Westboro Baptist decided to protest at a large memorial for all the victims of the tornado in Joplin, Missouri, at which President Obama was in attendance. What happened? Enter our commenter Troy, a resident of Joplin:
I live in Joplin, Mo. today the president came and visited our city that was destroyed by this tornado!! We all heard the Westboro idiots were coming to protest! And so did about three hundred bikers!! The bikers all showed up and parked across the street from the University where Obama held a ceremony for the many good people, friends and family we lost!! The only report of any Westboro people actually being there was one guy strolling through all the bikers, when they found out who he was it got ugly for him real quick his shirt got torn off and he was pushed around pretty good! When the police saw what was about to happen they grabbed him and tried to push the bikers back!! Then they told the guy “run you stupid mother fucker” And I am quoting!! :) We heard that more of them were blocked at a local truck stop by a few awesome truckers!! They pinned them in until it was over, not sure about this one just what we were hearing!! You may think of bikers as mean or lawless but when it comes to things like this they really step up!!! p.s. most of the bikes were flying the American flag!!!!!
That’s right. Tell those un-American scum from Westboro where they can shove it. Love and support continues to go out to all in Joplin. Y’all aren’t that far from me, and it could have just as easily been us. Stay strong, lovely people.
Nunyabiz said “Words can kill, in fact most all wars have begun because of WORDS.”.
Oh Really? Not WW1, not WW2, not the Korean war, not Vietnam, not Afghanistan, neither Iraq war.
You can all say what you want about me, but I do not have to read the First Amendment. I am quite familiar with it. The 8 justices on the Supreme Court are also familiar with it, I assure you. Congratulations on agreeing with Samuel Alito; he was the only justice who agreed with you.
In addition, the four liberals on the court agree that WBC’s speech is protected. The ACLU agrees that this is free speech.
Your rantings about “hate speech” are absurd. We do not have hate speech codes in the United States of America! As I’ve said in my previous posts, I’m sickened by the fact that you would empower the government to arrest people for speech that you don’t agree with.
In response to your question, if a group of people were protesting outside the funeral of someone that I loved, I would think that they were a bunch of disgusting nuts who should be ignored.
You can call me a scumbag all you want. You are juvenile and simply cannot back up your position with the facts. Despite your beliefs to the contrary, we do have the right to say whatever we want in this country. You cannot yell fire in a crowded theater, but WBC’s speech does not meet that standard.
Finally, I must again express my disgust at the opinion that the government should have the right to silence people with whom you disagree. Once government is allowed to do so, they will eventually come for you.
Neev, as for your request that I give you my address so that you can come to my place and show me “how low speech can go,” I suggest you find the four addresses of the four liberal justices who ruled that WBC’s speech is protected. While you’re at it, please visit the office of the ACLU and do the same to them.
Neev: I almost forgot to mention: you called me a scumbag. That’s hate speech. Please give me your address so that I can send the brown shirts over to arrest you.
you really have to get past this childish fetish Chris L. As per the Supremes…as I said, Dred Scott and a lot of other ruling were later overturned, and we are working for this one to be also.
A “Christian Counselor” just lost her right to practice quackery (‘reparative therapy”) in England yesterday. They dont allow that now…should her “freedom of Speech” as she is trying to define this issue, be respected? (the answer is no)
Should conservative radio, which some 14 year old lesbian living in a rural area in Canada can hear, be able to, due to its “freedom of Speech” spout lies and b******t about GLBT people, and lead her into depression and self loathing….so the PRECIOUS, ALL HOLY “freedom of speech” is protected? (the answer is HELL NO). And in Canada, the good guys won.
We need them to win here to.
Oh, and Chris, in reference to someone elses post, (whoever it was who rudely called you a scumbag). That is not hate speech. Just a rude assessment of your as what they see as a bad person. It referes in no way to you as person who is part of a minority needing protection.
If they had called you a “fa@@ot scumbag”, yes.
If they had called you a “Ki%e scumbag”, yes.
If they had called you a “N!&$% scumbag”, yes.
If they had called you a “towel head scumbag”, yes
Those would have been hate speech…and yes….the person who would say such things would, in a fully mature legal system, be appropriately charged and punished for the crime.
