Westboro Baptist Church to protest funeral of 9-year-old killed in AZ shooting

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Nintendesert

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2010
7,761
5
0
WEll I don't know what most of that means, "Judicial branch" "Congress" etc etc. these are things we don't have and as a result I don't know what youre on about.

In any event, you are still voting into power the most popular, that's the way democracy works, however you've got it subdivided.



Feel free then to go read up on our Constitution and separation of powers within our government. I'm sure it'll equally blow your mind when you get to the parts about the general public not really electing our President either.
 

HAL9000

Lifer
Oct 17, 2010
22,021
3
76
What's your point? We think that is nanny state bullshit as well.

neckarb, I don't get why you are obsessed with threatening the presidents life? I'm pretty sure it's illegal to threaten anyones life and I explained why.

The reason I'm obsessed with it, is because it's illegal, it's a type of speech that is illegal, for the only reason that it upsets you, in your opinion it's threatening, and yet you think the idea of legislating against hate speech is absurd for some reason. While legislating agains an equally subjective type of speech (Threatening) is fine...?!
 

HAL9000

Lifer
Oct 17, 2010
22,021
3
76
Feel free then to go read up on our Constitution and separation of powers within our government. I'm sure it'll equally blow your mind when you get to the parts about the general public not really electing our President either.

That's unfortunate, I don't think I'm going to read it just now though it's a bit late.
 

Skitzer

Diamond Member
Mar 20, 2000
4,414
3
81
I cant understand why the media doesnt ignore them, they just attention whore is all. if no one would cover them then they would go away

I have a feeling they won't go away regardless of the media.
 

Capt Caveman

Lifer
Jan 30, 2005
34,543
651
126
Let's see you call a black cop the "N" word. Let's see you threaten the President's life. Let's see you disseminate state secrets, or recipes for bombs or drugs. Let me know how you get on.

BTW - yes, "fire" in a theatre is an example of restricted speech.

Are people from NZ morons? B/c this post is a shining example.
 

MovingTarget

Diamond Member
Jun 22, 2003
9,002
115
106
The majority, google democracy.

Some things should not be left up to even the tyranny of the majority. This is why we designate them rights. Free speech is one such right that we have fought to defend in the past no matter how unpopular it is. We simply do not want to be anywhere near a situation where the law can be used to suppress it.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
 
Last edited:

HAL9000

Lifer
Oct 17, 2010
22,021
3
76
Some things should not be left up to even the tyranny of the majority. This is why we designate them rights. Free speech is one such right that we have fought to defend in the past no matter how unpopular it is. We simply do not want to be anywhere near a situation where the law can be used to suppress it as it is something we once fought over.

I understand what you think, and how long you've thought it, and what you've done to protect it, but that doesn't mean it's a good thing.
 

Terzo

Platinum Member
Dec 13, 2005
2,589
27
91
Just dropping by to add some fuel to the fire...

I can't find the thread where it occurred, but I distinctly remember neckarb saying the follow picture was fine and not hate speech while simultaneously criticizing westboro.

behead-those-who-insult-islam.jpg


I think the picture is actually from the UK. Anyways, I don't see how someone can condone the actions of those pictured above yet say what westboro does should be illegal.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,266
126
Call a cop a c*nt and see how long your freedom lasts and how quickly he decides what you shouldn't say.

Stay on your side of the puddle!

So you being a dick... er a Brit :p why does anyone over there give a shit anyway? Gaynor lives with kiwis, which are cool and no doubt could kick his ass, but everyone knows this so we ignore him. Jeebus, it's like us yammering that you need to change the aisle in Parliament. For me this gives great opportunity to ridicule the WBC which is great sport. Your society has been sanitized. Not even good hangings these days. You guys had the Tower and shit. That was awesome. Wally's cave is more threatening these days. Well strike that. Most things wouldn't be that spooky.
 

HAL9000

Lifer
Oct 17, 2010
22,021
3
76
Just dropping by to add some fuel to the fire...

I can't find the thread where it occurred, but I distinctly remember neckarb saying the follow picture was fine and not hate speech while simultaneously criticizing westboro.

behead-those-who-insult-islam.jpg


I think the picture is actually from the UK. Anyways, I don't see how someone can condone the actions of those pictured above yet say what westboro does should be illegal.

Yeah I think that was because the above photo those morons are arguing in defence of their religion. I.e. "Kill Those who insult Islam" rather than "God hates fags" thats just hate, not defence of anything.
 

Eli

Super Moderator | Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
50,419
8
81
I honestly wouldn't care if someone got pissed and killed a couple of them. It's going to happen one of these days..
 

HAL9000

Lifer
Oct 17, 2010
22,021
3
76
I honestly wouldn't care if someone got pissed and killed a couple of them. It's going to happen one of these days..

I always wonder why, when they picket soldiers funerals... Why don't they just "miss" with the 21 gun salute?
 

DivideBYZero

Lifer
May 18, 2001
24,117
2
0
Stay on your side of the puddle!

