Westboro Baptist Church at Caylee Memorial? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

FaderMonkey · 02-10-2009, 02:21 PM

I've read from a couple news web sites that members of the Westboro Baptist Church planned to picket at today's memorial service for Caylee Anthony. None of those sites though give any reason why. Here's all I have found on the Westboro web site:

Quote:

This poor child has been murderously abused by America and her American parents and grandparents. We live in a nation that is cursed and abandoned by God, whose hands drip with the blood of millions of aborted babies, whose citizens are wallowing in sodomic morals - Whose new Pres. Obama has promised more sins!
GOD HATES AMERICA.

Well, I guess that explains it. At first I couldn't figure out one reason they would want to protest this memorial. But, what should I expect. This group is unbelievable.

Check out their wiki if you've never heard of them:

Westboro Baptist Church - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Infinite_Loser · 02-10-2009, 02:35 PM

Ignore them?

Strange Famous · 02-10-2009, 02:36 PM

Really any attention they get just feed's it.

I wouldnt have a particular problem if the next protest they go to someone that no witnesses see for whatever reason simply shoots a couple of them dead (as long as they dont shoot the kids that these mad cunts drag along to their sick attention seeking rants)

SabrinaFair · 02-10-2009, 03:20 PM

Ah, free speech. It doesn't come cheap. As much as I despise everything this group stands for, unfortunately they do have the right to say it. I do, however, think it's Constitutional to enforce any sort of legislation requiring a certain perimeter between protest and the actual funeral service. It's a reasonable time/place/manner restriction.

Cheater · 02-10-2009, 09:08 PM

I joined the Patriot Guard Riders who attend funeral services for fallen American heroes. We have had occasion to shield the mourning family and friends from the interruption that the Westboro Baptist Church tried to create. On Memorial Day, May 29th, 2006, The "Respect for America's Fallen Heroes Act" was signed by President George W. Bush. Sorry that I cannot post the url link to the Patriot Guard, but I'm sure that if you google it, you will be able to find it.

Glory's Sun · 02-11-2009, 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SabrinaFair

Ah, free speech. It doesn't come cheap. As much as I despise everything this group stands for, unfortunately they do have the right to say it. I do, however, think it's Constitutional to enforce any sort of legislation requiring a certain perimeter between protest and the actual funeral service. It's a reasonable time/place/manner restriction.

Freedom of speech only extends to a point..

and some of what these people are saying is not necessarily protected under it.

djtestudo · 02-11-2009, 04:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by guccilvr

Freedom of speech only extends to a point..

and some of what these people are saying is not necessarily protected under it.

A judge here in Baltimore already ruled against them in a case.

Don't know what happened with it, though; I'll have to do a search.

ngdawg · 02-11-2009, 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by guccilvr

Freedom of speech only extends to a point..

and some of what these people are saying is not necessarily protected under it.

And a marine's father proved that point when he won a lawsuit against the WBC:

Quote:

The brokenhearted father of a Marine killed in Iraq won a long-shot legal fight today after a federal jury in Baltimore awarded him nearly $11 million in a verdict against members of a Kansas church who hoisted anti-gay placards at his son’s Westminster funeral.

The jury’s announcement 24 hours after deliberations first began was met with tears and hugs from the family and supporters of Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder, whose March 2006 funeral was protested by members of the Westboro Baptist Church with signs including “Thank God for dead soldiers.”

Snyder’s father, Albert, won on every count of his complaint, as well as $2.9 million for compensatory damages and $8 million for punitive damages.

Taken from this article

djtestudo · 02-11-2009, 04:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ngdawg

And a marine's father proved that point when he won a lawsuit against the WBC:

Taken from this article

That's what I was referring to.

Tully Mars · 02-11-2009, 04:31 PM

Turns out free speech isn't exactly free. Same right that let's me say just about any damn fool thing I want grants them the right to say whatever bat shit crazy thing they want. I'm not sure exactly what "reasonable time/place/manner restriction's" entail but I've little doubt, given her background, that SabrinaFair knows what she's talking about. So they have the right to say just about any damn thing they want. Doesn't mean I don't think they're low life, scum sucking, pig shit eating, inbred, five toed, brainless, dickless, snake kissing, pieces of shit who are taking up perfectly good oxygen actual human beings could be using.

ngdawg · 02-11-2009, 04:52 PM

There are some commentaries floating about the web that the WBC will be successful in getting the verdict turned around on constitutional grounds, but...
Snyder and his lawyer were extremely savvy in their lawsuit wording; the suit was filed and won on the basis, not of free speech, but of intentional harm and malice. The jury found WBC intentionally meant to cause harm, emotional suffering and slander during their picketing of Snyder's son's funeral by harrassing incoming mourners, holding up their signs and attempting to disrupt the services. Verdict Sheet
Since it is going through the appeal process, they can and will continue to do what they've always done. Let's hope the appellate court understands intent and doesn't fall back on the Constitution alone.

