from criminal prosecution. Your employer can still fire your sorry ass.

I said free speach means you are immune to government consequences. You correct me by saying it means you're free from criminal prosecution...

How is that a correction and not just repeating what I said?

There are a whol slew of consequences besides criminal prosecution.

Yeah, I think Sebster was aware of that. The government can't do anything about your speech, but anybody else can.

Polonius wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

sebster wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Not in the US, where we have an amendment to that effect. It means you are immune from criminal prosecution. Your employer can still fire your sorry ass.

I said free speach means you are immune to government consequences. You correct me by saying it means you're free from criminal prosecution...

How is that a correction and not just repeating what I said?

There are a whol slew of consequences besides criminal prosecution.

Yeah, I think Sebster was aware of that. The government can't do anything about your speech, but anybody else can.

Agreed. I was also thinking about government firing you if employed by the government, or losing government contracts, that sort of thing.

Ravenous D wrote:Take a vacation to Mecca for me while you're gone. They are real tolerant of non muslims there

This is what astonishes. Do you think that western civilisation is better than Muslim?

If not, why are you complaining about them?

If yes, why are you behaving like them?

one thing that really does my head in about these wesboro folks is that they give Christianity a bad name, people see church and think Christian. i have great respect for service men and think this is an outcry.
free speech is a good thing, a great thing, but this is over the top.
this is such an abuse of the 1st ammendment....

Most people will see Westboro for a very extreme sect.

Yeah, I'd have trouble imagining many people seeing the WBC as anything but a bunch of loons. I don't think people see them as mainstream Christians.

Please remember that free speech is NOT an absolute right. Further, even "political" speech can be restricted based on location (military base, hospitals).

In the instant case the question is whether the lower court got it right in finding the speech by the westboro folks fell within the bounds of the IIOED statute.

Under Maryland law, the elements of an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim are as follows: (1) intentional or reckless conduct by the defendant; (2) extreme and outrageous conduct by the defendant; (3) a causal connection between the wrongful conduct of the defendant and the emotional distress of the plaintiff; and (4) severe emotional distress. Harris v. Jones, 380 A.2d 611, 614 (1977). The defendant's conduct must be " 'so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community.' " Id. at 614 (quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts, § 46 comment d).

1. Is pretty easy..note that it is not the effect that must be intentional (emotional distress) but the complained of actions
2. Is it really extreme and outrageous? THIS is the real issue
3. Fairly easy to show.. They did A nd now I am distressed.
4. It can't be "they made me sad!" We're talking about true depression here and usually courts demand physical evidence of the emotional distress..vomitting, weight loss, other physical problems related to distress.

You can argue #2 to your hearts content..

ender502

Has it been mentioned that the Westboro Baptist Church is a civil litigation trolling scam? Are there still people out there that believe these lawyers are doing this out of religious sentiment?

Nurglitch wrote:Has it been mentioned that the Westboro Baptist Church is a civil litigation trolling scam? Are there still people out there that believe these lawyers are doing this out of religious sentiment?

Their lawyer is one of the Phelps family...it is also extremely rare for a court to grant attorneys fees to defense. So, if this is all for the money, then this is perhaps the stupidest attorney ever.

More than likely this is all about true religious sentiment.

Nurglitch, I understand your distate of the Westboro folks, I share it, but do not let that cloud your judgment.

ender502


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Looking at the issue... I am going to have to go with supporting only "content neutral" restrictions on speech on public property.

It's not what they say that should EVER be punished....we should look at the "how."

ender502

ender502:

I expressed distate of the Westboro Baptist Church? News to me. I thought of writing something long and didactic, but then I realized that I might as well let Google do the talking: http://kanewj.com/wbc/

Frazzled wrote:Agreed. I was also thinking about government firing you if employed by the government, or losing government contracts, that sort of thing.

Ah, that's a fair point then.

ender502 wrote:

Nurglitch wrote:Has it been mentioned that the Westboro Baptist Church is a civil litigation trolling scam? Are there still people out there that believe these lawyers are doing this out of religious sentiment?

