PDA

View Full Version : Supreme Court rules for anti-gay church over military funeral protests



moonglow
Mar 2nd 2011, 03:45 PM
I am just shocked about this ruling..and very sadden by it. :(

http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/03/02/scotus.westboro.church/index.html?hpt=T1&iref=BN1

Washington (CNN) -- A Kansas church that attracted nationwide attention for its angry, anti-gay protests at the funerals of U.S. military members has won its appeal at the Supreme Court, an issue testing the competing constitutional limits of free speech and privacy.

The justices, by an 8-1 vote, said Wednesday that members of Westboro Baptist Church had a right to promote what they call a broad-based message on public matters such as wars. The father of a fallen Marine had sued the small church, saying those protests amounted to targeted harassment and an intentional infliction of emotional distress.

"Speech is powerful. It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and -- as it did here -- inflict great pain. On the facts before us, we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker," the court's decision said.

awestruckchild
Mar 2nd 2011, 04:13 PM
Hi Moonglow
Isn't it just a sad state of affairs? It is terrible that they call themselves a church. I felt so bad for that man and his family having to face that on top of burying their son at the funeral. I remember thinking, when I heard about the lawsuit brought by the father, that he should not have done it. I thought it was a response that gave that "church" a lot of glee. At the time, I was reminded of David when the man was throwing rocks at him and his guys were going over to beat him but good and David said: No. If he is throwing rocks at me it's because God told him to. That is extreme faith right there! That God guides our every step and circumstance and that he uses for His purposes even what evil men do.

RabbiKnife
Mar 2nd 2011, 04:17 PM
The church is a bunch of numbskulls.

The Supreme Court got this one right, no matter how much it galls us. Freedom is sometimes painful.

Fenris
Mar 2nd 2011, 04:21 PM
The Supreme Court got this one right, no matter how much it galls us. Freedom is sometimes painful.

Yep. Picketing military funerals is Constitutionally protected.

moonglow
Mar 2nd 2011, 04:28 PM
I thought it was against the law to yell hateful things at people though. We can't harass someone for being black or white, or Jewish..or gay. So why is this ok? I truly don't understand...

awestruckchild
Mar 2nd 2011, 04:35 PM
It is only yelling hateful things that some don't agree with that they call hate speech. Any other time it's called freedom of speech. And good greif, I just realized I was talking to diggindeeper in a thread earlier and saying: Don't you remember when - and once again forgot I changed my name so of COURSE she doesn't remember me! Gotta go tell her who I am. Be back to chat soon, by the way I used to be paintdiva, moonglow!

ProjectPeter
Mar 2nd 2011, 04:37 PM
I am just shocked about this ruling..and very sadden by it. :(

http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/03/02/scotus.westboro.church/index.html?hpt=T1&iref=BN1

Washington (CNN) -- A Kansas church that attracted nationwide attention for its angry, anti-gay protests at the funerals of U.S. military members has won its appeal at the Supreme Court, an issue testing the competing constitutional limits of free speech and privacy.

The justices, by an 8-1 vote, said Wednesday that members of Westboro Baptist Church had a right to promote what they call a broad-based message on public matters such as wars. The father of a fallen Marine had sued the small church, saying those protests amounted to targeted harassment and an intentional infliction of emotional distress.

"Speech is powerful. It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and -- as it did here -- inflict great pain. On the facts before us, we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker," the court's decision said.

I agree with it although I disagree with the silly people at the church. The world blasphemes God because of the bone-heads. But as to freedom to say it according to the constitution... they have it. Take that away from them would be a step in a direction that none of us would want the country to go in.

Fenris
Mar 2nd 2011, 04:37 PM
I thought it was against the law to yell hateful things at people though. We can't harass someone for being black or white, or Jewish..or gay. So why is this ok? I truly don't understand...

