• Westboro Baptist church gets their asses fucking chased out of tornado damaged town.
    287 replies, posted
[QUOTE=draugur;44489564]How is that a childish insult? You actually [i]do[/i] need to see a fucking psychiatrist if those are your real feelings. Having [i]zero sense of empathy[/i] is a [i]serious mental health issue[/i]. I'd say your inability to understand this as well serves to only further my point, [i]please seek help.[/i][/QUOTE] I think what he's basically getting at. I don't believe in hell so why would I personally be affected if someone says my children are going there? They might as well be saying my children deserved to go to the 57th dimension. It doesn't mean I lack empathy. Of course I don't believe everyone would be unaffected, but I'm pretty sure he's driving at the fact that most people completely disagree with the WBC theologically anyway, so why give any weight to what they think your child deserved/where they are now? I agree with him in principle, but a person whose child just died in some tragedy is not necessarily going to be rational even if it seems like a rational opinion now.
Hey remember a few days ago when a few Marines threatened a couple of guys insulting an American flag and chased them off, and half the people in this thread were posting about how awful it is to use threats of violence and intimidation to suppress what amounts to free speech? Or is free speech a principle people here only support as long as they like what's being expressed? [editline]8th April 2014[/editline] Fuck the WBC and everything they stand for but chasing someone out of town, threatening violence, because you don't like what they're saying is not okay, and some people in this thread need to be a little more objective about this.
[QUOTE=catbarf;44489933]Hey remember a few days ago when a few Marines threatened a couple of guys insulting the flag, and half the people in this thread were posting about how awful it is to use threats of violence and intimidation to suppress what amounts to free speech? Or is free speech a principle you only support as long as you like what's being expressed?[/QUOTE] I think it depends on the topic at hand for most people; the average civilian, taking the flag example into account, would probably not think twice if somebody made fun of the flag, barring a few hot words in the cases of some of the more patriotic. But it's more likely for a soldier, for instance, to be upset at seeing the flag of the country he's serving under as part of the armed forces, being insulted. Veterans would especially come under this other heading, save perhaps the more cynical. Making fun of the dead, or implying that 'lol they're going to hell since they were probably faggots', especially when that lands in the ears of those who actually lost people in that disaster, won't go down too well with them, much less those others of the population who simply cannot abide that kind of talk in public, especially not in such a vocal, tasteless manner. There's a reason why disrespecting the dead comes as taboo for a lot of people - leave the dead in peace, their time was done with on Earth, and they deserve, for the most part, at least that much in the way of remembrance for the lives they led. To cut it short, is what the WBC did a stupid and tasteless thing? yes. Is it worth becoming angry over? maybe. Free speech works both ways. Unless you're prepared to pay the piper for offending somebody else, don't try to do something that could be construed as offensive by the majority, especially not in emotionally-charged situations.
I agree with Explosions. WBC are a bunch of dicks, but getting chased out of town by a mob is suppression of free speech. I'm all for counter-protesting them, but physical violence and intimidation crosses the line. You can't pick and choose who gets to speak, and who deserves to be assaulted.
[QUOTE=CLTbot;44490050]I agree with Explosions. WBC are a bunch of dicks, but getting chased out of town by a mob is suppression of free speech. I'm all for counter-protesting them, but physical violence and intimidation crosses the line. You can't pick and choose who gets to speak, and who deserves to be assaulted.[/QUOTE] Considering free speech in the US is literally just a protection from the government, not the populace itself, it's still not really suppressing their free speech. If they bounce because people are threatening them, that's their choice to bounce. If they bounce because people have actually started attacking them, it becomes assault. It never will be a "suppression of free speech" until the government get involved in making them shut the everloving fuck up.
[QUOTE=be;44489757]You don't actually believe what you're saying, do you? That's sad. I won't even repeat myself, clearly you guys are allergic to differing opinions, as always. [editline]8th April 2014[/editline] By the way, I do empathize with the people WBC "harasses", but I don't see that as an excuse for violence as you guys seemingly do, but I guess you do because you let emotions cloud your judgment.[/QUOTE] "Let emotion cloud your judgement". Okay buddy, I guess when you're flooded with hormones that cause those emotions, you can just magically snap your finger and "boom" no more sadness or emotional weakness, it's really that easy folks, this guy right here says it is! [editline]8th April 2014[/editline] And no one is justifying violence. No one wants violence against them to happen.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;44490147]Considering free speech in the US is literally just a protection from the government, not the populace itself, it's still not really suppressing their free speech. If they bounce because people are threatening them, that's their choice to bounce. [/QUOTE] So, like, if some gay marriage activists went to the South, got threatened with violence, and were run out of town, that'd be A-OK with you because it's okay to threaten people until they leave in fear for their safety as long as it's not the government doing it? Free speech as a principle goes beyond the letter of the law describing protection against the government. It's not right to threaten violence on someone to force them to shut up, no matter how much you may hate what they're saying.
