WBC Gets The "Good Old Boy" Treatment

@Blueharp: if all you're saying is that the law should be the law for everyone, fine and dandy. I actually agree with you, somewhat. But, the law cannot legislate how people think. As I said, if the people who perpetuated these acts get caught, the law should punish them. But if people want to treat them like heroes, that's the way it goes.

If they don't get caught, I won't shed a tear.

I get your meaning, its not unclear. I just think you're sanctifying the written letter of the law a little too much. But I guess we disagree there.

Well, I have a problem with the tone of the article because of what it represents, has this been unclear?

It could all be utter fabrications, but the endorsement of such is still a problem, because of it is saying quite explicitly that the law is secondary to abusing people that are disliked. That the spirit of the law makes it ok, even commendable, when certain people are abused, not because they committed an actual crime, but because somebody doesn't like what they have to say.

If you want to worry about the specific allegations in the article, then I suggest you contact the Civil Rights Division of the US Department of Justice, because they can conduct an investigation.

Ok, well, I think you're debasing the principles of the law a little too much. That they're being defiled by such disregard for it. The law can't change how people think, but if we remain silent while that happens...well, I'm sorry, but I consider it my duty to speak up.

edited 27th Apr '11 12:34:31 AM by blueharp

@blueharp: so, you think protesting a funeral is okay, simply because there isn't a specific law against it?

Do you want to discuss Snyder v. Phelps?

edited 27th Apr '11 12:39:59 AM by blueharp

You Americans and your funny 'freedom of speech'.

You know, sometimes it's good to officially say 'shut the fuck up'.

@blue: no, I asked you a question. Is it acceptable to protest a funeral, and say that you're glad the deceased is gone, simply because there isn't a specific law against it? Yes or no?

@Jones: before the WBC started their happy horseshit, I'd never dream of agreeing with you. Now...let's just say there's a part of me that wants to.

edited 27th Apr '11 12:40:35 AM by drunkscriblerian

Are you unfamiliar with Sydner v. Phelps?

tl;dr, it's the case that said that the First Amendment allows people to picket funerals.

I'm not entirely clear on this. Thanks to the first amendment. I can legally just follow someone all day and scream in their face and dance around them and such because I have the freedom to be as much of an asshole as I can be?

As long as you do it on public property, yeah.

@blue: answer the question asked, please.

Well, if you don't want to read their opinion, I guess there's not much to discuss then.

He's asking for your opinion on the matter. Does your opinion mirror theirs? Do you think it's okay to protest funerals because the Supreme Court said it was okay?

I see.

I still cant see how making one rare exception is somehow going to lead to a slippery slope of tyranny.

edited 27th Apr '11 12:46:18 AM by Thorn14

x6

No, you do not have such an unmitigated right. With a private individual for example, you'd probably run afoul of stalking laws. A public individual is another matter, but even then, you could be in trouble depending on your conduct, and the locale.

I would not advise engaging in such a course without contacting a lawyer.

edited 27th Apr '11 12:46:44 AM by blueharp

So your beef is that you are uncomfortable with the idea that civilians will get the idea that it's ok to circumvent the law if they consider it to be in the greater good? If so, I think it represents something good. As someone with less rights than your average private citizen, I actively support the idea that since the law can't tell people to shut the fuck up because of the lawful right of freedom of speech, which I don't disagree with, normal people will.

Freedom of Speech is the letter of the law, but in this case the civilians involved are doing something for the spirit of the law, because it would not be ethical for any representative of the government to do so. IMO I support what they did because they accomplished what the law could not, they told the WBC that their antics are unacceptable. Which they are not.

Freedom of Assembly is the law that really gets in the way Thorn, in your example, a guy screaming and waving his arms would be guilty of public disturbance, and if worded correctly, a few other possible charges as well. Because of the format that the WBC does their shenanigans, by "protesting", they are exercising both their freedom of speech and freedom to assemble for a peaceful protest.

Freedom of Speech protects you from being discriminated against because of what you say, but not how you say it. That's why we have libel and slander laws. Unfortunately we have a double overlap of amendments protecting goons like the WBC because what they are saying is acceptable under freedom of speech and how they are saying it is acceptable under freedom of assembly.

edited 27th Apr '11 12:49:31 AM by Barkey

@Barkey: thanks, couldn't have said it better myself.

@Blue: you're stalling, and you're waffling. I asked you a simple question: Do you think it is okay for a person to protest a funeral and say degrading things about the deceased simply because there is no law prohibiting such behavior? Yes or no?

Nope, you don't understand at all. And I don't feel it'll actually serve a purpose to further try to define it to you, so I'll just say, you're mistaken, and getting the nuances wrong, and if you want to re-read what I said, you can, but I can't help you any further.

edited 27th Apr '11 12:49:55 AM by blueharp

I'm sorry, but I've asked a moderator whether or not I should respond to you, so I'll have to ask you to wait and let me see whether or not I should.

You...asked a mod if you can respond to someone?

Right, this thread is turning pear shaped quickly.

...You asked a mod whether you should respond?? What the-

Okay, forget I asked. I'm going to go smoke a cigarette and go to bed. And hope you never, ever decide to run for public office.

ITT: Somebody whines about someone treating someone else badly, and ignoring all rebuttals. Got it. Waste of time, going to bed, etc. etc.

edited 27th Apr '11 12:56:48 AM by DrunkGirlfriend

I think that anything worthwhile to say about this subject has already been said, plus plenty of not-so-worthwhile things. Locking.