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

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

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,505
2
0
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...

Like all documents of its type, the Constitution has both absolutes (specific rights) and abstractions (everything else) that are subject to interpretation. On the whole, it is not meant as a beginning and end, but as a reference for dealing with future concerns. Some matters cannot be addressed by applying the Constitution, but most can. In those few where the Constitution can offer no guidance, either an amendment to it or (preferrably) laws can be written to fill the gap. Laws are preferable to amendments in those cases because they're more malleable.
 

Linflas

Lifer
Jan 30, 2001
15,395
78
91
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.

That is why this article was part of the original document:

Article V
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate

At 224 years old it is not really all that ancient a document and the governing principles it contains are just as relevant in 2011 as they were in 1787. The one big difference is that people then would likely have taken a more direct approach to dealing with people like the Westboro nutjobs with very little legal consequence. The fact they feel so secure in holding their protests is a result of the change in the way we as a people changed our views on protecting the rights of those not in the majority over the past 60 years.

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.

I honestly don't know about that. People tend to look at the past and forget that the people then were every bit as unbridled in their criticisms, if not more so, than today. They obviously didn't have the instantaneous methods of disseminating news and opinions that we have today but they were no less extreme in their rhetoric than people today.

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...

Well Englishmen did give us the Magna Carta and a tradition of representative government to build upon.
 

Modelworks

Lifer
Feb 22, 2007
16,240
7
76
WBC isn't even a church in the conventional meaning. The only members that church has is their own family . Some of the family split off years ago and don't even associate anymore because they consider that part of the family to be nuts. It is more a cult. There is a documentary on them on netflix instant viewing, watch that and you will understand what the WBC is. The documentary is called Fall from Grace.


The way to deal with WBC is the way we deal with anyone who tries to hide behind the law. Bring in the IRS.
 
Last edited:

1prophet

Diamond Member
Aug 17, 2005
5,313
534
126
Actually, yes it is. Very much illegal.


No such thing as hate speech being illegal in the USA unless it meets certain strict criteria .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech

Laws concerning hate speech outside of obscenity, defamation and incitement to riot are illegal in the United States.[34][35][36] The United States federal government and state governments are broadly forbidden by the First Amendment of the Constitution from restricting speech.[37] Even in cases where speech encourages illegal violence, instances of incitement qualify as criminal only if the threat of violence is imminent.[38] This strict standard prevents prosecution of many cases of incitement, including prosecution of those advocating violent opposition to the government, and those exhorting violence against racial, ethnic, or gender minorities.[39]
Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, employers may sometimes be prosecuted for tolerating "hate speech" by their employees, if that speech contributes to a broader pattern of harassment resulting in a "hostile or offensive working environment" for other employees.[40][41]
In the 1980s and 1990s, more than 350 public universities adopted "speech codes" regulating discriminatory speech by faculty and students.[42] These codes have not fared well in the courts, where they are frequently overturned as violations of the First Amendment.[43] Debate over restriction of "hate speech" in public universities has resurfaced with the adoption of anti-harassment codes covering discriminatory speech.[44]
 
May 11, 2008
20,202
1,149
126
WBC isn't even a church in the conventional meaning. The only members that church has is their own family . Some of the family split off years ago and don't even associate anymore because they consider that part of the family to be nuts. It is more a cult. There is a documentary on them on netflix instant viewing, watch that and you will understand what the WBC is. The documentary is called Fall from Grace.


The way to deal with WBC is the way we deal with anyone who tries to hide behind the law. Bring in the IRS.

Thank you for the documentary.
These people are a disgrace to the human race.


Or hire someone like me.

I prefer pacifism, but i would like to give the word stigmata a new meaning.
To use a crucifix created out of fractals. It just keeps on going forever and ever.
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,057
60
91
The Bill of Rights, including the right to free speech, is inviolate.

-John

No, those rights are not inviolate! You have the right to bear arms. You do NOT have the right to kill, harm or even threaten others who pose no immediate threat to you with those arms you legally possess.

As I posted, before, like all of our rights, 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.

Your rights to free speech are similarly limited by statutes against libel and slander. For example, if you defame someone by falsely accusing that person of having committed a crime, you are libel for any damages to that person caused your lies.
 

Zorkorist

Diamond Member
Apr 17, 2007
6,861
3
76
My right to Free speech is guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.

Every time you try and limit my right to Free Speech, you will have to fight me in court.

My right to arms, is guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.

Every time you try and take my arms, you will have to fight me in court.

But there are two things you can never stop me from doing; attacking speech with ideas, and arms with resistance.

