View Full Version : WBC and the Constitution
Coco's Disciples
12-02-2009, 09:21 PM
http://www.boston.com/yourtown/news/brookline/2009/12/brookline_high_students_answer.html
From yesterday.
Spudboy
12-02-2009, 09:37 PM
Thanks for the update C.D.
It warms my heart to see that 300 students had the balls and conviction to stand up to those hate mongers. Don't fuck with Brookline High.
And get the fuck out of Massachusetts.
The_Destroyah
12-03-2009, 12:15 AM
Thanks for the update C.D.
It warms my heart to see that 300 students had the balls and conviction to stand up to those hate mongers. Don't fuck with Brookline High.
And get the fuck out of Massachusetts.
Im of the mind that they should get the fuck out of the United States, I don't understand why someone would stay in a place they hated so much.
EDIT: btw CD I think ya'll handled that perfectly, there isn't a better way to have countered their protest.
Dipre
12-03-2009, 08:10 AM
Im of the mind that they should get the fuck out of the United States, I don't understand why someone would stay in a place they hated so much.
EDIT: btw CD I think ya'll handled that perfectly, there isn't a better way to have countered their protest.
Except shooting them. With 12-gauges.
The_Destroyah
12-03-2009, 11:51 AM
Except shooting them. With 12-gauges.
and make them Martyrs? Id honestly rather just deport them to a country that isn't full of fag enablers, like Antarctica.
Dipre
12-03-2009, 11:54 AM
and make them Martyrs? Id honestly rather just deport them to a country that isn't full of fag enablers, like Antarctica.
Martyrs?
People would go to their funeral with "God hates assholes like these guys" signs for sure.
The_Destroyah
12-03-2009, 11:57 AM
Martyrs?
People would go to their funeral with "God hates assholes like these guys" signs for sure.
probably but somewhere somebody in this country would feel it wrong to kill them, and it would kind of hurt our leg to stand on with the first amendment. I like the idea of dropping them off in an isolated place in the antarctic.
redsoxrevenge
12-03-2009, 03:11 PM
Except shooting them. With 12-gauges.
Why would you want to do that?
Dipre
12-03-2009, 03:51 PM
Why would you want to do that?
Do you actually know who these people are?
Honestly, there are just some people who don't deserve to occupy our oxygen, simply based off of their stupidity and ignorance alone. We're all fag-enablers because we don't think all homosexuals should die, and therefore we should die.
Why would you want to do that?
Would you actually feel sorry for these guys if they got shot? Honest question.
redsoxrevenge
12-03-2009, 05:41 PM
Do you actually know who these people are?
Yes.
Would you actually feel sorry for these guys if they got shot? Honest question.
Murdered? Yes.
bsox0407
12-03-2009, 06:12 PM
Honestly, there are just some people who don't deserve to occupy our oxygen, simply based off of their stupidity and ignorance alone. We're all fag-enablers because we don't think all homosexuals should die, and therefore we should die.
there taking all our jobs.
http://i953.photobucket.com/albums/ae11/bsox0407/they_took_our_jobs_tshirt-d23564803.jpg
Yes.
Murdered? Yes.
Lol k
TheKilo
12-03-2009, 07:40 PM
What's wrong with what he said? Even though they are hate mongerers and among the most ignorant people in the world, I'm pretty sure they haven't killed anybody so why would it be acceptable to murder them?
Dipre
12-03-2009, 07:48 PM
What's wrong with what he said? Even though they are hate mongerers and among the most ignorant people in the world, I'm pretty sure they haven't killed anybody so why would it be acceptable to murder them?
Kilo, imagine this scenario:
Imagine your brother died in action, imagine your grief, your anger, your sorrow, then imagine, as the Priest is giving you those words of comfort, as your soul soothes and you feel a measure of acceptance, someone picketing with sign that say "God hates fags" during that time.
I bet you'd shoot their asses if you could right then and there.
TheKilo
12-03-2009, 07:57 PM
Except my brother, who dies in action, was fighting for the free speech that these idiots have the right to express. It may be unbelievably insensitive, but it is their right to say it. It is not against the law.
Would I hope they get their poetic justice? Absolutely. Doesn't mean I'd be the one to do it.
bsox0407
12-03-2009, 08:01 PM
Except my brother, who dies in action, was fighting for the free speech that these idiots have the right to express. It may be unbelievably insensitive, but it is their right to say it. It is not against the law.
Would I hope they get their poetic justice? Absolutely. Doesn't mean I'd be the one to do it.
It has to be in the right situation where you say these things. If it was in a Church or Funeral Home that person would be arrested.
Dipre
12-03-2009, 08:03 PM
Except my brother, who dies in action, was fighting for the free speech that these idiots have the right to express. It may be unbelievably insensitive, but it is their right to say it. It is not against the law.
Would I hope they get their poetic justice? Absolutely. Doesn't mean I'd be the one to do it.
One can only wonder why the powerhouse country in the world allows sexual and race-oriented hate as part of "Freedom of speech" while a piece of shit, backwater island like this one doesn't.
The irony is so delicious, even chocolate cake can't rival it.
Coco's Disciples
12-03-2009, 08:10 PM
It has to be in the right situation where you say these things. If it was in a Church or Funeral Home that person would be arrested.
That's why they go across the street. They're not on the property, but they make sure everyone entering and exiting the premises can see them.
And I'm not for murdering them (though I wouldn't mind if they disappeared).
bsox0407
12-03-2009, 08:15 PM
That's why they go across the street. They're not on the property, but they make sure everyone entering and exiting the premises can see them.
And I'm not for murdering them (though I wouldn't mind if they disappeared).
I think in some towns and counties make you get a permit or they can arrest you. Everyone has there opinion but most of the time it should be kept to yourself.
Dipre
12-03-2009, 08:23 PM
In some places (like here) there is an article inserted into the penal code, stating "That any manifestation that could be considered of hateful nature against a person's creed, sexual preference, or otherwise political belief is considered moral and verbal violence, and shall be dealt with accordingly".
This, by the way, will be included in the latest re-form of the penal code, as in, it is not yet in writing, but due to the premise of "Jurisprudence and customs make law" this is being applied, and has been applied for some years running now.
TheKilo
12-03-2009, 08:28 PM
One can only wonder why the powerhouse country in the world allows sexual and race-oriented hate as part of "Freedom of speech" while a piece of shit, backwater island like this one doesn't.