Baraka_Guru · 02-11-2009, 04:53 PM

I have no idea what these WBC people are talking about.

God loves fags.

Glory's Sun · 02-11-2009, 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tully Mars

Turns out free speech isn't exactly free. Same right that let's me say just about anything damn fool thing I want grants them the right to say whatever bat shit crazy thing they want. I'm not sure exactly what "reasonable time/place/manner restriction's" entail but I've little doubt, given her background, that SabrinaFair knows what she's talking about. So they have the right to say just about any damn thing they want. Doesn't mean I don't think they're low life, scum sucking, pig shit eating, inbred, five toed, brainless, dickless, snake kissing, pieces of shit who are taking up perfectly good oxygen actual human beings could be using.

There are limitations to freedom of speech, whether it's hate speech, speech to incite a riot, perjury, defamation, true threats etc etc..

Just because the law reads freedom from being censored, doesn't mean it applies in every instance.

snowy · 02-11-2009, 05:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by guccilvr

There are limitations to freedom of speech, whether it's hate speech, speech to incite a riot, perjury, defamation, true threats etc etc..

Just because the law reads freedom from being censored, doesn't mean it applies in every instance.

gucci, you took the words right out of my mouth.

Hate speech isn't free speech.

Tully Mars · 02-11-2009, 06:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by guccilvr

There are limitations to freedom of speech, whether it's hate speech, speech to incite a riot, perjury, defamation, true threats etc etc..

Just because the law reads freedom from being censored, doesn't mean it applies in every instance.

Oh, I know. That's why I put that "just about" in there. Hate speech and threating speech really don't apply. But yelling "god hates fags" or "god hates America" might, I don't know. Seems like opinion and might be covered, again I don't know. I'm no legal scholar, never claimed to be one. I would be concerned if it's decided they can't legally express their opinion is someone someday going to decide that I don't have the right to express what fucktards they are in my opinion?

Now if the courts decide they have to be "X" number of feet from "X" group or building when they express their douche bag type opinions I have no problem with that what so ever.
-----Added 11/2/2009 at 09 : 12 : 01-----

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

I have no idea what these WBC people are talking about.

God loves fags.

I always figured God might be gay or lesbian. I mean you never hear about Mrs. God or Mr. God. If so the WBC folks are sooooo screwed when they die.

In all seriousness I figure if there is a God and there is a heaven and hell they probably are screwed. They've cherry picked the bible to give them the right to hate other people and purposefully inflict pain. Doesn't sound very Christian to me. They don't even seem very happy, just angry and bitter. I believe there's a chance they're going to hell in a bucket and not even enjoying the ride.
-----Added 11/2/2009 at 09 : 25 : 55-----

Quote:

Originally Posted by ngdawg

There are some commentaries floating about the web that the WBC will be successful in getting the verdict turned around on constitutional grounds, but...
Snyder and his lawyer were extremely savvy in their lawsuit wording; the suit was filed and won on the basis, not of free speech, but of intentional harm and malice. The jury found WBC intentionally meant to cause harm, emotional suffering and slander during their picketing of Snyder's son's funeral by harrassing incoming mourners, holding up their signs and attempting to disrupt the services. Verdict Sheet
Since it is going through the appeal process, they can and will continue to do what they've always done. Let's hope the appellate court understands intent and doesn't fall back on the Constitution alone.

That's hilarious, they issued the verdict on Halloween. Bet ol' Phelps told all his brain dead followers that Satan had his hand in it. I think I read the WBC church hates Halloween almost as much as they hate the USA.

SabrinaFair · 02-11-2009, 06:32 PM

I have no (constitutional) problem with regulating hate speech that advocates violence. In fact, that is the constitutional standard for regulating political (i.e., noncommercial) speech--does it call for imminent lawless action? But anything less than that--anything that is merely advocating a viewpoint, no matter how distasteful--should not be regulated. That is the price of free speech. In order for me to be able to shout my point-of-view at the top of my voice, I have to deal with someone else shouting the exact opposite point-of-view at the top of theirs. As repugnant as I find WBC and their hateful, intolerant views, I do think they have the right to voice them. As I said before, and as Tully said, the courts have every right to regulate perimeters, etc. The court may regulate time/place/manner--such as the cases that have granted injunctions forbidding abortion protesters from picketing a doctors house with a megaphone at 3 in the morning. Reasonable restrictions on speech are one thing--restraint of one particular view point is entirely different.

Or, at least that's the point of view of this Con Law nerd....

Redjake · 02-11-2009, 06:39 PM

These Westboro Baptist Church folks are going to get their asses beat one day.

Strange Famous · 02-20-2009, 01:20 PM

Free Speech isnt the way to look at it all

Cant say much if theyre dead, can they?

silent_jay · 02-20-2009, 02:26 PM

But doesn't the WBC know:

02-10-2009, 02:35 PM	#2 (permalink)
Infinite_Loser Junkie Location: Lake Mary, FL	Ignore them? __________________ I believe in equality; Everyone is equally inferior to me.

