Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Westboro Baptist Church Hate Group Petition Reaches 85,983 Signatures

page: 6
21
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 10:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by humphreysjim
 


Oh, don't get me wrong.

I'll punch you in the throat and have you cough up blood for a month if you were to do that to me.


Then you'd be the law breaker.

I repeat, how can that be right? I am the asshole, you are clearly the victim, but to the letter of the law, you must be arrested?




posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by humphreysjim
 



Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

en.wikipedia.org...

Congress shall make no law

Get it?

Congress (government) shall make no law

Thanks for playing.


I am not questioning the law, as a US citizen, you will know the constitution better than I do, I am asking whether this law is desirable? To me, clearly it is not, and it at the very least needs some small print that makes what the WBC is doing a punishable offense.
edit on 18-12-2012 by humphreysjim because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by humphreysjim

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by humphreysjim
 


Oh, don't get me wrong.

I'll punch you in the throat and have you cough up blood for a month if you were to do that to me.


Then you'd be the law breaker.

I repeat, how can that be right? I am the asshole, you are clearly the victim, but to the letter of the law, you must be arrested?


Correct. Having your feeling hurt is not a legal defense. I say things all the time here, on ATS, that people don't like. Because their feelings are hurt, I should be censured?



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 10:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by humphreysjim

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by humphreysjim
 


Oh, don't get me wrong.

I'll punch you in the throat and have you cough up blood for a month if you were to do that to me.


Then you'd be the law breaker.

I repeat, how can that be right? I am the asshole, you are clearly the victim, but to the letter of the law, you must be arrested?


Correct. Having your feeling hurt is not a legal defense. I say things all the time here, on ATS, that people don't like. Because their feelings are hurt, I should be censured?


If you are slandering people using their real name, then yes.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 10:50 AM
link   
reply to post by humphreysjim
 





I'm not only acting like a bastard, I am making your life an endless, living hell, and you are innocent.


If you target one person repeatedly over a period of time, then it can be considered harrassment, and that is illegal even regardless of the message they spread. But as far as I know, WBC do take care not to cross this line, they are lawyered up after all. I detest them as much as anyone else, doubly so because I have a special aversion towards religious fanatics, but I have yet to see a sensible argument why to ban them except stupid "hurr durr I dont like what they say".



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 10:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by humphreysjim
 





I'm not only acting like a bastard, I am making your life an endless, living hell, and you are innocent.


If you target one person repeatedly over a period of time, then it can be considered harrassment, and that is illegal even regardless of the message they spread. But as far as I know, WBC do take care not to cross this line, they are lawyered up after all. I detest them as much as anyone else, doubly so because I have a special aversion towards religious fanatics, but I have yet to see a sensible argument why to ban them except stupid "hurr durr I dont like what they say".


Once you turn up at or around another's funeral, surely you cross the line into harrassment.

It's nice to know that there are lines one can cross, legally, regards free speech, however. Beezzer seems to think there are not.
edit on 18-12-2012 by humphreysjim because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by humphreysjim


I am not questioning the law, as a US citizen, you will know the constitution better than I do, I am asking whether this law is desirable? To me, clearly it is not, and it at the very least needs some small print that makes what the WBC is doing a punishable offense.
edit on 18-12-2012 by humphreysjim because: (no reason given)


Yes, it is desirable.

Because once you limit one type of free speech, you open the door to other limits.

If people don't like the;
Tea Party
Occupy Wall Street
KKK
New Black Panthers
Libertarians
Atheists
Religious folks
Wiccans
Druids
Tory's
Labour Party
People with British accents
Republicans
Democrats
People whom stutter

[I]ad nauseum[/I]

Where does it stop?

Defending free speech is critical, because you or someone else, might be the next one to be silenced.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 10:55 AM
link   
Looking at the definition of harassment, it seems to refer to repeated offenses, not necessarily on the same person. For instance, I can sexually harrass in the work place, whilst targetting a different woman each time.

Surely, in that sense, the WBC members are harrassing various groups due to the repeated nature of their insults and protests.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 10:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by humphreysjim


I am not questioning the law, as a US citizen, you will know the constitution better than I do, I am asking whether this law is desirable? To me, clearly it is not, and it at the very least needs some small print that makes what the WBC is doing a punishable offense.
edit on 18-12-2012 by humphreysjim because: (no reason given)


Yes, it is desirable.

Because once you limit one type of free speech, you open the door to other limits.

Where does it stop?


Why can't we just use common sense as to what should and should not be allowed?

Strict laws with no leeway are dangerous.

What the WBC does is pure, unmitigated hatred, which serves little other purpose than to disturb decent people.

I would say allowing people to say whatever the hell they want, whenever and wherever they want, regarless of the hurt and suffering it can cause, is more dangerous than limiting the speech of some groups who perhaps should be entitled to it.

Modern civilisation is founded on limits. All this complete freedom nonsense is a fairy tale. Real freedom is anarchy, and most people do not want that. You trade rights for comfort and safety, that's civilisation in a nutshell. Limiting rights is not, in of itself, always a bad thing.
edit on 18-12-2012 by humphreysjim because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by humphreysjim
Looking at the definition of harassment, it seems to refer to repeated offenses, not necessarily on the same person. For instance, I can sexually harrass in the work place, whilst targetting a different woman each time.