The irony is so delicious, even chocolate cake can't rival it.
That doesn't address the bigger overall point though. Way to single out the part of my post that has no bearing on this larger discussion as a whole.
Dipre
12-03-2009, 08:30 PM
That doesn't address the bigger overall point though. Way to single out the part of my post that has no bearing on this larger discussion as a whole.
It's a complaint. I know "killing them" is extreme, and was said out of frustration.
Besides, i should stop talking about this right about now, because, unlike in real life, "There is no freedom of speech in message boards".
TheKilo
12-03-2009, 08:32 PM
There isn't, but I'm pretty sure we've kept the discussion civil and within the boundaries of the ToS.
You asked me if I would have the urge to kill them. I answered. As much hate as they spew, their lives do not deserve to be taken because they have not taken the lives of others.
Dipre
12-03-2009, 08:34 PM
There isn't, but I'm pretty sure we've kept the discussion civil and within the boundaries of the ToS.
You asked me if I would have the urge to kill them. I answered. As much hate as they spew, their lives do not deserve to be taken because they have not taken the lives of others.
Nah, i was ribbing yo man.
As stated above, it was said out of frustration. Maybe you're not like me, but i would definitely erase them from existence if given the opportunity in a situation like that.
The fact that it's legal doesn't mean it is morally correct, this is the reason why the premise "Customs create laws" was created in the first place.
TheKilo
12-03-2009, 08:58 PM
Right, but no law would ever justify their murder, regardless of the hate they spew.
Dipre
12-03-2009, 09:00 PM
Right, but no law would ever justify their murder, regardless of the hate they spew.
But there should be a law that doesn't allow the to spew hate in the first place.
I wasn't advocating for such a thing, i know fully well that if i shot one of them, i'd be going to jail. If they were shot or stomped during a riot that occurred during one of their manifestations however.......
The_Destroyah
12-03-2009, 09:50 PM
There isn't, but I'm pretty sure we've kept the discussion civil and within the boundaries of the ToS.
You asked me if I would have the urge to kill them. I answered. As much hate as they spew, their lives do not deserve to be taken because they have not taken the lives of others.
I agree, why my personal feelings would strongly lean towards burning them alive, I would find it wrong to have them killed when they hurt no one it undermines the due process of law IMO, however I do agree that it should be made illegal to protest within a given perimeter of a funeral, there is a time and place for voicing your feelings or political strife (if thats really what you want to call it) and a funeral is neither the time nor place.
schillingouttheks
12-03-2009, 11:04 PM
I wouldn't kill any of them, but I would picket each member's funeral. No doubt about that.
BigPapiEnFuego
12-03-2009, 11:12 PM
One can only wonder why the powerhouse country in the world allows sexual and race-oriented hate as part of "Freedom of speech" while a piece of shit, backwater island like this one doesn't.
The irony is so delicious, even chocolate cake can't rival it.
Hate is what America is about.
Youk Of The Nation
12-03-2009, 11:51 PM
I wouldn't kill them, but I would fire a shotgun at random spots on the sidewalk, and if they happened to be standing there, well...
Spudboy
12-04-2009, 12:06 AM
I wouldn't kill them, but I would fire a shotgun at random spots on the sidewalk, and if they happened to be standing there, well...
Fuck that. Throw partially cooked steak at them.;)
bsox0407
12-04-2009, 07:44 AM
Fuck that just follow them home and whenever they do something scream something about them.
redsoxrevenge
12-04-2009, 04:16 PM
But there should be a law that doesn't allow the to spew hate in the first place.
Imagine the precedent that would set.
Dipre
12-04-2009, 04:21 PM
Imagine the precedent that would set.
There are laws against hate propaganda all over the world.
It's feasible, and easy to apply.
redsoxrevenge
12-04-2009, 04:22 PM
There are laws against hate propaganda all over the world.
It's feasible, and easy to apply.
Who considers what hate propaganda is and what is not?
Dipre
12-04-2009, 04:29 PM
Who considers what hate propaganda is and what is not?
Anything that attacks a person of group of persons' lifestyle choices, ethnic backgrounds, religious or political beliefs. It's pretty easy to distinguish "Hate propaganda".
Who considers what hate propaganda is and what is not?
I believe that has been covered earlier in this topic..... And I'm pretty sure hate is easily distinguished.
Anything that attacks a person of group of persons' lifestyle choices, ethnic backgrounds, religious or political beliefs. It's pretty easy to distinguish "Hate propaganda".
You covered this earlier, I believed. And yeah, I said the exact same thing basically :lol:
redsoxrevenge
12-04-2009, 04:34 PM
Anything that attacks a person of group of persons' lifestyle choices, ethnic backgrounds, religious or political beliefs. It's pretty easy to distinguish "Hate propaganda".
I think it's pretty obvious that it isn't. You and me cannot even agree on what hate propaganda is. Let alone laws that would be acceptable for 300,000,000 people. You advocating for the murder of the Phelps family, because of their religious beliefs would be considered hate speech according to your definition, would it not? In fact, not even the advocation of murder, but the criticism of the Phelps family would also have to be considered hate speech, because that attacks their religious and political beliefs.
redsoxrevenge
12-04-2009, 04:35 PM
Honestly, there are just some people who don't deserve to occupy our oxygen, simply based off of their stupidity and ignorance alone. We're all fag-enablers because we don't think all homosexuals should die, and therefore we should die.
Would you actually feel sorry for these guys if they got shot? Honest question.
I believe that has been covered earlier in this topic..... And I'm pretty sure hate is easily distinguished.
Careful what you wish for. You would be subject to the laws you want.
Dipre
12-04-2009, 04:35 PM
I think it's pretty obvious that it isn't. You and me cannot even agree on what hate propaganda is. Let alone laws that would be acceptable for 300,000,000 people. You advocating for the murder of the Phelps family, because of their religious beliefs would be considered hate speech according to your definition, would it not? In fact, not even the advocation of murder, but the criticism of the Phelps family would also have to be considered hate speech, because that attacks their religious and political beliefs.
Have you read the rest of the thread?
Please do.
You and i cannot agree on what "Hate propaganda means" because you don't know what "hate propaganda" is apparently.
If it can work in an underdeveloped country, it can work in the US, and that's all i have to say about that.
