It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Westboro Babtist Church Tries to Disrupt Marine's Funeral & Gets Owned!!

page: 7
76
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 20 2011 @ 05:27 PM
link   
reply to post by BenReclused
 


So in your opinion the manipulation of the law to infringe on the WBC's first amendment rights is justified and correct? It's okay to infringe on constitutional rights to protect someone's feelings?




posted on Apr, 20 2011 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by BenReclused


Where you got the idea means nothing to me, it's what you did with it that is telling! You are just as closed minded as those that still do "proudly" display the Confederate flag on their vehicles. I've seen a lot of them in the North too!

See ya,
Milt


The Mississippi state flag has a version of the Confederate flag in it. Ever think thats where the idea came from?

Is there some complexity here you are incapable of understanding?



posted on Apr, 20 2011 @ 05:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by truthseeker1984
reply to post by buskey
 


This is the best news I have heard all day. WBC was scheduled to come to my town a few months back, and the word got out quickly in my community. The morning of the funeral, thousands of people lined the streets to greet the family and the body of the fallen soldier. Turns out that WBC had indeed shown up, but when they found out how many people were there, they turned tail and got back on the highway. They never even left the hotel that they were staying at.


Thanks for the uplifting news. It's good to see that, at least in some parts of the country, ignorance is being denied.

I can't see where your from but that happened where I live too. A few months back, the people of the town wrangled all the WBC people away from the service They left without incident. La Plata, White Plains, Waldorf, and all parts of Southern MD. Great folks!






Peace be with you.

-truthseeker



posted on Apr, 20 2011 @ 05:32 PM
link   
reply to post by DanUKphd
 


Whoa... Biblical? I encourage you to read the bible in it's original language if you think their message is biblical.



posted on Apr, 20 2011 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Buddha1098
reply to post by BenReclused
 

I could be wrong of course, but the overwhelming evidence, albeit circumstantial is that these people were brought in for questioning about a crime the police knew they did not commit.

In fact, the WBC people are the only people who did nothing LEGALLY wrong in this case.
edit on 20-4-2011 by Buddha1098 because: (no reason given)


How do you know? Were you there? Maybe they damaged private property by driving on the grass to go around the cars that were slow to be towed? Isn't that a crime? They arrived someway...............



posted on Apr, 20 2011 @ 05:32 PM
link   
reply to post by DanUKphd
 


theres a difference between freedom of speech and harassment, and those moronns cross the line and hide under free speech
bunch of coward nancys

and as far as i am concerned youre just trolling for remarks
edit on 4/20/2011 by HomerinNC because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 20 2011 @ 05:34 PM
link   
reply to post by ViperChili
 


Technically, they did not prevent them from speaking. They just delayed them on their way a little. I see your point, but personally, Im glad it happened, and I think it was a very clever and rather peaceful methodology that was used.



posted on Apr, 20 2011 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Buddha1098
reply to post by BenReclused
 


So in your opinion the manipulation of the law to infringe on the WBC's first amendment rights is justified and correct? It's okay to infringe on constitutional rights to protect someone's feelings?


There are laws on the books about "breaching the peace". Your first amendment rights extend to the point of breaching the peace. Saying something that is blatently offensive in order to produce a negative reaction is a "breach of the peace".



posted on Apr, 20 2011 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by kinnerarity

How do you know? Were you there? Maybe they damaged private property by driving on the grass to go around the cars that were slow to be towed? Isn't that a crime? They arrived someway...............


I don't know... That's why I said I could be wrong... I'm conjecturing and giving my opinion based on the facts that have been presented. None of which mentioned driving on the grass...



posted on Apr, 20 2011 @ 05:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
 





Technically, they did not prevent them from speaking. They just delayed them on their way a little. I see your point, but personally, Im glad it happened, and I think it was a very clever and rather peaceful methodology that was used.


The WBC did indeed speak, without even speaking. Google the story and thousands of articles pop up - ABC, Dailyshow, thousands more. All this interest in what they didn't get to say puts a megaphone to their cause. They get the message out without even saying a word - Now that's justice.
edit on 20-4-2011 by DanUKphd because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-4-2011 by DanUKphd because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 20 2011 @ 05:44 PM
link   
reply to post by kinnerarity
 

Sorry you're wrong.. Laws against hate speech are illegal in the US.