The Westboro folks picket against Jews. They've had demonstrations here in NY. Apparently this too is protected.

moonglow
Mar 2nd 2011, 04:38 PM
It is only yelling hateful things that some don't agree with that they call hate speech. Any other time it's called freedom of speech. And good greif, I just realized I was talking to diggindeeper in a thread earlier and saying: Don't you remember when - and once again forgot I changed my name so of COURSE she doesn't remember me! Gotta go tell her who I am. Be back to chat soon, by the way I used to be paintdiva, moonglow!

Ok..lol..Hi paintdiva!

ProjectPeter
Mar 2nd 2011, 04:38 PM
You can be hateful. Just not threatening.

RabbiKnife
Mar 2nd 2011, 04:41 PM
It is not against the law in the US to yell hateful things at people in public. You can harass anyone you want to be they white, black, gay, or anything else. The government cannot stop that speech, no matter how despicable it is.

awestruckchild
Mar 2nd 2011, 04:43 PM
Then what is "hate speech"

RabbiKnife
Mar 2nd 2011, 04:45 PM
Then what is "hate speech"

I don't know.

There are no "hate speech" laws in the US.

moonglow
Mar 2nd 2011, 04:45 PM
It is not against the law in the US to yell hateful things at people in public. You can harass anyone you want to be they white, black, gay, or anything else. The government cannot stop that speech, no matter how despicable it is.

I don't get it. That isn't what the antibullying laws say where kids have been driven to committ suicide because of being harassed. How is this different?

RabbiKnife
Mar 2nd 2011, 04:48 PM
I don't get it. That isn't what the antibullying laws say where kids have been driven to committ suicide because of being harassed. How is this different?

There are no "anti-bullying laws." The so-called "anti-bullying laws" are laws that require school districts to implement and educate about anti-bullying policies.

They do not prohibit bullying, which is still protected by free speech.

moonglow
Mar 2nd 2011, 04:51 PM
There are no "anti-bullying laws." The so-called "anti-bullying laws" are laws that require school districts to implement and educate about anti-bullying policies.

They do not prohibit bullying, which is still protected by free speech.

There is though. http://www.stopbullyingnow.hrsa.gov/hhs_psa/pdfs/sbn_tip_6.pdf

Warrior4God
Mar 2nd 2011, 04:55 PM
There are no "anti-bullying laws." The so-called "anti-bullying laws" are laws that require school districts to implement and educate about anti-bullying policies.

They do not prohibit bullying, which is still protected by free speech.

By "they do not prohibit bullying," I'm assuming you mean verbal bullying. Physical bullying is illegal. I believe it's referred to as "assault." Also, there are limits to free speech. If I threaten to kill somebody, especially a police officer, I most certainly have broken some sort of law haven't I?

RabbiKnife
Mar 2nd 2011, 04:57 PM
Read what those laws do.

They don't do anything except mandate school districts to develop policies that say "don't bully."

They don't stop any kid from doing anything, or from saying anything. All that can happen to a bully is to be suspended from school and re-educated. It is not criminal or a violation of civil rights.

RabbiKnife
Mar 2nd 2011, 04:58 PM
By "they do not prohibit bullying," I'm assuming you mean verbal bullying. Physical bullying is illegal. I believe it's referred to as "assault." Also, there are limits to free speech. If I threaten to kill somebody, especially a police officer, I most certainly have broken some sort of law haven't I?

Assault is always illegal.
Threatening to commit murder or to attack a law enforcement officer is criminal.

But saying "COPS EAT DONUTS" is not illegal.

Warrior4God
Mar 2nd 2011, 05:20 PM
Assault is always illegal.
Threatening to commit murder or to attack a law enforcement officer is criminal.

But saying "COPS EAT DONUTS" is not illegal.

Right. By exercising your right to "freedom of expression," in some cases, such as "I'm going to kill you!" you can break a law. There are limits to freedom of speech and expression. That's the point I was making.

Fenris
Mar 2nd 2011, 05:26 PM
Right. By exercising your right to "freedom of expression," in some cases, such as "I'm going to kill you!" you can break a law. There are limits to freedom of speech and expression. That's the point I was making.

