Now that the Supreme Court has ruled (some will say a victory for the 1st Amendment), what can we do to silence this hateful church?

 

Views: 85

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

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

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.

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.

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

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.

 

 

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.

Amen, brother!

Well, the sentiment is nice, but if it ever comes down to it, I'm not planning to die for anyone's right to twitter.  Line.  Drawn.

Ha!

RSS

  

Events

Blog Posts

Labels

Posted by Quincy Maxwell on July 20, 2014 at 9:37pm 13 Comments

Services we love

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by Dan.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service