Their lawyer is one of the Phelps family...it is also extremely rare for a court to grant attorneys fees to defense. So, if this is all for the money, then this is perhaps the stupidest attorney ever.

More than likely this is all about true religious sentiment.

Nurglitch, I understand your distate of the Westboro folks, I share it, but do not let that cloud your judgment.

ender502


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Looking at the issue... I am going to have to go with supporting only "content neutral" restrictions on speech on public property.

It's not what they say that should EVER be punished....we should look at the "how."

ender502

Actually Nurglitch is right. this is well known. They specifically target persons and locations in order to sue. They are quite good at it. Thats why I like the jury nullifcation event scenario better.

Nurglitch wrote:ender502:

I expressed distate of the Westboro Baptist Church? News to me. I thought of writing something long and didactic, but then I realized that I might as well let Google do the talking: http://kanewj.com/wbc/

Wow. Well, it said it on the internet so it must be true.

Really? A blog post is the standard for fact? That explains a lot about your posting.

Sad to say that Westboro is (in a litigation sense) following a path worn by giants. They ARE HOPING folks will go bonkers. They HOPE there will be a lawsuit. But it's not for the money... They are setting up cases that will suppor t their right to free speech..or not. If it is "not" then it is just more evidence of how "evil" the government has become.

Don't you get it? They want to lose the cases. The loss seperates them further from society and rienforces their crazy "us against them" attitudes.

ender502

The fark post that's being quoted in the blog makes considerably more sense than your own reasoning, so yeah, I'm going to go with 'scam artists' rather than 'free speech activists'.

Nurglitch wrote:The fark post that's being quoted in the blog makes considerably more sense than your own reasoning, so yeah, I'm going to go with 'scam artists' rather than 'free speech activists'.

Sure thing... Blogs that are not supported by a shred of "fact" are what make sense to you.

That's fine. You be that way.

I wouldn't go so far as to say Westboro are "free speech activists." These guys are 100% nuts and following their own religious path that leads to the eventual battle between good and evil. Guess what side they think they're on? Every barb thrown at them and every loss they suffer is further evidence to support their basic "the world is evil and we're the only good one's in it." This is pretty standard stuff for religious cults.

Their intentions are a little more difuse than either "get money" or "free speech." Probably why you are having such a hard time getting it.

Personally, I will support only content neutral limitations of free speech. If we actually limit "content" that is "outrageous" then where will it end? Is a gay pride parade unprotected outrageous speech in Arkansas?

ender502

ender502 wrote:

Nurglitch wrote:The fark post that's being quoted in the blog makes considerably more sense than your own reasoning, so yeah, I'm going to go with 'scam artists' rather than 'free speech activists'.

Sure thing... Blogs that are not supported by a shred of "fact" are what make sense to you.

That's fine. You be that way.

I wouldn't go so far as to say Westboro are "free speech activists." These guys are 100% nuts and following their own religious path that leads to the eventual battle between good and evil. Guess what side they think they're on? Every barb thrown at them and every loss they suffer is further evidence to support their basic "the world is evil and we're the only good one's in it." This is pretty standard stuff for religious cults.

Their intentions are a little more difuse than either "get money" or "free speech." Probably why you are having such a hard time getting it.

Personally, I will support only content neutral limitations of free speech. If we actually limit "content" that is "outrageous" then where will it end? Is a gay pride parade unprotected outrageous speech in Arkansas?

ender502

I'm with Ender502 on this one. Go take a look at some of their websites. I did it out of sheer curiousity and it is pretty much a classic religious cult. The WBC sees themselves as God's messengers and the only ones who will be saved when the end times come. Their entire world view is wrapped in obtuse references to scripture and prophecy. They defend themselves when they are sued because in their messianic world view, God is calling upon them to defend themselves to give the "evil" ones (i.e. all of us who aren't WBC) a chance to recognize their rightousness, convert and be saved. And if we don't, they don't care because we damned ourselves by condeming them (i.e. Pontius Pilate and Jesus). We can try to look for alternative explanations to their behavior that are more congruent with our own world views (i.e. they found a brilliant way to make money), but none of those theories explain the consistency of their behavior over time or how they live when they are not protesting.

