Does/Should the Westboro Baptist Church have the right to protest at funerals

[ShyGuyInChicago]

Do you believe that they should have the right to protest at funerals? Do you think their protests are protected by the First Amendment? If you answer yes to the second question would you support a change in the Constitution that takes away the right to protest at funerals?

[Xerxes]

I don't think what they're doing is right, but I do believe they have the right to do their protests under the first amendment. But I don't think the Constitution should be changed, because if it is, then where will the government stop? First you're stopping protests, then who's to say where it will go next? Burning books? Persecuting intellectuals?

[jason123]

Yes they do with free speech. BUT It is disrespectul to the families. So they can but shouldn'T!!

[deadpie]

I don't think there should be any right for holding picket signs outside of someone's funeral. I don't give a fucking shit if they have the right to, it's disrespectful. I don't give a shit if you hated the person for what they've done or what they stand for, their funeral is a sacred part to them. Piss on the grave after the funeral is over, but that service is meant to be a dedication and mourn to the person that has died, not a fucking protest.

[Iron Man]

My belief is that hate speech shouldn`t be protected under the first amendment, so no.

[TopGear]

My belief is that hate speech shouldn`t be protected under the first amendment, so no.

Im just going to double this as my response, as I can't put it any better.

[Cryofthewolf]

I do not believe that what those animals do is covered by the first amendment. If I remember correctly, the United States Constitution states that peaceful protests are ok, but what they are doing isn't peaceful. True, they aren't physically attacking anybody, but the psychological attacks that they induce on those that they protest are anything but peaceful. I would be crushed if I was grieving a loved one and those fools came and waved those signs in the air like they do. By all means, let them protest on the side of the road, but funerals are too much. At least on the side of the road we can't hear them, nor are most drivers grieving a loved one being targeted by the 'church'.

I sincerely hope these people will change their tune someday. I'm not holding my breath, but anything is possible. If they don't change their ways we should show them the door, before something bad happens to them (church/houses burnt down, members attacked/killed, etc.)

[Camazotz]

As Americans, they have every right to protest and exercise their freedom of speech. They're extremist beliefs are sick, and everything they stand for is disgusting, but I respect their rights and I am forced to allow them to protest the funerals of soldiers and gays.

[deadpie]

As Americans, they have every right to protest and exercise their freedom of speech. They're extremist beliefs are sick, and everything they stand for is disgusting, but I respect their rights and I am forced to allow them to protest the funerals of soldiers and gays.

Yeah, except it's not a peaceful protest when you're holding signs that say "GOD HATES FAGS" and "THANK GOD FOR 9/11" while your watching a body slowly go six feet under. I mean, what the fuck?

[Suicune]

No, they shouldn't have the right. It's a private occasion unless stated otherwise, and an extremely emotional occasion at that. The families deserve their respect, not freaking picket signs.

[Jess]

Nope. it's disrespectful. I pretty much agree with everything the poster above me said. :S

[willrod]

This is where things get tricky. Legally, yes, they have every right to do so under the Free Speech clause of the First Amendment. However, the right of free speech has been abridged for in certain instances- for example, in cases of publishing material that is deemed to be dangerous to national security, or for libelous or slanderous actions. The debate here is- are they engaging in slander by protesting outside of funerals and making false statements about the deceased individual? It's hard to tell, though under the current interpretation of the law, they, unfortunately, have the right to continue protesting.

Obviously, the morality of society as a whole dictates that such outrageous displays of hatred are atrocious, but in a society where we value freedom of speech and expression, sometimes we're going to run into cases where conflicts arise. Don't get me wrong, I absolutely despise these people and wish that they immediately cease and desist in their spread of intolerance. But my concern is that legal suppression of first amendment rights could possibly lead to further application in different contexts, eventually establishing precedent to suppress all forms of dissent against government- tactics used by Hitler and Stalin.