Obviously there are limits. And the Supreme Court just ruled that picketing a military funeral doesn't cross those limits.

Warrior4God
Mar 2nd 2011, 05:27 PM
Read what those laws do.

They don't do anything except mandate school districts to develop policies that say "don't bully."

They don't stop any kid from doing anything, or from saying anything. All that can happen to a bully is to be suspended from school and re-educated. It is not criminal or a violation of civil rights.

Although there may not be official laws against "bullying," some of the particular acts that constitute "bullying," such as harassment, extortion, stalking, assault, etc., are crimes and are punishable offenses.

ProjectPeter
Mar 2nd 2011, 05:30 PM
Although there may not be official laws against "bullying," some of the particular acts that constitute "bullying," such as harassment, extortion, stalking, assault, etc., are crimes and are punishable offenses.
Physical crimes are already illegal and that is when bullying no longer becomes bullying. Calling someone a booger eating, bed wetting, snot licking, butthead is not illegal. I think that's the point being made. Saying GOD HATES FAGS, and going to military funerals and saying stuff like your kid is dead because the US loves fags.. while grossly distasteful and disrespectful and a host of other words... they have the right to say the nonsense.

Warrior4God
Mar 2nd 2011, 05:31 PM
Obviously there are limits. And the Supreme Court just ruled that picketing a military funeral doesn't cross those limits.

If that's the case, so be it, I suppose. A question for attorneys or those familiar with law. Are laws written in such a way that they're pretty cut and dry, black and white, or are they written in such a way that there is some "discretion" and need for "interpretation?" If it's the latter, why is it done that way? :confused

RabbiKnife
Mar 2nd 2011, 05:31 PM
No one ever said otherwise.

RabbiKnife
Mar 2nd 2011, 05:32 PM
If that's the case, so be it, I suppose. A question for attorneys or those familiar with law. Are laws written in such a way that they're pretty cut and dry, black and white, or are they written in such a way that there is some discretion and need for interpretation? If it's the latter, why is done that way? :confused

Some are black and white.
Some are varying shades of gray to give prosecutors and judges discretion to keep from chopping little kids hands off for stealing a piece of bubble gum.

tango
Mar 2nd 2011, 06:28 PM
I am just shocked about this ruling..and very sadden by it. :(

http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/03/02/scotus.westboro.church/index.html?hpt=T1&iref=BN1

Washington (CNN) -- A Kansas church that attracted nationwide attention for its angry, anti-gay protests at the funerals of U.S. military members has won its appeal at the Supreme Court, an issue testing the competing constitutional limits of free speech and privacy.

The justices, by an 8-1 vote, said Wednesday that members of Westboro Baptist Church had a right to promote what they call a broad-based message on public matters such as wars. The father of a fallen Marine had sued the small church, saying those protests amounted to targeted harassment and an intentional infliction of emotional distress.

"Speech is powerful. It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and -- as it did here -- inflict great pain. On the facts before us, we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker," the court's decision said.

As distasteful as the antics of WBC are, if we cherish free speech we have to cherish it when the contents of it are offensive, even as deeply offensive as this.

Firefighter
Mar 2nd 2011, 07:02 PM
It is a shame they don't picket military funerals in my neck of the woods...

ProjectPeter
Mar 2nd 2011, 07:06 PM
Yeah... that is a right pleasurable thought. I think God would forgive me and all. :saint:

RabbiKnife
Mar 2nd 2011, 07:14 PM
It is a shame they don't picket military funerals in my neck of the woods...

Yeah, you still got a case of old Eggos in the freezer....

awestruckchild
Mar 2nd 2011, 07:43 PM
As distasteful as the antics of WBC are, if we cherish free speech we have to cherish it when the contents of it are offensive, even as deeply offensive as this.