Panzerleader:

Could you please explain how the theory, that the Phelps are running a legal scam, doesn't explain the consistency of their behaviour over time?

PanzerLeader wrote:

ender502 wrote:

Nurglitch wrote:The fark post that's being quoted in the blog makes considerably more sense than your own reasoning, so yeah, I'm going to go with 'scam artists' rather than 'free speech activists'.

Sure thing... Blogs that are not supported by a shred of "fact" are what make sense to you.

That's fine. You be that way.

I wouldn't go so far as to say Westboro are "free speech activists." These guys are 100% nuts and following their own religious path that leads to the eventual battle between good and evil. Guess what side they think they're on? Every barb thrown at them and every loss they suffer is further evidence to support their basic "the world is evil and we're the only good one's in it." This is pretty standard stuff for religious cults.

Their intentions are a little more difuse than either "get money" or "free speech." Probably why you are having such a hard time getting it.

Personally, I will support only content neutral limitations of free speech. If we actually limit "content" that is "outrageous" then where will it end? Is a gay pride parade unprotected outrageous speech in Arkansas?

ender502

I'm with Ender502 on this one. Go take a look at some of their websites. I did it out of sheer curiousity and it is pretty much a classic religious cult. The WBC sees themselves as God's messengers and the only ones who will be saved when the end times come. Their entire world view is wrapped in obtuse references to scripture and prophecy. They defend themselves when they are sued because in their messianic world view, God is calling upon them to defend themselves to give the "evil" ones (i.e. all of us who aren't WBC) a chance to recognize their rightousness, convert and be saved. And if we don't, they don't care because we damned ourselves by condeming them (i.e. Pontius Pilate and Jesus). We can try to look for alternative explanations to their behavior that are more congruent with our own world views (i.e. they found a brilliant way to make money), but none of those theories explain the consistency of their behavior over time or how they live when they are not protesting.

When your group is ten people the website is for public consumption only. Talk is cheap actions-what they really do, is the only thing that matters.

Nurglitch wrote:Panzerleader:

Could you please explain how the theory, that the Phelps are running a legal scam, doesn't explain the consistency of their behaviour over time?

Because at some point you'd expect to see a break in their personal lives. If you are creating all this havoc as a scam, at some point you should find some inconsistencies in their personal behavior. Instead, they live every aspect of their lives in accordance with their believes. Most con artists have both a public and private persona---hence all the scandals you see involving mega churches and other evangelical measures where someone who didn't really believe in his message was exploiting the Christian values to make money. Instead, with WBC you have a group that is entirely consistent in its approaches and values throughout their lives. I will grant that it is possible they are just that good, but it is far more likely that they actually believe what they preach.

@ frazzled: And their personal actions are strikingly consistent with their talk. I think that is what makes me think WBC really does believe the message they preach. Even if the message is warped.

PanzerLeader wrote:

Nurglitch wrote:Panzerleader:

Could you please explain how the theory, that the Phelps are running a legal scam, doesn't explain the consistency of their behaviour over time?

Because at some point you'd expect to see a break in their personal lives. If you are creating all this havoc as a scam, at some point you should find some inconsistencies in their personal behavior. Instead, they live every aspect of their lives in accordance with their believes. Most con artists have both a public and private persona---hence all the scandals you see involving mega churches and other evangelical measures where someone who didn't really believe in his message was exploiting the Christian values to make money. Instead, with WBC you have a group that is entirely consistent in its approaches and values throughout their lives. I will grant that it is possible they are just that good, but it is far more likely that they actually believe what they preach.

@ frazzled: And their personal actions are strikingly consistent with their talk. I think that is what makes me think WBC really does believe the message they preach. Even if the message is warped.

Thats a load of high octane crap unworthy to drive the John Deere bulldozer it'd take to bury it (and them).
What strikingly consistent? They go around, find some poor schmo, protest, sue, make money, next step. Big ing woop.
They are mouth breathing scum grifters not fit to waste valuable oxygen, and are raising their children to be the same.

Until they ran into comicon of course.

