ryoder 1,590
david3 0
And for this weeks news on WBC, they are going to picket a Charlie Daniels concert.
It seems old Charlie wrote an article about them some months back, and really hurt their feelings:
http://www.favstocks.com/charlie-daniels-article-on-the-westboro-baptist-church-that-inspired-tonights-protest-in-branson-missouri/2850848/
If they want to protest something we all can get behind they should protest a Charlie Sheen performance.
WBC is entitled, under the Constitution, to equal protection under the law.
If I am not mistaken, it was the state's refusal to provide equal protection that led to the National Guard being called out several times during the civil rights movement.
If I am not mistaken, it was the state's refusal to provide equal protection that led to the National Guard being called out several times during the civil rights movement.
"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"
"A few made it to the funeral but were ushered away to be questioned about a crime they might have possibly been involved in. Turns out, after a few hours of questioning, that they were not involved and they were allowed to go on about their business."
What does this tell us about what actually happened? I don't see much although it infers plenty.
well, this article was written by a fan of the rights violations, so I pretty much dismiss the entire bit about "crimes they might have been involved in." Given the pattern already shown by the police, it can be translated to 'cops made up an excuse to take them away for a couple hours.'
Someone fairly asked - can we believe this article to be true. And certainly we've seen viral postings passed around that purport to be true, but really are advocacy pieces for how they think society should handle an issue. But in that case, it's just as important to decry the violation of freedoms and abuse of power.
just a reposting, which could support the notion this is all a planted non event.
nbblood 0
The Bill of Rights protects the People from the government and not from each other. Your right to freedom of speech ends at my door. I can squelch whatevee speech I want in my house. My son isn't listening to anything with autotuned vocals in my house. His right to free speech doesn't count at home with me.
The WBC does not, apparently, protest at peoples' homes. Nor do they enter private property to protest. They keep their protests in public areas - there is a very limited right to privacy in public. So they do know what they are doing. Imagine if someone said, "I don't want to be subjected to billboards. It invades my privacy." Or, "That punk with the bass thumping and exhaust pipe that sounds like a kazoo is interfering with my privacy." It just doesn't work like that.
Right. You missed an important piece of my post. If I rent or purchase time and space at a particular venue, does that venue not, at least temporarily, become private for my particular event? Don't I have the right to invite and not invite those that I choose? Why is a funeral any different than say, renting a building to have a party? My argument is that WBC is showing up uninvited to private events. Ok, sure, they stand across the street in most cases. But they are very intentionally interfering with that event. Where do you draw the line on a "venue" that is purchased/rented? Virtually impossible to determine or really enforce. Got it. In many cases groups are required to have a permit to assemble and protest. Is that applicable here? I don't know. Did they apply for a permit? Was one required? If they did submit a permit and the city/county denied it because of the potential for disturbance at that particular place and time, is that infringing on their rights? No. They can peacefully assemble at an approved place and time. If I'm the government official that puts an approving stamp on a request don't I have an obligation to consider public safety and the possibility of disturbances/violence before I approve that action?
I'm not a lawyer and I don't pretend to be, so these are merely my take and my interpretations.
[Reply]people at a time that is inappropriate. I cannot have respect whatsoever for their actions.
I agree. Propriety, however, is subjective. I have no respect for them at all, and their actions are despicable. I respect, however, their rights.
I agree. I think I said that.
[Reply]If you stir a hornets nest, don't be surprised when you get stung.
When the government is the hornets' nest then I think there is a bigger problem.
Again, this rests on the supposition that the article is accurately reporting the circumstances. Really, how accurate do you suppose this article is? I'd like to see some cold, hard facts before I accuse the government/police of inappropriate action here. There's not enough evidence here to do anything but speculate.
Blues,
Nathan
If you wait 'til the last minute, it'll only take a minute.
Nathan
If you wait 'til the last minute, it'll only take a minute.