This brings up what so bothers me about the thread I was in with Fenris. It had to do with public school system. Don't know what I am trying to spit out, just sort of like.....I see a double standard. Not so much with this particular case as with how a school was teaching children about the Muslim faith and prayers and how they pray, etc., but no mention is allowed of christianity. So you can say it is the only way to do it, but then not all "play by those rules." And there is the freedom to teach Darwinism but not alternate theories. Oh never mind - I will get it seated in my brain at some point I guess, as to what is so sneaky about how it's all being done.

Fenris
Mar 2nd 2011, 08:33 PM
Sarah Palin weighs in on twitter:


Common sense & decency absent as wacko “church” allowed hate msgs spewed@ soldiers’ funerals but we can’t invoke God’s name in public square

This woman is not presidential material.

RabbiKnife
Mar 2nd 2011, 08:37 PM
Sarah Palin weighs in on twitter:


This woman is not presidential material.

I was hoping she was, perhaps, roasting a moose and hadn't had time to engage the public.

Um, last I checked, invoking God's name in the public square is a constitutionally protected speech, too.

Warrior4God
Mar 2nd 2011, 09:18 PM
I was hoping she was, perhaps, roasting a moose and hadn't had time to engage the public.

Um, last I checked, invoking God's name in the public square is a constitutionally protected speech, too.

If you mean "public square" as in, say, a regular joe saying it on a sidewalk or something, sure. A judge doing it in his or her court room, I doubt so.

Warrior4God
Mar 2nd 2011, 09:19 PM
Sarah Palin weighs in on twitter:


This woman is not presidential material.

This is a moot point. Obama isn't Presidential material, either. We're still stuck with him.

Fenris
Mar 2nd 2011, 09:25 PM
This is a moot point. Obama isn't Presidential material, either. We're still stuck with him.
God help me, he's more presidential than her.

RabbiKnife
Mar 2nd 2011, 09:27 PM
God help me, he's more presidential than her.

That's going to leave a mark.

Fenris
Mar 2nd 2011, 09:29 PM
That's going to leave a mark.
I haven't gotten any negative rep in a while.

ProjectPeter
Mar 2nd 2011, 09:34 PM
I was hoping she was, perhaps, roasting a moose and hadn't had time to engage the public.

Um, last I checked, invoking God's name in the public square is a constitutionally protected speech, too.Sure... but then there are the other things that they pull on you. Impeding the flow of pedestrian traffic even though there is no sidewalk nor that many pedestrians. The ever popular noise ordinance violations and sure enough... speaking in a normal voice can apparantly bother folks enough to have them envoke that. And all that... I've been hit with while doing that very thing in the public square. Mind you... none of it sticks but that doesn't stop them from nailing you with it and shutting you up. Then you get out of it... go back... they repeat. So while it may be legal according to the constitution... they have their laws to get around all that Constitutional stuff. :rolleyes:

Warrior4God
Mar 2nd 2011, 09:41 PM
Sure... but then there are the other things that they pull on you. Impeding the flow of pedestrian traffic even though there is no sidewalk nor that many pedestrians. The ever popular noise ordinance violations and sure enough... speaking in a normal voice can apparantly bother folks enough to have them envoke that. And all that... I've been hit with while doing that very thing in the public square. Mind you... none of it sticks but that doesn't stop them from nailing you with it and shutting you up. Then you get out of it... go back... they repeat. So while it may be legal according to the constitution... they have their laws to get around all that Constitutional stuff. :rolleyes:

Yeah, because mankind is basically wicked to the core, the Constitution can only go so far in ruling people. When people want to do something bad enough, even when it's wrong, they find ways around the rules. Sad but true. :2cents:

tango
Mar 2nd 2011, 10:00 PM
This brings up what so bothers me about the thread I was in with Fenris. It had to do with public school system. Don't know what I am trying to spit out, just sort of like.....I see a double standard. Not so much with this particular case as with how a school was teaching children about the Muslim faith and prayers and how they pray, etc., but no mention is allowed of christianity. So you can say it is the only way to do it, but then not all "play by those rules." And there is the freedom to teach Darwinism but not alternate theories. Oh never mind - I will get it seated in my brain at some point I guess, as to what is so sneaky about how it's all being done.