-John
 
Last edited:

HAL9000

Lifer
Oct 17, 2010
22,021
3
76
My right to Free speech is guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.

Every time you try and limit my right to Free Speech, you will have to fight me in court.

My right to arms, is guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.

Every time you try and take my arms, you will have to fight me in court.

But there are two things you can never stop me from doing; attacking words with ideas, and arms with resistance.

-John

I know, but I don't know why.
 

Zorkorist

Diamond Member
Apr 17, 2007
6,861
3
76
It's because these fundamental rights are under attack.

The right to Free Speech? The right to Bear Arms?

Only a Society that has something to fear from free speech, or, bearing arms, would outlaw them.

Our Forefathers felt strongly, that both Free Speech, and the Right to Bear Arms, were inviolate.

-John
 

HAL9000

Lifer
Oct 17, 2010
22,021
3
76
It's because these fundamental rights are under attack.

The right to Free Speech? The right to Bear Arms?

Only a Society that has something to fear from free speech, or, bearing arms, would outlaw them.

Our Forefathers felt strongly, that both Free Speech, and the Right to Bear Arms, were inviolate.

-John

Your society has something to fear from bearing arms! And there are levels of freedom of speech, your level is too extreme IMO.

On a side note, don't get me started on the "right" to own a lethal weapon and how retarded that is, it's another subject entirely.
 

Zorkorist

Diamond Member
Apr 17, 2007
6,861
3
76
Also, it is important to understand that the Bill of Rights was added on to the U.S. Constitution by some of our Forefathers when they realized how draconian the Constitution is.

The Bill of Rights is all that you and I have to stand on, legally, and every time it is undermined, you and I become more and more subservient to Government.

-John
 

HAL9000

Lifer
Oct 17, 2010
22,021
3
76
Also, it is important to understand that the Bill of Rights was added on to the U.S. Constitution by some of our Forefathers when they realized how draconian the Constitution is.

The Bill of Rights is all that you and I have to stand on, legally, and every time it is undermined, you and I become more and more subservient to Government.

-John

1) You, not I.
2) I understand HOW these absurdities came about, but not why people argue for them.
 

Zorkorist

Diamond Member
Apr 17, 2007
6,861
3
76
Your society has something to fear from bearing arms! And there are levels of freedom of speech, your level is too extreme IMO.

On a side note, don't get me started on the "right" to own a lethal weapon and how retarded that is, it's another subject entirely.
The only thing I fear are criminals, and the Government... not neccesarily in that order.

-John
 

Zorkorist

Diamond Member
Apr 17, 2007
6,861
3
76
1) You, not I.
2) I understand HOW these absurdities came about, but not why people argue for them.
You too.

The reason people argue for these absurdities, is because they are on the Government dole. They are Party Members.

They haven't the slightest sense of Freedom.

-John
 

HAL9000

Lifer
Oct 17, 2010
22,021
3
76
You too.

The reason people argue for these absurdities, is because they are on the Government dole. They are Party Members.

They haven't the slightest sense of Freedom.

-John

They aren't part of my government and I'm glad that's the case. We don't have guns, we have a very different idea of free speech.
 

Zorkorist

Diamond Member
Apr 17, 2007
6,861
3
76
Yes it is.

As soon as you give up individual rights, like the right to free speech, or the right to bear arms, you are subservient to the Government.

-John
 

HAL9000

Lifer
Oct 17, 2010
22,021
3
76
Yes it is.

As soon as you give up individual rights, like the right to free speech, or the right to bear arms, you are subservient to the Government.

-John

Or the "right" to kill people. or the "right" to own nuclear bombs, or the "right" to sell heroine...?!

Governments need to restrict criminal activity. No one should have the "right" to own something with the express use of killing people.
 

Zorkorist

Diamond Member
Apr 17, 2007
6,861
3
76
Is England going to give up its Nuclear Bombs, War Planes, Destroyer Ships?

Of course it is right to bear arms... the use of those arms is subject to judgement.

But the right to bear arms, is inviolate.

-John
 

HAL9000

Lifer
Oct 17, 2010
22,021
3
76
Is England going to give up its Nuclear Bombs, War Planes, Destroyer Ships?

Of course it is right to bear arms... the use of those arms is subject to judgement.

But the right to bear arms, is inviolate.

-John

No it's not, there's no logical reason for every individual to have the right to own a gun, it's madness, and madness that we got rid of a long time ago. America is backwards in this respect.

Why? Why? Do you need a gun. Answer = Because everyone else has one.

If everyone else doesn't have one, you don't need one. As it is over here.