I'm not sure how it works in the US but here in Europe those idiots would probably have a pro-gay net effect, because most people would recognize how ridiculously stupid the Westboro nuts are.
It wouldn't work in the UK, as he (and potentially anyone from his church) are denied entrance:D
300 years ago, England sent all their convicts to Australia. America got all their religious nuts.
Errr, not quite. Cook's mapping, 1770. First colony fleet, 1788.
Note how close those dates are to a certain American historical event. Prior to 1776, Briton had North America to send its transportees, after the 1780's it needed a new hole. Most of the Australian colonies were founded as "free" (non-convict), but later we got convicts that would have been sent to you. That said, "Convicts" is misleading; murderers, rapists, etc, were executed in Briton. Transportees were mostly petty thieves/prostitutes (the
You're kidding right? They have some BS pushed by the ACL and failed twice in parliment for Christ's sake. What do we have:warrant-less wiretapping and seizures at the airport for just looking funny. I'd say we got the better deal.
There, Fixed that for you.
The internet filter in Australia exists only in your mind, parliament smacked down the idea twice.
OTOH, how are those free speech zones and TSA searches going.
You're kidding right? They have some BS pushed by the ACL and failed twice in parliment for Christ's sake. What do we have:warrant-less wiretapping and seizures at the airport for just looking funny. I'd say we got the better deal.
There, Fixed that for you.
The internet filter in Australia exists only in your mind, parliament smacked down the idea twice.
OTOH, how are those free speech zones and TSA searches going.
Free speech zones got the boot with Bush, near as I can tell. On the contrary, if anything the American left listens too much to it's critics, as evidenced by the firing of an innocent woman last week. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmOYl0_sz6o [youtube.com]
AS far as TSA goes, meh. I doubt there's an airport in this world where passengers aren't scrutinized to some degree. I've flown many times in and from the US without feeling like my freedoms are significantly curtailed.
You may say meh, but I fly into and out of various Asian airports on a six monthly basis and I've never been greeted with suspicion or contempt. Oddly enough the security forces of Malaysia, Thailand, Singapore, Philippines and Cambodia seem to welcome foreign travellers, which is a far sight from US security forces when confronted by a white male with a half dozen Thailand entry stamps on their passport.
Same with the Australian Customs Service, they are actually polite when as
While it's not a valid excuse for everything you claim to have experienced, it's not like we don't have good reason to be cautious. When's the last time Malaysia had three planes hijacked and flew into highly populated buildings in a highly populated area? Who would even bother doing that to a piddling island like Australia?
While I have to take into the real possibility that you've run into some Joe Rednecks who took their new found authority too seriously(coupled with a likely (admittedly misguided) sense
Actually 300 years ago America got all the convicts, but they complained, got French help, and 200 years ago convicts got sent to Australia. That silly little version of an Irish/Polish/Negro joke really just shows how little Americans know about their own history.
Actually, we got all the convicts first. We just like to pretend its was religous folks so we can act superior.
England only started sending convicts to Australia after 1776 when they lost their North American dumping ground.
People claim that violence has never solved anything - but a good, solid dose lead in his ear would solve all of Phelp's problems.
I note that you became so excited, so worked into a froth as you wrote this that you even dropped an entire word. I can imagine someone saying this with flushed face and breathless voice.
If you truly think that this is the answer, then why don't you take up arms and go see to it instead of making pathetic comments about it on Slashdot? Yeah, that's what I thought. Why don't you leave us alone and go back to watching American Gladiators? You don't have the intestinal fortitude for real violence.
American Gladiator? I guess you mean some stupid reality show. I've never seen it, don't want to see it. I can't imagine that there is a "reality" show worth watching, from the little I've seen and heard.
Real violence? Yeah, I guess I can cope with it. It's the idiocy AFTERWARDS that's hard to deal with. As disgusting as the Westboro people are, even the ACLU would come out in their defense after they were shot down. The NAACP and every gay rights group in America would be condemning the guy who put
Well, I won't compare where I've been and what I've done with any Marine. But, I will say that I've been in two places where I was more than happy to see the Marines come ashore, and I've been in a couple of others where I WISHED the Marines would come ashore. Walking into that church or it's offices to do away with that particular group of douchebags wouldn't even compare, for "intestinal fortitude". MY PROBLEM would be the legal ramifications, very closely followed by the media circus.
The man who kills any member of Phelps' crew has done something far worse than any member of WBC. He is a murderer.
He is for killing people based on their unpalatable opinions.
In particular, he is for killing someone who is a fairly good test of an American's freedom to express unpalatable opinions.
Someone who also fairly accurately represents a fundamentalist religious message ("God hates fags" - not "humans should hate fags") and exposes the angry roots of Abrahamic religion.
Someone who reminds us of several millennia of thinking about homosexuality, tweaked only in the past 40 years and extant in many parts of the world. An argument cannot be fought if its defenders are simply oppressed.
