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.

 

Rumors Fly of Westboro Baptist Church Being Gassed, Blocked, and Chased

page: 3
16
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 29 2011 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
I have read somewhere that the US has some rarely used legislation against ''fighting words'', where freedom of speech is restricted if the intention of the speech is to incite hatred and violence from the people who are targeted by the words.

Surely goading and mocking people in a city where 200 people have just died in a natural disaster would be covered by these laws ? Why don't the police just arrest them on these grounds ?


Yes, in Texas it is called disorderly conduct - Texas Penal Code, Chapter 42. I am sure Missouri has a similar law.




posted on May, 29 2011 @ 05:51 PM
link   
I think that it is humorous that citizens are blocking them into gas stations and whatnot, However I dont think police need to be gassing them for protesting.

After all the right to make an ass out of yourself is protected by the constitution. Well sort of.



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 05:54 PM
link   
reply to post by mike_trivisonno
 


The "Triv"? Say it ain't sos?!

Vinnie



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by kinnerarity
Yes, in Texas it is called disorderly conduct - Texas Penal Code, Chapter 42. I am sure Missouri has a similar law.


I'm just perplexed as to why these hate-mongers are allowed to get away with what they do, especially considering the likelihood of disturbing public order.

There must be legal avenues to stop them from this kind of incitement.

Even if it's detaining them at a local police station for a few hours on reasonable suspicion of breaching the peace.

People just can't keep on blurting out ''freedom of speech'' to defend their dangerous and antagonistic protests. You've got to be seriously sick in the head to organise a mocking protest at a fallen serviceman or woman's funeral, or, in this case, in a devastated city where scores of people lost their lives in the last week.



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 06:28 PM
link   
From what ive read about them there a very Litigious group who will not hesitate to sue.



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 06:30 PM
link   
As much as I despise these people I have to support their free speech.

The first amendment was created not for speech that is popular it was created for people to voice their opinions and beliefs when they are unpopular or confrontational . To curtail their free speech you are opening up a big bad can of worms .

Who will decide what is permissible speech ? The government ? The majority of US citizens ? Or a group of Priests Preachers politicians or Imams ? Ask the Chinese people how that works for them Or the Iranians the North Koreans

The Idea of free speech is easy when you believe in what they are saying but when you disagree is when its really hard.

I remember a few quote I heard a while back .
If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all."

Noam Chomsky

I think he hit the nail one the head with that one .



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 07:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lostinthedarkness
The first amendment was created not for speech that is popular it was created for people to voice their opinions and beliefs when they are unpopular or confrontational . To curtail their free speech you are opening up a big bad can of worms .


Nah, I disagree with this automatic ''right'' to free speech with no legal consequences or accountability.

There are quite a few legal exemptions to the First Amendment of the US Constitution, such as slander, defamation, obscenity and, not least, the ''fighting words'' restriction to free speech, which I'm pretty sure that they can be reasonably suspected of falling foul of.

If they were promoting their bile-ridden rubbish on ''neutral territory'', as it were, or on the internet and other media sources, then I may grudgingly agree to their legal right to promote whatever message they want to put across.

However, when they are deliberately trolling, antagonising and targeting grief-stricken families and communities, then common sense dictates that they are creating all sorts of public order offences and inciting violence.



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 08:06 PM
link   
Not to derail this thread. But peoples actions In Joplin and surrounding area barring them from protesting is a far better way than having the government step in .

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 08:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by bane9907
I think that it is humorous that citizens are blocking them into gas stations and whatnot, However I dont think police need to be gassing them for protesting.

After all the right to make an ass out of yourself is protected by the constitution. Well sort of.


Maybe the ploice should have stay out of it and let the 'citizens' kill the WBC members. The police saved those fools lives.



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 09:52 PM
link   
To be honest I don't see how what they say isn't hate speech especially with their love of the word "fag". Or how picketing a funeral is at all protected by any kind of law but admittedly I'm no expert in this area.



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 10:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by jude11
where is the line drawn for their rights that they are exercising?

edit on 29-5-2011 by jude11 because: (no reason given)


Social norms, common civility, and a basic caring for your fellow man.

You can try to confuse the problem with the issue all you want, try to see the forest in spite of the trees, but sometimes over-analyzing things hurts more than it helps.

I agree that citizens were the one's who should have taken care of the situation, and they would have if not for the fact that the President swung by to check out the place. But he did, and what happened happened. So don't freak out and assume the worst that it's all going downhill from here. Give your fellow American citizens more credit. We have much more common sense, by and large, than the government ever will.