If I rent or purchase time and space at a particular venue, does that venue not, at least temporarily, become private for my particular event? Don't I have the right to invite and not invite those that I choose? Why is a funeral any different than say, renting a building to have a party? My argument is that WBC is showing up uninvited to private events. Ok, sure, they stand across the street in most cases.
Yep. That last sentence is the dinger...
My wife is hotter than your wife.
nbblood 0
If I rent or purchase time and space at a particular venue, does that venue not, at least temporarily, become private for my particular event? Don't I have the right to invite and not invite those that I choose? Why is a funeral any different than say, renting a building to have a party? My argument is that WBC is showing up uninvited to private events. Ok, sure, they stand across the street in most cases.
Yep. That last sentence is the dinger...
Yeah, ok. How about this?
In many cases groups are required to have a permit to assemble and protest. Is that applicable here? I don't know. Did they apply for a permit? Was one required? If they did submit a permit and the city/county denied it because of the potential for disturbance at that particular place and time, is that infringing on their rights? No. They can peacefully assemble at an approved place and time. If I'm the government official that puts an approving stamp on a request don't I have an obligation to consider public safety and the possibility of disturbances/violence before I approve that action?
Is the WBC taking the appropriate legal action to peacefully assemble? I don't know the answer but I could speculate like you are. I simply don't interpret this as a "freedom of speech" issue. Rather I see this as an "inciting a riot" issue. If I'm practicing my freedom of speech and inciting a riot at the same time, whose rights do you protect? the public? the perpetrator.....yes, I said perpetrator.
I'd still like to see some facts. Now I'm way down the road of speculation. I've wasted too much of my life on this thread.
Blues,
Nathan
If you wait 'til the last minute, it'll only take a minute.
Nathan
If you wait 'til the last minute, it'll only take a minute.
lummy 4
according to another article I read, the county decided not to pass an ordinance making a "permit to protest" necessary. Instead, they just messed with WBC.
source: http://blogs.pitch.com/plog/2011/04/mississippi_town_gets_rough_wi.php
Rather than abide by the court's ruling and make a local ordinance requiring protesters to stay a minimum distance away from funerals, the locals got a little creative in keeping the creeps away from a procession. Specifically, they beat them up, wouldn't let them out of a parking lot, and detained them for questioning for a mythical crime until the funeral was over.
source: http://blogs.pitch.com/plog/2011/04/mississippi_town_gets_rough_wi.php
I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. eat sushi, get smoochieTTK#1
The parking of the cars was itself false imprisonment since it prevented their movement.
Ok, hold on. I went back to re-read that part and just noticed the "Rankin County pickup trucks." I had thought it was pickup trucks from the local residents. Alright, that's different. That could make the local government culpable.
Now you are starting to get it. This is nothing but pure government harrassment and an attempt to squelch their right to free speech and peaceful assembly to protest. As offensive and wrong-headed as they seem to be, they are still entitled to their rights, period.
.
Yep. You're right.
Wait, this is SC. Isn't this the part of the thread where I either ignore the fact that I missed an important fact and disappear into cyber anonymity or that I toss out a red herring argument intended to knock my detractors on their heels and divert attention to an unrelated argument?
Fuck that. I was wrong. Sorry.
Good catch Lawrocket. If localities are going to be dicks then they should think it through.
Tink1717 2
WRONG. These people were NOT engaging in constitutionally protected speech. They were inciting violence against gays. Period. Their speech presents a unambiguous, clear and present danger to the intended target. This is much worse than yelling fire in a crowded theatre and such. There is a direct line between the speech of the Phelps cult and such events as the murder of Matthew Sheppard and others. To even further aggravate the crime is that their speech also presents a clear and present danger to themselves. If this was not true, they would not be able to support themselves by filing civl lawsuits against those who assault them, as they surely will in this case. No these people are not exercising the first amendment, they are perpetrating a crime. A crime with a specific target and a specific goal. If this was anything else, say targeting jews or Muslims, it would be labeled terrorism and the full weight of the feds would be falling on the heads of these social degenerates. They deserve no protection. None. They deserve to be rotting in cell, forgotten and never to be be heard from again.