Frazzled wrote:Thats a load of high octane crap unworthy to drive the John Deere bulldozer it'd take to bury it (and them).
What strikingly consistent? They go around, find some poor schmo, protest, sue, make money, next step. Big ing woop.
They are mouth breathing scum grifters not fit to waste valuable oxygen, and are raising their children to be the same.

Until they ran into comicon of course.

The crux of your argument is they are doing this to make money... Besides the "oh so reliable blog post" what are you basing this on? How much money have they made?

I understand the need to demonize someone you disagree with but please use some sense. That black and white view (though convenient) is, essentially, ignorance masquerading as outrage. The westboro folks are certainly loony. But so far you have proferred no evidence to advance your claim they are a legal scam.

Since I WANT to discredit the WBC I am asking you to PLEASE post any info you have on their legal scam. That is, lawsuits they've filed as plaintiffs and succesfully recovered or lawsuits filed against them in which they recouped attorney's fees.

ender502

Frazzled wrote:

PanzerLeader wrote:

Nurglitch wrote:Panzerleader:

Could you please explain how the theory, that the Phelps are running a legal scam, doesn't explain the consistency of their behaviour over time?

Because at some point you'd expect to see a break in their personal lives. If you are creating all this havoc as a scam, at some point you should find some inconsistencies in their personal behavior. Instead, they live every aspect of their lives in accordance with their believes. Most con artists have both a public and private persona---hence all the scandals you see involving mega churches and other evangelical measures where someone who didn't really believe in his message was exploiting the Christian values to make money. Instead, with WBC you have a group that is entirely consistent in its approaches and values throughout their lives. I will grant that it is possible they are just that good, but it is far more likely that they actually believe what they preach.

@ frazzled: And their personal actions are strikingly consistent with their talk. I think that is what makes me think WBC really does believe the message they preach. Even if the message is warped.

Thats a load of high octane crap unworthy to drive the John Deere bulldozer it'd take to bury it (and them).
What strikingly consistent? They go around, find some poor schmo, protest, sue, make money, next step. Big ing woop.
They are mouth breathing scum grifters not fit to waste valuable oxygen, and are raising their children to be the same.

Until they ran into comicon of course.

Just because they are twisted doesn't mean they don't actually believe what they say. I've met plenty of Texans who say they'll shot people who break into their homes, but I'm only leery of the ones who actually own guns. Same principle applies. These people actually believe the twisted, vile stuff they spew---which makes them dangerous. I have no doubt that if Phelps told a WBC member to kill someone, they would do so and be completely smug about it. WBC is much closer to the Davidians than a simple litigation scheme.

What are YOU basing any of this on?

Frazzled wrote:What are YOU basing any of this on?

Oh, Frazzled..thank you...rarely has the win been handed over so easily.

But, just for giggles, i'll indulge your evasion. I am basing my opinion on the WBC on a very simple set of facts.

1. Their consistent behavior and loudly stated beliefs (I take people's statements of belief at face value unless there is evidence to show they don't actually believe their own statement)
2. A complete lack of evidence to contradict #1.

Again..and this time I am begging you...please help me discredit WBC in some sort of rational manner. Devolving into character assassination and name calling is what WBC does. You should hold yourself to a higher standard. Use your reason and evidence to show them as hypocrites and hucksters.

ender502

ender502 wrote:

Frazzled wrote:What are YOU basing any of this on?

Oh, Frazzled..thank you...rarely has the win been handed over so easily.

But, just for giggles, i'll indulge your evasion. I am basing my opinion on the WBC on a very simple set of facts.

1. Their consistent behavior and loudly stated beliefs (I take people's statements of belief at face value unless there is evidence to show they don't actually believe their own statement)
2. A complete lack of evidence to contradict #1.

Again..and this time I am begging you...please help me discredit WBC in some sort of rational manner. Devolving into character assassination and name calling is what WBC does. You should hold yourself to a higher standard. Use your reason and evidence to show them as hypocrites and hucksters.

ender502

You said that before, what consistent behavior other than being unChristian vermin not fit to breed? We do know from the record they are quite sue happy. We do know they exist pretty much of one "family" now. We do know that btheir children cuss like sailors and don't know what 2+2 =. We do know they protest funerals and comic conventions. We do know they have no other material means of support.