[QUOTE=be;44489340]Keep the childish insults coming, don't actually attempt to be a reasonable human-being and respect my personal opinion on the matter, that would be ridiculous![/QUOTE] Childish insults? Why didn't you just ignore it?
[QUOTE=catbarf;44490294]So, like, if some gay marriage activists went to the South, got threatened with violence, and were run out of town, that'd be A-OK with you because it's okay to threaten people until they leave in fear for their safety as long as it's not the government doing it? Free speech as a principle goes beyond the letter of the law describing protection against the government. It's not right to threaten violence on someone to force them to shut up, no matter how much you may hate what they're saying.[/QUOTE] And this is where I get fucking annihilated by US posters. (basically unlimited) Free speech is dangerous. Allowing anyone, no matter how hateful their opinion, to voice said opinion on a public platform is dangerous. Yes, yes, "ignore them!" you say. Well, sure I can, because I'm educated enough to be able to see bullshit like anti-gay, racist, etc. opinions that people love to spout. But the general population who aren't educated in these areas? Will they see the awfulness of some opinions? Probably not, if anything it just reaffirms them that they are right. Sure, chasing people out of town isn't a nice thing to be doing. But neither is harassing the families of dead kids, soldiers or what have you. And yeah, in almost every other developed country the actions of the WBC would be harassment. The US is just weird about this shit. They are purposefully targeting groups in moments of weakness, they aren't performing general protests outside of recruitment centres or anything, they are targeting funerals. The only reason they aren't all up in the mourners faces? They legally can't get that close any more, doesn't mean their actions aren't targeted harassment. Stop defending their actions in the name of "free speech!!!", these guys getting shat on won't set a precedent, everybody but the WBC hates the WBC.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;44490364]And this is where I get fucking annihilated by US posters. (basically unlimited) Free speech is dangerous. Allowing anyone, no matter how hateful their opinion, to voice said opinion on a public platform is dangerous. Yes, yes, "ignore them!" you say. Well, sure I can, because I'm educated enough to be able to see bullshit like anti-gay, racist, etc. opinions that people love to spout. But the general population who aren't educated in these areas? Will they see the awfulness of some opinions? Probably not, if anything it just reaffirms them that they are right. Sure, chasing people out of town isn't a nice thing to be doing. But neither is harassing the families of dead kids, soldiers or what have you. And yeah, in almost every other developed country the actions of the WBC would be harassment. The US is just weird about this shit. They are purposefully targeting groups in moments of weakness, they aren't performing general protests outside of recruitment centres or anything, they are targeting funerals. The only reason they aren't all up in the mourners faces? They legally can't get that close any more, doesn't mean their actions aren't targeted harassment. Stop defending their actions in the name of "free speech!!!", these guys getting shat on won't set a precedent, everybody but the WBC hates the WBC.[/QUOTE] What constitutes an "awful" or "dangerous" opinion is completely subjective. For instance, if you're an industry leader, giving workers the right to control production is an extremely dangerous and awful idea. If you're a slaveholder, mobilizing the population against slavery is an extremely awful and threatening idea. If your country is in the middle of a war, peace activism is an extremely dangerous and subversive idea for those in power. And all these ideas, worker's rights, abolitionism, and peace activism got violently suppressed by governments and the angry population at many points in time. Do you agree with that? Let's face it, you think free speech is dangerous in this situation because it's being used to convey a view that's offensive to your ideals, because you need to take away the platform for their speech that's going against social movements you happen to like.