Westboro Baptist Church -- The Haters Win!

kronos wrote:But apparently Westboro wasn't inciting violence, let alone imminent violence. They were simply expressing a vile opinion in an abusive way. Perfectly constitutional thing to do.

Correct. They were being disgusting. They're no different than the neo-Nazi's in Skokie, Illinois back in 1978 (or was it '79?).



On another note, there are limits on speech in various places here in the USA. For instance, when one is in the military, you can't say certain things. In the private sector also, one can't call their female co-worker a bitch without being held accountable by the employer.

The free speech thing applies to gov't curtailing it, not other individuals or business.

i_luv_miley wrote:This is the part of the first amendment that pisses me off. Yeah, I completely believe in freedom of speech... But when the speech is meant to do nothing more than instigate then I think it should be dealt with. And in this particular case, something should be done. This example is nothing more than someone spreading hate. It's like if I was face to face with someone who said something to piss me off, and I responded by punching the person in the face. Who would be the one prosecuted? Me, that's who... And it's not right. It's why I hate people who abuse the first amendment and then hide behind it.

This is pretty much how I feel on the issue.

bigger_guns_nearby wrote:

i_luv_miley wrote:This is the part of the first amendment that pisses me off. Yeah, I completely believe in freedom of speech... But when the speech is meant to do nothing more than instigate then I think it should be dealt with. And in this particular case, something should be done. This example is nothing more than someone spreading hate. It's like if I was face to face with someone who said something to piss me off, and I responded by punching the person in the face. Who would be the one prosecuted? Me, that's who... And it's not right. It's why I hate people who abuse the first amendment and then hide behind it.

This is pretty much how I feel on the issue.

I'd ask you the same questions I asked ILM, then.

1. "Dealt with" how, exactly? What, specifically, "should be done?"
2. Do you really think any mere words justify violence?

Believe me, I consider the Phelps' to be thoroughly vile, despicable human beings. But they're not breaking any laws, ergo, there is nothing that can legally be done about them--unless we change the law to protect only speech we agree with.

And freedom of speech includes the right to "hide behind it."

Morally, I am 100% behind the sentiment both you and ILM are expressing, but the post as written, that you are endorsing, seems to go suggest taking some sort of concrete action to stop people like the Phelpses. And I'm wondering what that might be.

I think cases like this are the ultimate test of our commitment to freedom of speech. (Did I already say that?)