By the way, the whole "Kill them" thing was an over-characterization. Think about it......slowly.
redsoxrevenge
12-04-2009, 04:38 PM
Do you have to be so insulting? I am done with this conversation.
Careful what you wish for. You would be subject to the laws you want.
By the way, the whole "Kill them" thing was an over-characterization. Think about it......slowly.
And technically, then, anyone who calls for a death penalty for a murder would be charged with hate-crimes :rolleyes:
Dipre
12-04-2009, 04:42 PM
Do you have to be so insulting? I am done with this conversation.
What exactly was insulting about it?
Allow me to explain.
I don't live in the US. Where i live, we apply anti-hate laws although they are not "In Paper", what i meant by it is that how can you know what an actual hate propaganda law would look like if you don't have one?
Please explain this.
Do you have to be so insulting? I am done with this conversation.
Wut? Who's insulting who? You're making it apparent that you're just chiming in without even reading the rest of what has been said. Also, you're being very technical. Serious, stop it.
redsoxrevenge
12-04-2009, 04:48 PM
And technically, then, anyone who calls for a death penalty for a murder would be charged with hate-crimes :rolleyes:
This is an absurd point.
Dipre
12-04-2009, 04:50 PM
This is an absurd point.
Did you read the context it was said in?
Jesus Christ.
redsoxrevenge
12-04-2009, 04:53 PM
Did you read the context it was said in?
Jesus Christ.
Yes, and it is still an incredibly stupid point to make.
Dipre
12-04-2009, 04:54 PM
Yes, and it is still an incredibly stupid point to make.
*Facepalm*
I give up.
This is an absurd point.
Being as technical as you are is absurd, which is the point I was attempting to make. You need to stop complicating things. Just make it really simple, and stop the technicalities.
Yes, and it is still an incredibly stupid point to make.
Jesus Christ man... I was being sarcastic to illustrate, exactly, how ridiculously complicated, and technical, and, well, absurd, YOUR point is.
redsoxrevenge
12-04-2009, 04:59 PM
Anything that attacks a person of group of persons' lifestyle choices, ethnic backgrounds, religious or political beliefs. It's pretty easy to distinguish "Hate propaganda".
And to quote again. I am going off your definition of hate speech.
Just going off that definition would lead to a total paralyzation of thought and communication, with people fearful of criticizing anything, lest they be subject to hate speech. Your and the other posters' comments about the Phelps family would certaintly fall into this definition, even in jest. As for being "technical," well that is how we apply the laws in this country. Don't bitch, because you are in violation of your new speech codes.
Although, free speech allows some fringe groups to seize the pulpit and spout nonsense openly, they can also be challenged openly. This is not possible in countries with restrictions on free speech.
*Facepalm*
I give up.
I think I'll follow you on that one. Facepalm included.
redsoxrevenge
12-04-2009, 05:00 PM
Being as technical as you are is absurd, which is the point I was attempting to make. You need to stop complicating things. Just make it really simple, and stop the technicalities.
It isn't simple. You should stop pretending that it is.
And to quote again. I am going off your definition of hate speech.
Just going off that definition would lead to a total paralyzation of thought and communication, with people fearful of criticizing anything, lest they be subject to hate speech. Your and the other posters' comments about the Phelps family would certaintly fall into this definition, even in jest. As for being "technical," well that is how we apply the laws in this country. Don't bitch, because you are in violation of your new speech codes.
Although, free speech allows some fringe groups to seize the pulpit and spout nonsense openly, they can also be challenged openly. This is not possible in countries with restrictions on free speech.
Jesus Christ, say it with me, THINK about it. Again, nice and slow.
It-Was-An-O-Ver-Char-Ac-Ter-I-Za-Tion. Simple enough?
Dipre
12-04-2009, 05:04 PM
And to quote again. I am going off your definition of hate speech.
Just going off that definition would lead to a total paralyzation of thought and communication, with people fearful of criticizing anything, lest they be subject to hate speech. Your and the other posters' comments about the Phelps family would certaintly fall into this definition, even in jest. As for being "technical," well that is how we apply the laws in this country. Don't bitch, because you are in violation of your new speech codes.
Although, free speech allows some fringe groups to seize the pulpit and spout nonsense openly, they can also be challenged openly. This is not possible in countries with restrictions on free speech.
This is one of the stupidest things i have ever read.
Dipre
12-04-2009, 05:07 PM
In some places (like here) there is an article inserted into the penal code, stating "That any manifestation that could be considered of hateful nature against a person's creed, sexual preference, or otherwise political belief is considered moral and verbal violence, and shall be dealt with accordingly".
This, by the way, will be included in the latest re-form of the penal code, as in, it is not yet in writing, but due to the premise of "Jurisprudence and customs make law" this is being applied, and has been applied for some years running now.
Read this. Slowly.
For it to be considered of such a nature, it would have to be under a judge's ruling. The manifestation would also have to be public, and a formal complaint would have to be filed against it.
It's not how "Laws work in your country" it's how they work on every organized, capitalist country.
As long as you don't leave space for misinterpretation, there is no turning the law around on technicalities.
It isn't simple. You should stop pretending that it is.
How is it not simple? You're acting like people should be allowed to spew hate, and that this will somehow stifle freedoms. How about people's freedom to live life without having people like the Phelps calling them fags, and fag-enablers? It's really simple, but you're attempting to complicate shit by using technicalities. So it's one of two things:
A. You're pro-hate
or
B. You're arguing for shits and grins
How can this be so difficult? Really dude. Sit and think about it for more than two seconds.
redsoxrevenge
12-04-2009, 05:11 PM
Jesus Christ, say it with me, THINK about it. Again, nice and slow.
It-Was-An-O-Ver-Char-Ac-Ter-I-Za-Tion. Simple enough?
I don't think it was. It was hate speech.
Dipre
12-04-2009, 05:12 PM
I don't think it was. It was hate speech.
Yeah, we were obviously gonna go shoot at 'em with shotguns and hope the 1st amendment allowed us to get away with it.
You know, we are fag-enablers after all.
redsoxrevenge
12-04-2009, 05:13 PM
How is it not simple? You're acting like people should be allowed to spew hate, and that this will somehow stifle freedoms. How about people's freedom to live life without having people like the Phelps calling them fags, and fag-enablers? It's really simple, but you're attempting to complicate shit by using technicalities. So it's one of two things:
A. You're pro-hate
or
B. You're arguing for shits and grins
How can this be so difficult? Really dude. Sit and think about it for more than two seconds.