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;44490364]And this is where I get fucking annihilated by US posters. (basically unlimited) Free speech is dangerous. Allowing anyone, no matter how hateful their opinion, to voice said opinion on a public platform is dangerous. Yes, yes, "ignore them!" you say. Well, sure I can, because I'm educated enough to be able to see bullshit like anti-gay, racist, etc. opinions that people love to spout. But the general population who aren't educated in these areas? Will they see the awfulness of some opinions? Probably not, if anything it just reaffirms them that they are right. Sure, chasing people out of town isn't a nice thing to be doing. But neither is harassing the families of dead kids, soldiers or what have you. And yeah, in almost every other developed country the actions of the WBC would be harassment. The US is just weird about this shit. They are purposefully targeting groups in moments of weakness, they aren't performing general protests outside of recruitment centres or anything, they are targeting funerals. The only reason they aren't all up in the mourners faces? They legally can't get that close any more, doesn't mean their actions aren't targeted harassment. Stop defending their actions in the name of "free speech!!!", these guys getting shat on won't set a precedent, everybody but the WBC hates the WBC.[/QUOTE] So again, your response is that yes, running people out of town, threatening them with violence, making them think they're going to be harmed, is just fine as long as it's only people saying opinions you [I]really really really[/I] don't like. Does that about cover it? And no, I'm not phrasing it that way to trivialize the anguish these families are suffering. I know that hearing the awful things the WBC says is hard for them, and I really can sympathize. But there is no way you can make any objective measurement to decide what's 'bad enough' to warrant this kind of reaction, no hard metric that can be codified into law, so ultimately if you're saying that this behavior is justified and, more importantly, [I]acceptable[/I] just because it's in response to an opinion you personally really don't like, then you're sanctioning the use of threats of violence to suppress expression of opinion in general. I gave you an example that's deliberately a parallel to this situation because the same exact reasoning could be used to justify an aggressive response, and that's the problem with trying to codify opinion-based limits to speech. Ultimately what you're saying is that a violent reaction can be justified in response to merely offensive speech, and without any way to quantify that it really does open the door for it to be used in circumstances you didn't expect. Case in point, just a few days ago a pair of Marines chased some activists who were flying an American flag upside down as protest. To servicemen, that kind of symbol is [I]extremely[/I] offensive. Who are you to say that the servicemen threatening those activists is objectively wrong, when you're the one saying that a violent response to offensive free speech is acceptable? We're very tolerant regarding free speech because the alternative is a nightmare of governmental enforcement of subjective and highly specific opinions and behaviors and historically it simply hasn't worked out well.
[QUOTE=daschnek;44490526]What constitutes an "awful" or "dangerous" opinion is completely subjective. For instance, if you're an industry leader, giving workers the right to control production is an extremely dangerous and awful idea. If you're a slaveholder, mobilizing the population against slavery is an extremely awful and threatening idea. If your country is in the middle of a war, peace activism is an extremely dangerous and subversive idea for those in power. And all these ideas, worker's rights, abolitionism, and peace activism got violently suppressed by governments and the angry population at many points in time. Do you agree with that? Let's face it, you think free speech is dangerous in this situation because it's being used to convey a view that's offensive to your ideals, because you need to take away the platform for their speech that's going against social movements you happen to like.[/QUOTE] I recognise this is an issue with the ideal for free speech I happen to hold. However, I find it fairly consistent. The second your speech starts to personally attack others through a public platform? (as is the case here) That's pretty unacceptable. Speaking out against the ruling "party" to try and elicit change for an oppressed group? Pretty safe. But as the latter half of my post focuses on, the second your use of "free speech" becomes harassment is when it stops being free speech, and becomes classified as harassing people. The major difference between harassment and using targeted attacks would be down to the subject matter, if you're turning up at funerals, peoples homes, etc. just to insult them and their lifestyle, that would be harassing. If you turn up to their place of work or what have you to speak out about the way their company or they themselves are treating others, that's less harassment more actual constructive protest.