Someone, finally, whose messages are more complex than simple gay-bashing. I can guarantee you that every man you respect has at least one opinion which would make your blood boil, but you're happy to listen to everything else they say. Is it good to speak out against pedophilia in the Catholic church? To question the military's idolatrous respect of the US flag? To point out that Iraq was quite secular for an Arab nation while Bush was on a warmongering anti-Muslim campaign? To protest hate speech laws? Phelps has done all these things. And does his politically incorrect, courage-of-convictions straight talking have a place in modern debate? Certainly. If a mad cunt from the middle of nowhere can achieve that sort of international public recognition over such a long period, we all have something to learn from him.
Even if all you learn is that "God hates fags". Which is true. Abrahamic God as described in the OT hates fags.
And if this makes you not respect Abrahamic God because Abrahamic God sounds like a bit of a douche, well, all's the better.
What is there to lose by allowing Phelps to speak? He's not even wrong.
If people like Phelps cannot protest at military funerals any more, then America has lost and the American military's missions are yet more futile and other than in the spirit of defending America's freedom. If that's even possible.
When the fuck was it written into the constitution that some freak could come to YOUR MAMA'S FUNERAL to protest?
That's right, remove the word military in your own sentence.
"If people like Phelps cannot protest at FuckingNickName's mother's funeral any more, then America has lost"
I take it that if 30 people show up at your mother's funeral to protest her, and to declare that she is bound for hell, all very noise and obtrusive, that you'll still be cool with their right to protest?
I take it that if 30 people show up at your mother's funeral to protest her, and to declare that she is bound for hell, all very noise and obtrusive, that you'll still be cool with their right to protest?
If they were noisy then it might be a local ordinance matter. if they were obstructing my movements then it would probably be a police matter.
But if they were hanging out in a big group with placards and leaflets informing all funeral-goers that my mother was a whore and would be going to hell, so what? I can cope with the idea that some people think my mother is evil - hell, she's no saint. I can especially cope with a bunch of irrational blowhards thinking my mother is evil.
Deadliest Catch is best "reality" show. It's so good I wouldn't even put it in a category with all the other edited shows dubbed as "reality." Defiantly in a class of its own, and defiantly the only one worth watching.
"You don't have the intestinal fortitude for real violence."
Speak for yourself, Mr. Less felonies and Conspiracy charges than me.
I sure as hell *WILL* kill the Phelps clan given half a chance. GLADLY.
You're the one without the intestinal, OR TESTICULAR, fortitude for violence. Your ass posts on slashdot, I get out there and stir shit up to make things change, even if it does make me a criminal.
Slight correction. The asshats want you to get violent in a stupid way. They would be perfectly happy to suffer a few broken bones, and to bleed a little, if they were to SURVIVE to sue you.
They believe this life is just a waiting room, with the exclusive Club Jebus on the other side of the velvet rope, and they would be quite pleased to be martyred for their cause, especially if it resulted in their critics being tagged as terrorists.
Well then it would seem like someone murdering them and getting away with it would be a win all around. We'd be happy to have them gone, they'd be happy to be gone.
Fred's got entirely no interest in being martyred for his cause, because his cause is "people paying attention to Fred Phelps" and "suing people who harass him". It's not the kind of cause you can be a martyr for - he's just a fake who wants attention, and is very good at getting it. If one of his followers got killed, he might be okay with that, because he could get a *big* lawsuit out of it.
You'd have to get all of them at once for that tactic to work. Lots of lawyers in that family, which is doubtless related to their fundraising tactics.
My grandmother used to say shit in one hand and wish in the other, then see which one fills up first.
If they sued me, or their surviving reletives tried to, they would get a steaming pile of shit because that's about all I have in my name. Almost everything is either tucked away in a trust of some sort and I'm simply an employee, or it went by-by when the ex figured she could do better with the neighbor's nephew.
Thankfully, my distrust in the government made my breakup less expensive for me. But anyways, at
["Funny"] I've thought of several funny semi-violent responses...
Get five or ten street-boys to jizz in a squirt gun, use said squirt gun to "anoint" WBC while holding "WBC shows gay spunk as Phred hoped" sign.
Get geek to factor wind biases and then use "Bear Spray" suitably up-wind.
[Serious] But in truth, if WBC ever showed up in my region I would file a "reckless child endangerment" complaint against them with the department of child and family services. They are clearly trying to incite violence with "figh
Your serious side has some fatal flaws. Thorwing a kid out of an airplane with a tarp and some ropes would be reckless endangerment (if not homicide). Having the kid go to school and learn to skydive, getting him certified and letting him practice at sanctioned airports would mitigate the endangerment. So would having police protection.
Think of having the police protection being the difference between making the kid go out and street fight verses enrolling into a martial arts form and then attending and com
So if someone harms one of the kids then the reckless endangerment kicks in?
That seems less than ideal.