Just as they would be if they attacked you due to motivation of belonging to a certain group and not the majority. Conservatives whine about those laws to, but most states now have them. In time, inappropriate speech will fall under the same category.
And please, dont bother with the sad “but if your speech is not protected, mine wont be” etc. etc. arguement. I have already given you examples of better fuctioning legals systems and societies like Canada, Sweden, England etc. where the system is working very, very well.
Chris L said (#52),
“You cannot yell fire [falsely] in a crowded theater . . .”
I was waiting for someone to bring that up. Assuming that it’s meant literally, lets take a closer look.
Building codes regulate the units of egress required for the orderly evacuation of buildings. The higher the occupancy, the more units of egress required. That, combined with the fact that people would not be smelling smoke or seeing flame, yelling fire falsely seems unlikely to produce panic that could cause injury. The incident would certainly be inconvenient, but that’s about it.
The force-feeding of hate speech to vulnerable people by bullies has certainly caused much lasting psychological injury to many, whereas falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater seems likely to be little more than an inconvenience.
As I said above (#45), my issue with “freedom of speech” is not with the freedom to express one’s beliefs/ideas/opinions, it’s with the assumed freedom to force-feed that speech to people who don’t want to listen to it.
Gene said “I have already given you examples of better fuctioning legals systems and societies like Canada, Sweden, England etc. where the system is working very, very well.”.
He’s got you there, Chris.
Gene, I hardly think that referencing a Supreme Court decision is a “childish fetish.” I guess that means that gays and lesbians can’t reference Lawrence v. Texas. What about Romer v. Evans? What if some nutcase governor tried to ban interracial marriage in his state? Would quoting Loving v. Virginia be considered a childish fetish?
As for overturning this decision, you will never be able to do so. It will never happen. As a member of the ACLU, I am gratified that our speech rights are protected. You will never be able to shut anyone up, and you should not be able to.
Regarding your example which references that therapist in England who is prohibited from practicing “reparative therapy,” practicing a certain kind of therapy is not free speech. It would be like saying that a doctor who promotes snake oil has a right to free speech. The two are entirely different.
Finally, your last question once again amazes me. You say, “Should conservative radio, which some 14 year old lesbian living in a rural area in Canada can hear, be able to, due to its ‘freedom of Speech’ spout lies and b******t about GLBT people?”
So now you think it’s OK to censor radio shows! Who decides what a “lie” is? You? Me? Every single citizen in this country thinks that someone is a liar at some point. Should we have a board of censors that decides who’s lying and who’s not?
Who decides what is “hate?” Would fundamentalist Christians have a right to ban the Michael Signorile radio program because it is deemed that he is “spouting lies” about Christians?
Who decides what speech goes over the line? Who decides what a lie is? Me? You?
While you’re banning radio programs, why don’t we go a step further and ban certain TV shows? What if those TV shows have the same kind of content as that radio show that you want to ban? Can we ban that, too? What about a newspaper or magazine that publishes the same content?
What if a fundamentalist Christian thinks that a gay radio show is “spouting lies” about the Bible? Should we shut them down, too?
What about Internet websites? Perhaps we should ban certain blogs that “spout lies.”
Speech is banned because it upsets someone? All speech upsets someone. Are we going to take a national poll each time someone expresses an opinion to see if it offends or hurts anyone?
When is their offense considered large enough to ban a certain kind of speech? If it offends 25% of the population? 30% How about we say the majority rules and set it at 51%?
Priya Lynn: Gene has every right to think that the legal systems in Canada, Sweden and England work well. What about if someone in those countries thinks that the American legal system works better than their own? Does that mean that they should be permitted to adopt ours? Who decides what legal system is best? Gene? Me? You?
Personally, I think our legal system is better than that of Canada, Sweden and England. Gene feels otherwise. Who should be listened to? Me or Gene?
I know I am posting way too much here, but let me comment on one last thing. Richard, you wrote that “my issue with “freedom of speech” is not with the freedom to express one’s beliefs/ideas/opinions, it’s with the assumed freedom to force-feed that speech to people who don’t want to listen to it.”
Many fundamentalist Christians think that the gay rights movement is “force-feeding” speech on them. They certainly don’t want to hear it. Should they be allowed to ban our speech?