02-10-2009, 02:36 PM	#3 (permalink)
Strange Famous follower of the child's crusade?	Really any attention they get just feed's it. I wouldnt have a particular problem if the next protest they go to someone that no witnesses see for whatever reason simply shoots a couple of them dead (as long as they dont shoot the kids that these mad cunts drag along to their sick attention seeking rants) __________________ "Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate, for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain without being uncovered." The Gospel of Thomas

02-10-2009, 03:20 PM	#4 (permalink)
SabrinaFair Junkie Location: Louisville, KY	Ah, free speech. It doesn't come cheap. As much as I despise everything this group stands for, unfortunately they do have the right to say it. I do, however, think it's Constitutional to enforce any sort of legislation requiring a certain perimeter between protest and the actual funeral service. It's a reasonable time/place/manner restriction. __________________ "With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be cheerful. Strive to be happy." -Desiderata

02-11-2009, 04:31 PM	#10 (permalink)
Tully Mars Living in a Warmer Insanity Super Moderator Location: Yucatan, Mexico	Turns out free speech isn't exactly free. Same right that let's me say just about any damn fool thing I want grants them the right to say whatever bat shit crazy thing they want. I'm not sure exactly what "reasonable time/place/manner restriction's" entail but I've little doubt, given her background, that SabrinaFair knows what she's talking about. So they have the right to say just about any damn thing they want. Doesn't mean I don't think they're low life, scum sucking, pig shit eating, inbred, five toed, brainless, dickless, snake kissing, pieces of shit who are taking up perfectly good oxygen actual human beings could be using. __________________ I used to drink to drown my sorrows, but the damned things have learned how to swim- Frida Kahlo Vice President Starkizzer Fan Club Last edited by Tully Mars; 02-11-2009 at 06:29 PM..

02-11-2009, 04:52 PM	#11 (permalink)
ngdawg peekaboo Location: on the back, bitch	There are some commentaries floating about the web that the WBC will be successful in getting the verdict turned around on constitutional grounds, but... Snyder and his lawyer were extremely savvy in their lawsuit wording; the suit was filed and won on the basis, not of free speech, but of intentional harm and malice. The jury found WBC intentionally meant to cause harm, emotional suffering and slander during their picketing of Snyder's son's funeral by harrassing incoming mourners, holding up their signs and attempting to disrupt the services. Verdict Sheet Since it is going through the appeal process, they can and will continue to do what they've always done. Let's hope the appellate court understands intent and doesn't fall back on the Constitution alone. __________________ Don't blame me. I didn't vote for either of'em.

02-10-2009, 09:08 PM	#5 (permalink)
Cheater Tilted Location: New Jersey	I joined the Patriot Guard Riders who attend funeral services for fallen American heroes. We have had occasion to shield the mourning family and friends from the interruption that the Westboro Baptist Church tried to create. On Memorial Day, May 29th, 2006, The "Respect for America's Fallen Heroes Act" was signed by President George W. Bush. Sorry that I cannot post the url link to the Patriot Guard, but I'm sure that if you google it, you will be able to find it.

02-11-2009, 04:53 PM	#12 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	I have no idea what these WBC people are talking about. God loves fags. __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

02-11-2009, 06:32 PM	#16 (permalink)
SabrinaFair Junkie Location: Louisville, KY	I have no (constitutional) problem with regulating hate speech that advocates violence. In fact, that is the constitutional standard for regulating political (i.e., noncommercial) speech--does it call for imminent lawless action? But anything less than that--anything that is merely advocating a viewpoint, no matter how distasteful--should not be regulated. That is the price of free speech. In order for me to be able to shout my point-of-view at the top of my voice, I have to deal with someone else shouting the exact opposite point-of-view at the top of theirs. As repugnant as I find WBC and their hateful, intolerant views, I do think they have the right to voice them. As I said before, and as Tully said, the courts have every right to regulate perimeters, etc. The court may regulate time/place/manner--such as the cases that have granted injunctions forbidding abortion protesters from picketing a doctors house with a megaphone at 3 in the morning. Reasonable restrictions on speech are one thing--restraint of one particular view point is entirely different. Or, at least that's the point of view of this Con Law nerd.... __________________ "With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be cheerful. Strive to be happy." -Desiderata

02-11-2009, 06:39 PM	#17 (permalink)
Redjake I'm a family man - I run a family business. Location: Wilson, NC	These Westboro Baptist Church folks are going to get their asses beat one day. __________________ Off the record, on the q.t., and very hush-hush.

02-20-2009, 01:20 PM	#18 (permalink)
Strange Famous follower of the child's crusade?	Free Speech isnt the way to look at it all Cant say much if theyre dead, can they? __________________ "Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate, for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain without being uncovered." The Gospel of Thomas

02-20-2009, 02:26 PM	#19 (permalink)
silent_jay Her Jay Location: Ontario for now....	But doesn't the WBC know: __________________ Absence makes the heart grow fonder