Westboro nutjobs to protest at 9 year old girl's funeral who died in arizona shooting

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

HAL9000

Lifer
Oct 17, 2010
22,021
3
76
No it doesn't, and no it isn't.

Yes it does, and yes it is.

You honestly can't comprehend freedom of speech can you?

Yes I can, I just can't comprehend the logic behind the american idea of freedom of speech

Apparently you're of the mindset that freedom is not inherent and that granting freedoms requires specific justification.

We in America, on the other hand, are of the mindset that freedom is inherent and that restricting it requires specific justification.

Given that difference, there is no explanation I can offer you that fits within your view of how society should be.

Freedom is inherent, and restricting it does require justification. What you seem not to understand (the same as the rest of america) is that the american notion of freedom of speech isn't the only one, and that others work well, or better.
 

xj0hnx

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2007
9,262
3
76
Actually, yes it is. Very much illegal.

Nope, not unless the threat of violence is imminent. You can spread all the hate speech you want until your words put someone's life in imminent, tangible harm.
 

bfdd

Lifer
Feb 3, 2007
13,312
1
0
Yes it does, and yes it is.



Yes I can, I just can't comprehend the logic behind the american idea of freedom of speech



Freedom is inherent, and restricting it does require justification. What you seem not to understand (the same as the rest of america) is that the american notion of freedom of speech isn't the only one, and that others work well, or better.

No you don't have freedom of speech. How many times do we have to say this? Not being able to threaten someones life or scream "fire" in a movie theater doesn't have anything to do with it. Both of those are viewed to be infringing on the rights of others and here no ones rights supercede anothers.... Unless it's a big corporation, they have all of our rights and some.
 

NoStateofMind

Diamond Member
Oct 14, 2005
9,711
6
76
I didn't read this entire thread but I have a question based on WBC's comments in the article.

If someone went and shot their members for protesting would they still think God's judgement was served? No, they then would blame "the devil".

Lastly I think they should have the right to protest but I would also reserve the right to beat the living shit out of each one if it were my daughter. Just saying.
 
Oct 30, 2004
11,442
32
91
They're going to protest the memory of a 9 year old girl? Are these people insane? They are too stupid to be allowed to live in our country and should be kicked out.
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,057
60
91
They're going to protest the memory of a 9 year old girl? Are these people insane? They are too stupid to be allowed to live on our planet and should be kicked off.

Fixed it for ya. :)

I support free speech, but free speech requires responsiblity for the consequenses of that speech. The classic cliche example others have already cited of shouting fire in a theater is one example of that.

When these hate filled, bigoted jackasses intentionally inflict deep emotional pain on others who are already suffering, they should be held to account and made to pay for the damage they inflict.
 
Jun 26, 2007
11,925
2
0
Fixed it for ya. :)

I support free speech, but free speech requires responsiblity for the consequenses of that speech. The classic cliche example others have already cited of shouting fire in a theater is one example of that.

When these hate filled, bigoted jackasses intentionally inflict deep emotional pain on others who are already suffering, they should be held to account and made to pay for the damage they inflict.

I do believe that if they had seen this coming they would have added "the right to mourn and bury your dead in peace shall not be infringed upon"...

Sometimes common sense goes a long way when interpreting the intents of texts written in another era.
 
Jun 26, 2007
11,925
2
0
They have the same right to say what they want, we act on actions, not words. Kind of interesting that NOW the left wants to start limiting violent speech, but where were they during the Bush years? Oh yea, they were here ...

No, the US most defiently acts on words.

I thought you had been to Afghanistan, i thought you had a clue about Guatanamo?

MOST at Guantanamo have been released and MOST of them were imprisoned because of just words.

Violent language is ok by me though, but i'm hardly "left" i'm an English Liberal and damn proud of it.
 

bfdd

Lifer
Feb 3, 2007
13,312
1
0
I do believe that if they had seen this coming they would have added "the right to mourn and bury your dead in peace shall not be infringed upon"...

Sometimes common sense goes a long way when interpreting the intents of texts written in another era.

what is common sense today, was not common sense yesteryear.
 

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,505
2
0
Freedom is inherent, and restricting it does require justification. What you seem not to understand (the same as the rest of america) is that the american notion of freedom of speech isn't the only one, and that others work well, or better.

Actually, I understand there are varying interpretations on what "freedom of speech" truly means. I never said America's was the only one.

The subjective term of "better" has no relevance, though. Better how? Better why? These must be answered objectively for it to matter beyond a childish "mine's better than yours!" diatribe.
 
Jun 26, 2007
11,925
2
0
Iraq actually.

Sorry for the confusion, it was a while since we talked about it.


They weren't there for hate speech.

Around 30% were there for alleged "hate speech", around 60% more were there for other speech.

It's not called hate speech though, as you well know, it's called inciting the mob in a restricted area which is any area at any given time.

But i didn't mean to turn this into a discussion about Gitmo so let's drop it unless you have something of importance to add to that.
 
Jun 26, 2007
11,925
2
0
Actually, I understand there are varying interpretations on what "freedom of speech" truly means. I never said America's was the only one.

The subjective term of "better" has no relevance, though. Better how? Better why? These must be answered objectively for it to matter beyond a childish "mine's better than yours!" diatribe.

I wouldn't say it's better in the UK but it is different.

In many cases the US sees things as WAY too black and white, with us or against us, hate it or love it, love it or GTFO, agree or die, you know the drill..

I think that many Americans REFUSE to see the Constitution for what it is, it's an ancient document that isn't supposed to be absolute but more of a guiding document. I love it in all of it's simplicity but to me it's obvious that the writers meant for people to use some common sense when legislating and have it remain a living document, not a stone tablet that is absolute.

I don't think the writers intended to protect speech that interferes with mourning families when they bury their dead, it doesn't take more than common sense to understand that no sane human being would intend that.

Well except for those who are themselves insane, they are the Taliban of the US constitution, the fundamentalists of the constitution...

But i'm an Englishman so what the fuck do i know...
 

Zorkorist

Diamond Member
Apr 17, 2007
6,861
3
76
I would, and will, hire people at minimum wage, to stand in the face of these fuckers, and yell louder than them, and generally make their life hell.

Any day of the week.

-John
 

Zorkorist

Diamond Member
Apr 17, 2007
6,861
3
76
I wouldn't say it's better in the UK but it is different.

In many cases the US sees things as WAY too black and white, with us or against us, hate it or love it, love it or GTFO, agree or die, you know the drill..

I think that many Americans REFUSE to see the Constitution for what it is, it's an ancient document that isn't supposed to be absolute but more of a guiding document. I love it in all of it's simplicity but to me it's obvious that the writers meant for people to use some common sense when legislating and have it remain a living document, not a stone tablet that is absolute.

I don't think the writers intended to protect speech that interferes with mourning families when they bury their dead, it doesn't take more than common sense to understand that no sane human being would intend that.

Well except for those who are themselves insane, they are the Taliban of the US constitution, the fundamentalists of the constitution...

But i'm an Englishman so what the fuck do i know...
Freedom of Speech means exactly that.

-John
 

Zorkorist

Diamond Member
Apr 17, 2007
6,861
3
76
The proper answer, in this particular case, is for friends and family to hire people to drown out this i love you and his church.

-John