Chris, the voters decide. You’re free to think the legal system is better in the States, but Canada’s far lower crime rate and full equality for all citizens says otherwise.
Canada’s crime rate is not far lower than ours. It is higher:
http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=2804
Priya: I just double-checked the statistics; while there is disagreement about which statistical analysis to use in making a determination, it does appear that Canada’s crime rate is lower than they US.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Canada
“Historically, the violent crime rate in Canada is lower than that of the U.S. and this continues to be the case. For example, in 2000 the United States’ rate for robberies was 65 percent higher, its rate for aggravated assault was more than double and its murder rate was triple that of Canada.”
I read a columnist (William Raspberry, I think)some years ago who suggested that the reason WBC is so out there is that Fred Phelps himself is gay and can’t deal with it. It would explain a lot….
I can’t agree with those of you who think certain types of expression should be banned. Let everyone speak; then we know who the idiots are.
I was raised Baptist and I don’t remember being taught ANY of this crap! Is there some way the Southern Baptist Convention can ‘disbar’ these hate mongers?
Oudiva, I have always wondered this. When someone like Phelps has such an emotional reaction to gays, something deeper is going on. I also suspect that the man could have been molested as a child and is taking it out on gays. Very troubling.
Claude, the day that the Southern Baptists disbar someone on the grounds of hate is the day that I leap tall buildings in a single bound. :)
Sorry Chris. we will be, in time adopting the speech codes of better countries with better societies and better legal systems.
And, once again, just like with Dred Scott, this mistaken vote will, in time, be overturned. More and more people like me are looking at nations with better legal systems (like WE are the “gold Standard!” HA!) and beginnging the work of overturning your childish fetish about free speech.
As per people saying “what about people saying you cant say that” I ADDRESSED that. The point is to get power, and, as in Canada (a better nation than this one. NO debate about that) point out that somethings JUST CANNOT BE SAID. OF course, we must make sure the RIGHT people get controll.
Grow up and get over the fetish about free speech. As per who should be listened to and which system followed, how about the one with (yes, Canada) lower crime, a wonderful health system ( my American aunt just returned from there for treatment…more Americans go there for meds and medical treatment than come here. little known fact) and ONCE AGAIN, Those a******s at the so called “Focus on the Family” Cannot, repeat, cannot spew their anti gay lies in Canada.
And that last sentence proves my point about which is the better country, legal system and society. And in time, we will put such laws in place here. There is a reason most Americans hate the ACLU. Sometimes I forget why I dropped MY membership in it.
Never prouder than the day I did so.
Westboro is just a gang of lawyers making cash by being legally despicable. The key is legally. They taunt people until they break the law and then cash in on the red tape. I call b******t on their so-called beliefs. It’s just a money-making scam. Truly entrepreneurial.
“The Canadians have a level of controll over the sysetm that is very similar to the other fascist systems you mention. And We Need it Here. The point that matters is that those who are not indred/KKK/christothugs be the ones in charge.”
And how do you guarantee that the people with whom you agree are in charge and stay in charge? Are there any more “great” ideas we can borrow from fascism?
Gene, if you were a conservative–I have no idea what you are supposed to be or what you think you are–your quotes would be drawing howls over at Tea Party Jesus.
The Canadians seem to be making it work very, very well. So are the Swedish, and the English, and the Germans.
One guarantees it by force if necessary.
And the Tea Party types, well, they think just like I do. They just want THEIR version of right to permenantly dominate.
Take home message Edward; In Canada, Westboro Baptist could NOT protest the funeral of a soldier due to some b******t “Freedom of Speech” right while claiming its a protest against America for not all hating gay people.
Thats it. Take home message. Their system WORKS BETTER THAN OURS DOES.
Period. My statements stand. As per the gurantee, well, as in Canada, when conservatives get out of line and make homophobic comments, spread lies and anti gay propoganda, they end up heavily fined, in jail, or doing community service for a LONG time. Their neighbors see this, and learn not to be homophobic/racist/anti immmigrant, etc.
That is 1 EXCELLENT idea we can borrow from those with a fascist mindset. The Canadians have, and life for Gay people in Canada is WAY better than it is here. The Ends Always Justify The Means.