And I know for a fact that WBC has been physically attacked while on protest. In particular some WBC idiot stamping on a american flag got his ass beat more or less in front of the police by a good ol' boy in eastern washington. The police sauntered over and stopped things in their own time.
As for what CPS could do, and the lawsuits that result, you would be surprised at how long it can take to unsnarl CPS
So if someone harms one of the kids then the reckless endangerment kicks in?
No, the potential for harm has to be likely. Likely as in probably. With the police providing security, it's not likely one of them will be harmed.
And I know for a fact that WBC has been physically attacked while on protest. In particular some WBC idiot stamping on a american flag got his ass beat more or less in front of the police by a good ol' boy in eastern washington. The police sauntered over and stopped things in their own
NO! The WBC effectively represent unvarnished, raw religion without the usual marketing hype, as do the Taliban. They have helped promote everything they oppose! Good stuff. They begat the Patriot Guard to block their picketing at G.I. funerals, and motivated creative counter-protests in many places. I am grateful to such perfect superstitionists for their work.
Fred Phelps and his followers should be dragged out behind the barn, and put out of everyone's misery.
People claim that violence has never solved anything - but a good, solid dose lead in his ear would solve all of Phelp's problems.
And what good would that do? Isn't free speech protected in America? Or is it only agreed speech?
These morons have no followers other than their own "congregation" which are all related. Just how much more pathetic can they get?
They have no ability to spread their views, because they are so extreme, they even force people to question their own prejudices. In spite of themselves, they may actually do some good.
Raise a finger against them, and they have won. Kill them and they have won. Stop them, and you become them.
Laugh at them, and nothing they do can make any difference.
Put Lookalikes on a float in a gay pride march. Use them in advertising with a slogan to the effect of "Phelps picketed, so it must be good.." Make them into a tourist attraction, do like the comic convention people did and make them look even more bat shit crazy.
Make Phelps dildos. Do what ever daft and disrespectful thing you can think of to ridicule them. And hope they never stop, because they are what you become when you try to force your views on those who don't think like you do.
These people are a joke. Treat them as such. But remember, the best comedy has a social commentary undercurrent hidden in it.
The comic con people handled it perfectly. You on the other hand, allowed them to get under your skin. You lost.
Free speech is protected from government intrusion, specifically. Nothing says we the people can't get right in their faces and shut them up or shout them down.
Freedom of speech also means that you are to respect your fellow man's views, regardless of how unpopular they are, for it may be your views next that become sanctioned. Freedom of speech is far more than Government vs us. IT is a principal that every man's voice deserves a chance to be heard.
Freedom of speech also means that you are to respect your fellow man's views, regardless of how unpopular they are, for it may be your views next that become sanctioned
In fact it's exactly the opposite. Freedom of speech guarantees you the right to respect, disrespect, ignore, or anything else of someone elses views.
I think what you're getting at is that to maintain freedom of speech we must all believe in peoples rights to express their views. Respect is something else entirely.
I think you are both saying the same things and semantics are simply getting in the way. Respect can have a dual meaning in the context of the statements as in it can modify what is being said, as well as the right to say it. I believe you both were speaking to the right to say something, not about what was being said.
I used to play a game in school with a couple of classmates in which we purposely set out to obfuscate out points until the very end of the statements while leaning into a vulgar or disrespect
"Freedom of speech also means that you are to respect your fellow man's views"
NO IT FUCKING DOESN'T. Read the fucking constitution, from the goddamned Declaration of Independence all the way through the bill of rights. Freedom of speech is the GOVERNMENT being unable to silence our thoughts about the government or speaking our minds. Respect is earned, not inherently given.
And your views right now get absolutely NO respect from me with that sort of ignorance.
It's not the views you have to respect, it's his ability to have views that you need to respect. You can disagree with anything he says or believes in, you just can't stop him from believing or saying them if he isn't infringing on any of your rights when doing so.
Read the... constitution, from the... Declaration of Independence all the way through the bill of rights. Freedom of speech is the GOVERNMENT being unable to silence our thoughts about the government or speaking our minds.
Freedom of speech does means the ability to state your views (freely, without fear of punishment for holding or expressing those views).
Freedom of speech as it is implemented in the [USA's] constitution refers to the government's inability to restrict you from expressing you
Freedom of speech also means that you are to respect your fellow man's views, regardless of how unpopular they are, for it may be your views next that become sanctioned. Freedom of speech is far more than Government vs us. IT is a principal that every man's voice deserves a chance to be heard.
No. you are only supposed to unconditionally respect their right to express their views. You are free to view their views with utter contempt, and you are also free to say so. Freedom of speech works both ways.
