Louis Theroux Westboro Baptist Church Revisit.

[HAL9000]

They are actually a well educated family that runs it. Lawyers and such. They will be around until they die either by natural causes or assassinated. There is nothing you, I or anyone can do about it....until they break they law, which they never will.

My point is that what they are doing should be considered illegal.

It is in the UK.

 

[0roo0roo]

Sorry but this country is founded on the idea of free speech. Otherwise, who decides what speech is allowed?

Now I won't say I have any sympathy when things like this happen....

http://www.ihatethemedia.com/a-simple-way-to-stop-westboro-baptist-church-funeral-protesters

hal apparently comes from the uk.
where judges make case by case judgements on whether to muzzle the press, creating the super injunction mess where the press can't even mention that they were muzzled by who and for what lol

some brit is sueing twitter because his cheating was mentioned in tweets.

http://eu.techcrunch.com/2011/05/20/twitter-sued-for-breaking-uk-super-injunction-oh-yes/

brits even sue wikipedia
http://www.finalternatives.com/node/16564
"Moore Capital Management founder Louis Bacon can try to force Wikipedia and two other Web sites to disclose the identities of online commenters he says have defamed him.
A British judge approved Bacon's plan to e-mail a court order to the Wikimedia Foundation, Denver Post and Automattic, which owns blog platform WordPress, demanding they turn over the names of the commenters in question. Bacon hopes to sue those commenters for defamation."

 

[DaTT]

OK. So what you're saying is it's legal to sue but legal to lose?

Like saying it's legal to call the police but no one get's arrested...?

I'm arguing that these people should not be legally protected so that all lawsuits against them lose.

Let me phrase it differently for you. it is not against the law to sue and win....it is also not against the law to sue and lose....therefore, it is LEGAL TO DO SO not ILLEGAL TO DO SO

 

[HAL9000]

Let me phrase it differently for you. it is not against the law to sue and win....it is also not against the law to sue and lose....therefore, it is LEGAL TO DO SO not ILLEGAL TO DO SO

That's true.

It's not legal for them to win now however, The precedent has been set, now it's effectively illegal.

 

[xanis]

Sigh, cmon people. It's a Neckbeard thread on Freedom of Speech.

What he said.

 

[frostedflakes]

I don't really see how freedom of speech applies to tort. It is meant to protect people from government oppression. That shouldn't necessarily give you carte blanche to say or do whatever you want without civil consequences, though. For example, if I defame someone I could rightfully be sued for damages, and I doubt the freedom of speech argument would help me in court. I don't see how the case OP mentions is any different. The Supreme Court ruled 8-1 in favor of Phelps, though, so my interpretation must be pretty wrong.

The government absolutely should not criminalize hate speech (or any speech for that matter). However, guys like Phelps should not be shielded from civil liability IMO if people want to seek damages and can prove to a court that their demonstrations caused harm.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

That's true.

It's not legal for them to win now however, The precedent has been set, now it's effectively illegal.

You can't be this dense. Just because a judge ruled against a plaintiff doesn't mean that it's illegal to sue. It is still legal to sue and with the proper argument the plaintiff might win. (Not likely - But whatever)

As for hate-speech. That is one of the side effects of a truly free society. The moment you put restrictions on what people can or can't say you open a can of worms that simply can't be stopped.

You can't put the toothpaste back in the tube. So... while the WBC people are worthless pieces of crap with a hateful message, they have a right to assemble and demonstrate.

 

[HAL9000]

You can't be this dense. Just because a judge ruled against a plaintiff doesn't mean that it's illegal to sue. It is still legal to sue and with the proper argument the plaintiff might win. (Not likely - But whatever)

I didn't say it was illegal, I said it was effectively illegal, now the precedent has been set by the supreme court, no one will rule in anyone else's favour.

As for hate-speech. That is one of the side effects of a truly free society. The moment you put restrictions on what people can or can't say you open a can of worms that simply can't be stopped.

You can't put the toothpaste back in the tube. So... while the WBC people are worthless pieces of crap with a hateful message, they have a right to assemble and demonstrate.

The problem is that living in a society where you can't hold a funeral without morons being able to picket it isn't being truly free. That's living in chaos. People should be free "from" certain things.

 

[0roo0roo]

You can't be this dense. Just because a judge ruled against a plaintiff doesn't mean that it's illegal to sue. It is still legal to sue and with the proper argument the plaintiff might win. (Not likely - But whatever)

As for hate-speech. That is one of the side effects of a truly free society. The moment you put restrictions on what people can or can't say you open a can of worms that simply can't be stopped.

You can't put the toothpaste back in the tube. So... while the WBC people are worthless pieces of crap with a hateful message, they have a right to assemble and demonstrate.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/rel...rned-Koran-jailed-for-theatrical-bigotry.html
yup leads to travesties like this jailing of a uk man for theatrical bigotry when he burned a koran.... while muslims spewing hate on the streets walk free.

 

[xanis]

The problem is that living in a society where you can't hold a funeral without morons being able to picket it isn't being truly free. That's living in chaos. People should be free "from" certain things.

I think you may have been dropped on your head as a child. If I had a dollar for every time you've made the "free from certain things" argument or played dumb and didn't "get" freedom of speech or American values/law, I'd have enough money to retire.

It's really not that difficult to comprehend: In America, there's freedom of speech. That's it, end of story. There's no "except..." or "but". I don't know how the law sees this kind of thing in the UK (nor will I pretend to know), but in America this is how it works.