The ends always justify the means? Pinochet, Franco, Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Lenin and quite a number of other notables have practiced that philosophy to the detriment of millions. I cannot agree with your statement Gene.
As I stated, repeatedly, the Ends must be OUR Ends. If they are, then yes, once again, the ends justify them.
Case in point, which nation is a better place for a Gay couple to live? Canada, which has full equality, and correctly sees no need to let anyone spread lies about us because of their “holy” free speech, of the US, where most states still, under the so called freedom of speech, allow such lies, and allow the “freedom” to vote on whether or not we have lies? The answer (Canada) is obvious.
Once again, there are good states which exercise such controll (Canada and the nordics, etc). And bad ones (Iran, Jamaica, much of Africa). We just have to make sure the anti gay. anti women, anti immigrant bigots are not the ones setting the standards as in the later group.
And yes…if no one is protesting a FUNERAL under the protection of their “free speech” rights…yeah, the ends MOST definitely justify the means.
Gene said “Take home message Edward; In Canada, Westboro Baptist could NOT protest the funeral of a soldier due to some b******t “Freedom of Speech” right while claiming its a protest against America for not all hating gay people.”.
Yes they would be allowed to protest a soldier’s funeral. You’re mistaken if you think Canada bans all anti-gay speech. Only calling for gays to be put to death or inciting hatred against gays is banned.
Gene said “As per the gurantee, well, as in Canada, when conservatives get out of line and make homophobic comments, spread lies and anti gay propoganda, they end up heavily fined, in jail, or doing community service for a LONG time.”.
That’s not true. The hate speech laws in Canada are very narrow and contrary to popular belief the right to freedom of speech is in the Canadian constitution. In Canada anti-gays still make homophobic statements, spread lies and anti-gay propaganda. If you don’t believe me check out the Toronto based Lifesite news on a regular basis. The bigots here have lost their fight against marriage but there anti-gay propaganda goes on pretty much to whatever degree anti-gays wish it to. You just don’t see as much of it now because they’ve lost the battle in Canada and what’s the point to trying to demean gays after the war has already been lost?
Although a couple of anti-gays have been charged with hate speech both of them were found innocent and to the best of my knowledge no one has been charged and convicted of hate speech in Canada. The sort of limits that go on are, for example, when Westboro Baptist was planning a trip to Canada they were told at the border that if the called for gays to be put to death they would be arrested and charged with hate speech. Other than such extreme kinds of speech the anti-gays are free to spread virtually any lies or anti-gay propaganda they wish.
Gene said “The Ends Always Justify The Means.”.
I’ve thought about this a lot since an encounter with an anti-gay. I told him the end never justifies the means. He said “Its immoral to lie, but if you were in 1944 Nazi Germany and hiding a jew in your house and a German soldier came to the door asking if you had any Jews in the house the right thing to do would be to lie and say no.”. I had to agree. However what about stopping a child from stealing a chocolate bar? I’d agree that that’s the moral thing to do, but would the end justify the means if you shot him in the head to prevent him from stealing? I don’t think so.
Ultimately all ethics are situational, you can’t describe what is ethical without describing a situation. Whether or not the end justifies the means depends entirely on the situation – sometimes that’s true and sometimes it isn’t.
For an example of the type of speech that is allowed in Canada under hate speech laws look at Stephen Boissoin’s anti-gay letter of 2002. While he was initially charged with hate speech he was eventually acquitted.
I felt that was the wrong choice, that his letter certainly incited hatred and violence against gays – it was pretty extreme, but this is what passes for acceptable anti-gay speech in Canada:
http://canadianpastor.blogspot.com/
Priya, well, I’m unpacking my suitcases right now. I was all set to move to Gene’s fascist utopia in the Great White North but apparently it doesn’t even exist! Thank you for the thoughtful comments and the much needed injection of reality.
Don’t unpack yet Edward.
C-250, signed into law on april 29, 2004, makes it a crime to invoke public incitement or hatred of persons due to, among other factors, sexual orientation.
It is because of this law that Focus on the Family must not self censor with it broadcasts into Canada, and no kids hear their homophobic crap there. Call Focus and ask…they will confirm this.