Free speech is the core of Fred Phelps's Troll business. Governments aren't allowed to harass him, and he can sue them if they do. If individuals harass him to an extent that's illegal, he can sue them, or sue the governments that failed to protect him. If individuals harass him in ways that aren't quite enough for a lawsuit, that's still good for publicity as long as the press spells his name correctly or close enough. You can't shut them up, because what they believe in isn't a set of religious belief
Good post. But, we differ on "And what good would that do? Isn't free speech protected in America? Or is it only agreed speech?" If Phelps and company stayed in their little church house, preached sermons, put their trash on the web, and wrote submissions for the various newspapers, I wouldn't detest them as much as I do. And, I would argue to defend their freedom of speech, as much as I disagree with them.
IMHO, they go beyond freedom of speech when they picket funerals. I see trespass. They are trespa
Good post. But, we differ on "And what good would that do? Isn't free speech protected in America? Or is it only agreed speech?" If Phelps and company stayed in their little church house, preached sermons, put their trash on the web, and wrote submissions for the various newspapers, I wouldn't detest them as much as I do. And, I would argue to defend their freedom of speech, as much as I disagree with them.
There is a problem with that. The forms of communication that you listed are pretty much one way. Or can be made so. They can spout their hate and get no challenge. Create their own little echo chamber. And a certain weak minded minority will find themselves agreeing. This is dangerous. In public, they are not in control. They can't stop someone joining their picket with funny placards as the comic con people did, or they can't stop a whole drag troupe joining in and handing out slightly suggestive pastries
"And sadly trespass requires setting foot on private property.And sadly trespass requires setting foot on private property."
Main Entry: 1trespass Pronunciation: \tres-ps, -pas\ Function: noun Etymology: Middle English trespas, from Anglo-French, passage, overstepping, misdeed, from trespasser Date: 13th century
1 a : a violation of moral or social ethics : transgression; especially : sin b : an unwarranted infringement 2 a : an unlawful act committed on the person, property, or rights of another; especially : a w
The best justice would be for the police to announce that they would not intervene, and if the public wanted to rip them limb from limb, that would be fine.
They deserve nothing but contempt, censure, restraining orders, bankruptcy by litigation, incarceration, and psychiatric supervision and chemical restraint.
If there was ever a candidate for a policeman in a totalitarian government, you are it.
I agree completely. Frankly I think these idiots have done a lot to help the gay community. I remember back when they were picketing the funerals of dead soldiers, ranting about how they went to hell since they defended an allegedly gay-loving country. The best part was seeing marines going up to them and just glaring at them with pure hatred, clearly on the verge of beating the shit out of them. I have a lot of respect for our soldiers (regardless of what our leaders are telling them to do) and that ju
Maybe it's just me, but "on the verge" sounds rather like "almost losing control". Believe me - a marine wouldn't lose control. He is a very controlled, very trained killing machine. He is only waiting for sufficient legal justification before actually going into action.;^)
Isn't free speech protected in America? Or is it only agreed speech?
Only agreed speech is safe. I thought pretty much everyone knew that.
Back in 2001 after the WTC was destroyed, an Australian boxer was denied entry to the US to compete in a match because he had been quoted as saying something along the lines of "Looks like US foreign policy came home to roost". Protecting things you want to hear is pointless - nobody is going to complain or stop you. The whole idea of "freedom of speech" is to protect peop
Harmless nutjobs like Phelps are not worth getting riled over, they are just harmlessly exercising their First Amendment Rights and providing entertainment to people who are more open minded.
The ones you have to watch, and the ones to whom your solution will likely be applied one day, are those who listen to nutjobs and use them to push through laws that take away rights of those who don't agree with the original nutjobs for their own short term benefit.
Those are the real threats, the ones with political/
Ah, but here the Comic-Con fans have demonstrated how misguided your position is. Phelps has provided them with an opportunity not only to express their own contrary opinions, but to have fun doing so.
The metaphysical poet (and Anglican priest) George Herbert has a much more sensible position on this than yours. He once said, "Living well is the best revenge."
"Fred Phelps and his followers should be dragged out behind the barn, and put out of everyone's misery."
No. They should be held up to public ridicule. And they should be exposed as self-declared exponents of christianity, forcing more mainstream christians to take a clear stand against the vile, hateful dogma Phelps is spouting, or be lumped right in with these hateful clowns.
Would a nice Rider Kick suffice? I'd send either Amazon, Kiva, Den-O, Decade or Double after them if it was my choice. DiEnd might work; although he tends gun & run.
Veni, Vidi, VISA:
I came, I saw, I did a little shopping.
Worthless summary (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Worthless summary (Score:1, Insightful)
This shouldn't even be a story. Not even on idle.
Fred Phelps and his followers should be dragged out behind the barn, and put out of everyone's misery.
People claim that violence has never solved anything - but a good, solid dose lead in his ear would solve all of Phelp's problems.
Re:Worthless summary (Score:4, Insightful)
hehehe
I'm not sure how it works in the US but here in Europe those idiots would probably have a pro-gay net effect, because most people would recognize how ridiculously stupid the Westboro nuts are.
