Westboro “Fags” Baptist Church To Picket Sandy Hook Elementary School


#1

And here comes the scum of the Earth.

Westboro will picket Sandy Hook Elementary School to sing praise to God for the glory of his work in executing his judgment. Westboro “God Hates Fags” Baptist Church To Picket Sandy Hook Elementary School To “Praise God’s Judgement”… | Weasel Zippers These people are scum. These peope choose to take a tragic event and try to turn it into a mockery. In the past they have been sued and even barred from being within certain distances to funerals and now they choose this “opportunity” to show us that they are attention whores.


#2

So why are you giving them attention?


#3

[quote=“Jazzhead, post:2, topic:37508”]
So why are you giving them attention?
[/quote]Oh I thought it might be of interest to you. They have the same disdain for Christianity


#4

We should just kick them out. Literally nobody likes them anyway…

I kid. But seriously, screw them. There are groups like the Patriot Guard Riders who will come to your funeral and block the Westboro church from view.


#5

Sadly, these characters will only die out as they themselves die. Not that I hope their ends will be hastened by murderer(s). I suppose they are, in this case, an illustration that evil is additive, not counter-balancing.


#6

How do these people not get at the very least severely beaten everywhere they go? Do the police protect them?

I mean, I just can’t imagine them leaving in one piece in Britain or Russia, and I would think the same for the US, as they picket at soldier’s funerals…


#7

[quote=“Volk, post:6, topic:37508”]
How do these people not get at the very least severely beaten everywhere they go? Do the police protect them?

I mean, I just can’t imagine them leaving in one piece in Britain or Russia, and I would think the same for the US, as they picket at soldier’s funerals…
[/quote]They have a right to their opinions and to give voice to them as horrible as they are. That means the law and the police appropriately protect them. Of course, as someone pointed out above, there are those who get in their way, supporting the families and literally blocking any potential view a family may have.

Of course, Westboro lost a rather pathetic lawsuit where the father didn’t even know they were protesting his son’s funeral until after he saw it on the news, which clearly demonstrates the underlying erosion of our freedom of speech.

In the UK of course, legal action can be taken against you for merely annoying sounds. I’d rather live in a place where speech is allowed without exception rather than approved by some central authority. For that reason, neither the UK nor Russia sound appealing to me.


#8

They’re actually banned in the UK, if I recall correctly. They’re not allowed to enter the country, after one of them went and was opposing some gay marriage or some such thing.


#9

I would actually argue that allowing people to physically assault them (say, a swift punch to the nose) while they are interrupting funerals would be perfectly consistent with a free and just society.


#10

Instead of shooting at malls or kids, why not shoot these bastards?


#11

Would that apply to all speech individuals found offensive or just this particular speech?


#12

Would that apply to all speech individuals found offensive or just this particular speech?

In matters such as this, it’s often the case, as Wittgenstein pointed out, that you “cannot set a limit here.” For instance, where precisely do we draw the line between justified and excessive use of force in self-defense? Cases vary wildly in the details, and even in particular cases, clear distinctions are difficult. However, in many cases there is no need to discuss such things, as circumstances are so egregious that where ever is the line, this case is surely on one or the other side of it. Exploiting peoples’ grief by using this tragedy to spread the “God hates fags” message is surely on the side of the line where it’s acceptable for private persons to show their contempt for the behavior with a simple punch to the nose.


#13

Do discredited lunatics really need to be punched in the nose to help people feel better about the fact they spew nonsensical drivel? And really, where do we draw the line, J.? Why is a violent response appropriate to a non-violent offense of speech?


#14

At what point does it become harrassment?


#15

At what point does a street preacher become harassment? At what point does a tea partier picketing whatever become harassment? At what point is a gay pride parade harassment of the senses?


#16

In matters such as this, it’s often the case, as Wittgenstein pointed out, that you “cannot set a limit here.” For instance, where precisely do we draw the line between justified and excessive use of force in self-defense? Cases vary wildly in the details, and even in particular cases, clear distinctions are difficult. However, in many cases there is no need to discuss such things, as circumstances are so egregious that where ever is the line, this case is surely on one or the other side of it. Exploiting peoples’ grief by using this tragedy to spread the “God hates fags” message is surely on the side of the line where it’s acceptable for private persons to show their contempt for the behavior with a simple punch to the nose.

Why is a violent response appropriate to a non-violent offense of speech?

