Comments on: Hate church fined $10.9 million

By: Len Guini

Len Guini — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 14:36:16 +0000

I see a lot of people in here saying that forcing these people to pay violates their right to free speech. This is not true. The right to free speech means that the government connot arrest, or in anyway perscute, you for saying what you want to say. This means that you cannot be taken to Criminal Court. You can still be taken to Civil court, as these people were.

Like or Dislike: 0 0

By: Pirate Bard

Pirate Bard — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 13:22:39 +0000

I may be wrong about this, but:
1. They protest a the funerals of fallen soldiers with signs that say “Thank God for dead soldiers” and “God hates fags”.
2. Implying (whether it is their intent or not) that the soldier whose funeral they are protesting is gay, or that someone at the funeral is gay.

If indeed it is NOT the case that said soldier or family is homosexual, doesn’t that directly fall under the laws of “Slander” or “Libel”?? Protesting is one thing, but publicly calling someone a derogatory term (which “fag” is) when they in fact are not, is slander, isn’t it?

If that’s not the case (which I suppose it may not be because they’ve never been sued for that), then unfortunately they do have the right to protest… On PUBLIC property.

However, it also means that other people have the right to counter-protest.

If they ever come to my town I’ll be making signs that look EXACTLY like theirs except that mine will say things like “God LOVES GAYS,” and “We contradict ourselves!” “We don’t speak for God” and “We’re Idiots”… and then stand directly among them with as many friends as possible holding the signs. Saying nothing. Doing nothing. Just standing there among them, making them look ridiculous for having contradictory signs.

Oh, and I’d be sure to have several other friends recording the whole thing so that we cannot be blamed if they start anything.

That’s how I would choose to peacefully combat this kind of idiocy.

Like or Dislike: 0 0

By: storm petrel

storm petrel — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 07:30:02 +0000

Have you ever met a fundie who didn’t?

Like or Dislike: 0 0

By: CatholicLiberal

CatholicLiberal — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 04:15:06 +0000

Someone should tell them to read Matthew Chapter 23. “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in men’s faces.” That was Jesus, talking about people who judge.
They are obviously picking and choosing which parts of the bible they want to pay attention to.

Like or Dislike: 0 0

By: CatholicLiberal

CatholicLiberal — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 04:01:37 +0000

I took this off the site:
“Thank you america! You propped up the pudgy-faced God hater to carry your water for you, with the stated goal of bankrupting WBC so we can’t preach! Guess what? In less than 24 hours our words have been spread to every corner of the earth via media outlets we couldn’t PAY to publish our message. Yes indeed, there are the words, in bright, bold color every place you look, in every corner of the earth. We would have paid $10.9 billion for that kind of coverage! ”
Grr.

Like or Dislike: 0 0

By: PastaMason

PastaMason — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 03:02:40 +0000

The most important thing about freedom is the freedom to be responsible for your words and actions.
Most people forget that part and start crying when they are faced with it.

Like or Dislike: 0 0

By: Darwinfish

Darwinfish — Fri, 09 Nov 2007 17:23:04 +0000

@Xink…
Whether it is their right to spew this crap is up for debate (hence, this thread). Yes, there should be exceptions to the rule. While it’s not illegal to call your boss a snivelling whining milquetost, you do so at risk of being fired. You can call Bush a dumass all you want, but you call Bush a dumbass to his face and then go on to talk about his mother, his dog, and his foreign policy, and you’ll be escorted out. If you published “Bush Eats Babies” pamphlets you could be tried for slander. But yelling “you’re going to hell” at the funeral of a dead soldier pushes it into the realm of the seriously offensive. In fact, it could be argued that it constitutes a hate crime.
.
Quite often free speech is taken to mean you can say anything with no consequences. All it means is that you can speak out against the government without being taken out by the FBI. It is a great right and central to our nation, but sometimes it is taken too far. It was not meant to sheild hateful gits.

Like or Dislike: 0 0

By: Xink

Xink — Fri, 09 Nov 2007 14:42:27 +0000

I’m a little torn on this. I mean, I don’t agree with what this church is preaching, but still, it’s their RIGHT to preach it. There shouldn’t be any exceptions for this rule, should there?

Like or Dislike: 0 0

By: MetallipandA

MetallipandA — Fri, 09 Nov 2007 11:20:56 +0000

Thank FSM For this, Was about time to stop this fkers

Like or Dislike: 0 0

By: Darwinfish

Darwinfish — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 18:12:03 +0000

You want a better solution more fit for the 21st century? Education. Lift people of of the crap they live in and they’re more likely to be able to think for themselves and make reasoned decisions.

Like or Dislike: 0 0

By: Darwinfish

Darwinfish — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 17:35:08 +0000

@ Fool:
“recent event of MIGHT IS RIGHT, George Bush and Iraq war…”
.
Yes, he has the might. Unfortunately he doesn’t have the brain to use the might rationally. If you give an angry five-year old a chainsaw, it’s not going to be pretty (assuming that the kid can even start the thing). I’m with Mandela on this one, go nonviolent until it is painfully obvious that that won’t work. Then and only then, having exhausted all other methods, should you take up arms, and even then with reservations. This is especially true now, with the middle east as unstable as it is.