But I think the ultimate question we must ask ourselves is what constitutes outlandish vitriolic behavior, and what is simply the strong beliefs of someone whose opinion is outside the mainstream? The actions of the Westboro Baptist Church could be argued to fit into either category, though there is a clear legal distinction.

However, I personally just prefer to ignore them and gleefully imagine the rude awakening they're going to receive when they realize they've been sentenced to an eternity in Hell.

[Peace God]

God I love these guys. A bunch of Christian extremists are going to pack themselves into the crazy bus, haul their asses down to wherever they can find the most attention and make fools of themselves. I fucking love it. And I encourage more religious fundamentalists to do so.

[The Joker]

Absofuckinglutely ridiculous. I'd love to see how they felt if I went down to a funeral of one of their members, and held up a sign saying "God hates WBC" or something like that. Sometimes I wonder how they can be so possessed to think all this fairy tale shit is true.

[Kohta]

they have the right to picket as long as I have a right to completely block them off with a human shield.

I also find it horrible that they are going to picket off the funeral of the 9 year old girl who died in the shooting that put Giffords in a coma.

[Bluesman]

I'm kind of stuck on this one... their protests are wrong. The soldiers whose funerals they are protesting were heroes. They died for their country, and are TRUE heroes. As many of you know I am against homosexuality, but I don't give a damn if a soldier is gay, lesbian, straight, christian, atheist, or any other religion... they are HEROES. No matter what. Constitutionally however, it would probably fall under their 1st ammendment rights, therefore the only way to really do anything to them would probably be in civil court. Also, as a christian, I find this stuff repulsive. This is the kind of stuff that makes people think that religion is an extremist cult, and if Westboro baptist church is the first "church" that someone sees, I can't say that I blame them.

[Cryofthewolf]

Another thing that bothers me about them is that they seem to think that gays and lesbians chose to be the way they are. I said on another post that this is one of my biggest pet peeves, whether it is from WBC, real Christians, or anybody else. x_x

As Naj said, these people make us real Christians look bad. We're not all terrible people. I mean, I've met my share of bad Christians, but I have met people who were just bad in general who were not Christians. Also, not all Christians are against homosexuality. I personally think if we dug a little deeper into the subject we would see that the Bible doesn't address it as wrong at all. Maybe this is just wishful thinking, maybe it isn't. But when it comes down to it, people deserve to be happy and make their own decisions on who to love/marry.

...This probably all sounds like a jumbled mess, but if you can make sense of my rantings good for you. Go eat a cookie and pretend it's from me. ^_^

[Camazotz]

Yeah, except it's not a peaceful protest when you're holding signs that say "GOD HATES FAGS" and "THANK GOD FOR 9/11" while your watching a body slowly go six feet under. I mean, what the fuck?

It's peaceful in the sense that they are standing and preaching their beliefs. They are not a violent group, which is why it's considered "peaceful" by law. Otherwise, I completely agree with you, they're all sick and twisted people.

[Amnesiac]

I do believe targeting a grieving family could fall under harassment and possibly stalking. I'm on the fence on this issue; I don't believe in infringing on anyone's free-speech rights, yet the actions of the WBC are pushing it.

[deadpie]

It's peaceful in the sense that they are standing and preaching their beliefs. They are not a violent group, which is why it's considered "peaceful" by law. Otherwise, I completely agree with you, they're all sick and twisted people.

How is telling people to kill themselves and burn in flames for eternity fucking peaceful? That's not a peaceful protest. This is all a hate speech. Not in any way is it "peaceful". They might not have guns or be throwing molotov cocktails, but those signs themselves are offensive enough to be described as a hate crime.

[Sith Lord 13]

My belief is that hate speech shouldn`t be protected under the first amendment, so no.

But who's to decide what hate speech is?

As wrong as they are to do so, I believe they have that right. I also have the right to picket outside their church or home, so long as I don't trespass on private property.