I agree... it does seem like a case of all animals being equal but some being more equal than others. That said if we fight to have groups like WBC silenced you can be sure that will just give those who want to silence any voice against things like homosexuality that little bit more ammunition to use against us.

tango
Mar 2nd 2011, 10:01 PM
I haven't gotten any negative rep in a while.

I would oblige but it says I have to spread the love - er, I mean hate - before I rep you again :lol:

Fenris
Mar 2nd 2011, 10:06 PM
I would oblige but it says I have to spread the love - er, I mean hate - before I rep you again :lol:

Always trying to help a brother out. God bless.

awestruckchild
Mar 2nd 2011, 10:16 PM
I agree... it does seem like a case of all animals being equal but some being more equal than others. That said if we fight to have groups like WBC silenced you can be sure that will just give those who want to silence any voice against things like homosexuality that little bit more ammunition to use against us.

I agree. I winced when I heard the father was bringing suit against them.
I just don't know if removing all right to speak about God in schools we send our children to is the way to go. It doesn't seem to work - that whole different animals being less or more equal thing like you said.

RabbiKnife
Mar 2nd 2011, 10:20 PM
I agree. I winced when I heard the father was bringing suit against them.
I just don't know if removing all right to speak about God in schools we send our children to is the way to go. It doesn't seem to work - that whole different animals being less or more equal thing like you said.

Children have full right to discuss their faith in school.

Warrior4God
Mar 2nd 2011, 10:52 PM
Children have full right to discuss their faith in school.

Yes, if they whisper out of earshot of the administration. :rolleyes:

Slina
Mar 2nd 2011, 11:41 PM
As much as the very existence of the Westboro Baptist Church saddens me, I also agree with this decision. The Supreme Court has upheld abhorrent constitutionally protected free speech before (flag burning in protest, for one), and so they should. Part of free speech is putting up with the stupid along with your own. :P It sounds like none of the justices were in any approving of what the WBC protesters, so there is that at least.

Athanasius
Mar 2nd 2011, 11:43 PM
Yes, if they whisper out of earshot of the administration. :rolleyes:

Up here in Socialist Canada I had no trouble with discussing my faith while in HS. Mind you, I was intimidating ;)

Luke34
Mar 3rd 2011, 07:02 AM
I don't think anyone's said this yet: If I recall correctly, the only time free speech is not protected is when it creates an immediate danger. Shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, and all that. So it's okay to say that God hates this or that group, even though it makes you a hateful person who is beneath attention. Inciting someone to harm or kill a particular group, especially if members of that group are present, is not okay. I suppose the Westboro Baptist Church is technically not guilty of the latter, unless you count making people to want to kill the members of the Westboro Baptist Church, at which they are quite successful.

(I am actually okay with going after them on technicalities: noise violations, littering, &c. Maybe that's vindictive of me, but whatever. I am also okay with regular citizens interfering with WBC gatherings to the maximum extent possible. Shouting, playing loud music, generally being obnoxious, whatever you need to do. Apparently this routinely happens with KKK events, which is awesome.)

Slina
Mar 3rd 2011, 07:30 AM
Lol, I think that actually happened at last year's comic-con. Westboro decided to picket them because comic-con goers 'worshiped false gods' (namely Superman and other superheroes :P) and on their site mockingly challenged the super heroes to defend comic-con or something. So a bunch of people rose to that challenge with super hero costumes and anti-Westboro signs and had a full-fledged counter-protest going. Apparently they had a lot of fun with it too. :D I agree that it'd be pretty awesome to see stuff like that happening more often. I remember someone once jokingly suggested a touring heavy-metal band that always just happens to perform right across the street from the Westboro protests. :P

There are a couple other times free speech isn't protected (especially when it sufficiently goes against the right to privacy, which is considered a constitutional right, and I think that issue was kind of brought up in this case), but yeah, if it's not libel/slander, causing serious danger or contradicting other constitutional rights and freedoms, it's pretty much always protected that I know of.