Like or Dislike: 0 0

By: enigma1375

enigma1375 — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 15:54:42 +0000

Sorry to veer from the socio-economic/militia/revolutionary talk that seems to have sprung up in recent posts but I’d just like to say that I’m glad to see that The Little Church of Hate is finally being made to pay for their harassment. Free speech is one thing, outright harassment is quite another.
I actually missed a great opportunity to see Fred Phelps and his extended family live and in person. A few years ago there was a sexual abuse/hazing incident at a summer football camp for a high school near me. Basically, seniors sodomized younger players with various objects against their will. I have no idea what that has to do with football or camaraderie but I guess that’s why I never played high school sports. Anyway, the Phelps clan showed up and protested, I think they were calling for harsher penalties for the offenders but I’m not sure, since their message always seems to be “God Hates Fags” and such, no matter what they’re protesting. I didn’t find out about their appearance until the next day and I have to admit that it’s one my great regrets. Rarely do you get the chance to see such an immense level of hatred and ignorance up close and I missed it.

Like or Dislike: 0 0

By: Fool

Fool — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 14:45:47 +0000

How effective can a militia be? head to head more than likely they would loose, but very few if any use conventional warfare, they tend to use guerilla and other unconvetional tactics to get the results they want, which can be just spread a message or overthrow a government.
.
Don’t take my word for it. Look at what happened to the world trade center in New York. all you need is a determined group of people with enough faith in their cause to change the way things are.
.
How come the US military cannot defeat the insurgents in Iraq? and let me tell you the insurgents don’t come close to having any weapons that would do some serious damage to the US military.
.
I don’t believe that the right to arm bears is still valid. the only people the really benefit from this are the criminals. Too many drive by shootings, hold ups and road rage.
.
on the other hand until as a country we give up the second amendment I will defend it.

Like or Dislike: 0 0

By: storm petrel

storm petrel — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 08:35:38 +0000

@ El Peatieablo, you’d be surprised at the damage paramilitaries/militias can do to armies, if people feel strongly enough about something, they can train and get their hands on pretty powerful weapons, why do you think it’s so important to get all the paramilitaries in Northern Ireland decommissioned?
.
Has anyone ever organised a counter protest at a time when WBC are going to be holding one of their demonstrations?

Like or Dislike: 0 0

By: Robert Hood

Robert Hood — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 07:04:13 +0000

I just want to say that I do believe that Ghandi-esque passive ressistance is vastly preferable to violence. preventing bloodshed is allways a good thing.
.
@ Peter: It COULD have been taken as mockery when you “-rolls eyes-”ed at me. If that was not your intention, then I apologize. I brought up the street thing as an example of when a right should be limited: The right to peaceably assemble doesn’t mean you can gather IN THE MIDDLE OF the street (i.e., in traffic).
.
I was actually born and raised in California, San Francisco no less. I don’t belong to a militia and don’t even know how to operate a gun. Yes, in today’s society (in Developed countries, at least) discussion is favored over force. But if that ever changes, I want to be at least mentally prepared to deal with it.

Like or Dislike: 0 0

By: James Madison

James Madison — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 01:30:59 +0000

Yes, well, I did have some help. ;)

Like or Dislike: 0 0

By: El Peatieablo

El Peatieablo — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 23:17:45 +0000

@James Madison
You sure know a lot about the constitution. It’s almost as if you wrote the thing… :)
.
@Alchemist
Sorry, didn’t quite type it right. I meant that a militia can’t take them all down (assuming the military is competent). On the other hand, you need a lot of people with C4 strapped around them to get past the machine guns protecting the heavy equipment of a modern military. The main point I was trying to make was that you don’t have to sacrifice either freedom of speech or the right to bear arms to have the other.

Like or Dislike: 0 0

By: Alchemist

Alchemist — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 22:46:49 +0000

“No militia is going to take on an M1A1 or an F-22.”
.
That would depend upon whether they thought the cause was worth dying for!
.
Surely nobody would strap C4 around their body and blow themselves up. Or set fire to themselves in protest?

Like or Dislike: 0 0

By: James Madison

James Madison — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 22:40:40 +0000

@ El Peatieablo – that definition is incomplete. Prurient has a sexual connotation. See Black’s legal dictionary (Characterized by or arousing inordinate or unusual sexual desire). Therefore, the message of this group does not fall under obscenity in First Amendment terms. This is properly categorized as “hate speech” under First Amendment jurisprudence. I will agree that this group’s message is sick, morbid, and shameless. But I also agree that they should be able to express it in an appropriate place. That is not to say that they don’t deserve an extreme amount of criticism. Just as they have the right to say it, I have the right to say they religious nut-bags spewing hateful nonsense.

Like or Dislike: 0 0

By: El Peatieablo

El Peatieablo — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 22:18:19 +0000

@James Madison
Thanks, I didn’t know that. I looked it up on Wiktionary and got the following definition for “prurient”:
“In United States legal application, sick, morbid or shameless.” If that is correct, I think we’re covered.
.
About the 1st/2nd amendment debate: I think some of us are taking the current state of political affairs for granted. Imagine a government that just goes around killing everybody that opposes it. Having the right to say what ever you want doesn’t help much, because they could just kill you. If you and a few of your buddies are armed, they will have a harder time of it. That being said, nowadays most 1st world nations have sort of outgrown the concept of a militia. No militia is going to take on an M1A1 or an F-22. The important thing to remember is that we can have both rights and shouldn’t have to chose between them.
.
That being said, I don’t think we should have the right to bear arms in heaven. Beer volcanoes and guns don’t mix.

Like or Dislike: 0 0