Westboro Baptist Church to picket Fast & Furious star Paul Walker's funeral - Polidicks

If Westburo Baptist Church could go back in time and picket the funerals of all major generals of the Civil War, they probably would. On both sides. [editline]5th December 2013[/editline] There'd be like "GOD HATES LINCOLN" on one sign and "GOD HATES THE REBELS" on the other.

[QUOTE=frozensoda;43074876]You know, I would fight and die for the basic human right guaranteed by the 1st amendment, but even I think there should be some system in place in the courts to deny it for people like this. They shouldn't be allowed to spread this hate. I really wish that the courts could get them all on child abuse because they have a bunch of kids at their compound. I can't imagine how life must be for them. Explosions, could you clarify which part of this post is dumb please?[/QUOTE] The part where you say you would "fight and die for the basic human right guaranteed by the 1st amendment" and then, in the same sentence, flout that statement by saying the WBC should be denied this right.

[QUOTE=frozensoda;43074876]You know, I would fight and die for the basic human right guaranteed by the 1st amendment, but even I think there should be some system in place in the courts to deny it for people like this. They shouldn't be allowed to spread this hate. I really wish that the courts could get them all on child abuse because they have a bunch of kids at their compound. I can't imagine how life must be for them. Explosions, could you clarify which part of this post is dumb please?[/QUOTE] So you want freedom of speech, but you want it to be exclusive to things you agree with, and the people you disagree with aren't allowed to say what they want or protest what they believe in? Yeah thats not how freedom of speech works bud; The whole point of the 1st amendment is to protect people like like the WBC. It lets the minority have a voice, no matter how stupid or wrong you think they are. If the way you want the 1st amendment to work been enacted when it was first put up, we might still have slaves, women would probably still not have the right to vote, blacks would still be using separate schools and bathrooms, and the Vietnam war may have continued for even longer. The quote goes "I don't agree with what you have to say, but I'll die defending your right to say it" not "I don't agree with what you say and until you start saying things I like, I won't defend your right to free speech". [editline]5th December 2013[/editline] Freedom of speech is not exclusive or selective, its 100% universal. Anything else is censorship.

[QUOTE=Explosions;43075586]The part where you say you would "fight and die for the basic human right guaranteed by the 1st amendment" and then, in the same sentence, flout that statement by saying the WBC should be denied this right.[/QUOTE] Yeah that was the whole point of the post, that I would literally fight and die for the right, but there are certain cases IMO where the speech is so damaging that it should be stopped. Don't get me wrong, I couldn't care about your rating or what you think any less if I sat down and tried, I was just wondering what your motives were. [editline]5th December 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;43075691]So you want freedom of speech, but you want it to be exclusive to things you agree with, and the people you disagree with aren't allowed to say what they want or protest what they believe in? Yeah thats not how freedom of speech works bud; The whole point of the 1st amendment is to protect people like like the WBC. It lets the minority have a voice, no matter how stupid or wrong you think they are. If the way you want the 1st amendment to work been enacted when it was first put up, we might still have slaves, women would probably still not have the right to vote, blacks would still be using separate schools and bathrooms, and the Vietnam war may have continued for even longer. The quote goes "I don't agree with what you have to say, but I'll die defending your right to say it" not "I don't agree with what you say and until you start saying things I like, I won't defend your right to free speech". [editline]5th December 2013[/editline] Freedom of speech is not exclusive or selective, its 100% universal. Anything else is censorship.[/QUOTE] It's not about me agreeing or not agreeing, it's about the speech itself actually causing damage to the freedom of others. For example, when they picket a soldiers funeral, they are causing psychological damage to the family of that soldier, not just exercising their free speech they are harming other people.

[QUOTE=frozensoda;43075707]Yeah that was the whole point of the post, that I would literally fight and die for the right, but there are certain cases IMO where the speech is so damaging that it should be stopped. [editline]5th December 2013[/editline] It's not about me agreeing or not agreeing, it's about the speech itself actually causing damage to the freedom of others.[/QUOTE] It literally is not causing any physical harm what so ever. Them saying mean things is not infringing on anyone's rights and it's not preventing them from practicing their beliefs. You literally have no idea how the 1st amendment works or why its in place.

[QUOTE=frozensoda;43075707]Yeah that was the whole point of the post, that I would literally fight and die for the right, but there are certain cases IMO where the speech is so damaging that it should be stopped. [editline]5th December 2013[/editline] It's not about me agreeing or not agreeing, it's about the speech itself actually causing damage to the freedom of others.[/QUOTE] You're not making any sense. You don't understand what rights are or what freedom of speech means.

