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

Why am I not surprised? Hopefully we'll see Vin Diesel be badass and stand up against them.

[QUOTE=SuddenImpact;43075921]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.[/QUOTE] "Here lies SuddenImpact Got trolled so hard he actually tried to hurt the WBC"

I'm glad those bastards aren't allowed to set foot here in Canada.

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTH74Nrbsu8&feature=player_embedded[/media] can't wait to see one of these unloaded on a WBC member

[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] If they actually [b]believed[/b] all that retarded bullshit they spew, we could just cross them off as insane bible thumpers and laugh at their stupidity. But everyone knows that even the WBC themselves are not buying their own bullshit. They deliberately piss off the grieving friends and family of dead people for one reason, and one reason only: [b]TO MAKE MONEY[/b]. And that is just... fucking disgusting.

[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] You do realize those are all things Freedom of Speech hating Europe had fixed loong before the USA did, right? [editline]5th December 2013[/editline] [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] Most countries with restrictions on freedom of speech have very clearly laid out laws about the restrictions, and most begin and end with hate speech. I really do not see how anyone would benefit from allowing people to incite hatred against a fellow human being. You're all so afraid of a slippery slope. So distrusting of your government. Perhaps, maybe, the reason you all love protecting your absolute free speech so much is because your system of government is flawed and subject to abuse to such a degree that none of you trust it to not take every chance it can get to restrict your precious freedoms more than neccesary?

[QUOTE=DudesonFan;43077684]If they actually [b]believed[/b] all that retarded bullshit they spew, we could just cross them off as insane bible thumpers and laugh at their stupidity. But everyone knows that even the WBC themselves are not buying their own bullshit. They deliberately piss off the grieving friends and family of dead people for one reason, and one reason only: [b]TO MAKE MONEY[/b]. And that is just... fucking disgusting.[/QUOTE] Completely and utterly false. This is a cop out response designed to make the WBC seem illegitimate, so you don't have to face the tough issue of free speech. It's easier to say "they're just scam artists, why would you allow them to continue scamming people?" Please show me one example of how they make money from this. Please give me evidence of how they do it. [QUOTE=mobrockers;43077971]You do realize those are all things Freedom of Speech hating Europe had fixed loong before the USA did, right?[/quote] What does this have to do with anything? [quote]Most countries with restrictions on freedom of speech have very clearly laid out laws about the restrictions, and most begin and end with hate speech. I really do not see how anyone would benefit from allowing people to incite hatred against a fellow human being. You're all so afraid of a slippery slope. So distrusting of your government. Perhaps, maybe, the reason you all love protecting your absolute free speech so much is because your system of government is flawed and subject to abuse to such a degree that none of you trust it to not take every chance it can get to restrict your precious freedoms more than neccesary?[/QUOTE] Why do you need to cite the benefits of your speech/expression in order for you to proclaim it? By your logic, people have to explain why what they say is necessary, otherwise it should be banned. I'm not afraid of a slippery slope (though I will always fight against the decline of free speech if that ever starts happening in the U.S.). I am defending the WBCs right to say what they want. That's what free speech entails. You get to say what you want and how you want it and if people are offended, too bad. I'd still like someone to answer my question about the hypothetical communist protest outside a bank. Why would that be allowed while the WBCs protest is not?

Hate speech and free speech should be considered 2 different things, this is hate speech and should fuck right off.

[QUOTE=Rankzerox;43078244]Hate speech and free speech should be considered 2 different things, this is hate speech and should fuck right off.[/QUOTE] Who are you to determine what is hate speech?

[QUOTE=Explosions;43078273]Who are you to determine what is hate speech?[/QUOTE] If some motherfuckers picketed my loved ones funeral because he was "a faggot" and spewed they're ignorant bullshit or whatever, I'd see it as hate speech.

[QUOTE=Explosions;43078273]Who are you to determine what is hate speech?[/QUOTE] Its called common sense, dude.

[QUOTE=Squad1993;43078319]If some motherfuckers picketed my loved ones funeral because he was "a faggot" and spewed they're ignorant bullshit or whatever, I'd see it as hate speech.[/QUOTE] If communists picket outside the bank my family member works at and say that they're evil and scum then I'd see it as hate speech. I already said this 3-4 times in this thread and it hasn't been addressed. [editline]5th December 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Rankzerox;43078329]Its called common sense, dude.[/QUOTE] uh hu hu hu got me man Pretend I'm a simpleton. Explain to me the criteria of hate speech.

[QUOTE=Trogdon;43067328]They do this on purpose to stir up shit[/QUOTE] And people on sites like Facepunch and reddit eat this shit up. If it wasn't for social media the WBC wouldn't even exist because none of their antics would get publicity. Even the mainstream media has distanced themselves from the group. The only coverage you see is clickbaiting sites that cater to social media.