So again, them and I mean that in the sincerest, gentlest way.

I love citation fights.

Person A makes claim. Person B makes counter claim. Persona A demands sources from person B etc etc.

So productive!

Yey Internetz!

LordofHats wrote:I love citation fights.

Person A makes claim. Person B makes counter claim. Persona A demands sources from person B etc etc.

So productive!

Yey Internetz!

You forgot FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT!



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Now here's what the freedom of speech is all about- counterprotesting the WBC.

I particularly like #27
http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/the-3o-best-anti-westboro-baptist-church-protest-s

Frazzled wrote:

LordofHats wrote:I love citation fights.

Person A makes claim. Person B makes counter claim. Persona A demands sources from person B etc etc.

So productive!

Yey Internetz!

You forgot FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT!

I don't know. Can you cite any sources

I kid

LordofHats wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

LordofHats wrote:I love citation fights.

Person A makes claim. Person B makes counter claim. Persona A demands sources from person B etc etc.

So productive!

Yey Internetz!

You forgot FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT!

I don't know. Can you cite any sources

I kid

Yes, my posterior motive!

I've been of the opinion that Westboro was (at least in part) a money-making scam, but the last time I posted that here, Dogma stated that in fact they mostly lose cases, and don't get awarded substantial damages when they do win. I don't have links handy to any citations of evidence, though.

Dogma stated the same thing earlier in this thread, though he didn't post any links.

Of course, it's possible that the truth is somewhere in the middle; that they're genuine nutjobs but ALSO choose to at least TRY to fund their efforts via lawsuit. That doesn't mean they're necessarily successful in doing so; or even if, on balance, they do profit from the lawsuits, that doesn't necessarily mean that profit is their primary motivation. There are a lot of other ways to make money that don't involve being hated by practically everyone.

Mannahnin wrote:I've been of the opinion that Westboro was (at least in part) a money-making scam, but the last time I posted that here, Dogma stated that in fact they mostly lose cases, and don't get awarded substantial damages when they do win. I don't have links handy to any citations of evidence, though.

Dogma stated the same thing earlier in this thread, though he didn't post any links.

Of course, it's possible that the truth is somewhere in the middle; that they're genuine nutjobs but ALSO choose to at least TRY to fund their efforts via lawsuit. That doesn't mean they're necessarily successful in doing so; or even if, on balance, they do profit from the lawsuits, that doesn't necessarily mean that profit is their primary motivation. There are a lot of other ways to make money that don't involve being hated by practically everyone.

Manny...that brand of "reason" is not acceptable on the internet...at all.

WBC has been around since 1957 but not active in much until about 1991 (i'll bet you that's when Phelps became pastor). They have, since then, been big on demonizing homosexuality. In 1991 it had something to do with stopping homosexual acts in a park that was near the church. So, WBC has been all about homosexuality for almost 20 years... Me thinks the pastor doth protest too much. But 20 years of hating seems a pretty consistent pattern of behavior.

Oh, they also enjoy such fun activities as cheering at the funerals of homosexuals who died as a result of hate crimes and aids. Swell folks.

ender502

I expect you can look up their cases on Lexis, if you are a member.

There are other ways to make money from way-out-there religion too. Viz. the Moonies, Scientologists, Televangelists, etc.

On balance I believe the Phelpses probably do believe what they say they believe.

Evidently they also don't like
Jews
Chinese communists
Catholics
Eastern Orthodox
Methodists, Presbyterians, Lutherans, Episcopalians, and Baptists
Islam,
Hindus
and Italians (Italians???, really???)
No word on the great speghetti monster though.

I think you mean The Abominable Pasta Fiend.

With puttanesca sauce.

I think it's important not to confuse means with ends. it's clear that the WBC have a talent and proclivity for litigation. What's not clear is if they portest their cause in order to gain notoriety and money, of if they're trying to gain notoriety and money to help advance their cause.

I think the fact that their strategy has worked well to get their message out, while they haven't gain personal fame or fortune, alone helps to support the idea that they clearly seem to believe (or at least find it useful to agree with) their view points.