Withoutfcf
Mar 3rd 2011, 09:05 AM
oh..i hate hate...

moonglow
Mar 3rd 2011, 03:13 PM
I still don't understand why the court couldn't have just prohibited any demonstrations or protest at funerals. Everywhere ok...but not at funerals. How could that harm free speech in other areas? I don't think it would.

I would bet if Westbro tried to do this at a gay parade they would be stopped by the police.

Just seems like to me this opens the door to harassing anyone for any reason and it would be protected under free speech. People could go yell at gay people they are going to hell right? But if they expressed hatred towards Jews verbally that is not ok? That clothes designer just lost his career for saying hateful things about Jews. Why is his free speech not protected? This is why I am so confused on this matter. I really don't understand why its ok there but not ok in other settings?

http://www.newser.com/story/113244/john-galliano-faces-trial-for-racist-slurs.html
Fashion designer John Galliano has lost his job for making anti-Semitic slurs; he may now lose his freedom as well. French prosecutors have announced that Galliano will stand trial on charges of making racist insults in public, a charge that carries a maximum penalty of six months in prison and a $31,400 fine, reports Reuters. The charges relate to two incidents, one last month and one in October of last year.

Ok I realize this is in another country and their laws are different then ours...but I thought we had some laws against hate speech? :hmm: Of course it doesn't help I am sick and my brain is only half working...:rolleyes: But can someone explain this to me? Thanks.

God bless

Fenris
Mar 3rd 2011, 03:20 PM
I still don't understand why the court couldn't have just prohibited any demonstrations or protest at funerals. Everywhere ok...but not at funerals. How could that harm free speech in other areas? I don't think it would. There's this little issue about this document called "The Constitution".


But if they expressed hatred towards Jews verbally that is not ok? It is ok. This very same church has had anti-Jewish demonstrations here in NY. No one stopped them. They did their thing and they left.


That clothes designer just lost his career for saying hateful things about Jews. Why is his free speech not protected? This is why I am so confused on this matter. He's free to say what he wants, his employer is free to fire him for saying it.

The First Ammendement only prohibits the government from restricting speech. I think that's part of your confusion.



Ok I realize this is in another country and their laws are different then ours...but I thought we had some laws against hate speech?As people have already pointed out, there are no laws against hate speech in this country.

Vhayes
Mar 3rd 2011, 03:25 PM
I think plans should be made to picket Fred Phelps' funeral when he dies. People with signs reading:

Yes - God loved even you.

And lots of singing - hymns such as "Amazing Grace".

But hey - I'm sure the Phelps clan would file an injunction. :-)

Firefighter
Mar 3rd 2011, 03:29 PM
If I recall correctly, the only time free speech is not protected is when it creates an immediate danger.

Protesting a fallen soldier's funeral where I live WOULD create immediate danger for WBC. ;)

Firefighter
Mar 3rd 2011, 03:29 PM
I think plans should be made to picket Fred Phelps' funeral when he dies. People with signs reading:

Yes - God loved even you.

And lots of singing - hymns such as "Amazing Grace".

But hey - I'm sure the Phelps clan would file an injunction. :-)

I am SOOOO there! I will pick you and the Geezer up on the way!!!!

Vhayes
Mar 3rd 2011, 03:30 PM
Will we all fit in your pick up?

Firefighter
Mar 3rd 2011, 03:32 PM
I'll bring the SUV, or borrow the Hummer.

moonglow
Mar 3rd 2011, 03:41 PM
There's this little issue about this document called "The Constitution".
It is ok. This very same church has had anti-Jewish demonstrations here in NY. No one stopped them. They did their thing and they left.
He's free to say what he wants, his employer is free to fire him for saying it.

The First Ammendement only prohibits the government from restricting speech. I think that's part of your confusion.


As people have already pointed out, there are no laws against hate speech in this country.

He got more then fired...he could go to jail for saying what he said.