[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] good thing we have the freedom of speech to say nasty things about them huh

[QUOTE=Blind Lulu;43078378]I'm pretty sure hate speech is determined as something that can cause imminent danger in the US. I'm not exactly an expert on whether or not what WBC preaches can be considered hate speech (they preach that people deserve to die but never actually call out for people to be killed), but regardless of whether or not it's hate speech I don't believe people should be allowed to protest funerals like this.[/QUOTE] Yeah, this. May not fall under the government definition of hate speech but it definitely entices a similar reaction. Like I said before, if someone said super offensive things at a funeral or mourning, I'd be fucking furious and want to bash some heads in.

[QUOTE=Blind Lulu;43078378]I'm pretty sure hate speech is determined as something that can cause imminent danger in the US. I'm not exactly an expert on whether or not what WBC preaches can be considered hate speech (they preach that people deserve to die but never actually call out for people to be killed), but regardless of whether or not it's hate speech I don't believe people should be allowed to protest funerals like this.[/QUOTE] There's no such thing as "hate speech" in the U.S. There are "fighting words" laws that apply to personal interactions. Public demonstrations are not held to the same standards however, and are allotted more protections from the government.

[QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;43078408]good thing we have the freedom of speech to say nasty things about them huh[/QUOTE] Yes

[QUOTE=Explosions;43078347]If communists picket outside the bank my family member works at and say that they're evil and scum then I'd see it as hate speech. I already said this 3-4 times in this thread and it hasn't been addressed. [editline]5th December 2013[/editline] uh hu hu hu got me man Pretend I'm a simpleton. Explain to me the criteria of hate speech.[/QUOTE] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech[/url] Try most of the countries listed here that forbid hate speech, it'll give you a good idea of what we mean.

[QUOTE=Explosions;43078228]Completely and utterly false. This is a cop out response designed to make the WBC seem illegitimate, so you don't have to face the tough issue of free speech. It's easier to say "they're just scam artists, why would you allow them to continue scamming people?" Please show me one example of how they make money from this. Please give me evidence of how they do it.[/QUOTE] Allllrighty then: Let's say a US soldier is killed in action. The WBC asshats obviously show up to his funeral to insult the soldier and his relatives. The soldier's brother loses his cool, punches a motherfucker and the WBC lawyers instantly sue his ass off. inb4 "butbutbutbutbutbut i need a example of these wonderful free speech-exercising people actually suing one of those animals who attacked an innocent protester" Not too many people dare to actually physically assault them, because they know that the slimy-ass legal team will make the rest of your life a living hell the second you lay a finger on one of their "people".

[QUOTE=mobrockers;43078439][url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech[/url] Try most of the countries listed here that forbid hate speech, it'll give you a good idea of what we mean.[/QUOTE] Not going to do that. If you're too lazy to explain yourself that you have to post a Wikipedia article and tell me to read it, then I'll assume you yourself don't understand the topic at hand. I'll indulge you and read the intro section, though. [quote]Hate speech is, outside the law, communication that vilifies a person or a group based on discrimination against that person or group.[/quote] Right off the bat and we already have problems. I'll use a different example this time, since nobody was able to respond to my banker protest scenario. Soldiers returning home from combat face protests at the airport and are shouted at and insulted by anti-war protesters. The protesters say that the soldiers are war criminals/baby killers/murderers/etc. Now, tell me that this doesn't fit that Wikipedia definition. It seems to fit perfectly. The soldiers are being vilified and discriminated against by the protesters. So you agree that the anti-war protest should be banned in that case, correct? [editline]5th December 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=DudesonFan;43078467]Allllrighty then: Let's say a US soldier is killed in action. The WBC asshats obviously show up to his funeral to insult the soldier and his relatives. The soldier's brother loses his cool, punches a motherfucker and the WBC lawyers instantly sue his ass off. inb4 "butbutbutbutbutbut i need a example of these wonderful free speech-exercising people actually suing one of those animals who attacked an innocent protester" Not too many people dare to actually physically assault them, because they know that the slimy-ass legal team will make the rest of your life a living hell the second you lay a finger on one of their "people".[/QUOTE] So the WBC exists to provoke people into attacking them, yet "not too many people actually physically assault them." So how are they a scam to make money, then? The entire point of me asking was for you to show actual evidence of this supposed scamming.

Shit I got charged with Disorderly Conduct for making a joke about school shootings(Dickish? Yeah. Legal? I thought.) The least they can do is charge WBC with disorderly conduct and disturbing the peace. They practically shit on fallen soldiers and dead celebrities.