It couldn't be C) I am free speech.
You two are nasty people. Meet points with insults. Maybe that Dojji guy had a point.
Dipre
12-04-2009, 05:15 PM
It couldn't be C) I am free speech.
You two are nasty people. Meet points with insults. Maybe that Dojji guy had a point.
To you he has to. You're just like him. Don't read things completely, take things out of context, then come up with the most ridiculous opinion possible.
Btw, defending the premise of "Free speech" while allowing for the ridicule and protest of other people's lifestyle choices is an oximoron.
redsoxrevenge
12-04-2009, 05:19 PM
To you he has to. You're just like him. Don't read things completely, take things out of context, then come up with the most ridiculous opinion possible.
Btw, defending the premise of "Free speech" while allowing for the ridicule and protest of other people's lifestyle choices is an oximoron.
I think you mean oxymoron. And no, free speech would allow people to ridicule and protest other people's lifestyle choices.
I'm not allowing myself to get back into this. This was most unpleasant. Every thread I see you in, you are insulting another poster.
Dipre
12-04-2009, 05:21 PM
I think you mean oxymoron. And no, free speech would allow people to ridicule and protest other people's lifestyle choices.
I'm not allowing myself to get back into this. This was most unpleasant. Every thread I see you in, you are insulting another poster.
There is a difference between "Insult" and "Clearing points up".
Doiji i "Insulted" because he attacked me personally when i was trying to convey something to you.
If you're so sensitive, i suggest perhaps going to a PG-13 board?
It couldn't be C) I am free speech.
You two are nasty people. Meet points with insults. Maybe that Dojji guy had a point.
You don't think that freedom of speech should be limited if it's hateful? Like I said, you're obviously not all that offended by hate. And Points? What points? All you've done is shown that you're incapable of processing stupidity out of your posts.
You're just like him dude... You remind me seriously of Doiji. You're always going to have to be corrected, and you're always going to take routine conversations miles off course.
I think you mean oxymoron. And no, free speech would allow people to ridicule and protest other people's lifestyle choices.
I'm not allowing myself to get back into this. This was most unpleasant. Every thread I see you in, you are insulting another poster.
Is this Doiji on a proxy? Your posting style is almost exactly the same. Not only that, but you've been bitching about Dipre and me.
Call yourself an undereducated teenager and stop trying so hard.
yeszir
12-04-2009, 05:33 PM
Wait to clarify here - the people who want to limit free speech when they don't agree with it are attacking someone defending the first ammendment? Is this actually happening?
Dipre
12-04-2009, 05:36 PM
Wait to clarify here - the people who want to limit free speech when they don't agree with it are attacking someone defending the first ammendment? Is this actually happening?
Question, how can you "Limit Free speech".
Are "Free speech" and "Hate manifestations" somehow bound together?
Please explain this to me, since apparently, i'm an idiot for thinking that picketing someone's funeral with "God hates fags" signs constitute Free speech, because that is obviously not what the first amendment is trying to defend.
Wait to clarify here - the people who want to limit free speech when they don't agree with it are attacking someone defending the first ammendment? Is this actually happening?
No, hate speech collides with people's right to live a normal life. Without people calling them faggots or fag-enablers. This includes religious, racist, or any other sort of hate speech. Free speech should not be bound together with hate speech.
yeszir
12-04-2009, 05:41 PM
All I'm trying to say is just because you found someone to agree with you here doesn't give you the right to mount an all out offensive.
Dipre
12-04-2009, 05:44 PM
All I'm trying to say is just because you found someone to agree with you here doesn't give you the right to mount an all out offensive.
There wasn't an "All-out offensive".
Check again, i tried to establish that i wasn't trying to offend him by any means. I said he didn't know how an anti-hate law would work because the US does not have one, but he got in defensive mode, and that's what happened.
Clarifying a point and attacking someone are not the same thing, "Attack the post, not the poster" as the rules state?
All I'm trying to say is just because you found someone to agree with you here doesn't give you the right to mount an all out offensive.
He took first blood, by telling us that we were "bitching", for one. Also, our points were legit. He was just spewing crap, and trying to be technical. It reminds me a lot of Doiji. I'd bet money on this being Doiji with a proxy.
There wasn't an "All-out offensive".
Check again, i tried to establish that i wasn't trying to offend him by any means. I said he didn't know how an anti-hate law would work because the US does not have one, but he got in defensive mode, and that's what happened.
Clarifying a point and attacking someone are not the same thing, "Attack the post, not the poster" as the rules state?
Like I said, he took first blood, if anything, he was the one being confrontational.
redsoxrevenge
12-04-2009, 05:48 PM
You are lucky the government would likely silence groups like Phelps first, but you'll create an atmosphere where that speech goes underground, and emerges as something more sinister. You'll band the fringe together, and they may even be able to challenge your hate speech laws. They may even decide to turn them onto you. They may say that your criticism of their tactics is tantamount to criticism of their religion.
I agree with you two. The Phelps family is a horrible organization, but they shouldn't be silenced. They should be debated, and defeated that way. Also, do you realize that people with agendas set hate speech legislation? It is obvious you two have an agenda. Just imagine the terror if someone with a completely different agenda has the power to set hate speech laws. It would be awful.
This is why the first amendment is so important.
What can't you understand about it. People like that CAN'T be debated. They feel that they're correct, and there's nothing you can do to change that. They SHOULD be silenced, because they're insulting other people's views, or hating.
Also, this nation is not a fascist nation, the people wouldn't stand for corrupt use of the hate speech laws.
Dipre
12-04-2009, 05:53 PM
The problem is, laws need to adapt themselves to the times, the only way for the law to be countered based on technicalities is if the legislators allow it to be that way.
I said it before, and i'll say it again, if piece of shit countries like this one where everyone has an agenda, (and article #8 in our constitution defines freedom of speech exactly like your first amendment) can pull off controlling hate speech by creating a tight-sealed legislation against it, then the powerhouse country of the capitalist era can do it too.
You cannot defend a public liberty by allowing someone the right to completely infringe another public liberty. It doesn't make any sense, it's not fair, and it's not morally correct.