It wouldn't work in the UK, as he (and potentially anyone from his church) are denied entrance :D
I kinda wish the US could do this to him.
Re:Worthless summary (Score:5, Insightful)
Australia got a better deal.
Re: (Score:1)
300 years ago, England sent all their convicts to Australia. America got all their religious nuts.
Errr, not quite. Cook's mapping, 1770. First colony fleet, 1788.
Note how close those dates are to a certain American historical event. Prior to 1776, Briton had North America to send its transportees, after the 1780's it needed a new hole. Most of the Australian colonies were founded as "free" (non-convict), but later we got convicts that would have been sent to you. That said, "Convicts" is misleading; murderers, rapists, etc, were executed in Briton. Transportees were mostly petty thieves/prostitutes (the
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
300 years ago, England sent all their convicts to Australia. America got all their religious nuts. Australia got a better deal.
You're kidding right? They have an Internet Filter for Christ's sake. What do we have: A first amendment. I'd say we got the better deal.
Re:Worthless summary (Score:5, Informative)
There, Fixed that for you.
The internet filter in Australia exists only in your mind, parliament smacked down the idea twice.
OTOH, how are those free speech zones and TSA searches going.
Re: (Score:2)
There, Fixed that for you.
The internet filter in Australia exists only in your mind, parliament smacked down the idea twice.
OTOH, how are those free speech zones and TSA searches going.
Free speech zones got the boot with Bush, near as I can tell. On the contrary, if anything the American left listens too much to it's critics, as evidenced by the firing of an innocent woman last week. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmOYl0_sz6o [youtube.com]
AS far as TSA goes, meh. I doubt there's an airport in this world where passengers aren't scrutinized to some degree. I've flown many times in and from the US without feeling like my freedoms are significantly curtailed.
Re: (Score:2)
You may say meh, but I fly into and out of various Asian airports on a six monthly basis and I've never been greeted with suspicion or contempt. Oddly enough the security forces of Malaysia, Thailand, Singapore, Philippines and Cambodia seem to welcome foreign travellers, which is a far sight from US security forces when confronted by a white male with a half dozen Thailand entry stamps on their passport.
Same with the Australian Customs Service, they are actually polite when as
Re: (Score:2)
While it's not a valid excuse for everything you claim to have experienced, it's not like we don't have good reason to be cautious. When's the last time Malaysia had three planes hijacked and flew into highly populated buildings in a highly populated area? Who would even bother doing that to a piddling island like Australia?
While I have to take into the real possibility that you've run into some Joe Rednecks who took their new found authority too seriously(coupled with a likely (admittedly misguided) sense
Re: (Score:2)
The only difference between a religious nut and a convict is getting caught...
Nobody got the better deal :(
Re: (Score:2)
That silly little version of an Irish/Polish/Negro joke really just shows how little Americans know about their own history.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Worthless summary (Score:4, Insightful)
People claim that violence has never solved anything - but a good, solid dose lead in his ear would solve all of Phelp's problems.
I note that you became so excited, so worked into a froth as you wrote this that you even dropped an entire word. I can imagine someone saying this with flushed face and breathless voice.
If you truly think that this is the answer, then why don't you take up arms and go see to it instead of making pathetic comments about it on Slashdot? Yeah, that's what I thought. Why don't you leave us alone and go back to watching American Gladiators? You don't have the intestinal fortitude for real violence.
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
American Gladiator? I guess you mean some stupid reality show. I've never seen it, don't want to see it. I can't imagine that there is a "reality" show worth watching, from the little I've seen and heard.
Real violence? Yeah, I guess I can cope with it. It's the idiocy AFTERWARDS that's hard to deal with. As disgusting as the Westboro people are, even the ACLU would come out in their defense after they were shot down. The NAACP and every gay rights group in America would be condemning the guy who put
Re: (Score:2)
But he LOVES foot washing.
Re: (Score:2)
Not my God. :)
Re: (Score:1, Offtopic)
Well, I won't compare where I've been and what I've done with any Marine. But, I will say that I've been in two places where I was more than happy to see the Marines come ashore, and I've been in a couple of others where I WISHED the Marines would come ashore. Walking into that church or it's offices to do away with that particular group of douchebags wouldn't even compare, for "intestinal fortitude". MY PROBLEM would be the legal ramifications, very closely followed by the media circus.
Call me a coward
Re:Worthless summary (Score:5, Insightful)
The man who kills any member of Phelps' crew has done something far worse than any member of WBC. He is a murderer.
He is for killing people based on their unpalatable opinions.
In particular, he is for killing someone who is a fairly good test of an American's freedom to express unpalatable opinions.
Someone who also fairly accurately represents a fundamentalist religious message ("God hates fags" - not "humans should hate fags") and exposes the angry roots of Abrahamic religion.
Someone who reminds us of several millennia of thinking about homosexuality, tweaked only in the past 40 years and extant in many parts of the world. An argument cannot be fought if its defenders are simply oppressed.
Someone, finally, whose messages are more complex than simple gay-bashing. I can guarantee you that every man you respect has at least one opinion which would make your blood boil, but you're happy to listen to everything else they say. Is it good to speak out against pedophilia in the Catholic church? To question the military's idolatrous respect of the US flag? To point out that Iraq was quite secular for an Arab nation while Bush was on a warmongering anti-Muslim campaign? To protest hate speech laws? Phelps has done all these things. And does his politically incorrect, courage-of-convictions straight talking have a place in modern debate? Certainly. If a mad cunt from the middle of nowhere can achieve that sort of international public recognition over such a long period, we all have something to learn from him.
Even if all you learn is that "God hates fags". Which is true. Abrahamic God as described in the OT hates fags.
And if this makes you not respect Abrahamic God because Abrahamic God sounds like a bit of a douche, well, all's the better.
What is there to lose by allowing Phelps to speak? He's not even wrong.
If people like Phelps cannot protest at military funerals any more, then America has lost and the American military's missions are yet more futile and other than in the spirit of defending America's freedom. If that's even possible.
Re: (Score:2)
When the fuck was it written into the constitution that some freak could come to YOUR MAMA'S FUNERAL to protest?
That's right, remove the word military in your own sentence.
"If people like Phelps cannot protest at FuckingNickName's mother's funeral any more, then America has lost"
I take it that if 30 people show up at your mother's funeral to protest her, and to declare that she is bound for hell, all very noise and obtrusive, that you'll still be cool with their right to protest?
Re: (Score:2)
I take it that if 30 people show up at your mother's funeral to protest her, and to declare that she is bound for hell, all very noise and obtrusive, that you'll still be cool with their right to protest?
If they were noisy then it might be a local ordinance matter. if they were obstructing my movements then it would probably be a police matter.
But if they were hanging out in a big group with placards and leaflets informing all funeral-goers that my mother was a whore and would be going to hell, so what? I can cope with the idea that some people think my mother is evil - hell, she's no saint. I can especially cope with a bunch of irrational blowhards thinking my mother is evil.
Imagine right now that every hu
Re: (Score:2)
My guess would be that they're more likely unwilling to go to prison, rather than unwilling to engage in some violence.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
"You don't have the intestinal fortitude for real violence."
Speak for yourself, Mr. Less felonies and Conspiracy charges than me.
I sure as hell *WILL* kill the Phelps clan given half a chance. GLADLY.
You're the one without the intestinal, OR TESTICULAR, fortitude for violence. Your ass posts on slashdot, I get out there and stir shit up to make things change, even if it does make me a criminal.
Re: (Score:2)
08/13/2010 6:45 PM - 7:30 PM Los Angeles, CA Staples Center 1111 S. Figueroa St
Should we bring cameras? Or isn't that enough notice?
Re: (Score:2)
Needs to be closer to me in location. My katana only reaches out so far.
Re: (Score:2)
You're the one without the intestinal, OR TESTICULAR, fortitude for violence.
You don't know me.
Your ass posts on slashdot, I get out there and stir shit up to make things change, even if it does make me a criminal.
Yet, even if I don't, my comment is still internally consistent, because I'm not calling for the death of Phelps.
Re:Worthless summary (Score:5, Informative)
Important note: The Westboro asshats want you to get violent at their protests. That way they can sue you to fund their activities.
-
Re: (Score:2)
Slight correction. The asshats want you to get violent in a stupid way. They would be perfectly happy to suffer a few broken bones, and to bleed a little, if they were to SURVIVE to sue you.
Dead men tell no tales, nor do they file suits.
Re: (Score:2)
They believe this life is just a waiting room, with the exclusive Club Jebus on the other side of the velvet rope, and they would be quite pleased to be martyred for their cause, especially if it resulted in their critics being tagged as terrorists.
Re: (Score:2)
Well then it would seem like someone murdering them and getting away with it would be a win all around. We'd be happy to have them gone, they'd be happy to be gone.
No, they're Trolls, not martyrs with beliefs (Score:2)
Fred's got entirely no interest in being martyred for his cause, because his cause is "people paying attention to Fred Phelps" and "suing people who harass him". It's not the kind of cause you can be a martyr for - he's just a fake who wants attention, and is very good at getting it. If one of his followers got killed, he might be okay with that, because he could get a *big* lawsuit out of it.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You'd have to get all of them at once for that tactic to work. Lots of lawyers in that family, which is doubtless related to their fundraising tactics.
Re: (Score:1)
My grandmother used to say shit in one hand and wish in the other, then see which one fills up first.
If they sued me, or their surviving reletives tried to, they would get a steaming pile of shit because that's about all I have in my name. Almost everything is either tucked away in a trust of some sort and I'm simply an employee, or it went by-by when the ex figured she could do better with the neighbor's nephew.
Thankfully, my distrust in the government made my breakup less expensive for me. But anyways, at
Ironic pseudoviolence...? What of the Children? (Score:3, Insightful)
["Funny"]
I've thought of several funny semi-violent responses...
Get five or ten street-boys to jizz in a squirt gun, use said squirt gun to "anoint" WBC while holding "WBC shows gay spunk as Phred hoped" sign.
Get geek to factor wind biases and then use "Bear Spray" suitably up-wind.
[Serious]
But in truth, if WBC ever showed up in my region I would file a "reckless child endangerment" complaint against them with the department of child and family services. They are clearly trying to incite violence with "figh
Re: (Score:1)
Your serious side has some fatal flaws. Thorwing a kid out of an airplane with a tarp and some ropes would be reckless endangerment (if not homicide). Having the kid go to school and learn to skydive, getting him certified and letting him practice at sanctioned airports would mitigate the endangerment. So would having police protection.
Think of having the police protection being the difference between making the kid go out and street fight verses enrolling into a martial arts form and then attending and com
Re: (Score:2)
So if someone harms one of the kids then the reckless endangerment kicks in?
That seems less than ideal.
And I know for a fact that WBC has been physically attacked while on protest. In particular some WBC idiot stamping on a american flag got his ass beat more or less in front of the police by a good ol' boy in eastern washington. The police sauntered over and stopped things in their own time.
As for what CPS could do, and the lawsuits that result, you would be surprised at how long it can take to unsnarl CPS
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
No, the potential for harm has to be likely. Likely as in probably. With the police providing security, it's not likely one of them will be harmed.
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
NO!
The WBC effectively represent unvarnished, raw religion without the usual marketing hype, as do the Taliban.
They have helped promote everything they oppose! Good stuff. They begat the Patriot Guard to block their picketing at G.I. funerals, and motivated creative counter-protests in many places. I am grateful to such perfect superstitionists for their work.
Re: (Score:2)
You Americans can be so funny sometimes. Thanks for making me laugh.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Heh, the person behind this "non-story" has made you so angry you advocate his deah.
Re:Worthless summary (Score:5, Insightful)
This shouldn't even be a story. Not even on idle.
Fred Phelps and his followers should be dragged out behind the barn, and put out of everyone's misery.
People claim that violence has never solved anything - but a good, solid dose lead in his ear would solve all of Phelp's problems.
And what good would that do? Isn't free speech protected in America? Or is it only agreed speech?
These morons have no followers other than their own "congregation" which are all related. Just how much more pathetic can they get?
They have no ability to spread their views, because they are so extreme, they even force people to question their own prejudices.
In spite of themselves, they may actually do some good.
Raise a finger against them, and they have won. Kill them and they have won. Stop them, and you become them.
Laugh at them, and nothing they do can make any difference.
Put Lookalikes on a float in a gay pride march. Use them in advertising with a slogan to the effect of "Phelps picketed, so it must be good.." Make them into a tourist attraction, do like the comic convention people did and make them look even more bat shit crazy.
Make Phelps dildos. Do what ever daft and disrespectful thing you can think of to ridicule them. And hope they never stop, because they are what you become when you try to force your views on those who don't think like you do.
These people are a joke. Treat them as such. But remember, the best comedy has a social commentary undercurrent hidden in it.
The comic con people handled it perfectly. You on the other hand, allowed them to get under your skin. You lost.
Re: (Score:2)
Free speech is protected from government intrusion, specifically. Nothing says we the people can't get right in their faces and shut them up or shout them down.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re:Worthless summary (Score:4, Insightful)
Freedom of speech also means that you are to respect your fellow man's views, regardless of how unpopular they are, for it may be your views next that become sanctioned
In fact it's exactly the opposite. Freedom of speech guarantees you the right to respect, disrespect, ignore, or anything else of someone elses views.
I think what you're getting at is that to maintain freedom of speech we must all believe in peoples rights to express their views. Respect is something else entirely.
Re: (Score:1)
I think you are both saying the same things and semantics are simply getting in the way. Respect can have a dual meaning in the context of the statements as in it can modify what is being said, as well as the right to say it. I believe you both were speaking to the right to say something, not about what was being said.
I used to play a game in school with a couple of classmates in which we purposely set out to obfuscate out points until the very end of the statements while leaning into a vulgar or disrespect
Re:Worthless summary (Score:5, Insightful)
"Freedom of speech also means that you are to respect your fellow man's views"
NO IT FUCKING DOESN'T. Read the fucking constitution, from the goddamned Declaration of Independence all the way through the bill of rights. Freedom of speech is the GOVERNMENT being unable to silence our thoughts about the government or speaking our minds. Respect is earned, not inherently given.
And your views right now get absolutely NO respect from me with that sort of ignorance.
Re: (Score:1)
It's not the views you have to respect, it's his ability to have views that you need to respect. You can disagree with anything he says or believes in, you just can't stop him from believing or saying them if he isn't infringing on any of your rights when doing so.