[QUOTE=daschnek;44490526]What constitutes an "awful" or "dangerous" opinion is completely subjective. For instance, if you're an industry leader, giving workers the right to control production is an extremely dangerous and awful idea. If you're a slaveholder, mobilizing the population against slavery is an extremely awful and threatening idea. If your country is in the middle of a war, peace activism is an extremely dangerous and subversive idea for those in power. And all these ideas, worker's rights, abolitionism, and peace activism got violently suppressed by governments and the angry population at many points in time. Do you agree with that? Let's face it, you think free speech is dangerous in this situation because it's being used to convey a view that's offensive to your ideals, because you need to take away the platform for their speech that's going against social movements you happen to like.[/QUOTE] yes, the ability to have peoples rights valued as equal human beings is totally on par with slavery
[QUOTE=catbarf;44490562]So again, your response is that yes, running people out of town, threatening them with violence, making them think they're going to be harmed, is just fine as long as it's only people saying opinions you [I]really really really[/I] don't like. Does that about cover it? And no, I'm not phrasing it that way to trivialize the anguish these families are suffering. I know that hearing the awful things the WBC says is hard for them, and I really can sympathize. But there is no way you can make any objective measurement to decide what's 'bad enough' to warrant this kind of reaction, no hard metric that can be codified into law, so ultimately if you're saying that this behavior is justified and, more importantly, [I]acceptable[/I] just because it's in response to an opinion you personally really don't like, then you're sanctioning the use of threats of violence to suppress expression of opinion in general. I gave you an example that's deliberately a parallel to this situation because the same exact reasoning could be used to justify an aggressive response, and that's the problem with trying to codify opinion-based limits to speech. Ultimately what you're saying is that a violent reaction can be justified in response to merely offensive speech, and without any way to quantify that it really does open the door for it to be used in circumstances you didn't expect. Case in point, just a few days ago a pair of Marines chased some activists who were flying an American flag upside down as protest. To servicemen, that kind of symbol is [I]extremely[/I] offensive. Who are you to say that the servicemen threatening those activists is objectively wrong, when you're the one saying that a violent response to offensive free speech is acceptable? We're very tolerant regarding free speech because the alternative is a nightmare of governmental enforcement of subjective and highly specific opinions and behaviors and historically it simply hasn't worked out well.[/QUOTE] To add to this, I'm quite sure there are plenty of people in this country who do think certain forms of disrespect to the flag should be illegal. I don't exactly want to be putting my right to voice opinions up to people like them. I definitely think it does set a bad precedent to silence speech just because you don't like it. There are plenty out there who would probably attempt to silence anyone they don't like, and I bet there are some opinions on issues out there which are not harmful but are unpopular enough that a lot of people would want to shut them up. I'm not okay with that. Again, hexpunk makes a fair point about harassment, but that's the reason we already do keep them away from funeral services. I'd be far more open to tightening those restrictions to weaken their ability to do anything which could be considered harassing people than silencing opinions entirely just because they're shitty opinions.
[QUOTE=catbarf;44490562]So again, your response is that yes, running people out of town, threatening them with violence, making them think they're going to be harmed, is just fine as long as it's only people saying opinions you [I]really really really[/I] don't like. Does that about cover it? And no, I'm not phrasing it that way to trivialize the anguish these families are suffering. I know that hearing the awful things the WBC says is hard for them, and I really can sympathize. But there is no way you can make any objective measurement to decide what's 'bad enough' to warrant this kind of reaction, no hard metric that can be codified into law, so ultimately if you're saying that this behavior is justified and, more importantly, [I]acceptable[/I] just because it's in response to an opinion you personally really don't like, then you're sanctioning the use of threats of violence to suppress expression of opinion in general. I gave you an example that's deliberately a parallel to this situation because the same exact reasoning could be used to justify an aggressive response, and that's the problem with trying to codify opinion-based limits to speech. Ultimately what you're saying is that a violent reaction can be justified in response to merely offensive speech, and without any way to quantify that it really does open the door for it to be used in circumstances you didn't expect. Case in point, just a few days ago a pair of Marines chased some activists who were flying an American flag upside down as protest. To servicemen, that kind of symbol is [I]extremely[/I] offensive. Who are you to say that the servicemen threatening those activists is objectively wrong, when you're the one saying that a violent response to offensive free speech is acceptable? We're very tolerant regarding free speech because the alternative is a nightmare of governmental enforcement of subjective and highly specific opinions and behaviours and historically it simply hasn't worked out well.