Freedom of speech stops at the other man's nose, but no sooner. If I don't physically create undue hindrance to your movement, assault your person, or trespass on private property, I should be free to do as I please.

[Jamie]

Do you believe that they should have the right to protest at funerals? I do, but only from a reasonable distance of both the family and casket.
Do you think their protests are protected by the First Amendment? Yes.
If you answer yes to the second question would you support a change in the Constitution that takes away the right to protest at funerals? No.

[deadpie]

But who's to decide what hate speech is?

As wrong as they are to do so, I believe they have that right. I also have the right to picket outside their church or home, so long as I don't trespass on private property.

Freedom of speech stops at the other man's nose, but no sooner. If I don't physically create undue hindrance to your movement, assault your person, or trespass on private property, I should be free to do as I please.

Hate Speech very much sounds like what they're doing. Telling people to go to hell, thank god for 9/11 and AIDS, that soldiers die as a punishment. That's all very hateful and pushing the boundaries of offensive.

I think they're really abusing their first amendment privileges and using them to make people angry and even depressed about themselves.

[Sith Lord 13]

Hate Speech very much sounds like what they're doing. Telling people to go to hell, thank god for 9/11 and AIDS, that soldiers die as a punishment. That's all very hateful and pushing the boundaries of offensive.

I think they're really abusing their first amendment privileges and using them to make people angry and even depressed about themselves.

The fact that a privilege can be abused doesn't mean it shouldn't exist. Their speech is hateful, but so would be the average American's speech about Osama bin Laden, so who's to say what's right and what's wrong? Speech is speech, and while I may detest them for doing it, I believe it is their right.

[deadpie]

The fact that a privilege can be abused doesn't mean it shouldn't exist. Their speech is hateful, but so would be the average American's speech about Osama bin Laden, so who's to say what's right and what's wrong? Speech is speech, and while I may detest them for doing it, I believe it is their right.

You just admitted it's a hateful speech, thus being a hate speech. Then again you said it wasn't a hate speech not too long ago. Can you decide whether you think it is or not?

So is a hateful speech not a hate speech? Is this like some fucking trip question bullshit I mean what the fucking fuckity fuck fuck?

Everyone just saying, "Well they have the right, so we'll let it slide by our nose even though we know it's fucking insane" is just completely stupid. If something bothers you, don't just pick your nose and wait for it to stop happening, do something about it. The WBC isn't going to stop unless they're forced to stop.

[Sith Lord 13]

You just admitted it's a hateful speech, thus being a hate speech. Then again you said it wasn't a hate speech not too long ago. Can you decide whether you think it is or not?

So is a hateful speech not a hate speech? Is this like some fucking trip question bullshit I mean what the fucking fuckity fuck fuck?

Everyone just saying, "Well they have the right, so we'll let it slide by our nose even though we know it's fucking insane" is just completely stupid. If something bothers you, don't just pick your nose and wait for it to stop happening, do something about it. The WBC isn't going to stop unless they're forced to stop.

I didn't say whether or not it was hate speech, as I feel the bigger issue is that "hate speech" should be protected as everyone's definition of hate speech is different. I say murder is wrong. I have just committed hate speech against serial killers, offending their way of life.

I didn't say we the people shouldn't force them to stop by making it uncomfortable for them to practice their actions. I feel people should stand up to WBC and call them on their bull shit. However, I do not feel the act was criminal. There's a big difference between wrong and criminal.

[deadpie]

I didn't say whether or not it was hate speech, as I feel the bigger issue is that "hate speech" should be protected as everyone's definition of hate speech is different. I say murder is wrong. I have just committed hate speech against serial killers, offending their way of life.

I didn't say we the people shouldn't force them to stop by making it uncomfortable for them to practice their actions. I feel people should stand up to WBC and call them on their bull shit. However, I do not feel the act was criminal. There's a big difference between wrong and criminal.

