Free Speech or Hate Speech?

[no-body]

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?

They still have all their rights, they don't have to look or listen to the protesters or acknowledge them. The Westboro people aren't actually crashing these places and are doing everything to the letter of the law.

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.

This is against the very concept of free speech and patently absurd. You don't get to silence someones message just because you don't agree with it.

 

[ChristineES]

I have to add that no one would even be restricting anyone's rights; the protestors would just have to find another place to protest. This isn't about restricting free speech, but more about having a bit a sensitivity.
But, as I think about it, people don't really care about other's feelings (at least that is the way I have been feeling)just about their own rights. And since a Church would be a public place, then they really couldn't legally stop protestors.

 

[tomato1236]

I don't know. I'm starting to think the best way to deal with these issues is to put on ninja clothes and just go kick some butt in the dark of night.

 

[ChristineES]

I don't know. I'm starting to think the best way to deal with these issues is to put on ninja clothes and just go kick some butt in the dark of night.

Either that or go find a blunt object. But I am against violence (personal not religious belief).

 

[tumbleweed41]

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.

I feel they are are group of intolerant and insensitive *******. But in America, they have they right to be intolerant and insensitive *******.
You cannot punish someone for being an ******. Only when they actually break a law.

 

[tomato1236]

Either that or go find a blunt object. But I am against violence (personal not religious belief).

I'm just saying that the government can't do anything, but secret vigilante superheroes can. And violence isn't entirely necessary. Kicking butt is one way, but there are alternatives. Like stealing all their signs. Or using ether to knock them out and transport them each to distant foreign countries one by one. Or plaguing their homes with flies or locusts. You know, stuff they can relate to.

 

[Nepenthe]

I'm just saying that the government can't do anything, but secret vigilante superheroes can. And violence isn't entirely necessary. Kicking butt is one way, but there are alternatives. Like stealing all their signs. Or using ether to knock them out and transport them each to distant foreign countries one by one. Or plaguing their homes with flies or locusts. You know, stuff they can relate to.

Interfering with their right to assemble and protest has resulted in the Westboro Church being awarded (by some estimates) around $250,000. They use the money they win under the Civil Right's Attorney's Fees Act of 1976 to sue when their protests are (illegally) broken up (they've been assaulted and their signs stolen many times in the past and this simply means more $ for Phelps and his clan).

These morons are hate filled insignificant gnats that have been made into a threat far in excess of their relevance. Stop reacting to their protests and ignore them- their funds will dwindle that much quicker and the media will no longer jump all over them whenever a funeral is held for a soldier.

 

[tomato1236]

Interfering with their right to assemble and protest has resulted in the Westboro Church being awarded (by some estimates) around $250,000. They use the money they win under the Civil Right's Attorney's Fees Act of 1976 to sue when their protests are (illegally) broken up (they've been assaulted and their signs stolen many times in the past and this simply means more $ for Phelps and his clan).

These morons are hate filled insignificant gnats that have been made into a threat far in excess of their relevance. Stop reacting to their protests and ignore them- their funds will dwindle that much quicker and the media will no longer jump all over them whenever a funeral is held for a soldier.

Well that sucks...but I'm pretty sure they can't sue who they never seeee.

 

[HonestJoe]

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.

Isn't there a huge contradiction there? You're drawing a line at illegal. In fact, the law is how we define the line.

This isn't a debate about whether we destroy the unconditional principle of free speech - that has never existed. The debate is about exactly where the existing exceptions should stop.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Well that sucks...but I'm pretty sure they can't sue who they never seeee.

They came to our town and checked into a local motel. There is a veterans biker group, (and others of like mind). They have dealt with these folks before.

They form a line and take one step forward. When they come face to face, they take even more steps. No violence, just positive steps.

The morning of the funeral, there was a great number of these bikers in town riding around. The funeral went off without the westboro group even showing their faces, they checked out of their motel room and left town.

 

[Midnight Pete]

It would send a message to others who dislike and oppress gays, that homophobia is not ok.

If this isn't a Catch-22, I don't know what is.

 

[no-body]

Isn't there a huge contradiction there? You're drawing a line at illegal. In fact, the law is how we define the line.