[QUOTE=frozensoda;43075707] For example, when they picket a soldiers funeral, they are causing psychological damage to the family of that soldier, not just exercising their free speech they are harming other people.[/QUOTE] lol, what a load of bullshit

Lol Trunk Monkay is just typing my posts for me.

[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;43075736]lol, what a load of bullshit[/QUOTE] Are you a family member to a solider who's funeral was picketed by them? No? then what is your precedent for saying this? IMHO there are certain cases where the court should be allowed to say "no you can't do that"

[QUOTE=frozensoda;43075750]Are you a family member to a solider who's funeral was picketed by them? No? then what is your precedent for saying this?[/QUOTE] Nope, but I'm smart enough to know that it's not going to cause severe psychological damage because a family member was saddened by reading a few nasty signs and hearing some cruel words, if they're set off by that then they probably weren't stable to begin with. Have you ever had a family member die and then have the funeral picketed? What type of psychological damage did you and your loved ones suffer? Are you on any sort of medication for it and did you sue the ones that caused the damage? The way things are now, the WBC isn't allowed to picket military funerals within a few hundred yards, and dozens of people always come out to form human chains around the procession along with the "patriot guard" to come out and rev their engines in front of the protesters.

[QUOTE=frozensoda;43075750]Are you a family member to a solider who's funeral was picketed by them? No? then what is your precedent for saying this?[/QUOTE] The concept of "psychological damage" being a reason to deny free speech is ludicrous. It can be used for any other example ever. Fox News criticizes "free loaders," and my family receives food stamps. Their comments were "psychologically damaging," ban them! Communists rally and call bankers the scum of the earth. My father is a banker and their comments "psychologically damaged" me. Ban the communists! Anti-war protestors criticize soldiers returning home for alleged atrocities. The soldiers are "psychologically damaged," stop the protests!

[QUOTE=Explosions;43075777]The concept of "psychological damage" being a reason to deny free speech is ludicrous. It can be used for any other example ever. Fox News criticizes "free loaders," and my family receives food stamps. Their comments were "psychologically damaging," ban them! Communists rally and call bankers the scum of the earth. My father is a banker and their comments "psychologically damaged" me. Ban the communists! Anti-war protestors criticize soldiers returning home for alleged atrocities. The soldiers are "psychologically damaged," stop the protests![/QUOTE] I can make shit up too, I didn't say any of that nor did I imply it. Courts are made of these things call people who have this thing called judgement, something you clearly don't understand.

[QUOTE=frozensoda;43075750] IMHO there are certain cases where the court should be allowed to say "no you can't do that" not that I would expect people of your caliber to understand.[/QUOTE] No there absolutely should not be any sort of case like that. If they're going to say no to that now, what are they going to say no to in the future. What if some state with a bigoted legislature prevents a civil rights movement from forming because they don't like the idea? What if the courts ban all anti-war protests if the US invades a country and starts a war nobody wanted. Also I dig that ninja edit, thats very nice of you to devolve to insults cause you don't understand what you're arguing about.

whats their reasoning this time? paul walker isn't gay and i can't think of anything that would mean he leads a life of sin. is being an actor a sin? i dont get it

[QUOTE=frozensoda;43075794]I can make shit up too, I didn't say any of that nor did I imply it. Courts are made of these things call people who have this thing called judgement, something you clearly don't understand.[/QUOTE] lol, if saying mean (or in actuality, things that YOU don't agree with) things caused psychological damage, then millions would have been in the hospital during the civil rights movement and during women's suffrage movement. [editline]5th December 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Rusty100;43075805]whats their reasoning this time? paul walker isn't gay and i can't think of anything that would mean he leads a life of sin. is being an actor a sin? i dont get it[/QUOTE] to remind everyone the WBC still exists, so they can still make money.

I think it's a false idol thing.

[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;43075797]No there absolutely should not be any sort of case like that. If they're going to say no to that now, what are they going to say no to in the future. What if some state with a bigoted legislature prevents a civil rights movement from forming because they don't like the idea? What if the courts ban all anti-war protests if the US invades a country and starts a war nobody wanted. Also I dig that ninja edit, thats very nice of you to devolve to insults cause you don't understand what you're arguing about.[/QUOTE] Does that seem reasonable to you? I'm talking about extreme cases like the WBC, not some racist politician, but hey, you go ahead and think what you want. I will continue to fight the good fight, you continue to support free speech, even if it causes harm to others. If you don't believe that seeing some signs that say your father is going to hell because he fought and died for this country can cause psychological damage, then this conversation is pointless, and you are hopeless. It doesn't matter if I agree or not what they are doing is objectively wrong to every reasonable person on the planet and it shouldn't be allowed period.

