• Current Events & Politics
    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • Current Events & Politics Moderators: deficiT | tryptakid | Foreigner

Supreme Court rules, upholds WestboroBaptistChurch to continue the funeral protests

If we make funerals "safe haven" for people to have some "right to be UNoffended", then why not, say, graduation ceremonies? I hate the WBC, but regardless of their message, you cannot start making "sanctuaries" to "stop" people's voices/thoughts, it's a blatant violation of speech/thought freedoms.

But graduation ceremonies aren't funerals. Funerals involve the death of a human being. They are special. I don't see a slippery slope here; I just don't see the law somehow stretching out to include anything other than funerals in future legislation. I think we, as human beings, can all agree to make funerals sacred gatherings of sorts. I would be in favor of that.
 
Ah right right, kind of delirious from work today, that makes perfect sense. :!

That said, I think my point is still somewhat valid; what they do can still be considered significant disruption. Why can't funerals be special cases under law where people must be respectful? Clearly they can protest - they should have every right to under the First Amendment - just not anywhere near the funeral.

I know that the Bush administration passed a law barring them from protesting soldier's funerals. I think the legal radius of distance from the funeral was five-hundred feet away? I don't see why this number couldn't be larger, and why it couldn't apply to all funerals, not just military.

It shouldn't be applied, FUCK whether or not it's a military funeral, or a funeral for a guy who was murdered while raping an underaged female.
I'm on the delirious-kick too from about 3hrs/night sleep for over a week, so I def see where you're coming from, every part of me wants to see legislation(s) to stop the WBC and, further, maybe, confine/hurt/punish/etc them.
BUT, that's not the solution, the 1st doesn't allow it, and with good reason. I wanna see it play out, because I know it's right to allow them their (obscely(SP?) stupid) message, it's annoying but it needs doing. Let them make a spectacle of themselves, and, hopefully, they'll be ridiculed (or whatever happens) as they should be, but backing guns(legislation) to shut them up is inherently wrong.
It's sad, but I've almost come to equate them with a "test" of temperence. Their message is abso-fucking-lutely meant for 1 reason and 1 reason only, to piss people off. We can be mature and ignore it (unlikely), we can strongly react with many things (likely), or we can make rules against it (unconstitutional), and there's only 1 way of those 3 that's the right way. It's unfortunate in this circumstance (IMO/I-our-O), but it's *RIGHT*. That said, the WBC are not afforded too many protections against what, I hope but sadly do not expect, would/could happen after such ridiculousness is applied to soldiers' funerals :/
 
But graduation ceremonies aren't funerals. Funerals involve the death of a human being. They are special. I don't see a slippery slope here; I just don't see the law somehow stretching out to include anything other than funerals in future legislation. I think we, as human beings, can all agree to make funerals sacred gatherings of sorts. I would be in favor of that.

Screw that. NOTHING IS SACRED in a free thought/speech society.

For instance, I do not believe in an afterlife or any religion - as a consequence, I never felt much for funerals, I only cared for the losses suffered personally.

Obviously graduation ceremonies are not funerals, but I can tell you that TO ME, ceremonies have been more important than funerals. Should my liking/disliking of graduations/funerals be protected in a way that impinges on my fellow citizens' speech/thought? I'd say it doesn't, despite understanding where you're coming from.
 
I definitely see where you're coming from too; I admit my emotions towards this are so sour, they might be clouding the usually normal clarity of thought I have about free speech issues. I am normally the first person in line that you would see fighting for First Amendment rights.

I just can't see a situation at all in which a protest at a funeral specifically would serve society or any group or individual any good. I'm just saying I would be all for a society in which free speech is protected everywhere, except at a funeral. I am looking at this from a secular perspective. I'm not religious. However, I do consider a funeral a time of intense grieving, sorrow mixed with celebrations of one's life, and perhaps defining moments in many peoples' lives, and this is regardless of anyone's religious beliefs. Whether or not you agree with that point personally, I believe it is true for most people.

I think, secularly, we should be able to agree on funerals being special cases, I mean, people only die once. Whether or not you think it is important to one's life, it is for many the most important event in one's life. This should be protected by humanity. Just my two cents; I'm sure many would disagree with me.
 
I definitely see where you're coming from too; I admit my emotions towards this are so sour, they might be clouding the usually normal clarity of thought I have about free speech issues. I am normally the first person in line that you would see fighting for First Amendment rights.

I just can't see a situation at all in which a protest at a funeral specifically would serve society or any group or individual any good. I'm just saying I would be all for a society in which free speech is protected everywhere, except at a funeral. I am looking at this from a secular perspective. I'm not religious. However, I do consider a funeral a time of intense grieving, sorrow mixed with celebrations of one's life, and perhaps defining moments in many peoples' lives, and this is regardless of anyone's religious beliefs. Whether or not you agree with that point personally, I believe it is true for most people.

I think, secularly, we should be able to agree on funerals being special cases, I mean, people only die once. Whether or not you think it is important to one's life, it is for many the most important event in one's life. This should be protected by humanity. Just my two cents; I'm sure many would disagree with me.