[QUOTE=Explosions;43078485]Not going to do that. If you're too lazy to explain yourself that you have to post a Wikipedia article and tell me to read it, then I'll assume you yourself don't understand the topic at hand. I'll indulge you and read the intro section, though. Right off the bat and we already have problems. I'll use a different example this time, since nobody was able to respond to my banker protest scenario. Soldiers returning home from combat face protests at the airport and are shouted at and insulted by anti-war protesters. The protesters say that the soldiers are war criminals/baby killers/murderers/etc. Now, tell me that this doesn't fit that Wikipedia definition. It seems to fit perfectly. The soldiers are being vilified and discriminated against by the protesters. So you agree that the anti-war protest should be banned in that case, correct?[/QUOTE] Yes actually. Because my loony Senior year religion teacher was one of those people that went to DC and protested the Iraq war in 2003. Long story short, he got naked in front of the police and was then arrested alongside roughly 100 others for doing the same. Yes he still teaches.

[QUOTE=DudesonFan;43078467]Allllrighty then: Let's say a US soldier is killed in action. The WBC asshats obviously show up to his funeral to insult the soldier and his relatives. The soldier's brother loses his cool, punches a motherfucker and the WBC lawyers instantly sue his ass off. inb4 "butbutbutbutbutbut i need a example of these wonderful free speech-exercising people suing one of those animals who attacked an innocent protester" Not too many people dare to actually physically assault them, because they know that the slimy-ass legal team will make the rest of your life a living hell the second you lay a finger on one of their "people".[/QUOTE] Please don't use examples like that, it's not a very good reason for hate speech to be illegal. The victims reaction has nothing to do with it. The reason I believe hate speech should be illegal is because hatred fuels hatred. And hatred fuels violence. Look at the violence against homosexuals, do you really think groups such as the WBC have nothing to do with that? Do you really believe their rallying and their hate speech, has nothing at all to do with the hatred, mental and physical violence against homosexuals? There is no imminent danger, they're not saying 'let's beat up this specific gay person'. They're saying all gay people are evil and deserve to die. There is no imminent danger here, it's not a specific person, but someone is going to hear that, and hurt gay people.

[QUOTE=mobrockers;43078527]Please don't use examples like that, it's not a very good reason for hate speech to be illegal. The victims reaction has nothing to do with it. The reason I believe hate speech should be illegal is because hatred fuels hatred. And hatred fuels violence. Look at the violence against homosexuals, do you really think groups such as the WBC have nothing to do with that? Do you really believe their rallying and their hate speech, has nothing at all to do with the hatred, mental and physical violence against homosexuals? There is no imminent danger, they're not saying 'let's beat up this specific gay person'. They're saying all gay people are evil and deserve to die. There is no imminent danger here, it's not a specific person, but someone is going to hear that, and hurt gay people.[/QUOTE] Lol talk about a slippery slope. [editline]5th December 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Squad1993;43078526]Yes actually. Because my loony Senior year religion teacher was one of those people that went to DC and protested the Iraq war in 2003. Long story short, he got naked in front of the police and was then arrested alongside roughly 100 others for doing the same. Yes he still teaches.[/QUOTE] I don't understand at all what you're saying. This post didn't answer my question in the slightest.

[QUOTE=Explosions;43078485]Not going to do that. If you're too lazy to explain yourself that you have to post a Wikipedia article and tell me to read it, then I'll assume you yourself don't understand the topic at hand. I'll indulge you and read the intro section, though. Right off the bat and we already have problems. I'll use a different example this time, since nobody was able to respond to my banker protest scenario. Soldiers returning home from combat face protests at the airport and are shouted at and insulted by anti-war protesters. The protesters say that the soldiers are war criminals/baby killers/murderers/etc. Now, tell me that this doesn't fit that Wikipedia definition. It seems to fit perfectly. The soldiers are being vilified and discriminated against by the protesters. So you agree that the anti-war protest should be banned in that case, correct? [editline]5th December 2013[/editline] So the WBC exists to provoke people into attacking them, yet "not too many people actually physically assault them." So how are they a scam to make money, then? The entire point of me asking was for you to show actual evidence of this supposed scamming.[/QUOTE] The moment a group or person says military people are evil and deserve to die, I consider that hate speech yes. Protesting a war because you disagree with it? Fine. Telling people soldiers partaking in the war deserve to be shot? Not fine. Same with WBC really, except that they go to funerals which I think should have their own anti-rallying laws separate from hate speech. You just shouldn't be allowed to organize a rally or protest against anything at a funeral, no matter how peaceful. Not what a funeral is for. [editline]5th December 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Explosions;43078547]Lol talk about a slippery slope. [editline]5th December 2013[/editline] I don't understand at all what you're saying. This post didn't answer my question in the slightest.[/QUOTE] How is that a slippery slope? Hatred causes violence, hate speech causes hatred, there is no reason to incite hatred at a protest.