So you being a dick... er a Brit :p why does anyone over there give a shit anyway? Gaynor lives with kiwis, which are cool and no doubt could kick his ass, but everyone knows this so we ignore him. Jeebus, it's like us yammering that you need to change the aisle in Parliament. For me this gives great opportunity to ridicule the WBC which is great sport. Your society has been sanitized. Not even good hangings these days. You guys had the Tower and shit. That was awesome. Wally's cave is more threatening these days. Well strike that. Most things wouldn't be that spooky.

I think the WBC are a set of cunts and I came in here to lay down some hate on them, but then somehow we got into some tired old UK bashing. You tell me why, I don't know apart from the fact that this forum is really sensitive to anyone suggesting that the US isn't a paragon of perfection and likes to deal the xenophobia card in response.
 

mmntech

Lifer
Sep 20, 2007
17,501
12
0
I support WBC's right to protest, even if I don't support their message. Jesus himself would roll in his grave at what these so called "Christians" are doing. They are the lowest common denominator in our society. Hypocrisy at it's highest (or rather lowest) form. They're dirt bags. However, free speech is all about being subject to potentially offensive or radical view points. If the First Amendment was there just to protect the mainstream view, it would be meaningless. Besides, there are plenty of inside scandals to bring this "church" up on.

A counter protest against these people is what makes America so great.

Julian Asange doesn't appear to get the same rights as these fumbducks.
And he should be. His is treatment regarding the leaks is a bigger embarrassment for the Obama administration than the leaks themselves. Asange himself did nothing illegal. Only those that let the information out. The timing of his arrest for sexual assault makes it seem suspicious. Especially given the allegations were not recent and Interpol was not contacted until the leaks came to light.
 

MovingTarget

Diamond Member
Jun 22, 2003
9,002
115
106
I understand what you think, and how long you've thought it, and what you've done to protect it, but that doesn't mean it's a good thing.

It isn't like we don't sometimes doubt ourselves such as in the case of the WBC or in past cases like that of Skokie, IL. There are limits on freedom of speech, but these are carefully balanced/reviewed by the judicial system (outside the legislature). It takes more than a simple law to restrict someone's speech. It seems to me that the British system is similar, but with fewer of these types of safeguards. We err much more on the side of caution.

This prudence, to me, seems to be a good thing. Without it, then the hatred of these groups only exists and foments below the surface gaining followers until it boils over. Allowing it to be seen in public, as I have mentioned, allows us to collectively say, "Hey, these guys are dicks!" and move on.

Also, out of curiosity, you say that England/Britain/UK has taken care of groups like these before. Can you say how or provide some examples? Perhaps that would add to the discussions so that we can compare and contrast.
 

HAL9000

Lifer
Oct 17, 2010
22,021
3
76
It isn't like we don't sometimes doubt ourselves such as in the case of the WBC or in past cases like that of Skokie, IL. There are limits on freedom of speech, but these are carefully balanced/reviewed by the judicial system (outside the legislature). It takes more than a simple law to restrict someone's speech. It seems to me that the British system is similar, but with fewer of these types of safeguards. We err much more on the side of caution.

This prudence, to me, seems to be a good thing. Without it, then the hatred of these groups only exists and foments below the surface gaining followers until it boils over. Allowing it to be seen in public, as I have mentioned, allows us to collectively say, "Hey, these guys are dicks!" and move on.

Sire, I salute you, a very good point, and something that hadn't occured to me before, perhaps having these people in the public eye is a positive thing! Good spot! This makes a lot more sense to me than I've heard before, personally I would still like the option to have the arrested, but you are right and it makes sense for you preference too.

Also, out of curiosity, you say that England/Britain/UK has taken care of groups like these before. Can you say how or provide some examples? Perhaps that would add to the discussions so that we can compare and contrast.

Well I think the perfect example of this is when the WBC tried to come to the UK to protest, we denied their entry to the UK for in sighting hatred.
 

bfdd

Lifer
Feb 3, 2007
13,312
1
0
Sire, I salute you, a very good point, and something that hadn't occured to me before, perhaps having these people in the public eye is a positive thing! Good spot! This makes a lot more sense to me than I've heard before, personally I would still like the option to have the arrested, but you are right and it makes sense for you preference too.



Well I think the perfect example of this is when the WBC tried to come to the UK to protest, we denied their entry to the UK for in sighting hatred.

This is not a perfect example of what you are talking about doing.
 

MovingTarget

Diamond Member
Jun 22, 2003
9,002
115
106
Sire, I salute you, a very good point, and something that hadn't occured to me before, perhaps having these people in the public eye is a positive thing! Good spot! This makes a lot more sense to me than I've heard before, personally I would still like the option to have the arrested, but you are right and it makes sense for you preference too.



Well I think the perfect example of this is when the WBC tried to come to the UK to protest, we denied their entry to the UK for in sighting hatred.

What about groups already in the UK? I'm sure we would probably do the same thing to foreign nationals entering for the same purpose.

Another thing that particularly bugs me about their (WBC) choice of venue (funerals) is that they are private, not public, gatherings. They are usually on private property to boot. There is a potential conflict there between speech/assembly rights and private property rights. I'm not sure if that has been tested in this situation though. (as even most of the unpopular groups would not have the gall to protest a funeral)