This isn't a debate about whether we destroy the unconditional principle of free speech - that has never existed. The debate is about exactly where the existing exceptions should stop.

It's no contradiction and it has existed since America started even if from the very beginning people have been trying to impose limits and ideas and others. You can tell people what to do within reason but you can't tell them what to think or say (with certain exceptions)

 

[HonestJoe]

It's no contradiction and it has existed since America started even if from the very beginning people have been trying to impose limits and ideas and others. You can tell people what to do within reason but you can't tell them what to think or say (with certain exceptions)

Those last three words are key though. You are suggesting that to impose any kind of restriction on these protests is unacceptable because of the fundamental principal of freedom of speech yet you accept that there are (and always have been) restrictions to free speech.

You can't argue against this restriction on the basis that there can be no limits to free speech. You need to make a specific argument against extending the limits that even you admit exist to cover this situation.

If your position is that we shouldn't restrict what people say full stop, you're arguing against things like slander, libel, perjury and playing loud music in a residential street at 3 o'clock in the morning.

 

[tomato1236]

It would send a message to others who dislike and oppress gays, that homophobia is not ok.

Last week I went and took photos of the anti-boyd k packer protest in salt lake city. For those of you who don't know what that is about, an apostle of my church gave a talk in our general conference reiterating the church's stance on homosexuality. The local gay community got together and protested it a couple of weeks later.

I showed the photos to my mom and two sisters last night, who have been less involved with learning about the issue and talking with gay people (our brother is gay) than I have. Within 30 seconds, I heard the word f**, gagging noises, saw sour faces and attempts to skip photos as quickly as possible when there was gay affection displayed there.

So apparently "homophobia" is still present in my own family more than 5 years since my brother came out. It reminded me of that day, and how I felt and reacted. Prior, I had no ill feelings toward gay people, no "hate" toward them, and I honestly hadn't really thought much about homosexuality. When my brother told us the news, I was disturbed and felt physical nausea for one week. I had a similar experience the first time I saw him in a photograph kissing a big ugly man (which I don't understand...it seems like if you're going to be gay, at least get with a good-looking guy. ). So I guess by popular definition, my illness would have been called "homophobia". I regularly spend time with my brother (when he'll consent to it) and I've had gay co-workers, etc., and I attended that rally with no such feelings, and I'm to a place where I feel the person is much more important than their homosexuality, though I've noticed that many of them tend to see themselves much in terms of that homosexuality. I don't get sick or grossed out, or avoid them, or any of that. They're just peeps. I arrived at that place by trying to understand their feelings about it.

But my point is, is "homophobia" really some intentional hatred toward gay people? I know there are those out there who do hate gays. They get all worked up in a frenzy and do things they should regret. But in general, for those who haven't been near the issue, are these initial and natural reactions some hillbilly ignorance, or just people reacting the way their minds and bodies (and arguably their spirits) naturally react? I'm not saying it should stay that way--I feel it's important to learn and be an understanding person--but I know for a fact that no intolerance of gay people was ever taught in my home. No overt messages of "gays are evil" was ever suggested. I don't even remember ever having been taught that homosexuality was a sin outside of a few church lessons on the subject, perhaps. I should point out that there are many things that are taught are sin in church lessons--drinking coffee, for example--and I never had an averse reaction to coffee drinkers. In fact, I love the smell of coffee. I've spent time with fornicators, adulterers, drug addicts, etc. I never felt any repulsion.

If it's not the mere teaching that homosexuality is a sin that created my nausea, and my sisters' disgust (I was disappointed she used the word she did. There's no reason for that. We were taught not to talk like that), then what was the cause?

 

[Midnight Pete]

It would send a message to others who dislike and oppress gays, that homophobia is not ok.

What matters is how you treat others. It's possible to rise above your personal dislike of someone and still do unto them as you'd have them do unto you. It's totally possible.

 

[Magic Man]

But my point is, is "homophobia" really some intentional hatred toward gay people? I know there are those out there who do hate gays. They get all worked up in a frenzy and do things they should regret. But in general, for those who haven't been near the issue, are these initial and natural reactions some hillbilly ignorance, or just people reacting the way their minds and bodies (and arguably their spirits) naturally react?

