Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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.