I would have thought that it’s not the sort of thing that needs to be intellectualized. But it seems to me that a punch is an acceptable and appropriate form of communicating one’s contempt in this situation, unless it either maliciously or recklessly causes harm to the offending target.

They know they aren’t wanted there. They know this is going to cause extreme offense and perhaps increase the grief of people who have just suffered an unfathomable tragedy. They’ve been asked to stop this sort of behavior countless times. They’re not reasonable, nor are they showing basic rational respect for other human beings. People have tried and failed to reason with them. It seems to me acceptable in such a scenario for private individuals to begin to use violence in order to get the point across that they’re violating basic standards of human conduct.


#17

Actually, within the context of American society and practices, I would have no problem with putting them in jail for a night and fining them for disturbing the peace every time they disrupt places of mourning in this way. We can honor their right to public speech without allowing them to make a spectacle and mockery out of funerals and tragedies. They can get permits for spreading their message in public on specific days like the KKK and other hate groups. As it stands, they’re just harming people unnecessarily, and I see no reason why that needs to be allowed.


#18

I disagree, there must be exceptions of some sort for (very soviet term but I don’t know how else to put it) anti-social elements. In terms of what is going on chemically in a bereaved person’s brain, attacking their emotions is the same as maliciously picking on someone who is mentally ill, and can lead to consequences just as bad as if they were attacking the mourners physically.

Personally I think it would be appropriate for all the adults in this group to be doing a few years of corrective labour somewhere out in Alaska, with the proceeds going to the families they have harmed. Then they can be involuntarily committed to a loony bin, where they clearly belong, and waste away in a state of antipsychotic-induced anhedonia, so they can be subjected to something similar to the effects of their anti-social actions.

That last bit (excluding the part about labour) may be a bit over the top but I was just watching a report with photos of the children who died, its really rare that I get so worked up about something but I hope from the bottom of my heart that someone will decide enough is enough and shoot these bastards before they even manage to get their signs out. I’m glad to not be from a society where using law enforcement to protect these “people’s” rights would even be considered. If someone had dared to go to a vigil for the 300-odd children killed by Chechens in Beslan and start praising Allah for it, they would be dead in minutes, and that is absolutely the proper reaction.

Celebrating the murder of 6 year olds, and doing it in a way that is emotionally damaging to the parents that just lost their children, and to the friends and classmates of those children (probably quite a few of whom are suffering from PTSD or some similar disorder now, especially with their unstable, developing brains) who may have just narrowly escaped death, is beyond the limit of what freedom of speech should allow.

And I take back what I said about any measure being over the top. These are psychopaths lacking any decency and besides making others miserable, they deprive their own children of having a chance at a normal life by indoctrinating them into a cult from birth. I’m sure if one were to look hard enough they could be found criminally liable for something. If you use a broad enough definition they could be considered to be exploiting their children, or putting them at risk of severe emotional harm, and tried for that. Or for inflicting severe emotional harm on the surviving children, as its implied by their celebration of the deaths that it would be a good thing if more had been killed.


#19

I wouldn’t have thought it need be intellectualized, either.
Kinda like answering your 4 yr. old when he asks, "Why is the sky blue?"
My sister: The sun’s rays hit the Earth’s atmosphere, where the light is scattered by nitrogen and oxygen molecules in the air. The blue wavelength of this light is affected more than the red and green wavelengths, causing the surrounding air to appear blue.

Me: “Cuz it’s the prettiest color God could think of at the time.”

RWNJ: "Why do some people need to be thunked in the nose?"
Intellectuallizing: The blunt force towards comparatively thin skin causes pain; sometimes bleeding, and/or bruising. Plus, getting that close to a person’s face will immediately result in a person’s desire to back away.
Non-intellecuallizing: "Because it’s the only thing appropriate for those too dense to understand, “Go away!”

Only problem with that is, that’s exactly what the WBBC is asking for: Headlines.

So we graciously retreat so as not to give them…
…the headline they just got.

Vicious circle, eh?

I like your answer best. Stick 'em in jail for the night for disturbing the peace.
No headlines.


#20

Harassment is not a protected form of speech. I don’t think what these people do should be protected. On the other hand, nothing that is done to them will ever cause them to be the least bit sorry for what they’ve done. They are evolutionary throwbacks and the part of the human psyche that gives most of us a conscience simply doesn’t exist for them.