Again, the citizens would have taken care of the situation. You implied as much.




posted on May, 29 2011 @ 10:55 PM
link   
its funny how we apply the "freedom of speech" to anything we agree with but when we dont its the exact opposite



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 11:39 PM
link   
While our right to freedom of speech is constitutionally protect, it does not mean we can be blissfully ignorant of the consquences of expressing our opinions. It seems to me that the WBC is much the same as a pyromaniac in a crowded theater who can't set the place aflame so instead screams "FIRE!" in reprimand of his wet matches.



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 11:59 PM
link   
reply to post by PsykoOps
 


I don't think they should have been chased off, provided they weren't being threatening.

However, while I support their right to say whatever damn fool thing they want, I also have a personal bit of sadistic pleasure at the thought of them sucking tear gas.

It shouldn't have happened, but I shed no tears that it did.



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 12:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
Nah, I disagree with this automatic ''right'' to free speech with no legal consequences or accountability.

There are quite a few legal exemptions to the First Amendment of the US Constitution, such as slander, defamation, obscenity and, not least, the ''fighting words'' restriction to free speech, which I'm pretty sure that they can be reasonably suspected of falling foul of.


First off, there are no longer any "fighting words" clauses, anywhere. I can get in your face and heap abuse on you, your mother, and everything you hold dear all day long, and you have no legal right to lay a finger on me because of that (of course, if you feel threatened by me, or if I make a verbal threat, you DO get to defend yourself - "YOU'RE A BOOGER HEAD!" is protected, "I'M GOING TO KICK YOUR ASS!" is not)

You have the right to express whatever you want so long as it does not demonstrably cause harm to another (whether through defamation or intimidation)



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 12:13 AM
link   
I get the free speech argument but I have a question about that.

Why was I - and many others - called domestic terrorists for talking about things like the constitution yet the WBC can get away with their crap? Why do I not have the right to talk about the constitution without being considered a enemy of the state?

Sure, I can still talk about the constitution - and support Ron Paul, which incidentally also makes me a terrorist - so my free speech hasn't been completely curtailed, YET, but how am I the terrorist yet the WBC ain't?

Seriously frakked up country we live in. Seems to me that free speech only applies to some and not all, and that doesn't seem right. Maybe I'm just seeing this wrong, then again, maybe I'm not.



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 12:25 AM
link   
LAST YEAR, SPRINGTIME:

Randolph: Hey Mort, you know that site "Above Top Secret"
Mortimer: Oh yeah, that place. Gives me the creeps it does, Randolph old bean. I think there are a number of people there that really are onto us. And they are so relentless! It almost seems like we'll never be able to implement the NWO
Randolph: (chuckling), Mortimer, you've come a long way but you are still wet behind the ears. I'll tell you what. I bet I can set things up so that we'll have some of the most respected names on ATS arguing in favor of dismantling the constitution! Not only not opposing it -- actually working for us to reduce the freedom of speech, eagerly, of their own volition, on their own time!
Mortimer: Impossible. Will flat-out never happen. How do you plan on making them argue in favor of repressing speech? These are pretty sharp customers, you know.
Randolph: You just leave that to me. In one year's time, say, in late May or early June 2011, it will happen.
Mortimer: No way. You've really overstretched yourself this time, Randolph.
Randolph: Well then Mortimer, shall we have a wager?
Mortimer: The usual amount?
Randolph: Wellllll...there has been a bit of inflation since the early 1980s. Let's call it $5.
Mortimer: You are on.




posted on May, 30 2011 @ 12:27 AM
link   
Some speak of the rapture taking these lunatics. But the rapture is God taking good people to heaven. And those wacked out nut jobs are Satan's minions. So no rapture for them.



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 12:37 AM
link   
I am somewhat shocked and stunned at some of the responses here.

Free Speech is about protecting non popular speech. I can not stand the WBC, but they have every right to say whatever the hell they want. They have a right to protest anything they want. As much as it sickens me to see the things they say and do, they have the right to say and do them.

Situations like this are a slippery slope. When we as people see something as vile as the WBC we are more than happy to see their rights violated. What makes this such a slippery slope is, once you allow it to happen to one group, it never ends with that group. It progresses to another, then another, then another, until it finally progresses to you and you are left wondering, "How did we get to this point"?



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 12:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by LarryinPA
Some speak of the rapture taking these lunatics. But the rapture is God taking good people to heaven. And those wacked out nut jobs are Satan's minions. So no rapture for them.


According to them, they are the only ones going to Heaven. Funny thing about this group that no one ever wants to talk about is how their hate filled message actually does come from the Bible.



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join