Ok, well, it's a crime to go out naked in public, but does it make it necessary wrong?

You know what I mean by hate crime. What they're saying isn't just a simple fuck you; these messages are fucking brutal. What if a sensitive gay person person saw one of those "God hates fags all fags burn in hell" signs and ends up killing himself? You know what? That's when you can say those words that they're shoving in people's face go too far.

They do abuse their rights and they're using their rights for reasons to piss people off. Oh, but we should just let them do it because you know they have rights that are protected.

It is illegal to commit a hate speech under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

"This is certainly the case when speech is classified as obscene, defamatory, slanderous, or hateful, and holds a reasonable potential to be harmful ( Lederer & Delgado 1995 ). Hate speech, for example, is a form of verbal aggression (→ Verbal Aggressiveness ) that expresses hatred, contempt, ridicule, or threats toward a specific group or class of people ( Asante 1998 ). Hate speech encompasses verbalizations, written messages, symbols, or symbolic acts that demean and degrade, and, as such, can promote discrimination, prejudice, and violence toward targeted groups. Hate speech often stems from thoughts and beliefs such as hatred, intolerance, prejudice, bigotry, or stereotyping ( Allport 1954 ). " Sauce. (http://www.blackwellreference.com/public/tocnode?id=g9781405131995_chunk_g978140513199513_ss4-1)

What they're doing is by law a hate speech. They're getting away with it too. We're letting them get away with it. Nobody is doing shit. What does that say about people?

[Sith Lord 13]

Ok, well, it's a crime to go out naked in public, but does it make it necessary wrong?

No, not necessarily. That's my point.

You know what I mean by hate crime. What they're saying isn't just a simple fuck you; these messages are fucking brutal. What if a sensitive gay person person saw one of those "God hates fags all fags burn in hell" signs and ends up killing himself? You know what? That's when you can say those words that they're shoving in people's face go too far.

There is no place to draw the line. In the US any one can believe anything they want to and they have the right to spread that belief, so long as it doesn't directly incite violence against any identifiable person or group of people.

They do abuse their rights and they're using their rights for reasons to piss people off. Oh, but we should just let them do it because you know they have rights that are protected.

You can't say some speech is protected and some not.

With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censored, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably.

It is illegal to commit a hate speech under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

"This is certainly the case when speech is classified as obscene, defamatory, slanderous, or hateful, and holds a reasonable potential to be harmful ( Lederer & Delgado 1995 ). Hate speech, for example, is a form of verbal aggression (→ Verbal Aggressiveness ) that expresses hatred, contempt, ridicule, or threats toward a specific group or class of people ( Asante 1998 ). Hate speech encompasses verbalizations, written messages, symbols, or symbolic acts that demean and degrade, and, as such, can promote discrimination, prejudice, and violence toward targeted groups. Hate speech often stems from thoughts and beliefs such as hatred, intolerance, prejudice, bigotry, or stereotyping ( Allport 1954 ). " Sauce. (http://www.blackwellreference.com/public/tocnode?id=g9781405131995_chunk_g978140513199513_ss4-1)

What they're doing is by law a hate speech. They're getting away with it too. We're letting them get away with it. Nobody is doing shit. What does that say about people?

I believe that law is unconstitutional. If it won't result in immediate risk of death (ie. shouting fire in a crowded building), it should be protected, no matter how disgusting.

[deadpie]

No, not necessarily. That's my point.

It wasn't your point at all, actually. I was using your debate on you.



There is no place to draw the line. In the US any one can believe anything they want to and they have the right to spread that belief, so long as it doesn't directly incite violence against any identifiable person or group of people.

A line can always be drawn. Sure, you can believe whatever you want. And what they do is inciting violence against people. So what they're doing IS wrong by law.



You can't say some speech is protected and some not.

The law does with hate speech. Deal with it dot jpeg.


I believe that law is unconstitutional. If it won't result in immediate risk of death (ie. shouting fire in a crowded building), it should be protected, no matter how disgusting.