The problem is, laws need to adapt themselves to the times, the only way for the law to be countered based on technicalities is if the legislators allow it to be that way.
I said it before, and i'll say it again, if piece of shit countries like this one where everyone has an agenda, (and article #8 in our constitution defines freedom of speech exactly like your first amendment) can pull off controlling hate speech by creating a tight-sealed legislation against it, then the powerhouse country of the capitalist era can do it too.
You cannot defend a public liberty by allowing someone the right to completely infringe another public liberty. It doesn't make any sense, it's not fair, and it's not morally correct.
THIS, a million times THIS
redsoxrevenge
12-04-2009, 06:05 PM
But the Phelps family isn't doing anything like that. They are simply spouting nonsense. An attempt to criminalize that is thought control. In fact, the only people's rights that are being threatened are the Phelps family's.
"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."
It's very simple. Our Constitution clearly protects his right to speak this way.
But the Phelps family isn't doing anything like that. They are simply spouting nonsense. An attempt to criminalize that is thought control.
I'm pretty sure hate is clashing with people's rights, and the Phelps family is symbolic of hate.
redsoxrevenge
12-04-2009, 06:08 PM
What can't you understand about it. People like that CAN'T be debated. They feel that they're correct, and there's nothing you can do to change that. They SHOULD be silenced, because they're insulting other people's views, or hating.
Could the same also not be said of you and your friend? (Minus the should be silenced part)
redsoxrevenge
12-04-2009, 06:14 PM
I'm pretty sure hate is clashing with people's rights, and the Phelps family is symbolic of hate.
I'll check, but I pretty certain that hate does not clash with people's rights. For example, you may hate Jews. You may tell everyone else about your hatred of Jews. You may picket the streets and scream it from the pulpit that you hate Jews, but if you strike them, or burn their house down, that would be a violation of a person's rights.
Dipre
12-04-2009, 06:17 PM
Could the same also not be said of you and your friend? (Minus the should be silenced part)
So defending other people's lifestyle choices and clearing up the fact the freedom of speech need not be constricted to stop hate speech is hating. K then.
I'll check, but I pretty certain that hate does not clash with people's rights. For example, you may hate Jews. You may tell everyone else about your hatred of Jews. You may picket the streets and scream it from the pulpit that you hate Jews, but if you strike them, or burn their house down, that would be a violation of a person's rights.
Have you ever thought that by publicly picketing or mobilizing during a funeral is interjecting with people's exercising of their religious beliefs, a stated civil right in the first amendment.?
"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."
It's very simple. Our Constitution clearly protects his right to speak this way.
First:
You cannot defend a public liberty by allowing someone the right to completely infringe another public liberty. It doesn't make any sense, it's not fair, and it's not morally correct.
You're still being very technical.
By this logic, we should be able to run around and use racial slurs. We should be able to call people everything then, right? I can go up to a local black church and have a sign that says "God hates n******" right? Does that make it morally correct? Should we just let them do that? The point of this argument is to CHANGE exactly what the constitution says. That's the point.
I'll check, but I pretty certain that hate does not clash with people's rights. For example, you may hate Jews. You may tell everyone else about your hatred of Jews. You may picket the streets and scream it from the pulpit that you hate Jews, but if you strike them, or burn their house down, that would be a violation of a person's rights.
No, you may not go to funerals, or go to churches and picket the churches, or interfere with THEIR religious views. That, too, is explicitly stated in the constitution.
Could the same also not be said of you and your friend? (Minus the should be silenced part)
How? No, really, what are you talking about?
yeszir
12-04-2009, 06:30 PM
Tag team tag team tag team!!! The only time these are fun is during pro wrestling, and even then not really...
Dipre
12-04-2009, 06:32 PM
Tag team tag team tag team!!! The only time these are fun is during pro wrestling, and even then not really...
You should join in the fun for team redsoxrevenge then.
Is there a problem with the way the conversation is being conducted, Mr. Admin?
Tonight's Main Event:
Dipre and Emmz vs. redsoxrevenge and yeszir
redsoxrevenge
12-04-2009, 06:38 PM
So defending SOME other people's lifestyle choices and clearing the fact the freedom of speech need not be constricted to stop hate speech is hating. K then.
Freedom of speech and constricting hate speech doesn't sound contradictory to you, at all? And please:
K then
Stop doing this.
Have you ever thought that by publicly picketing or mobilizing during a funeral is interjecting with people's exercising of their religious beliefs, as stated in the first amendment.?
No. They aren't preventing that funeral from taking place.
redsoxrevenge
12-04-2009, 06:39 PM
No, you may not go to funerals, or go to churches and picket the churches, or interfere with THEIR religious views. That, too, is explicitly stated in the constitution.
Show me where in the Constitution where it says you cannot do that.
Freedom of speech and constricting hate speech doesn't sound contradictory to you, at all?
Ummm, wut? You're binding them together?
Stop doing this.
Freedom of speech dude.
No. They aren't preventing that funeral from taking place.
.........
K then. Mr. Technicality
Dipre
12-04-2009, 06:42 PM
Freedom of speech and constricting hate speech doesn't sound contradictory to you, at all? And please:
No.
Because freedom of speech, as an entity, is not allowed to be used for the propagation of obscenities which, under the US constitution, the state is fully empowered to restrict.
Definition of obscenity: Indecency, lewdness, or offensiveness in behavior, expression, or appearance.
Stop doing this.
I'll stop when you do.
No. They aren't preventing that funeral from taking place.
They're not preventing it, but they are making it difficult for people to practice two fundamental aspects of civil liberty: Right to practice religion, and right to congregate under peaceful terms. Any action that would create difficulty in exercising such liberties, is, in fact. disrespecting the first amendment of the constitution.
Show me where in the Constitution where it says you cannot do that.
....
First Amendment: You should stop misinterpreting it.
Dipre
12-04-2009, 06:44 PM
Show me where in the Constitution where it says you cannot do that.
The 1st amendment protects the free exercise of religion. Any action that either stops or makes it difficult for the above stated freedom to take place is against the first amendment.
Ditto for peaceful congregation.
Coco's Disciples
12-04-2009, 06:45 PM
Guys, there's a way you can have this discussion without being rude to each other. I would suggest attempting it.
Dipre
12-04-2009, 06:46 PM
Guys, there's a way you can have this discussion without being rude to each other. I would suggest attempting it.