Kilkrazy wrote:I think you mean The Abominable Pasta Fiend.

With puttanesca sauce.

incorrect, we the members of the True Order of the Great Speghetti Monster have seen the truth and split off from our former Abominable brethren, as they have lost their way.

Long live the Angelhair!

Heretic!

Penne and Fusilli will take their holy vengeance upon the unbelievers.

I suspect that KK was filling in the term the WBC uses for (what we know to be) the benign Flying Spaghetti Monster. To their hateful eyes he is an Abominable Pasta Fiend. [shakes head] Blessed be his Noodly Appendage.

Frazzled wrote:Evidently they also don't like
Jews
Chinese communists
Catholics
Eastern Orthodox
Methodists, Presbyterians, Lutherans, Episcopalians, and Baptists
Islam,
Hindus
and Italians (Italians???, really???)
No word on the great speghetti monster though.

At least they don't discriminate.

Kilkrazy wrote:Heretic!

Penne and Fusilli will take their holy vengeance upon the unbelievers.

Bring it! Whether prepackaged or fresh you pasta heretics will be shown the error of your ways. Repent for the Holy Pasta Bowl draws nigh!

Kilkrazy wrote:

Ravenous D wrote:Take a vacation to Mecca for me while you're gone. They are real tolerant of non muslims there

This is what astonishes. Do you think that western civilisation is better than Muslim?

If not, why are you complaining about them?

If yes, why are you behaving like them?

I like how I can call Westboro and scientologists nutjobs, but I cant say anything about Tamilis, a UN classified terrorist group known for using child soldiers and suicide bombers. That and being called ingorant against muslims because Im not allowed in Mecca or I will be killed.

Obviously not eveyone in these groups are bad, and that includes Westboro and scientologists, or any other strange group.

Westboro protests against the government for supporting homosexuality, we are apparently allowed to call them Nut Jobs.
Scientologists ruin lives and use brainwashing, we are apparently allowed to call them nut jobs.
Muslim faith allows you to murder without question, and totally disallow women from doing anything, but its not okay to say anything bad about them.
A few thousand Tamils use children as a human shield against riot police on a major highway because they wanted support for their Civil war. But no no, I cant say a damn thing.

Western Civilization is clearly better, I dont remember last time I saw any women get dragged into the streets and stoned to death for expressing an opinion. We also bend over for everyone's beliefs, thats fine its a free country, but I support my freedom not to have my country changed by their IMO backwards beliefs. I think we should put prayer rooms in every office for the followers of the Giant Spaghetti monster, but thats a whole other issue.

Oh and thanks for the warning, next time you disagree with someone dont use your given power to try and scare people into silence, isnt that what this thread is about? Taking away peoples freedom of speech? You might as well give a warning to every single person on this thread that said Westboro are crazy and call them ignorant because they lumped them into one group. Im sure they arent all bad, same as any group, but to say nothing about bashing one group but disallowing another is absolutely hypocritical.

Ravenous D wrote:I like how I can call Westboro and scientologists nutjobs, but I cant say anything about Tamilis, a UN classified terrorist group known for using child soldiers and suicide bombers. That and being called ingorant against muslims because Im not allowed in Mecca or I will be killed.

I'm guessing it's because your understanding of Islam in general, as illustrated by the rest of your post, is pretty weak. Mainstream Islam does not "allow you to murder without question."

Also, stop saying that Tamils are a terrorist group. Tamils are an ethnic and linguistic group, not a terrorist organization. The actual name of the group you're describing is the Tamil Tigers. That's like saying saying Muslims or Arabs are a terrorist group and using those terms instead of referring to Al Quaeda.

Ravenous D wrote:
I like how I can call Westboro and scientologists nutjobs, but I cant say anything about Tamilis, a UN classified terrorist group known for using child soldiers and suicide bombers. That and being called ingorant against muslims because Im not allowed in Mecca or I will be killed.

Obviously not eveyone in these groups are bad, and that includes Westboro and scientologists, or any other strange group.