This law is also the reason that NO Westboro Baptist types are protesting at funerals in Canada. They were bluntly told more than once that they would not be allowed over the border.
So, a family in Canada did not have to listen to protestors as they son was about tbe buried. Whatever was necessary to attain that end, was worth it. That was a moral and decent end…and it was only for the moral and decent ends that I say the ends justify the means. Only an AMORAL person would take the cowards way out of saying “but, what is moral”
If you dont see that not allowing someone to protest at a funeral is immoral, you need to get a new compass.
As per the 2009 ruling on the Boissant case, it did set limits on the written word limitation put into effect by C-250 after overtun, but it far from negated in Canadian law. And, in the years between its initial implimentation and the last ruling, it had the effect of keeping a lot of homophobes far quieter than they would otherwise have been.
Do some searches on freedom of Speech in Canada Edward. Their law is very different from here. As the head of their Human Rights Commission pointed out when speaking about the American fetish on ‘free speech’, it was not a Canadian concept as such, and that “I (he) don’t give it much value”.
Priya, you are quite correct about the ends justifying the means depending on the situation. I assumed (wrongly) that most people would see this instinctively and see the goal of a society where one cannot just not scream “fire” in a crowded theatre, but where one cannot incite hatred over the airways as one where an reasonable person would see the ends as indeed justifying the means. Sad to see I was mistaken about that.
That said, I am happy to see that in Canada, some 15 year old lesbian listening to the radio wont get her head fucked up like happens to kids here by ‘focus ont he family’ or other broadcasts. But, at least the Focus crowd has its sacred free Speech, so, I guess those kids here just need to tough it out.
There is your injection of reality Edward. Messed up kids, and protests by freaks at funerals.
so very impressive indeed.
( C-250 is still the law of the land there by the way, just circumscribed in its scope)
Gene, all you are posting is nonsense from Glenn Beck’s chalkboard but instead of condemning it and pseudo-weeping like Beck you are saying it is good. I am really starting to think you are trolling and your comments about how apparently “nordics” do fascism correctly while non-white nations are doing it wrong certainly suggests that conclusion as well. I do not believe that Canada is what you say it is.
Look it up Edward. The facts about FotF broadcasts and Westboro are easily confirmed, as well as the legal reasons why
My partner of just over 20 years is Chinese by the way. I am not a racist, if that is the implication. Sad attempt on your part of testing the messenger and not the message.
As to the Nordic societies doing it better, you DO realize they are hardly lilly white anymore, right? And, they do. A pastor in Sweden WAS indicted for a sermon, but on appeal he was vindicated. But, that was for a sermon, and the law was tailored (as it is in Canada I should add. I know c-250 well) to allow pastors and priests to say what they want in their churches. And they can print it in Canada. Broadcast, no. In Sweden, yeah, they do it very, very well. And they are hardly against the freedom of the press, as the printing of the Mohammad cartoons shows.
As per Glenn Beck, even a blind squirrel gets a nut now and then.
I notice you still have not had much to say about the family in Canada who did NOT have to endure having their sons funeral protested…vs here, where the family had to endure that.
Or the kids who wont get messed up and end up wondering if they need ‘correction’ and maybe ‘reparative therapy’ after hearing about what awful lives GLBT people live on Focus On The Family on a Canadian radio broadcast.
My conscience is clean. And the Canadian and Northern European blocks on bigoted speech, while not perfect, allow freedom, while enforcing social responsibility.
Once again, they dont have protests at funerals, do they? And thats what matters most.
Gene said “C-250, signed into law on april 29, 2004, makes it a crime to invoke public incitement or hatred of persons due to, among other factors, sexual orientation. It is because of this law that Focus on the Family must not self censor with it broadcasts into Canada, and no kids hear their homophobic crap there. Call Focus and ask…they will confirm this.”,
That’s not the case. The incitement to hatred or genocide law sets a high bar and there is an exception for religious speech that allows one to quote the bible’s calls for putting gays to death. I have never heard f***************s say anything that would be disallowed by the Canadian hate speech law. They may claim they are not allowed free speech in Canada as a disingenous attempt to play the victim, but certainly they are allowed to do so within the limits of the law and other anti-gay organizations regularly spout anti-gay propaganda and lies to this day.