Ok explain..what do you mean by this:
The First Ammendement only prohibits the government from restricting speech. I think that's part of your confusion. what are you implying?

And why were these Christians stopped and arrested from sharing the gospel if we have free speech? They weren't even being hateful either.

mUwQVqdOT0U

See this is why I am so confused. Its like its ok with certain groups but not others to have free speech. :confused

Fenris
Mar 3rd 2011, 03:55 PM
He got more then fired...he could go to jail for saying what he said. Not in this country, my friend. The French can do whatever they want.




And why were these Christians stopped and arrested from sharing the gospel if we have free speech? They weren't even being hateful either.They can't distribute this material right outside the festival, and the Westboro people can't do their thing right next to the gravesite either. They were actually some 1000 feet from the funeral itself. So I don't really see your point.

Fenris
Mar 3rd 2011, 04:05 PM
Were American Neo-Nazis allowed to march through a neighborhood full of Holocaust survivors in Skokie, Illinois? Yup.

moonglow
Mar 3rd 2011, 04:06 PM
Not in this country, my friend. The French can do whatever they want.



They can't distribute this material right outside the festival, and the Westboro people can't do their thing right next to the graveside either. They were actually some 1000 feet from the funeral itself. So I don't really see your point.

I am not trying to make a point..I am trying to understand is all. Even though Westbro is outside a certain limit at a graveside they can still be seen and heard...and because of that the Patriot Guard Riders were formed to block them from view of those at the graveside and block their yelling. I thought the Christians were outside of the festival...so why were they arrested?

I have read other news stories of Christian arrested for being at gay parades and either yelling at them or trying to share the gospel. So it all comes down to where they are standing when they do these things? Thanks for explaining all this to me.

Fenris
Mar 3rd 2011, 04:10 PM
I am not trying to make a point..I am trying to understand is all. Even though Westbro is outside a certain limit at a graveside they can still be seen and heard...and because of that the Patriot Guard Riders were formed to block them from view of those at the graveside and block their yelling. I thought the Christians were outside of the festival...so why were they arrested?The Westboro people were 1000 feet from the funeral. The Christians were told to go 5 blocks away from the festival...which is about 1000 feet. And unless I misunderstood the video you posted, they were not arrested.


I have read other news stories of Christian arrested for being at gay parades and either yelling at them or trying to share the gospel. Please post links to the stories if you would like them discussed.

moonglow
Mar 3rd 2011, 04:19 PM
The Westboro people were 1000 feet from the funeral. The Christians were told to go 5 blocks away from the festival...which is about 1000 feet. And unless I misunderstood the video you posted, they were not arrested.

Please post links to the stories if you would like them discussed.

They were arrested: http://patterico.com/2010/06/23/christians-arrested-in-dearborn-at-arab-festival/

And I have heard of others being arrested at gay parades...cause they didn't have a permit? Does Westbro have to get permits too?

Have to get ready for my drs. appointment..be back later.

Fenris
Mar 3rd 2011, 04:31 PM
They were arrested: http://patterico.com/2010/06/23/christians-arrested-in-dearborn-at-arab-festival/
Ok. And again, they were right outside the festival. Westboro sets up 1000 feet from funerals.

And when this went to trial the were found "not guilty".


And I have heard of others being arrested at gay parades...cause they didn't have a permit? Please don't tell us what you "heard". Post an article.

Fenris
Mar 3rd 2011, 05:05 PM
The video doesn't show the arrest. In fact, all we know is "At this point, my camera was confiscated and we were taken into custody".

What actually happened?

Is there another side to this story?

Why, yes, there is.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXvJJuxAFxY&feature=related

Basically, these guys went looking for trouble. And they got it.

Fenris
Mar 3rd 2011, 05:11 PM
If anyone is interested, there is video footage of them attending the same festival the year before. They walked around shoving their cameras in people's faces and following them around and such. They are not nice people.