It is true for most people - but not all. That's why the 1st is so important, "I may not agree w/ what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it"(SIC). It's not important to me - call me heartless all you want, I just don't really get too worked up with death :-/ BUT, I'm infuriated to think that *I*, personally, could have my freedoms revoked, and feel the same for those around me. I extrapolate that to the citizens of the US. If the WBC cannot protest funerals, why should it be unreasonable to ask ME to hold my tongue at funerals? What if, say, my brother was killed by a clerk during an attempted-robbery, and at his funeral I said he had it coming? Should I get in trouble? Should I shut up during such a "special" circumstance? That is why the 1st is so important - people's definitions of "special"/"important" vary greatly, and allowing everybody the right to express such things is the cornerstone of democracy.
 
I think someone just needs to kill them, only way to stop them is to break the law yourself.

I'd fuckin' do some shit violent to them or make out with my boyfriend (if I had one) in front of them or something.
 
I think someone just needs to kill them, only way to stop them is to break the law yourself.

I'd fuckin' do some shit violent to them or make out with my boyfriend (if I had one) in front of them or something.

People constantly punk those guys - if you want to see something hilarious, search for a video on YouTube that Michael Moore made where he interviews Fred Phelps, and suddenly a pink bus full of scantly-clad gay men leap out and start dancing. It's priceless.
 
I think someone just needs to kill them, only way to stop them is to break the law yourself.

I'd fuckin' do some shit violent to them or make out with my boyfriend (if I had one) in front of them or something.

Heh, a girl on bl w/ a wu-tang avatar? Wanna schedule a meetup for their next protest? ;-P
I have faith - perhaps misplaced.. - that anti-WBC protestors can help negate this to some degree.

I also have a - perhaps sick - recurring thought of what could happen to someone who's constantly pissing on soldiers, given the rate of PTSD and all that, just doesn't seem super-wise. No, I'm not a soldier/vet and that statement is a thought, not a threat.
 
Ason/Inedible -
LINKS PLEASE!!!

I linked Anonymous hacking the WBC website during a radio interview between Anonymous/Shirley Phelps; contribute links for the public good ;)
 
oh okay - usually when someone refers to "my boyfriend (if I had one)" they've got boobz ;-P
<<off-topic: WTF makes tom-boy-ish girls so hawt? A chick w/ a wu-tang avatar gets like 1-2points on the 10-pointer scale lol>>


And LINK IT is all I'm saying, to everybody. I like to think that, by linking the "Anonymous-hack" video, that it got *some* extra hits. Like to think so.. am gonna go give a hit to your vid now tho ;)
 
A completely valid ruling, but sometimes I wish people like this weren't granted police protection at their protests. Seems like people might be more willing to talk rationally about sensitive political topics, and less likely to resort to inflammatory hate-speech if they had to consider the chances of having the shit kicked out of them.

It doesn't seem to help.

They protested at a funeral once, got their tires slashed, and got refused service. They had to be towed to another town to get it fixed.

Story.
 
free speech is meaningless if it doesn't protect speech which makes your blood boil. i think that these people are vitriolic, insidious crackpots and their position is absolutely despicable and compassionless but i celebrate the fact that i live in - indeed am a citizen of - a country in which they can freely express those views.

alasdair
 
One thing I find funny about them how when a reasonable nice chirstian trys to have an actual converation with and talk cival about the things they are interpreting wrong they get a hundred times more pissed than the people that just fuck with them.
 
One thing is for certain: Fox News ain`t helping things by occasionally giving the Phelps family a national pedestal to preach their dogshite. Just recently, they had another interview with wacko Margie Phelps, probably my least favorite of that family of crazies. She`s one hell of a bitter freakazoid, ranting on how Obama is the antichrist. And Fox News is seriously interviewing her, as if Fox News actually agreed with that sentiment. Christ...
 
My favorite WBC video:

...I'm really surprised some vet hasn't popped them yet. I don't know how a bunch of military dudes at their friends' funeral don't get riled up. Better men than I am, I guess.
I've read that this is how they (the Phelps family aka WBC) get their funding: going to the funeral and passive-aggressively provoking people to attack or do something to get themselves in trouble. Then they SUE. The father is a disbarred lawyer and 7 (i think)l of the 14 or so children are also trained as lawyers.
 
Last edited:
that does seem to be it - I believe I put a link in this thread explaining that - it makes me wonder how much, if any (or all) they believe. I wouldn't be shocked to hear 0, or 100, percent..
 
someone oughta bike by with a waterbottle filled with psychedelic RC's or LSD and spray the protesters, casually bike away and let their minds be blown...
Nobody deserves horrible treatment like that (horrible as it is unknown/willingly), but the WBC is on par with the Taliban(in my opinion)... I'm sure if christianity was taken, we'd see WBC rebels or some crazy shit...

To me WBC=Taliban on the evil scale... one causes evil and pain, the other makes it much harder to get through...
If there is a god, and he is watching, they surely aren't of his kin, I'd say more of the devils...
 
Top