Dare i ask who drew first blood?
Dare i also ask how am i being rude now?
I'm playing nice.
redsoxrevenge
12-04-2009, 06:46 PM
Ummm, wut? You're binding them together?
Yes.
Freedom of speech dude.
Civility, my lady.
.........
K then. Mr. Technicality
Would the adminstrator of the board, please look at this post for the kind of baiting that has been started and continued during this discussion?
No.
Because freedom of speech, as an entity, is not allowed to be used for the propagation of obscenities which, under the US constitution, the state is fully empowered to restrict.
Definition of obscenity: Indecency, lewdness, or offensiveness in behavior, expression, or appearance.
I'll stop when you do.
They're not preventing it, but they are making it difficult for people to practice two fundamental aspects of civil liberty: Right to practice religion, and right to congregate under peaceful terms. Any action that would create difficulty in exercising such liberties, is, in fact. disrespecting the first amendment of the constitution.
He quotes the First Amendment of the constitution, and then proceeds to tell us that picketing a funeral is NOT disrespecting the First Amendment.
bsox0407
12-04-2009, 06:49 PM
Would the adminstrator of the board, please look at this post for the kind of baiting that has been started and continued during this discussion?
I read this whole post and ther is in no way of them trying to bait. Its called disturbing the Peace if you stand outside a church with a anti-gay sign with out a permit.
Yes.
That takes away any merit you had, which wasn't much.
Civility, my lady.
Because "K then" is really confrontational :lol:
Would the adminstrator of the board, please look at this post for the kind of baiting that has been started and continued during this discussion?
Lol k
Dipre
12-04-2009, 06:53 PM
In layman's terms, redsoxrevenge is trying to defend the integrity of the constitution by enabling hate speech, which, in itself, disrespects not one, but two civil liberties protected by the same constitution.
redsoxrevenge
12-04-2009, 06:53 PM
The 1st amendment protects the free exercise of religion. Any action that either stops or makes it difficult for the above stated freedom to take place is against the first amendment.
Ditto for peaceful congregation.
The Constitution does not prevent that. You are confused with state laws which make it illegal to picket funerals within a certain distance. If the Phelps family stays the legal distance away, than they have every right to picket that funeral.
Oh, and btw, redsoxrevenge, don't call me "your lady". You're telling me that "k then" is baiting, but then you say "my lady". It's not only baiting, but it's disrespectful.
bsox0407
12-04-2009, 06:55 PM
The Constitution does not prevent that. You are confused with state laws which make it illegal to picket funerals within a certain distance. If the Phelps family stays the legal distance away, than they have every right to picket that funeral.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_protest
Plz read. this is the right to protest with limits. technically the guy would be protesting without a proper permit and therefore get arrested for Disturbing the Peace and/or Disorderly Persons.
Dipre
12-04-2009, 06:57 PM
The Constitution does not prevent that. You are confused with state laws which make it illegal to picket funerals within a certain distance. If the Phelps family stays the legal distance away, than they have every right to picket that funeral.
They have the "Right" to interrupt the exercise of free religion and peaceful congregation?
This is where the term "Technicality" comes along. They don't have the "right", they are permitted to do so because they are enabled to by their finding flaws in the legal system and exploiting them.
If you consider that to be their right, then:
A) You are pro-hate.
B ) You need to check the difference between the constitution and state legislation regarding freedom of speech.
redsoxrevenge
12-04-2009, 06:57 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_protest
Plz read. this is the right to protest with limits. technically the guy would be protesting without a proper permit and therefore get arrested for Disturbing the Peace and/or Disorderly Persons.
The Phelps family have got permits to protest on just about every occasion.
The Constitution does not prevent that. You are confused with state laws which make it illegal to picket funerals within a certain distance. If the Phelps family stays the legal distance away, than they have every right to picket that funeral.
Can you go near a black church, and picket outside, with signs that say "God hates n******"? No you can't, because you're disrespecting the first amendment, which allows the freedom of religion. Picketing religious events is prohibited by the constitution, because it's clashing with a person's right to religion.
bsox0407
12-04-2009, 06:59 PM
The Phelps family have got permits to protest on just about every occasion.
This is screams I made this up.
They have the "Right" to interrupt the exercise of free religion and peaceful congregation?
This is where the term "Technicality" comes along. They don't have the "right", they are permitted to do so because they are enabled to by their finding flaws in the legal system and exploiting them.
If you consider that to be their right, then:
A) You are pro-hate.
B ) You need to check the difference between the constitution and state legislation regarding freedom of speech.
Exactly, they can't picket the funeral, they can picket some random place that's close to the funeral. It's a loophole that needs to be fixed, and people who take part in those activities should be treated accordingly.
redsoxrevenge
12-04-2009, 07:03 PM
Can you go near a black church, and picket outside, with signs that say "God hates n******"? No you can't,
Yes, you can. As long as you don't trespass.
because you're disrespecting the first amendment, which allows the freedom of religion.
That's not what freedom of religion is.
Picketing religious events is prohibited by the constitution, because it's clashing with a person's right to religion.
You are incorrect. There is no constitutional amendment that says anything like that. A person has a right to worship, and follow any religion that they please, but that doesn't mean that it prevents other people from criticizing, or protesting that religion.
Jacoby_Ellsbury
12-04-2009, 07:06 PM
All I've gained out of this is more reason to move to the DR.
redsoxrevenge
12-04-2009, 07:07 PM
Exactly, they can't picket the funeral, they can picket some random place that's close to the funeral. It's a loophole that needs to be fixed, and people who take part in those activities should be treated accordingly.
Wrong.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h109-5037
This bill prohibits picketing within 300 feet, but it does not ban it. The ACLU challenged the act, and it will likely be ruled unconstitutional.
bsox0407
12-04-2009, 07:07 PM
Yes, you can. As long as you don't trespass.
Are you serious?
That's not what freedom of religion is.
Of course it everyone has a right to practice their religion in peace.
You are incorrect. There is no constitutional amendment that says anything like that. A person has a right to worship, and follow any religion that they please, but that doesn't mean that it prevents other people from criticizing, or protesting that religion.
you are making me laugh
Yes, you can. As long as you don't trespass.
That's not what freedom of religion is.
You are incorrect. There is no constitutional amendment that says anything like that. A person has a right to worship, and follow any religion that they please, but that doesn't mean that it prevents other people from criticizing, or protesting that religion.
