It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Harrisburg banding together to stop the WBC~Pictures

page: 1

log in


posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 11:59 AM
Apparently the WBC knows no bounds. How such a small group can be such a thorn in the side of so many is just beyond me.

There isn't much of an article but the pictures say it all.

Good on Harrisburg.

we were among over 3000 people that made a human shield to stop any protesting done by the WBC against the families that lost loved ones during the tornado in harrisburg


posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 12:07 PM
This is exactly the way things should be handled. By the people, for the people. I will fight for the WBC's right to protest and fight to support the band of people that countered them.

This in my opinion is the epitome of democracy in action.

posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 12:34 PM
reply to post by lpowell0627

Fair enough. Though I don't necessarily buy that WBC has the right to distress funeral attendees.

posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 12:42 PM

Originally posted by nixie_nox
reply to post by lpowell0627

Fair enough. Though I don't necessarily buy that WBC has the right to distress funeral attendees.

Well it's a matter of free speech and the right to peacefully assemble. I disagree with the WBC, I think it's a cancerous organization that gives religion a bad name, but we must be prepared to defend their right to say whatever is they please.

Or forgo your right to do the same, when you want to protest your government, or some other group of people you disagree with.

This is exactly the way things should be handled, counter protest those you don't agree with.


posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 12:51 PM
reply to post by tothetenthpower

Nicely said, but despite what many think, freedom of speech does have its limits. And for good reason.

Can you yell fire in a theater? Nope! You can be charged with clear and present danger.

Fighting Words
Was something said face-to-face that would incite immediate violence?

In Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, the Supreme Court stated that the “English language has a number of words and expressions which by general consent [are] ‘fighting words’ when said without a disarming smile. … Such words, as ordinary men know, are likely to cause a fight.” The court determined that the New Hampshire statute in question “did no more than prohibit the face-to-face words plainly likely to cause a breach of the peace by the addressee, words whose speaking constitute a breach of the peace by the speaker — including ‘classical fighting words,’ words in current use less ‘classical’ but equally likely to cause violence, and other disorderly words, including profanity, obscenity and threats.” Jurisdictions may write statutes to punish verbal acts if the statutes are “carefully drawn so as not unduly to impair liberty of expression.”

Libel and Slander
Was the statement false, or put in a context that makes true statements misleading? You do not have a constitutional right to tell lies that damage or defame the reputation of a person or organization.


posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 01:25 PM
reply to post by nixie_nox

Oh of course, that makes plenty of sense, any clear and present danger is fine.

Funny, you know how that was first used? Against protesters of the first World War, they used it to prevent them to pass our flyers as there was "clear and present danger" of the US not being able to defend itself properly, unless it had a draft.

Interesting eh?

But the WBC present no clear and present danger when they have these protests, other than to themselves of course as violence would probably occur if they showed up a funeral for any of my family or friends.


posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 03:05 PM

They estimate around 3,000 people showed up, forming a human chain to prevent the WBC picketers from approaching the funeral. 'The WBC people didn't even get out of the car,' he said. 'The vibe was: Don't mess with the families who have already lost so much. All the town around here, once they found out what was going on, all came together in support of our community.'


Truly inspiring.

Funny how they support this group of dirtbag's right to "free speech" yet, congress doesn't think twice about passing a law effectively making it illegal to protest in the presence of a politician.

Its almost like they want to drive protestors to have to protest at events that have nothing to do with what they are protesting about. Want to distress some poor mourners who have nothing to do with the policies you oppose; fine, go for it. Want to protest to your elected representatives who created the policies you dislike; go directly to jail.

Its a shame people had to resort to mob justice in order to protect mourning families.

edit on 3/5/12 by FortAnthem because:

new topics

top topics


log in