Westboro protests against the government for supporting homosexuality, we are apparently allowed to call them Nut Jobs.
Scientologists ruin lives and use brainwashing, we are apparently allowed to call them nut jobs.
Muslim faith allows you to murder without question, and totally disallow women from doing anything, but its not okay to say anything bad about them.
A few thousand Tamils use children as a human shield against riot police on a major highway because they wanted support for their Civil war. But no no, I cant say a damn thing.

Western Civilization is clearly better, I dont remember last time I saw any women get dragged into the streets and stoned to death for expressing an opinion. We also bend over for everyone's beliefs, thats fine its a free country, but I support my freedom not to have my country changed by their IMO backwards beliefs. I think we should put prayer rooms in every office for the followers of the Giant Spaghetti monster, but thats a whole other issue.

Oh and thanks for the warning, next time you disagree with someone dont use your given power to try and scare people into silence, isnt that what this thread is about? Taking away peoples freedom of speech? You might as well give a warning to every single person on this thread that said Westboro are crazy and call them ignorant because they lumped them into one group. Im sure they arent all bad, same as any group, but to say nothing about bashing one group but disallowing another is absolutely hypocritical.

1. The Tamils aren't muslims. The ethnic group is predominately Hindu.

2. You can't lump an entire ethnicity into one big bag of nut jobs. The word Tamils describes almost 10% of the population of Sri Lanka, and that 10% is further subdivided into Tamils of Sri Lankanian origin and those who emigrated from India. Now, it is certainly fair to judge the very specific group of individuals who fostered a 26 year communist revolution and invented suicide bombing (i.e. the Tamil Tigers) as a bit loony. Point is, if you're going to blast people, be specific or expect to be shown how ignorant a statement is.

3. The Muslim faith certainly does not permit murder without question. In fact, the Qu'ran is quite specific that you are not allowed to kill Muslims and "People of the Book" (i.e. Christians and Jews, the spiritual predecessors to Mohammed). Taking the twisted interpretations of a few terrorists and plastering them onto possibly the world's largest religion is extremely ignorant.

Im not allowed in Mecca or I will be killed.

You would not be killed for being in Mecca as a non-Muslim, why would you think that? It's not even a thing, much less a real thing.

You could go in and walk around the Kaaba, do it all, nobody is going to kill you. If you start badmouthing Islam while you're walking around the Kaaba, I guess you might get beat on a bit, but again, probably not killed.

Obviously not eveyone in these groups are bad, and that includes Westboro and scientologists, or any other strange group.

Actually I think we can be pretty well assured that every single member of the Westboro Baptist Church is a bad person. There are only, like, 75 of them, and they're all inbred scum.

Muslim faith allows you to murder without question, and totally disallow women from doing anything, but its not okay to say anything bad about them.

It's really a matter of scope and diversity.

There are a LOT of Muslims in the world, and their traditions are many and varied. To generalize them is simply inaccurate. Among there numbers are people FAR worse than anybody in the WBC. There are also very wonderful people. You can't generalize them.

By comparison, WBC is about 75 people. You could meet every single one of them, chat with them, and confirm that they're an evil lunatic. You wouldn't have to generalize, you'd know for a fact that every last one was scum.

Scientology is much larger, but it's still relatively contained, and has a centralized authority. It's understood how it works, it's a scam and a brainwashing operation. It's not like there's a "legitimate" branch in Turkey or something. It's all controlled by a core of people, and it's entirely full of people who are either evil or being misled by evil. It's not a small organization, but it's still small enough, recent enough, and centralized enough, that it can be understood as a single entity.

You can't do that with Islam. It's just too many people, too many cultures, too many traditions to treat it as a single thing.

Western Civilization is clearly better

You'd have to define "better" for me to agree fully, but in general, I agree. I don't really attribute that to Islam vs. Christianity, though, I attribute it to wealth and privilege vs. squalor and oppression.

It's not "west is better than Islam." It's people who live in western Europe, Scandanavia and North America are wealthier, better educated, and have a more developed sense of justice and morality than the rest of the world.

There was a time when the wealthiest, most educated people in the world were Muslims, and the Christians were the dark age savages. That's not the case anymore, but it shows that the religion isn't really critical. It has more to do with social conditions, geopolitical strength, etc. etc.