We've used legislature, logic, everything, and we can't seem to get through. Listen, you can't protest that church, you can protest AN AREA OUTSIDE THE CHURCH. It's called a loophole, or a technicality. You've based your entire argument off of technicalities. None of it is justified. Your points have all lacked merit, and have been disproven. Seriously dude, I said it before, call yourself undereducated on this issue, and stop. Really.
Dipre
12-04-2009, 07:08 PM
Free exercise of religion as presented by the first amendment cannot be restricted under basically any circumstance unless it is of federal interest, as stated by the RFRA. Picketing a funeral would fall under the definition of "restriction".
Again, you need to check Mass. state legislation regarding freedom of speech, which is loosely modeled after the Pruneyard doctrine applied in California, which has been proven to directly contradict the constitution.
bsox0407
12-04-2009, 07:10 PM
Free exercise of religion as presented by the first amendment cannot be restricted under basically any circumstance unless it is of federal interest, as stated by the RFRA. Picketing a funeral would fall under the definition of "restriction".
Again, you need to check Mass. state legislation regarding freedom of speech, which is loosely modeled after the Pruneyard doctrine applied in California, which has been proven to directly contradict the constitution.
Everyone has the right to feel safe in the US.
Everyone has the right to feel safe in the US.
Nope, not by redsoxrevenge's watch.
Dipre
12-04-2009, 07:13 PM
Wrong.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h109-5037
This bill prohibits picketing within 300 feet, but it does not ban it. The ACLU challenged the act, and it will likely be ruled unconstitutional.
The Fallen Heroes Act has no validity towards the meat of this argument.
They're exploiting a loophole in Mass. legislation, plain and simple.
redsoxrevenge
12-04-2009, 07:13 PM
We've used legislature, logic, everything, and we can't seem to get through. Listen, you can't protest that church, you can protest AN AREA OUTSIDE THE CHURCH. It's called a loophole, or a technicality. You've based your entire argument off of technicalities. None of it is justified. Your points have all lacked merit, and have been disproven. Seriously dude, I said it before, call yourself undereducated on this issue, and stop. Really.
If I am using a loophole, or technicalities, and if those loopholes exists, as you've admitted here, than the Phelps family is doing nothing wrong.
I'm sorry, but you've conceded the point.
bsox0407
12-04-2009, 07:13 PM
Nope, not by redsoxrevenge's watch.
Lets go stand outside his house and scream that Racial slurs at him. Im glad the US allows freedom of Speech but there are definite restrictions. I read the whole thing he needs to give up.
Dipre
12-04-2009, 07:13 PM
All I've gained out of this is more reason to move to the DR.
I'll introduce you to some hot tail.:lol:
redsoxrevenge
12-04-2009, 07:14 PM
Nope, not by redsoxrevenge's watch.
Are you fucking serious? You ADVOCATED THE MURDER of the Phelps family, and I am the one who is putting people in danger? The Phelps family has physically harmed no one. As long as they don't, than they are doing nothing legally wrong.
Dipre
12-04-2009, 07:14 PM
If I am using a loophole, or technicalities, and if those loopholes exists, as you've admitted here, than the Phelps family is doing nothing wrong.
I'm sorry, but you've conceded the point.
Conceded the point how?
It is still against the constitution.
bsox0407
12-04-2009, 07:15 PM
The Fallen Heroes Act has no validity towards the meat of this argument.
They're exploiting a loophole in Mass. legislation, plain and simple.
It will soon be changed so that everyone can have their right to be free and safe
redsoxrevenge
12-04-2009, 07:15 PM
Lets go stand outside his house and scream that Racial slurs at him. Im glad the US allows freedom of Speech but there are definite restrictions. I read the whole thing he needs to give up.
Go ahead, but if you step onto my property, I'll have you arrested for trespassing. Please keep it on the road.
redsoxrevenge
12-04-2009, 07:16 PM
It will soon be changed so that everyone can have their right to be free and safe
Except the Phelps family.
Dipre
12-04-2009, 07:16 PM
Are you fucking serious? You ADVOCATED THE MURDER of the Phelps family, and I am the one who is putting people in danger? The Phelps family has physically harmed no one. As long as they don't, than they are doing nothing legally wrong.
If this is your lifeline, you're obviously the one conceding the point.
Everyone here caught on to the fact that it was said out of frustration, and even jokes were made about it.
I advice you to re-think your position. You haven't been on this forum long enough to know who we are or how we really think. You just based your opinion out of a heat-of-the-moment post.
Stick to the facts in the discussion.
redsoxrevenge
12-04-2009, 07:17 PM
Conceded the point how?
It is still against the constitution.
My argument is based on loopholes and technicalities that allow the Phelps family their right to protest and picket.
I would also say civil liberties and the Constitution of the United States, but I'll accept the technicalites and accept the victory.
bsox0407
12-04-2009, 07:17 PM
Where are those Harley drivers who would rev over the protesters who disrespect the rights of american soldiers.
Dipre
12-04-2009, 07:18 PM
Listen, champ, when the Pruneyard doctrine falls (and it will fall) the unification of the freedom of speech legislation under the constitution will completely destroy the loophole the Phelps use for perpetrating their obviously criminal acts.
bsox0407
12-04-2009, 07:19 PM
Except the Phelps family.
Law does not exclude one person. Law for one is a law for all.
Dipre
12-04-2009, 07:20 PM
My argument is based on loopholes and technicalities that allow the Phelps family their right to protest and picket.
I would also say civil liberties and the Constitution of the United States, but I'll accept the technicalites and accept the victory.
You can try to accept the victory, until you realize, that as a loophole, it is bound to be reviewed and fixed.
They're disrespecting the constitution you were so passionately protecting just a couple posts ago.
That is an act of hypocrisy that leads me to believe you are truly pro-hate.
Don't call "Personal attack" because this is not one nor is it intended to be.
redsoxrevenge
12-04-2009, 07:20 PM
Conceded the point how?
It is still against the constitution.
Sorry, but you are reaching if you believe picketing a funeral is against freedom of religion. No Supreme Court case has ever said otherwise. I have no idea why you keep bringing up this point like it means anything.
Are you fucking serious? You ADVOCATED THE MURDER of the Phelps family, and I am the one who is putting people in danger? The Phelps family has physically harmed no one. As long as they don't, than they are doing nothing legally wrong.