I don't think it's a natural reaction for most. I'm not exactly into guy-on-guy action, but watching two guys kiss doesn't really make me nauseous or anything. I think it's more a learned reaction. In our culture male homosexuality is seen as gross and wrong. Female homosexuality is much less so, so it's more accepted. Consciously or unconsciously we learn that, and we react accordingly. If we weren't raised in that atmosphere, our reactions would be different. I used to have a more disgusted reaction to two guys kissing than I do now, but that's because I was brought up Catholic and brought up in this gay-demonizing culture.

Whether or not homophobia is intentional is sort of irrelevant. If you dislike gay people either unconsciously or consciously, it's a problem you're responsible for fixing. Just as you did, others who are homophobic just from not thinking about it need to think about it. I fault them just as much for not thinking about it enough to change their attitude as I do the people who actively hate gay people.

 

[tomato1236]

I don't think it's a natural reaction for most. I'm not exactly into guy-on-guy action, but watching two guys kiss doesn't really make me nauseous or anything. I think it's more a learned reaction. In our culture male homosexuality is seen as gross and wrong. Female homosexuality is much less so, so it's more accepted. Consciously or unconsciously we learn that, and we react accordingly. If we weren't raised in that atmosphere, our reactions would be different. I used to have a more disgusted reaction to two guys kissing than I do now, but that's because I was brought up Catholic and brought up in this gay-demonizing culture.

Whether or not homophobia is intentional is sort of irrelevant. If you dislike gay people either unconsciously or consciously, it's a problem you're responsible for fixing. Just as you did, others who are homophobic just from not thinking about it need to think about it. I fault them just as much for not thinking about it enough to change their attitude as I do the people who actively hate gay people.

Ok. My other concern is that the word "homophobia" is used frequently in "hate" rhetoric, or in other words, it's used interchangeably with the word 'hate" in the context of attitudes toward gays. Even in the reactions of my sisters, I don't see that they hate gay people, they just find homosexuality to be icky and taboo. At best, I think this can be described as fear since they didn't display any anger or animus. "phobia" means fear. It doesn't mean hate. Is it necessarily "not ok" to feel fear?

 

[tomato1236]

BTW, I feel it an affirmation of my point of view that you used to have a disgusted reaction. I think it's terrific you got past that.

 

[Midnight Pete]

I don't think it's a natural reaction for most. I'm not exactly into guy-on-guy action, but watching two guys kiss doesn't really make me nauseous or anything. I think it's more a learned reaction. In our culture male homosexuality is seen as gross and wrong. Female homosexuality is much less so, so it's more accepted. Consciously or unconsciously we learn that, and we react accordingly. If we weren't raised in that atmosphere, our reactions would be different. I used to have a more disgusted reaction to two guys kissing than I do now, but that's because I was brought up Catholic and brought up in this gay-demonizing culture.

Whether or not homophobia is intentional is sort of irrelevant. If you dislike gay people either unconsciously or consciously, it's a problem you're responsible for fixing. Just as you did, others who are homophobic just from not thinking about it need to think about it. I fault them just as much for not thinking about it enough to change their attitude as I do the people who actively hate gay people.

You're a gay Taliban.

 

[Magic Man]

Ok. My other concern is that the word "homophobia" is used frequently in "hate" rhetoric, or in other words, it's used interchangeably with the word 'hate" in the context of attitudes toward gays. Even in the reactions of my sisters, I don't see that they hate gay people, they just find homosexuality to be icky and taboo. At best, I think this can be described as fear since they didn't display any anger or animus. "phobia" means fear. It doesn't mean hate. Is it necessarily "not ok" to feel fear?

It's OK to feel fear at times. I don't blame people for being afraid of spiders or heights or even the dark. But feeling fear towards a group of people because of something as benign as their sexuality is dangerous. That's a fear I feel should be examined so that it can be overcome.

The overall point of the term homophobia is it's someone who opposes homosexuality. It can refer to hatred or fear or both. I guess the idea is that most people who hate homosexuals are probably afraid of them or of being gay themselves.