Once again, do a search on Toronto based lifesitenews.com to see there is virtually no restriction on anti-gay propaganda.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/search/
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2011/05/12/bc-john-cummins-gay-rights.html
http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/05/12/study-finds-startling-new-data-on-homophobia-in-canadian-classrooms/
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/22204
Gene said “As the head of their Human Rights Commission pointed out when speaking about the American fetish on ‘free speech’, it was not a Canadian concept as such, and that “I (he) don’t give it much value”.”.
That was Dean Steacy and he wasn’t the head of the Human Rights commission he was an investigator. He certainly doesn’t speak for the Canadian justice system or Supreme court.
Section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms establishes the right to freedom of expression, which includes the right to free speech but is broader than that in including all forms of expression such as print, art, danish cartoons, etc.:
2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: … (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication
I did some searching and you were correct that Canada did attempt to keep the Phelpses out of the country when they planned to protest a funeral. Some did make it into the country anyway and were not charged although it is not clear from what I found whether or not they actually did protest. Although a government official did request that border guards not allow them into the country this was justified on the basis that they might commit a crime here such as calling for the genocide of gays.
For you to suggest that anti-gays in Canada aren’t allowed to make homophobic comments, spread lies and anti gay propoganda isn’t true by any stretch of the imagination.
And as you can see f***************s does have its own Canadian branch and it does broadcast on many Canadian radio stations:
http://www.focusonthefamily.ca/images/pdf/RadioListings.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focus_on_the_Family_Canada
“The organization has funded efforts in the courts and in its media broadcasts to help “preserve traditional values and the institution of the family.”[5] It has focused its efforts on the following areas: same-sex marriage (and homosexuality in general), abortion, pornography, premarital sex and child discipline. Focus on the Family supports the continued legality of spanking as a form of discipline for children.”
In fact the former head for f***************s Canada was appointed to be the Canadian prime minister’s chief of staff and was heavily involved in anti-gay programs:
http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/apicazo/2010/05/whos-influencing-policy-decisions-stephen-harpers-government
[...] is a great story. Truth Wins Out has a first hand account of what happened when the Westboro Baptist Church tried to protest [...]
WBC is evil, no two ways about that. On top of that they use free speech to disturb funerals, to deny people the right to mourn their death in peace and quiet. The WBC don’t give a rat’s a*s about free speech. They don’t care about democracy and they would love to see the USA bow under religious tyranny (which is not synonymous – and yes, I am an atheist).
You can discuss on how one person’s freedom limits that of another. Thing is, they have ample opportunities to express their vile hatred but they have a mental disturbance through which they can only satisfy their need by directly being able to see the agony they cause. They need to see other people suffer like a serial killer needsto see a victim bleed.
So, back to the bikers. Let’s be pragmatic. Are bikers chasing WBC rats like the inquisition chases heretics? No, they are not. Are they going to WBC services to drown them out. Nope.
Some people here implicitly give the OK for funerals to be disturbed but not for WBC protest to be thwarted. Pick your side.
Erwin, actually, I think most of us taking part in the discussion on free speech in general concentrated on another poster’s comment about the belief in free speech being a “fetish.” Trying to tie people defending the right of free speech to scum who protest funerals is a red herring. Yes, the thread is about the WBC but the free speech discussion was about free speech itself, not the concept that picketing funerals is cool.
[...] to protest President Obama, they were met by hundreds of patriotic bikers.This is a great story. Truth Wins Out has a first hand account of what happened when the Westboro Baptist Church tried to protest [...]
I am from Missouri, but now live in Savannah, Ga. Those protesters came to Savannah a few weeks ago and they were awful. They don’d just protest at churches they protest at schools and hold signs that say “god hates fags and Jews” now they protest in Joplin with signs that say Joplin got what the deserve and people on this site get upset because one of them got a little roughed up. For those of you who are upset, I really hope they visit you town. All these protesters need to STOP!Traciie Morgan is forced to apologize for a few racial comments and you people are backing one of the BIGGEST HATE GROUPS in America right now. I am ashamed for you and your stupidity.