Phryxis wrote:You'd have to define "better" for me to agree fully, but in general, I agree. I don't really attribute that to Islam vs. Christianity, though, I attribute it to wealth and privilege vs. squalor and oppression.

It's not "west is better than Islam." It's people who live in western Europe, Scandanavia and North America are wealthier, better educated, and have a more developed sense of justice and morality than the rest of the world.

There was a time when the wealthiest, most educated people in the world were Muslims, and the Christians were the dark age savages. That's not the case anymore, but it shows that the religion isn't really critical. It has more to do with social conditions, geopolitical strength, etc. etc.

Yeah, that's really the sum of it. Well put.

Also, that claim that within Islam you can murder without question... what the hell?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

PanzerLeader wrote:1. The Tamils aren't muslims. The ethnic group is predominately Hindu.

Yeah, it was a Hindu minority fighting against a Buddhist majority. Which clashed against the stereotypes the West likes to place on those religions, so was removed from the reported narrative.

2. You can't lump an entire ethnicity into one big bag of nut jobs. The word Tamils describes almost 10% of the population of Sri Lanka, and that 10% is further subdivided into Tamils of Sri Lankanian origin and those who emigrated from India. Now, it is certainly fair to judge the very specific group of individuals who fostered a 26 year communist revolution and invented suicide bombing (i.e. the Tamil Tigers) as a bit loony. Point is, if you're going to blast people, be specific or expect to be shown how ignorant a statement is.

You then also have to look at the context of the war there. Now, there's no doubting the way the Tamils went about their war was awful, but if you look at their treatment at the hands of the majority it's hard not to feel some sympathy with their desire for independance. Life's complicated like that.

Who said, "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter"?

People of all kinds have engaged in so-called asymmetric warfare.

If they are on what we define as our side we applaud, no matter how horrible or illegal the acts may be.

People of all kinds have engaged in so-called asymmetric warfare.

If they are on what we define as our side we applaud, no matter how horrible or illegal the acts may be.

Meh.... There's a big difference between targetted attacks on military material and personel, and blowing off a suicide bomb in a civilian market. There's a big difference between capturing your enemy, and torturing your enemy to death. There's a big difference between enlisting willing volunteers, and kidnapping child soldiers.

There's nothing emperically immoral with asymmetric warfare, but there's a big difference between moral and immoral conduct of warfare.

Ultimately I'd disagree that a freedom fighter can always be fairly called a terrorist (though I recognize that it's not your quote).

sebster wrote:
Yeah, it was a Hindu minority fighting against a Buddhist majority. Which clashed against the stereotypes the West likes to place on those religions, so was removed from the reported narrative.

Fun fact, the Tamils are also the world's most prolific suicide terrorists.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Phryxis wrote:
There's nothing emperically immoral with asymmetric warfare, but there's a big difference between moral and immoral conduct of warfare..

Maybe, but defining what constitutes moral warfare is far from easy, and very rarely clear. For example, there were many, many attacks on civilian targets during WWII.

Phryxis wrote:

People of all kinds have engaged in so-called asymmetric warfare.

If they are on what we define as our side we applaud, no matter how horrible or illegal the acts may be.

Meh.... There's a big difference between targetted attacks on military material and personel, and blowing off a suicide bomb in a civilian market. There's a big difference between capturing your enemy, and torturing your enemy to death. There's a big difference between enlisting willing volunteers, and kidnapping child soldiers.

There's nothing emperically immoral with asymmetric warfare, but there's a big difference between moral and immoral conduct of warfare.

Ultimately I'd disagree that a freedom fighter can always be fairly called a terrorist (though I recognize that it's not your quote).

You're right. I have several things in mind;

1. Attacks by civilians on military targets are illegal under the laws of war.

2. The west has supported some pretty nasty groups such as the Contras and the Taleban, who had no regard for limiting their attacks to military targets.

3. We have supported and continue to support a number of governments who have scant regard for human rights.

4. We strongly oppose insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan who carry out attacks against our own military.

All in all it is hard to say we don't hew to the line of the quotation.