Surely, in that sense, the WBC members are harrassing various groups due to the repeated nature of their insults and protests.


Actually, by their definition, they are expressing their religious beliefs.

Sick, disgusting. But legal.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by humphreysjim
Looking at the definition of harassment, it seems to refer to repeated offenses, not necessarily on the same person. For instance, I can sexually harrass in the work place, whilst targetting a different woman each time.

Surely, in that sense, the WBC members are harrassing various groups due to the repeated nature of their insults and protests.


Actually, by their definition, they are expressing their religious beliefs.

Sick, disgusting. But legal.


Don't even get me started on the protection people are given to spew hatred under the guise of "religion".



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 11:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Agarta
 


The Westboro Baptist Church is to Christianity as what Terrorists are to Islam. The extreme, and they make everyone else look bad. I've seen people go to jail for much less then what these idiots do due to hate crime legislation. I can't believe they haven't been taken down yet.

I can't wait for the day we no longer have to listen to news reports about them picketing funerals because they're behind locked bars and the children placed in homes who will actually take care of them.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 11:05 AM
link   
reply to post by humphreysjim
 


The free speech laws in America aren't supposed to be "nice" or "pleasant". Freedom is a double-edged sword. People will say things I don't like. I get over it.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 11:26 AM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 



The free speech laws in America aren't supposed to be "nice" or "pleasant". Freedom is a double-edged sword. People will say things I don't like. I get over it.


Then where do you draw the line between productivity and harm?



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by humphreysjim
Looking at the definition of harassment, it seems to refer to repeated offenses, not necessarily on the same person. For instance, I can sexually harrass in the work place, whilst targetting a different woman each time.

Surely, in that sense, the WBC members are harrassing various groups due to the repeated nature of their insults and protests.


Workplace harrassment may be regulated more strictly than other types, creating a hostile environment is banned and such. Harrassment outside of workplace is concerned with repeated abuse of the same person, and the intent of the law is pretty clear. Makes sense, because if they protest at someones funeral once and then move on, I would call it annoying and rageworthy, but not harrassing or especially psychologically damaging.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by humphreysjim

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by jhn7537
reply to post by beezzer
 


So are you a "stick and stones" type of person? You don't believe hateful speech can be used as a weapon today?


Are we going to nitpick?

Play strawman?

I believe in the right to free speech. If people want to face the consequences of that speech (a pop to the nose) then so be it.

But any laws abridging freedom of expression is just wrong.


What about if I stand outside your house and yell out that you're a paedophile, using a loudspeaker, every night, and create groups attesting to the fact that you're a paedophile?

Bear in mind, if you retaliate and attack me, you're the one breaking the law, and you're the one deserving of punishment.

Is that right?
edit on 18-12-2012 by humphreysjim because: fixing a spelling mistake to appease an asshat
edit on 18-12-2012 by humphreysjim because: (no reason given)

if you did that to me i myself would calmly walk outside and kick your face in..after i kicked the sh#t out of you..go ahead arrest me.. some things are worth the sacrifice



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 11:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by beezzer
 



The free speech laws in America aren't supposed to be "nice" or "pleasant". Freedom is a double-edged sword. People will say things I don't like. I get over it.


Then where do you draw the line between productivity and harm?


It is not my nor anyone else's (especially the government) responsibility to set limits or definitions on what constitutes free speech.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
Where does it stop?

Defending free speech is critical, because you or someone else, might be the next one to be silenced.


I see your logic, but isn't that the slippery slope fallacy? All anyone is asking for is a bit of decency. At the very least, "don't disrupt private ceremonies", maybe? I don't know.
I find this "lie back and take it" mindset a bit frustrating. Maybe you're just remarkably thick-skinned compared to the average person (and if so, you're probably a pretty cool person to hang out with, no sarcasm meant), but sometimes words can go beyond hurt feelings and... well, let's just say that the sticks-and-stones saying couldn't be more wrong. I wish it weren't. Would've saved me a lot of trauma in school.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 12:11 PM
link   




All I'm saying is, why should it have to be a sacrifice on your part, when it would be me who is clearly in the wrong?

Evidence of a flawed system, of course.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 12:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by EllaMarina

Originally posted by beezzer
Where does it stop?

Defending free speech is critical, because you or someone else, might be the next one to be silenced.


I see your logic, but isn't that the slippery slope fallacy? All anyone is asking for is a bit of decency. At the very least, "don't disrupt private ceremonies", maybe? I don't know.
I find this "lie back and take it" mindset a bit frustrating. Maybe you're just remarkably thick-skinned compared to the average person (and if so, you're probably a pretty cool person to hang out with, no sarcasm meant), but sometimes words can go beyond hurt feelings and... well, let's just say that the sticks-and-stones saying couldn't be more wrong. I wish it weren't. Would've saved me a lot of trauma in school.


It's no fallacy. Decency would be nice. But it isn't required. As for gaining a thick skin?
Try posting on ATS for two years.

What people say about me, I could care less. I've been writing here for a couple of years. Townhall prior to this place (I got kicked out, not conservative enough
)
And have received death threats there, even here. (Gotta love those U2U's)

We have to stop defining ourselves by what other people say.

Of course, just my humble opinion.





new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join