There are endless legal, academic, and historical articles on the topic. Read up on them, it'll give you something better to do instead of posting so much that you get to Lifer in less than 8 months. We've been over the topic ad nauseum with you, and you still don't seem to get it for whatever reason. PLEASE, for the love of God, STOP POSTING.

 

[frostedflakes]

I didn't say it was illegal, I said it was effectively illegal, now the precedent has been set by the supreme court, no one will rule in anyone else's favour.



The problem is that living in a society where you can't hold a funeral without morons being able to picket it isn't being truly free. That's living in chaos. People should be free "from" certain things.

Those same freedom of speech and demonstration laws also give groups like the Patriot Guard Riders the right to block the WBC from interfering with funerals. It's a double-edged sword.

 

[DaTT]

I didn't say it was illegal, I said it was effectively illegal, now the precedent has been set by the supreme court, no one will rule in anyone else's favour.



The problem is that living in a society where you can't hold a funeral without morons being able to picket it isn't being truly free. That's living in chaos. People should be free "from" certain things.

You're a fucking wanker.

 

[HAL9000]

Those same freedom of speech and demonstration laws also give groups like the Patriot Guard Riders the right to block the WBC from interfering with funerals. It's a double-edged sword.

It really is, that's half the problem it does little to no good allowing these morons to do what they do, it just means that other morons have to turn up to deal with it.

 

[Paladin3]

Americans have historically and overwhelmingly chosen to allow it's citizens free speech rather than give the government the power to toss us in jail for speech they don't agree with.

It's called FREEDOM, Hal, and many brave Americans fought and died for it, so we don't appreciate your suggestion that we give it up just because it is occasionally abused. We're tough, and far, far more of us stand up against the likes of the WBC than stand with them.

It would be extremely disrespectful to our fallen soldiers to sacrifice one of the chief freedoms they fought and died for just to stop the WBC picketing their funeral.

 

[Paladin3]

It really is, that's half the problem it does little to no good allowing these morons to do what they do, it just means that other morons have to turn up to deal with it.

Your true colors are showing, Hal. Obviously you feel most Americans are morons, so why even try to change us? You should stick to UK forums were the enlightened people are posting.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Where's the option for, I wish they'd fucking die?

Really...what's the point of picketing at a soldier's funeral? Are you really making a statement? These people aren't doing God's work, they are just being evil political douchebags.

Yeah, I guess they should have a right to be complete fucking douchebag assholes. And they should expect to be pummeled to death for in a perfect world.

 

[guyver01]

I'm arguing that these people should not be legally protected so that all lawsuits against them lose.

I didn't say it was illegal, I said it was effectively illegal

The problem is that living in a society where you can't hold a funeral without morons being able to picket it isn't being truly free.

It really is, that's half the problem it does little to no good allowing these morons to do what they do, it just means that other morons have to turn up to deal with it..

Nothing is illegal. There is now law against it, there are no penalties against it, therefore it is not illegal.

Didn't you just come off a ban for "american bashing - trolling" comments? I see you don't have your icon back, which means your still under some sort of restriction... might wanna stop posting these lol america sucks type of comments.

 

[grrl]

Sigh, cmon people. It's a Neckbeard thread on Freedom of Speech.

Third time's a charm.

 

[HAL9000]

Your true colors are showing, Hal. Obviously you feel most Americans are morons, so why even try to change us? You should stick to UK forums were the enlightened people are posting.

I do not think that all americans are morons. Some of them are, the same as any country.

Nothing is illegal. There is now law against it, there are no penalties against it, therefore it is not illegal

My point is that now they can't legally win without the supreme court changing their mind, which with an 8-1 loss already won't happen.

There fore they can't legally win, the chances are so remote it's not worth discussing. It's effectively illegal.

 

[DangerAardvark]

These threads are so much more pleasant with HAL on ignore. For one, it cuts the amount of posts in the thread in half.

 

[sourceninja]

They should be allowed to say what they want to say, but the families of the dead should be allowed to to encourage them to say it elsewhere...

 

[dabuddha]

I do not think that all americans are morons. Some of them are, the same as any country.



My point is that now they can't legally win without the supreme court changing their mind, which with an 8-1 loss already won't happen.

There fore they can't legally win, the chances are so remote it's not worth discussing. It's effectively illegal.

Just cause something's remotely possible, doesn't make it impossible. I have a 1 in a trillion chance of banging Angelina Jolie. Doesn't mean it's impossible though

 

[HAL9000]

Just cause something's remotely possible, doesn't make it impossible. I have a 1 in a trillion chance of banging Angelina Jolie. Doesn't mean it's impossible though

Very true, but making it as remote as that is wrong IMO

 

[Macamus Prime]

They are protected.

And, they exploit suffering to get their message of hate across. The best thing to do, is ignore them. The effort it takes to "stop" them is not worth it, especially when you simply walk by them and do not flinch.

Support groups should be there to keep the family of the dead as calm as possible. No point in trying to trip up people who know the law and are not shy in hurting your feelings.

 

[HAL9000]

They are protected.

And, they exploit suffering to get their message of hate across. The best thing to do, is ignore them. The effort it takes to "stop" them is not worth is, especially when you simply walk by them and do not flinch.

Support groups should be there to keep the family of the dead as calm as possible. No point in trying to trip up people who know the law and are not shy in hurting your feelings.

I know but the problem is that no one will ignore them, they need to be stopped.