Many things were unconstitutional. Many things in the constitution have been changed and there's always time to change those things. Hell, how long did it take for women to vote again? How long was it for blacks to have rights at all? Not all rights have to be "protected" or even bashed to pieces either.

What I'm saying over all is their messages are out on the public inciting violence and hate. It's not necessary the hate that bothers me, but the violent messages themselves. I'm not one to have feelings for people that are offended, but what they do is beyond being offensive, but literally life trolling. It's fucking crazy. It doesn't offend me, but people could easily be driven to kill one of those WBC because of what they say. They're pretty much inciting violence against themselves too because they're that fucking dumb. It's just a matter of time before they get hurt because of how big their publicity is growing.

Freedom of speech=/=Standing outside of funerals with picket signs saying "Burn in hell faggots thank god for 9/11" and screaming at those people hateful words.


Do you think it's right for these people to force their eight year old daughters to wear God Hates Fags t-shirts? They've done it before. They force their kids to do this with them and carry those messages.

http://www.demsfightinwords.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/god-hates-fags-308.jpg
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_Xn_O-mM2sFk/RyEo9Bp_liI/AAAAAAAAA-U/omOZoSo47H0/s400/Godhatesfags.jpg
http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:7n2cRhdtvB_YSM:http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h30/piouspenguin/Political%20Crap/GodHatesFagsKids.jpg&t=1
http://www.queerty.com/wp/docs/2009/03/god-hates-fags-kids.jpg

[Sith Lord 13]

It wasn't your point at all, actually. I was using your debate on you.

I fail to see how. My point is that something being a crime and something being wrong are two separate issues.

A line can always be drawn. Sure, you can believe whatever you want. And what they do is inciting violence against people. So what they're doing IS wrong by law.

That law is, in my opinion, illegal.

The law does with hate speech. Deal with it dot jpeg.

Again, it's too subjective a standard to allow. It needs to present a clear and present immediate danger to be illegal.

Many things were unconstitutional. Many things in the constitution have been changed and there's always time to change those things. Hell, how long did it take for women to vote again? How long was it for blacks to have rights at all? Not all rights have to be "protected" or even bashed to pieces either.

The question comes "Where do we draw the line?" And the problem is that that is an unanswerable question. A lot of things can be called hate speech. Anything besides clear and present danger is too subjective.

What I'm saying over all is their messages are out on the public inciting violence and hate. It's not necessary the hate that bothers me, but the violent messages themselves. I'm not one to have feelings for people that are offended, but what they do is beyond being offensive, but literally life trolling. It's fucking crazy. It doesn't offend me, but people could easily be driven to kill one of those WBC because of what they say. They're pretty much inciting violence against themselves too because they're that fucking dumb. It's just a matter of time before they get hurt because of how big their publicity is growing.

Freedom of speech=/=Standing outside of funerals with picket signs saying "Burn in hell faggots thank god for 9/11" and screaming at those people hateful words.

It does. Freedom of speech and freedom of religion means people are going to have stupid ass views and shout them from the rooftops.

Do you think it's right for these people to force their eight year old daughters to wear God Hates Fags t-shirts? They've done it before. They force their kids to do this with them and carry those messages.

Image (http://www.demsfightinwords.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/god-hates-fags-308.jpg)
Image (http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_Xn_O-mM2sFk/RyEo9Bp_liI/AAAAAAAAA-U/omOZoSo47H0/s400/Godhatesfags.jpg)
Image (http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:7n2cRhdtvB_YSM:http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h30/piouspenguin/Political%20Crap/GodHatesFagsKids.jpg&t=1)
Image (http://www.queerty.com/wp/docs/2009/03/god-hates-fags-kids.jpg)

Not at all. A) I've already expressed my opinion of WBC. (I think they're idiots and should stop) B) You might have a case for child endangerment here.