Skydivers don't knock on Death's door. They ring the bell and runaway... It really pisses him off.
-The World Famous Tink. (I never heard of you either!!)
AA #2069 ASA#33 POPS#8808 Swooo 1717
-The World Famous Tink. (I never heard of you either!!)
AA #2069 ASA#33 POPS#8808 Swooo 1717
WRONG. These people were NOT engaging in constitutionally protected speech. They were inciting violence against gays. Period.
Sorry, you're stating a personal opinion, not supported by the Constitution, the Supreme Court, or our American way. Period.
It's no different from skinheads passing out literature that blames the Jews and compares skulls of blacks and apes.
according to another article I read, the county decided not to pass an ordinance making a "permit to protest" necessary. Instead, they just messed with WBC.
Rather than abide by the court's ruling and make a local ordinance requiring protesters to stay a minimum distance away from funerals, the locals got a little creative in keeping the creeps away from a procession. Specifically, they beat them up, wouldn't let them out of a parking lot, and detained them for questioning for a mythical crime until the funeral was over.
source: http://blogs.pitch.com/plog/2011/04/mississippi_town_gets_rough_wi.php
this again is basically a repost. It is not confirmation.
Key phrase in your link:
"According to one unconfirmed but widely circulating account of the April 14 funeral"
The likelihood that this is a false event is growing.
Yeah, ok. How about this?In many cases groups are required to have a permit to assemble and protest. Is that applicable here? I don't know. Did they apply for a permit? Was one required? If they did submit a permit and the city/county denied it because of the potential for disturbance at that particular place and time, is that infringing on their rights? No. They can peacefully assemble at an approved place and time. If I'm the government official that puts an approving stamp on a request don't I have an obligation to consider public safety and the possibility of disturbances/violence before I approve that action?
Is the WBC taking the appropriate legal action to peacefully assemble? I don't know the answer but I could speculate like you are.
These assholes, err, people are making their living suing people for stopping them. They are lawyers and are pretty well attuned to the legal requirements for their speech. So yes, I think it's safe to speculate that they are assembling legally, and not on private property. Otherwise, there would be a million outraged lawyers willing to put in the pro bono time to shut them up.
Tink1717 2
NOT personal opinion, but supported by SCOTUS. Repeated cases state that speech that is dangerous to the life and health of others is not protected.
Miles away from scumheads and their stupid antisemitism.
Miles away from scumheads and their stupid antisemitism.
Skydivers don't knock on Death's door. They ring the bell and runaway... It really pisses him off.
-The World Famous Tink. (I never heard of you either!!)
AA #2069 ASA#33 POPS#8808 Swooo 1717
-The World Famous Tink. (I never heard of you either!!)
AA #2069 ASA#33 POPS#8808 Swooo 1717
NOT personal opinion, but supported by SCOTUS. Repeated cases state that speech that is dangerous to the life and health of others is not protected.
where you got lost is that their speech is not dangerous to the life of health of others. Obnoxious != dangerous.
lummy 4
my point was that the town (or county) did not make an ordinance to either require a permit or to regulate where a protest could be held.
I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. eat sushi, get smoochieTTK#1
ryoder 1,590
I have yet to find any main stream media reporting about this.
Or maybe it didn't happen: http://cjonline.com/news/2011-04-28/miss-sheriff-online-wbc-reports-are-false
"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.
my point was that the town (or county) did not make an ordinance to either require a permit or to regulate where a protest could be held.
that was mere speculation by the writer.
Such restrictions probably don't stand up well to legal scrutiny, though I suspect the Phelps select the easiest locations, so if one town did that, they'd pick on the next one.
It seems old Charlie wrote an article about them some months back, and really hurt their feelings:
http://www.favstocks.com/charlie-daniels-article-on-the-westboro-baptist-church-that-inspired-tonights-protest-in-branson-missouri/2850848/
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites