tomato1236
Ninja Master
Ditto.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Free Speech or Hate Speech?
- Thread starter Rakhel
- Start date
Ditto.
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
I am afraid to say it. We have to be extremely careful on any restriction to our Constitutional rights.
I want WBC shut down and silenced.
But I do not want even more restrictions placed on our Constitutional freedoms.
Personaly I am torn on this. And am hoping that the Court can at least redirect the protests to the proper venue. Such as actually holding the protests at sites representative of those they are 'preaching' against, like outside the Pentagon. (If they dare)
Rainbow Mage
Lib Democrat/Agnostic/Epicurean-ish/Buddhist-ish
Tumbleweed they've already passed bills to make using hate speech against African-Americans and racial minorities a punishable offense. I don't see how we don't deserve the same protection.
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
No such Bills have been passed in the US.
Smoke
Done here.
How would silencing Westboro Baptist Church protect us?
They're not violent. They don't spend millions of dollars fighting against LGBT equality. They don't try to force young gay people into Christian brainwashing camps. They don't hypocritically claim to "love" gay folks while leading hateful campaigns against us. They aren't the ones driving gay kids to suicide.
They cause us no significant harm at all, whereas the Roman Catholic Church, the Southern Baptist Convention, the LDS Church, and other Christian churches and organizations cause us great harm.
If it's a desire to protect gay folks that makes you want to silence the WBC, I have to wonder what you think it would accomplish.
no-body
Well-Known Member
This is exactly the opposite of free speech, you don't get to say "you have free speech but a line has to be drawn somewhere" because that's the same as saying "you have free speech as long as you say the right things" They should have the freedom to do these things as long as they're not doing anything illegal. Hurting someones feelings is not a crime.
What should really be done is focus on daddy Phelps beliefs as child abuse but that makes the religious very nervous. Also dosen't hurt that the entire clan is a pack of trained lawyers.
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
I don't think you quite understand. None of us wants them to do it, but if you start restricting freedom of speech, where does it end? You have to be very careful about stuff like that. You need to give a good reason why it should be illegal while still allowing all other free speech. That's the tricky part.
Rainbow Mage
Lib Democrat/Agnostic/Epicurean-ish/Buddhist-ish
It would send a message to others who dislike and oppress gays, that homophobia is not ok.
To elaborate, there are no laws prohibiting hate speech against African-Americans or minorities or even hate speech advocating genocide. Brandenberg vs. Ohio is one of the big cases establishing this precedent. [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yates_v._United_States"][/URL]
Phelps and his clan always call local law enforcement to establish where the public property is in relation to the site they'll be protesting and never protest on private property and never physically interfere or intermingle with the funeral participants. They also usually leave when the actual funeral or church service begins so they can't be accused of disrupting the service itself. This is far too much attention paid to a religious cult comprised of about 70 people tops and consisting mainly of Fred Phelp's direct family.
I don't think there are many people saying we can't have free speech, but more that there is a time and place for everything. And funerals should not be a place for any kind of hate speech. Or weddings, either, come to think of it.
no-body
Well-Known Member
That's still limiting rights. As long as they aren't actually crashing these functions then it shouldn't matter what they say or do from their designated spot.
Antiochian
Rationalist
The WBC is made up of how many people? Not many. It's leader will eventually die (the good die young, right?), and at that point the church will hopefully spiral into oblivion without its big cheese around to hold things together. Now, add up the Evangelicals, the Catholics, Mormons in this country. We're talking millions of people. They are the ones we need to worry about, because they are the ones with money, power, and influence in this country.
Even homophobic Chrsitians see WBC as nasty, and Fred as a wacko, but when Pope B16, or Franklin Graham, or Joel Osteen speak out against gays, people listen to them and believe them.
I was trying to make the audience at my English colloquium understand this last year: bigotry is still bigotry, even when it's said with smiles and dressed up in warm fuzzies. A professor said, "But even the SBC condemns WBC!"
Hitler condemned Stalin, too--what's your freaking point?
Even homophobic Chrsitians see WBC as nasty, and Fred as a wacko, but when Pope B16, or Franklin Graham, or Joel Osteen speak out against gays, people listen to them and believe them.
I was trying to make the audience at my English colloquium understand this last year: bigotry is still bigotry, even when it's said with smiles and dressed up in warm fuzzies. A professor said, "But even the SBC condemns WBC!"
Hitler condemned Stalin, too--what's your freaking point?
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
We should be taking our righteous anger out on Focus on the Family and its efforts to protect bullying against homosexuals.
Rainbow Mage
Lib Democrat/Agnostic/Epicurean-ish/Buddhist-ish
Doesn't anyone understand that the WBC's numbers is the reason it would be the easiest to make an example out of? If the WBC is punished it will send a message to those who spout homophobia in the larger organizations.
Rainbow Mage
Lib Democrat/Agnostic/Epicurean-ish/Buddhist-ish
We have to decide who's rights are more legitimate. The mourning or the people who decide to use someone death as an example?
In other words, don't mourners have rights, too? Don't people who want a peaceful wedding (gay or straight) have any rights?
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
What will we punish WBC for? What laws have they broken?
I understand where you are coming from. But your rights only protect you from government interference. Not from protesters who are so careful to not break any laws or local ordinances that they can't really be touched.
Rainbow Mage
Lib Democrat/Agnostic/Epicurean-ish/Buddhist-ish
Maybe some feel that there is something called an abuse of free speech. They should be punished for that, and to send a message that intolerence will not be tolerated.
Smoke
Done here.
Sorry, I can't support taking away the civil liberties of a group that is doing no harm, especially not for the purpose of "sending a message" to those who are doing great harm. What's the real message there, anyway? You'd pick on a small congregation because you can't touch the big guys who are really doing us harm? Isn't that just telling the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops that you're intimidated by their power and influence?
And once you establish that the government can deprive someone of his civil rights to send a message to somebody else, what other targets will they think of?