Firefighter
Mar 3rd 2011, 05:24 PM
Yeah but it is a great way of feeling persecuted without all of the actual risk involved with actually doing something for Christ. :yes:

moonglow
Mar 3rd 2011, 07:12 PM
Ok. And again, they were right outside the festival. Westboro sets up 1000 feet from funerals.

And when this went to trial the were found "not guilty".

Please don't tell us what you "heard". Post an article.

What I mean by 'heard' is I have read it in articles and seen video's or heard it on the Christian radio station and even news sites. I didn't just hear some gossip from someone in the store about it. These I have heard about for years and only a very few over a number of years...so trying to remember exactly where I got the information from to track them down is difficult. If I was a computer I could just bring up my database on it...:lol:

I will watch that video soon...gotta get my RX filled before they go to lunch...

moonglow
Mar 3rd 2011, 09:35 PM
The video doesn't show the arrest. In fact, all we know is "At this point, my camera was confiscated and we were taken into custody".

What actually happened?

Is there another side to this story?

Why, yes, there is.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXvJJuxAFxY&feature=related

Basically, these guys went looking for trouble. And they got it.

Very interesting. I was reading the comments below..even the person that uploaded the video this said these other people were arrested...but not for sharing the gospel. :hmm: Very sad they sat this up like this. :( So what were they arrested for I wonder? Being a pain?

Uncle Bud
Mar 4th 2011, 12:07 AM
One of the unfortunate prices we pay for free speech. This group has given Christianity a horrible reputation to the unsaved, which makes some think all Christians are like that. I'm very much against what WBC is doing. But, if the Supreme Court stops any free speech, where would it stop?

kayte
Mar 4th 2011, 01:08 AM
What surprises me is that one Justice wanted to restrict their free speech. Does anyone know which Justice it was?

I would LOVE to see Christians showing up wherever WBC is, circling them, and praying for them. I would also LOVE to see God miraculously 'mute' them, too. :D

Warrior4God
Mar 4th 2011, 01:36 AM
I would bet if Westbro tried to do this at a gay parade they would be stopped by the police.

Of course they would. Not only stopped, but likely arrested, too. Saying anything against homosexuality now, even if it's not a direct threat of violence, just expressing disapproval or something, is very not politically correct. Society must punish those who are not PC because, well, they're "hateful" and "bigots."

Warrior4God
Mar 4th 2011, 01:42 AM
TThe First Ammendement only prohibits the government from restricting speech.

I'm finding this to be true more and more often. Employers fire people all the time for issues related to employees wanting to exercise their "freedom of expression" by doing things like, say, posting something derogatory, whether it's true or not, about their boss on Facebook or talking smack at the water cooler in the office.

Slina
Mar 4th 2011, 01:56 AM
What surprises me is that one Justice wanted to restrict their free speech. Does anyone know which Justice it was?

That would be Samuel Alito. He called what Westboro did a "vicious verbal assault" that "caused petitioner great injury," and thought that "in order to have a society in which public issues can be openly and vigorously debated, it is not necessary to allow the brutalization of innocent victims like petitioner," and basically thought that this shouldn't be protected under free speech.

kayte
Mar 4th 2011, 02:13 AM
Thanks Slina. I was too lazy to look it up myself. Appreciate it. :)

awestruckchild
Mar 6th 2011, 03:44 AM
Children have full right to discuss their faith in school.

Sure they do! That's why so many of them are given bad grades if they write a paper and include a quote by God!
I was encouraged by the verdict on that latest court case against the teacher/coach who prayed with the students before a game. They ruled in his favor because the students all testified that THEY were the ones who initiated it - not him. But it didn't stop them from taking it to court to try to stop it.
Okay, let fly - I have my helmet on!

ProjectPeter
Mar 6th 2011, 05:53 AM
The Westboro people were 1000 feet from the funeral. The Christians were told to go 5 blocks away from the festival...which is about 1000 feet. And unless I misunderstood the video you posted, they were not arrested.

Please post links to the stories if you would like them discussed.

1000 feet equals 5 blocks? Dude... do you live in an ant farm or something? :lol: