Originally posted by BlueTriangle
The name Fred Phelps is actually unfamiliar to me. However, the same rules apply here in my mind. I don't want my kids growing up hating homosexuals so I don't want them exposed to hate speech like this during their influential years. If he wants to preach that message to adults, more power to him. Adults are mature enough to consider the argument and form their own opinion. Children are not.

Two points in regards to this comment. The first being that you have no idea how your kids will react to the signs. They could see them and be so disgusted that they are influenced into fighting the hate being spewed by the Phelps crew. You don't know how they will react in all honesty, and sheltering them from everything will only lead to them being more curious about the things you hold from them. But that is your right as a parent.

Second, that's what this is all about. We can't block everything publicly because of the off chance that a child will see it, and be influenced in some way that is unknowable. Since we have no idea how that sign would influence people, there is no way to rightly punish for it.

What if "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" influenced a stoner to follow Christ?

Originally posted by BlueTriangle
I don't want my kids growing up hating homosexuals so I don't want them exposed to hate speech like this during their influential years.

I understand that. I understand you don't want your kids exposed to certain things and that's great. Responsible parenting. But it's one thing for you to protect your children from outside influence, but quite another for the government to make laws that prevent the expression of such influence.

I asked if you think the government (law) should silence Phelps... and you didn't answer. You just said you don't want your kids to hear it. How will that be accomplished? By YOU shielding them or by the GOVERNMENT preventing the expression? That's my question, but I understand you are done with me.

The frustration you detect in my posts, no doubt stems from you treating the two situations as if they're the same thing. I'm sorry, but if you think I'm too harsh to discuss this with... Okay.

Good day.

All-righty. You have totally misinterpreted me. But that's cool.

Take care.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I asked if you think the government (law) should silence Phelps... and you didn't answer. You just said you don't want your kids to hear it. How will that be accomplished? By YOU shielding them or by the GOVERNMENT preventing the expression? That's my question, but I understand you are done with me.

See, this is what I'm talking about. I can have a discussion with somebody who's willing to argue without making me feel like I'm some kind of idiot. Honestly, if it didn't say Benevolent Heretic next to this post and the previous posts in the thread I would bet my nest egg that it was two entirely different people. I like this version better

To answer your question, yes and no. I'm all for free speech. I'm also all for an individual to have the right to avoid listening to somebody else's opinion. If I take my kids to see a parade, I shouldn't have to stand and listen to some idiot in a public place yelling that God hates gays and they should all die. By the same token, I wouldn't expect to go to the movies and have to listen to some idiot yelling over the movie that whites are the superior race and blacks are the devil. There's a time and a place for everything and this guy should not have been holding up a pro-drug sign at a school function. I understand that maybe the law doesn't agree with me, but that doesn't mean I have to like it or agree with it.

I think it only takes a few a and maybe one of

The problem is that forums are so impersonal that it's easy to misinterpret the other side's tone and meaning. That's what the smiley's are for.

Oops. Double Post.

[edit on 26-6-2007 by Benevolent Heretic]

I think I get lazy sometimes and I think people know me and so give me the benefit of the doubt.

I apologize, BlueTriangle, if I came across as arrogant, condescending, hostile or any of those other things you said I am. That wasn't my intent. I was merely trying to make clear the difference between parents protecting kids from legal expression that's "out there" and having the government disallow people to speak freely as is guaranteed by the 1st Amendment (with aforementioned exceptions).

It's 2 different things.

While I don't like it, I'll have to agree that the school had the right to curtail this kid's expression because he was at a school-sponsored event. If he were just a guy on a Saturday holding up the banner saying "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" or "Crack is Back", he should be protected by the 1st Amendment, as neither one of them incites illegal activity.

Oh.

I apologize as well. The fact that I was posting at work...and having a not so great day may... have helped me to color your posts in a bad light.