Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Wesley on March 2, 2011 at 10:05pm

Why silence them?  They do more to awaken people to the insanity of fundy literalism and the depths it can go to then any type of rational argument.

 

The WBC is the answer to the silence and tolerance of the religious liberal.  If they don't want them representing the faithful...then it is up to THEM to silence their own.

 

If they don't take steps to distance themselves from the WBC then they have only themselves to blame for the negative associations the rest of us make.  It is their silence on the subject that speaks the LOUDEST.

 

So I say.....give the wacko WBC megaphones and their own show on the discovery channel... put it on right after 19 and counting..(another wacko religious family)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kris Feenstra on March 2, 2011 at 10:35pm

"Why silence them?"

 

Because they are directly targeting and harassing people who are already experiencing intense emotional pain.  I don't think I'm alone in wanting far less to silence the WBC and far more to protect grieving families.  

 

It's not the WBC's message I would hope for the law to restrict; it is the WBC's actions under extremely specific circumstances that provide no tangible impediment to them delivering their message.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Cara Coleen on March 3, 2011 at 5:32pm

I couldn't agree more (although I'm late on this convo). What's so upsetting is who they're targeting, less than what they're saying. Funerals should be protected from picketers! There are more appropriate places to spew bile or take up an issue.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Michael Andrews on March 5, 2011 at 2:22am

Kris and Cara clearly state what prompted my original question, thanks!  It is the pointed cruelty that I would hope to extinguish.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jason Paisley on March 2, 2011 at 10:39pm

Join the others who protest against WBC or better yet it would work best if everyone ignored them.

 

They want attention so don't give it to them.

 

They're a cult once Fred is dead they'll either splinter or diminish.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kris Feenstra on March 2, 2011 at 10:42pm

Shirley Phelps-Roper seems to handle a fair bit of organization for the protests these days, so I'm not sure that will be the case.  I imagine they'd take on a male figurehead to replace Fred and Shirley would make sure things stayed on track.  Would be nice if they just sort of lose steam once Fred passes, though.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ron V on March 2, 2011 at 10:43pm

What happened to the reasoning of Chaplinsky v New Hampshire?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaplinsky_v._New_Hampshire

The Court, in a unanimous decision, upheld the arrest. Writing the decision for the Court, Justice Frank Murphy advanced a “two-tier theory” of the First Amendment. Certain “well‐defined and narrowly limited” categories of speech fall outside the bounds of constitutional protection. Thus, “the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous,” and (in this case) insulting or “fighting” words neither contributed to the expression of ideas nor possessed any “social value” in the search for truth.^[2]

Murphy wrote:

There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting" words those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ava Wilson on March 2, 2011 at 10:51pm

Jacob, there's no problem. That was the point of that remark. If they violate the law then they are no longer permitted to operate/protest.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Alayna on March 2, 2011 at 11:24pm

They appear to thrive with attention.....even of the negative/violent nature.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Chris G on March 3, 2011 at 12:12am

After you figure this out let me know how to get the media to stop writing about Sarah Palin.

I think people enjoy watching train wrecks.

 

Westboro has every right to protest. A cemetary is a private area - the Westboro folks aren't at the burial site.

 

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dave G on March 3, 2011 at 1:17am

Celebrate the triumph of free speech. Even free speech you despise.

 

"I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend unto death your right to say it."

 

If you oppose the right of anyone to speak their mind (even if you doubt they have one), you oppose free speech.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Reggie on March 3, 2011 at 1:29am

Amen, brother!

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• Next ›
• Page