Terminiello v. Chicago (1949), Yates v. United States (1957), Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969).
edit on 20-4-2011 by Buddha1098 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 20 2011 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Buddha1098
reply to post by kinnerarity
 

Sorry you're wrong.. Laws against hate speech are illegal in the US.

Terminiello v. Chicago (1949), Yates v. United States (1957), Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969).
edit on 20-4-2011 by Buddha1098 because: (no reason given)


Thanks for finding it~



posted on Apr, 20 2011 @ 05:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Buddha1098
 


If that's what it takes to defend one's right to privacy against another's right to free speech, you're damn right that's my opinion!

See ya,
Milt



posted on Apr, 20 2011 @ 05:54 PM
link   
reply to post by BenReclused
 


Cool. Thanks for the debate! =)



posted on Apr, 20 2011 @ 05:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Buddha1098
 


They are still on the boooks, my friend. Hate speach, whether hate speech or not said in the wrong place at the wrong time is technically a breach of the peace. Many reasonable and prudent people would be offended by their language. From the Texas penal code:

§ 42.01. DISORDERLY CONDUCT.

(a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly:


(1) uses abusive, indecent, profane, or vulgar language in a public place, and the language by its very utterance tends to incite an immediate breach of the peace;

(2) makes an offensive gesture or display in a public place, and the gesture or display tends to incite an immediate breach of the peace;

(3) creates, by chemical means, a noxious and unreasonable odor in a public place;

(4) abuses or threatens a person in a public place in an obviously offensive manner;

(5) makes unreasonable noise in a public place other than a sport shooting range, as defined by Section 250.001, Local Government Code, or in or near a private residence that he has no right to occupy;

(6) fights with another in a public place;

(7) discharges a firearm in a public place other than a public road or a sport shooting range, as defined by Section 250.001, Local Government Code;

(8) displays a firearm or other deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm;

(9) discharges a firearm on or across a public road;

(10) exposes his anus or genitals in a public place and is reckless about whether another may be present who will be offended or alarmed by his act; or

(11) for a lewd or unlawful purpose:

(A) enters on the property of another and looks into a dwelling on the property through any window or other opening in the dwelling;

(B) while on the premises of a hotel or comparable establishment, looks into a guest room not the person's own through a window or other opening in the room; or

(C) while on the premises of a public place, looks into an area such as a restroom or shower stall or changing or dressing room that is designed to provide privacy to a person using the area.

(b) It is a defense to prosecution under Subsection (a)(4) that the actor had significant provocation for his abusive or threatening conduct.



posted on Apr, 20 2011 @ 05:59 PM
link   
reply to post by ViperChili
 


Which part of "Where you got the idea from means nothing to me." did you not understand?



posted on Apr, 20 2011 @ 06:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Buddha1098
 





Whoa... Biblical? I encourage you to read the bible in it's original language if you think their message is biblical.


Oh I do. And you can too. It's no secret. There are no shortage of bible Concordance programs like blueletterbible where you can get the exact Hebrew or Greek translation nowadays.



posted on Apr, 20 2011 @ 06:06 PM
link   
Correct.. So these people should have been allowed to protest and then they should have been arrested and prosecuted.



posted on Apr, 20 2011 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by DanUKphd
 


I personally want them to be able to say what they want to say. I have no problem with that. I just dont think they have the right to traumatize some poor family trying to lay their loved one to rest. Im surprised no grieving family member has snapped and run them down with a semi truck, personally.

They have no human decency. And while they have the right to speak their mind, other human beings have the right to go right up to the borderline of the law to protect other people from being abused by them.



posted on Apr, 20 2011 @ 06:11 PM
link   
reply to post by kinnerarity
 





§ 42.01. DISORDERLY CONDUCT. (a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly:

(1) uses abusive, indecent, profane, or vulgar language in a public place, and the language by its very utterance tends to incite an immediate breach of the peace;

(2) makes an offensive gesture or display in a public place, and the gesture or display tends to incite an immediate breach of the peace;

(3) creates, by chemical means, a noxious and unreasonable odor in a public place;

(4) abuses or threatens a person in a public place in an obviously offensive manner;


It seems to me that the counter protests of the WBC fulfill all your points for disorderly conduct at 55 seconds on:




new topics

top topics



 
76
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join