[/QUOTE] If you read the post fully, you'd notice I said it's not a great thing to be chasing people out of town for exercising their ability to speak freely. I did read through that news article about the Marines (it's a good example to be honest). And personally, I see what they did as unjust. The protesters weren't targeting the Marines with the intent to annoy them or anything from what I can gather, the Marines involved just happen to find that use of the flag offensive. Chasing them and taking the flag isn't exactly the right action in that scenario. However, as the WBC are picking and choosing targets, and "protesting" the funerals of these targets by doing nothing but directly insulting the targeted group, they [B]are[/B] going out of their way to offend and harass another group (and we know they do this, they basically earn their income off it after all) it seems a lot more reasonable to chase them away. It's less to do with the opinion, more to do with the execution of spreading said opinion. If someone wants to talk all day about how gay people shouldn't marry, fine, as long as they don't start targeting groups, following them around and being deliberately confrontational (such as the WBC). This applies to any and all groups, if you start actually going out of your way to be an asshole about your use of free speech, you're clearly not capable of using it responsibly in that situation. [editline]8th April 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;44490693]Again, hexpunk makes a fair point about harassment, but that's the reason we already do keep them away from funeral services. I'd be far more open to tightening those restrictions to weaken their ability to do anything which could be considered harassing people than silencing opinions entirely just because they're shitty opinions.[/QUOTE] I'm not really calling for a silencing of the WBC (though it would be pretty nice to stop hearing about them all the fucking time). More a method of being able to actually deal with them. Stopping them from doing what they do at all, forcing them to protest like normal human beings and not the "bleep-bloop what are emotions" hatebots they seem to be right now.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;44490709]However, as the WBC are picking and choosing targets, and "protesting" the funerals of these targets by doing nothing but directly insulting the targeted group, they [B]are[/B] going out of their way to offend and harass another group (and we know they do this, they basically earn their income off it after all) it seems a lot more reasonable to chase them away. It's less to do with the opinion, more to do with the execution of spreading said opinion. If someone wants to talk all day about how gay people shouldn't marry, fine, as long as they don't start targeting groups, following them around and being deliberately confrontational (such as the WBC). This applies to any and all groups, if you start actually going out of your way to be an asshole about your use of free speech, you're clearly not capable of using it responsibly in that situation.[/QUOTE] I think this is a much clearer and better statement of what you mean, then. There is some precedent related to that in US law. Hate speech is not disallowed just from the [I]content[/I] of the opinions, but it is disallowed when that speech is meant to incite imminent violence. [QUOTE=hexpunK;44490709]I'm not really calling for a silencing of the WBC (though it would be pretty nice to stop hearing about them all the fucking time). More a method of being able to actually deal with them. Stopping them from doing what they do at all, forcing them to protest like normal human beings and not the "bleep-bloop what are emotions" hatebots they seem to be right now.[/QUOTE] I get what you're saying in light of your last post. See above.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;44490745]I think this is a much clearer and better statement of what you mean, then. There is some precedent related to that in US law. Hate speech is not disallowed just from the [I]content[/I] of the opinions, but it is disallowed when that speech is meant to incite imminent violence. I get what you're saying in light of your last post. See above.[/QUOTE] Yeah, turns out I'm really shit at wording things every other post haha :v: But that does sound like what I was attempting to get across in the first trainwreck of a post.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;44490624]I recognise this is an issue with the ideal for free speech I happen to hold. However, I find it fairly consistent. The second your speech starts to personally attack others through a public platform? (as is the case here) That's pretty unacceptable. Speaking out against the ruling "party" to try and elicit change for an oppressed group? Pretty safe. But as the latter half of my post focuses on, the second your use of "free speech" becomes harassment is when it stops being free speech, and becomes classified as harassing people. The major difference between harassment and using targeted attacks would be down to the subject matter, if you're turning up at funerals, peoples homes, etc. just to insult them and their lifestyle, that would be harassing. If you turn up to their place of work or what have you to speak out about the way their company or they themselves are treating others, that's less harassment more actual constructive protest.[/QUOTE] And what if speech in protest of a given issue is perceived as a personal attack? Is any attack on what someone does or says constitute libel? How is a legislature, or even a single person of average intelligence, supposed to draw this line? Your argument ultimately relies on "well, if that protest makes me feel harassed, then it needs to be illegal". It relies on limiting people's rights based on feelings alone. This is the whole reason why Snyder v. Phelps was such an important case.
[QUOTE=daschnek;44490848]And what if speech in protest of a given issue is perceived as a personal attack? Is any attack on what someone does or says constitute libel? How is a legislature, or even a single person of average intelligence, supposed to draw this line? Your argument ultimately relies on "well, if that protest makes me feel harassed, then it needs to be illegal". It relies on limiting people's rights based on feelings alone. This is the whole reason why Snyder v. Phelps was such an important case.[/QUOTE] It shouldn't be too hard to distinguish between who is actually using their right to speak freely to protest something meaningful, and who isn't. In cases like this it's pretty clear cut that the WBC go out of their way to aggravate, harass and generally emotionally bully people, as they only seem to go for people at funerals, a time of heightened emotion and distress. That's clearly just being a fucking asshole for no real reason. Sure, it'd be hard to have one overarching law to handle every situation, as they are normally pretty case by case, however some are clearly just harassment.