[QUOTE=mobrockers;43078573]The moment a group or person says military people are evil and deserve to die, I consider that hate speech yes. Protesting a war because you disagree with it? Fine. Telling people soldiers partaking in the war deserve to be shot? Not fine.[/quote] You just outlawed at very large portion of anti-war protest and sentiment. [quote]Same with WBC really, except that they go to funerals which I think should have their own anti-rallying laws separate from hate speech. You just shouldn't be allowed to organize a rally or protest against anything at a funeral, no matter how peaceful. Not what a funeral is for.[/QUOTE] I've never heard a case where they were allowed on the cemetery grounds to protest. They usually gather on the sidewalk or across the street, in public spaces. How can you legislate that? More importantly, why do cemeteries get special protection while workplaces, for instance, do not? Why should the Occupy movement be allowed to constantly harass bankers and stock traders outside their workplaces? A funeral lasts only a few hours. The Occupy protests lasted for months. Why is that type of speech allowed but not at funerals? You're constantly making special provisions for the WBC just because they're particularly nasty. That's not how freedom of speech works at all. But you've already shown that you really don't care for free speech anyway, so that's kind of irrelevant.

[QUOTE=Explosions;43078485]So the WBC exists to provoke people into attacking them, yet "not too many people actually physically assault them." So how are they a scam to make money, then? The entire point of me asking was for you to show actual evidence of this supposed scamming.[/QUOTE] ... What? Do you have a massive reading comprehension problem or somet- Okay. You know what, fuck it. I'm done. There's just no arguing with someone this. FUCKING. [b]DENSE.[/b]

[QUOTE=DudesonFan;43078637]... What? Do you have a massive reading comprehension problem or somet- Okay. You know what, fuck it. I'm done. There's just no arguing with someone this. FUCKING. [b]DENSE.[/b][/QUOTE] Its like arguing with a racist :v:

[QUOTE=mobrockers;43078573]How is that a slippery slope? Hatred causes violence, hate speech causes hatred, there is no reason to incite hatred at a protest.[/QUOTE] You have to prove that the WBCs speech caused violence somehow. That's the point of "fighting words" laws and laws against calls to violence on the public stage. If you can link the speech to actual violent acts, then it's not allowed. Otherwise, whenever a vehement debate between a democrat and republican turns violent, I can blame Colbert or Jon Stewart with no evidence and only a vague connection to "hatred." [editline]5th December 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=DudesonFan;43078637]... What? Do you have a massive reading comprehension problem or somet- Okay. You know what, fuck it. I'm done. There's just no arguing with someone this. FUCKING. [b]DENSE.[/b][/QUOTE] I think there might be a language barrier problem or something. Your post did not make a single bit of sense. You blatantly contradicted yourself, saying that the WBC exists to provoke people, yet then you said that they don't actually provoke people.

[QUOTE=Explosions;43078660]You have to prove that the WBCs speech caused violence somehow. That's the point of "fighting words" laws and laws against calls to violence on the public stage. If you can link the speech to actual violent acts, then it's not allowed. Otherwise, whenever a vehement debate between a democrat and republican turns violent, I can blame Colbert or Jon Stewart with no evidence and only a vague connection to "hatred." [editline]5th December 2013[/editline] I think there might be a language barrier problem or something. Your post did not make a single bit of sense. You blatantly contradicted yourself, saying that the WBC exists to provoke people, yet then you said that they don't actually provoke people.[/QUOTE] Why are you bringing US law into this? I'm pretty sure I don't agree with current US free speech laws. [editline]5th December 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Explosions;43078632]You just outlawed at very large portion of anti-war protest and sentiment. I've never heard a case where they were allowed on the cemetery grounds to protest. They usually gather on the sidewalk or across the street, in public spaces. How can you legislate that? More importantly, why do cemeteries get special protection while workplaces, for instance, do not? Why should the Occupy movement be allowed to constantly harass bankers and stock traders outside their workplaces? A funeral lasts only a few hours. The Occupy protests lasted for months. Why is that type of speech allowed but not at funerals? You're constantly making special provisions for the WBC just because they're particularly nasty. That's not how freedom of speech works at all. But you've already shown that you really don't care for free speech anyway, so that's kind of irrelevant.[/QUOTE] Do you not see a pretty huge difference between pretty much any place, and a cemetery? What do you mean how can you legislate that? It's public space therefore the government decides what you can and cannot do there.