It's not so simple (Score:2)
Yes... and no!
Freedom of speech does means the ability to state your views (freely, without fear of punishment for holding or expressing those views).
Freedom of speech as it is implemented in the [USA's] constitution refers to the government's inability to restrict you from expressing you
Re: (Score:2)
Freedom of speech also means that you are to respect your fellow man's views, regardless of how unpopular they are, for it may be your views next that become sanctioned. Freedom of speech is far more than Government vs us. IT is a principal that every man's voice deserves a chance to be heard.
No. you are only supposed to unconditionally respect their right to express their views. You are free to view their views with utter contempt, and you are also free to say so. Freedom of speech works both ways.
Free Speech and the Professional Troll Business (Score:2)
Free speech is the core of Fred Phelps's Troll business. Governments aren't allowed to harass him, and he can sue them if they do. If individuals harass him to an extent that's illegal, he can sue them, or sue the governments that failed to protect him. If individuals harass him in ways that aren't quite enough for a lawsuit, that's still good for publicity as long as the press spells his name correctly or close enough. You can't shut them up, because what they believe in isn't a set of religious belief
Re: (Score:2)
Good post. But, we differ on "And what good would that do? Isn't free speech protected in America? Or is it only agreed speech?" If Phelps and company stayed in their little church house, preached sermons, put their trash on the web, and wrote submissions for the various newspapers, I wouldn't detest them as much as I do. And, I would argue to defend their freedom of speech, as much as I disagree with them.
IMHO, they go beyond freedom of speech when they picket funerals. I see trespass. They are trespa
Re: (Score:2)
Good post. But, we differ on "And what good would that do? Isn't free speech protected in America? Or is it only agreed speech?" If Phelps and company stayed in their little church house, preached sermons, put their trash on the web, and wrote submissions for the various newspapers, I wouldn't detest them as much as I do. And, I would argue to defend their freedom of speech, as much as I disagree with them.
There is a problem with that. The forms of communication that you listed are pretty much one way. Or can be made so. They can spout their hate and get no challenge. Create their own little echo chamber. And a certain weak minded minority will find themselves agreeing. This is dangerous. In public, they are not in control. They can't stop someone joining their picket with funny placards as the comic con people did, or they can't stop a whole drag troupe joining in and handing out slightly suggestive pastries
Re: (Score:2)
"And sadly trespass requires setting foot on private property.And sadly trespass requires setting foot on private property."
Main Entry: 1trespass
Pronunciation: \tres-ps, -pas\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English trespas, from Anglo-French, passage, overstepping, misdeed, from trespasser
Date: 13th century
1 a : a violation of moral or social ethics : transgression; especially : sin b : an unwarranted infringement
2 a : an unlawful act committed on the person, property, or rights of another; especially : a w
Re: (Score:2)
Depending on the specific wording of your local ordinances, you can charge the neighbor with trespass for playing his music loudly all night long.
You're thinking of nuisance [wikipedia.org]. The Wikipedia article on trespass [wikipedia.org] is pretty good.
Re: (Score:2)
The best justice would be for the police to announce that they would not intervene, and if the public wanted to rip them limb from limb, that would be fine.
They deserve nothing but contempt, censure, restraining orders, bankruptcy by litigation, incarceration, and psychiatric supervision and chemical restraint.
If there was ever a candidate for a policeman in a totalitarian government, you are it.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe it's just me, but "on the verge" sounds rather like "almost losing control". Believe me - a marine wouldn't lose control. He is a very controlled, very trained killing machine. He is only waiting for sufficient legal justification before actually going into action. ;^)
Re: (Score:1)
Only agreed speech is safe. I thought pretty much everyone knew that.
Back in 2001 after the WTC was destroyed, an Australian boxer was denied entry to the US to compete in a match because he had been quoted as saying something along the lines of "Looks like US foreign policy came home to roost". Protecting things you want to hear is pointless - nobody is going to complain or stop you. The whole idea of "freedom of speech" is to protect peop
Re: (Score:2)
The ones you have to watch, and the ones to whom your solution will likely be applied one day, are those who listen to nutjobs and use them to push through laws that take away rights of those who don't agree with the original nutjobs for their own short term benefit.
Those are the real threats, the ones with political/
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, but here the Comic-Con fans have demonstrated how misguided your position is. Phelps has provided them with an opportunity not only to express their own contrary opinions, but to have fun doing so.
The metaphysical poet (and Anglican priest) George Herbert has a much more sensible position on this than yours. He once said, "Living well is the best revenge."
Re: (Score:2)
"Fred Phelps and his followers should be dragged out behind the barn, and put out of everyone's misery."
No. They should be held up to public ridicule. And they should be exposed as self-declared exponents of christianity, forcing more mainstream christians to take a clear stand against the vile, hateful dogma Phelps is spouting, or be lumped right in with these hateful clowns.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly.
Re: (Score:1)