[QUOTE=Explosions;44480892]No it's not. [B] The government doesn't define things as "hate groups." Way to pull that out of your ass.[/B][/QUOTE] i am just going to enjoy another slam dunk on you. [quote]In the US, two main organizations that monitor intolerance and hate groups are the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and the SPLC. [I][B]Hate groups are also tracked by the FBI.[/B][/I][/quote] and [quote]The FBI does not publish a list of hate groups, and "[I]nvestigations are conducted only when a threat or advocacy of force is made; when the group has the apparent ability to carry out the proclaimed act; and when the act would constitute a potential violation of federal law."[/quote] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_group[/url]
[QUOTE=SexualShark;44491374] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_group[/url][/QUOTE] Just gonna add onto this. [quote]The Southern Poverty Law Center has designated several Christian groups as hate groups, including the American Family Association, the Family Research Council, Abiding Truth Ministries, American Vision, the Chalcedon Foundation, the Dove World Outreach Center the Traditional Values Coalition, and now [b]the Westboro Baptist Church.[/b][/quote]
[QUOTE=SexualShark;44491374]i am just going to enjoy another slam dunk on you. and [URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_group[/URL][/QUOTE] You just cited internal FBI operational classification, procedural information for just one agency, as an example of the federal government publicly declaring a group to be a hate group. And it's not, the FBI could label the WBC a ham sandwich and it wouldn't change how public law operates. [QUOTE=Dukov Traboski;44491406]Just gonna add onto this.[/QUOTE] And the Southern Poverty Law Center is a nonprofit activist organization and has nothing whatsoever to do with the government. Could you both try comprehending what you're reading before going for zingers, please?
[QUOTE=SexualShark;44491374]i am just going to enjoy another slam dunk on you. and [URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_group[/URL][/QUOTE] Are you serious dude? Actually follow the citation on Wikipedia next time. It goes straight to the FBI website and states that they don't in fact, have a list of "hate groups." They have a list of domestic terrorist organizations who have actually conducted or threatened to conduct violent acts. What a slam dunk.
[QUOTE=Explosions;44493381]Are you serious dude? Actually follow the citation on Wikipedia next time. It goes straight to the FBI website and states that they don't in fact, have a list of "hate groups." They have a list of domestic terrorist organizations who have actually conducted or threatened to conduct violent acts. What a slam dunk.[/QUOTE] I love how much you love to thread shit. If anyone wants his full history of marvelous posting habits, feel free to check his event tab.
[QUOTE=SexualShark;44493489]I love how much you love to thread shit. If anyone wants his full history of marvelous posting habits, feel free to check his event tab.[/QUOTE] Your event tab looks just as bad. And if you can't actually debate his point of view, you should simply refrain from replying instead of resorting to an ad hominem attack.
Alright so this might have been mentioned already but when the leader of WBC died, did anyone picket his funeral? I thought that would have been great irony. And I always say these people as the ultimate trolls. They go in somewhere, be fucking assholes, and when people hit them, throw shit at them, or threaten them, they just leave and try to sue everyone. Makes sense when you think about it but it doesn't make them any less of assholes.
[QUOTE=Rainhorror;44493784]Alright so this might have been mentioned already but when the leader of WBC died, did anyone picket his funeral? I thought that would have been great irony. And I always say these people as the ultimate trolls. They go in somewhere, be fucking assholes, and when people hit them, throw shit at them, or threaten them, they just leave and try to sue everyone. Makes sense when you think about it but it doesn't make them any less of assholes.[/QUOTE] Actually, they got a lot of "protests" in the form of people coming up to them and saying "sorry for your loss", IIRC. Honestly, a much better way to show them how douchey they are than simply just doing what they do. It doesn't seem like the message sunk in, though.
explosions is everything bad about america in one autistic person
[QUOTE=Rainhorror;44493784]Alright so this might have been mentioned already but when the leader of WBC died, did anyone picket his funeral? I thought that would have been great irony. And I always say these people as the ultimate trolls. They go in somewhere, be fucking assholes, and when people hit them, throw shit at them, or threaten them, they just leave and try to sue everyone. Makes sense when you think about it but it doesn't make them any less of assholes.[/QUOTE] According to their website, they didn't hold a funeral for him. They "don't worship the dead".
[QUOTE=Explosions;44480701]Who cares about free speech right?[/QUOTE] You are one of the worst posters that I have seen.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.