[QUOTE=frozensoda;43075816]Does that seem reasonable to you? I'm talking about extreme cases like the WBC, not some racist politician, but hey, you go ahead and think what you want. I will continue to fight the good fight, you continue to support free speech, even if it causes harm to others.[/QUOTE] The WBC is not an extreme case, theres been much more extreme cases in the past that were allowed through, and the WBC is not harming anybody because people disagree with them or take offense to what they say. If you genuinely believe the things they say and believe are causing harm to others, you seriously need to grow up. [editline]5th December 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=frozensoda;43075816] If you don't believe that seeing some signs that say your father is going to hell because he fought and died for this country can cause psychological damage, then this conversation is pointless, and you are hopeless.[/QUOTE] If you don't see the complete lack of logic in censorship, then you're hopeless bud. [editline]5th December 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=frozensoda;43075816] It doesn't matter if I agree or not what they are doing is objectively wrong to every reasonable person on the planet and it shouldn't be allowed period.[/QUOTE] Yeah no shit what they're doing is dumb, mean, cruel, ass hole-ish, and they shouldn't be doing it. But is it harming anyone? Nope. Are they damaging anything? Nope. So should the government censor them? [b]Nope[/b]

[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;43075825]The WBC is not an extreme case, theres been much more extreme cases in the past that were allowed through, and the WBC is not harming anybody because people disagree with them or take offense to what they say. If you genuinely believe the things they say and believe are causing harm to others, you seriously need to grow up. [editline]5th December 2013[/editline] If you don't see the complete lack of logic in censorship, then you're hopeless bud. [editline]5th December 2013[/editline] Yeah no shit what they're doing is dumb, mean, cruel, ass hole-ish, and they shouldn't be doing it. [B]But is it harming anyone? Nope.[/B] Are they damaging anything? Nope. So should the government censor them? [b]Nope[/b][/QUOTE] I disagree

[QUOTE=frozensoda;43075835]I disagree[/QUOTE] Doesn't make you any less wrong ;) [editline]5th December 2013[/editline] If you don't see the flawed logic in non-universal freedom of speech and protest, check out some dictatorships like the Soviet Union or Fascist Germany.

[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;43075843]Doesn't make you any less wrong ;) .[/QUOTE] in your opinion, which is also subjectively wrong.

[QUOTE=frozensoda;43075851]in your opinion, which is also subjectively wrong.[/QUOTE] Find me a documented case where a person was hospitalized or was successfully able to sue the WBC due to any sort of physical harm. I'll even widen the search for you, find me a case where a person was hospitalized because they heard a different opinion or were offended.

[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;43075858]Find me a documented case where a person was hospitalized or was successfully able to sue the WBC due to any sort of physical harm. I'll even widen the search for you, find me a case where a person was hospitalized because they heard a different opinion or were offended.[/QUOTE] Offended is not my point, psychological damage is, which is hard to prove and even harder to sue for. Seems you only think physical harm is wrong, which is retarded. btw, i'm leaving now.

rip westboro at that funeral

[QUOTE=frozensoda;43075794]I can make shit up too, I didn't say any of that nor did I imply it. Courts are made of these things call people who have this thing called judgement, something you clearly don't understand.[/QUOTE] What? What are you even saying? Here, answer this hypothetical for me please: my father is a banker. A communist group rallys outside the bank, waving signs with insulting and degrading pictures and phrases that demean the bank as an institution and call bankers evil, scum, etc. Now, can I say that I'm psychologically damaged? What about my banker father? Is he damaged? Please answer these questions, and if you say no, explain how it is different from the WBC case.

[QUOTE=frozensoda;43075868]Offended is not my point, psychological damage is, which is hard to prove and even harder to sue for. [/QUOTE] Mostly because it doesn't happen. gg

If my life ever went to shit so much I consider killing myself, I am gonna set the Westboro Baptist Church as my last goal to defeat.

-snip-

There are a lot of disgusting comments in this thread btw. Lots of people actively wishing death on the WBC because they say mean things.

[QUOTE=Explosions;43075963]There are a lot of disgusting comments in this thread btw. Lots of people actively wishing death on the WBC because they say mean things.[/QUOTE] Eh, the people are literally a negative overall impact on everyone around them. Personally wouldn't mind seeing em off.