Sigh, how many times do I have to say this: IT WAS AN OVER-CHARACTERIZATION. Seriously dude. Take your head out of the sand. Wake up.
If free speech even INCITES violence, then it's against the law.
redsoxrevenge
12-04-2009, 07:21 PM
You can try to accept the victory, until you realize, that as a loophole, it is bound to be reviewed and fixed.
They're disrespecting the constitution you were so passionately protecting just a couple posts ago.
That is an act of hypocrisy that leads me to believe you are truly pro-hate.
Don't call "Personal attack" because this is not one nor is it intended to be.
Wow. He loses the argument, so he has to lump anyone who supports free speech, and even protects the rights of the fringe as pro-hate.
Totally pathetic, and another example of the nastiness of this poster.
redsoxrevenge
12-04-2009, 07:22 PM
Sigh, how many times do I have to say this: IT WAS AN OVER-CHARACTERIZATION. Seriously dude. Take your head out of the sand. Wake up.
If free speech even INCITES violence, then it's against the law.
Yeah, like advocating the murder of people you don't agree with it.
Dipre
12-04-2009, 07:22 PM
Sorry, but you are reaching if you believe picketing a funeral is against freedom of religion. No Supreme Court case has ever said otherwise. I have no idea why you keep bringing up this point like it means anything.
Because it is yet to be reviewed.
It doesn't mean anything to you because it supports your point. Otherwise, it would mean something.
Sorry, but you are reaching if you believe picketing a funeral is against freedom of religion. No Supreme Court case has ever said otherwise. I have no idea why you keep bringing up this point like it means anything.
It says it explicitly in the constitution. What are you not understanding?
Dipre
12-04-2009, 07:24 PM
Wow. He loses the argument, so he has to lump anyone who supports free speech, and even protects the rights of the fringe as pro-hate.
Totally pathetic, and another example of the nastiness of this poster.
Disprove my point.
You were all about "Defending the constitution". Now that it's been proven they're blatantly violating it, you say "It doesn't matter, i win, haha".
Totally pathetic on your part and another example of the hypocrisy of this poster.
bsox0407
12-04-2009, 07:24 PM
Wow. He loses the argument, so he has to lump anyone who supports free speech, and even protects the rights of the fringe as pro-hate.
Totally pathetic, and another example of the nastiness of this poster.
dude you are the one is blatantly wrong. it seems you have missed the point of his comments. Plz re-read.
Dipre
12-04-2009, 07:25 PM
Yeah, like advocating the murder of people you don't agree with it.
In an internet forum?
You know, i've read stupid posts, but this one, well, pretty much takes the cake.
bsox0407
12-04-2009, 07:25 PM
In an internet forum?
You know, i've read stupid posts, but this one, well, pretty much takes the cake.
It will be nominated for an award.
redsoxrevenge
12-04-2009, 07:27 PM
Because it is yet to be reviewed.
Oh, so it isn't against the Constitution? Nice job. Thanks for destroying your own point. Obviously the current laws reflect the interpretation of the Constitution, and they haven't ruled what the Phelps are doing is illegal.
http://www.military.com/news/article/court-says-gi-funeral-protests-legal.html?col=1186032310810
ACTUALLY, THEY RULED THAT IT WAS PROTECTED SPEECH. This conversation is over. It's legal.
Yeah, like advocating the murder of people you don't agree with it.
Yes, because I was SO serious about that :rolleyes:
How long you gonna be ridin' that train?
redsoxrevenge
12-04-2009, 07:28 PM
dude you are the one is blatantly wrong. it seems you have missed the point of his comments. Plz re-read.
http://www.military.com/news/article/court-says-gi-funeral-protests-legal.html?col=1186032310810
No, I am correct.
redsoxrevenge
12-04-2009, 07:29 PM
It says it explicitly in the constitution. What are you not understanding?
http://www.military.com/news/article/court-says-gi-funeral-protests-legal.html?col=1186032310810
It doesn't.
Dipre
12-04-2009, 07:29 PM
The whole argument can be summed up into this:
They are blatantly disrespecting the constitution. The fact that they can get away with it does not mean it's their "Right", it's a deficiency of the system that should be treated as such.
redsoxrevenge
12-04-2009, 07:29 PM
The whole argument can be summed up into this:
They are blatantly disrespecting the constitution. The fact that they can get away with it does not mean it's their "Right", it's a deficiency of the system that should be treated as such.
http://www.military.com/news/article/court-says-gi-funeral-protests-legal.html?col=1186032310810
No, they aren't. KTHXBI
bsox0407
12-04-2009, 07:31 PM
http://www.military.com/news/article/court-says-gi-funeral-protests-legal.html?col=1186032310810
No, I am correct.
A low federal appeals court. Thank you. BUT ITS OKAY THEY NEVER MAKE MISTAKES. Separate but equal. Wait til it gets to the Supreme court. You still are wrong. Plz read.
Dipre
12-04-2009, 07:32 PM
http://www.military.com/news/article/court-says-gi-funeral-protests-legal.html?col=1186032310810
No, I am correct.
Their argument is "That they didn't disrupt the funeral". That's what they always manage "To prove".
It's a deficiency of the system, and completely against the first amendment.
Dipre
12-04-2009, 07:33 PM
http://www.military.com/news/article/court-says-gi-funeral-protests-legal.html?col=1186032310810
No, they aren't. KTHXBI
You don't even understand what the Phelp's actual argument was.
Hilarity ensues.
redsoxrevenge
12-04-2009, 07:34 PM
Their argument is "That they didn't disrupt the funeral". That's what they always manage "To prove".
It's a deficiency of the system, and completely against the first amendment.
Maybe to you, but the courts say otherwise.
http://www.military.com/news/article/court-says-gi-funeral-protests-legal.html?col=1186032310810
No, they aren't. KTHXBI
You're using a link to defend your argument. You can't even use your own logic to defend your argument anymore. I'm sorry I haven't Googled ammunition for my argument, but I'm sure I could. However, I'd much rather defend it using logic. It's really simple. Take a breather, don't have an aneurysm:
It disrespects the constitution. You have freedom of religion. They are technically not breaking the law, because they were across the street or whatever. However, that means they technically weren't picketing the funeral, they were picketing an area that's CLOSE to the funeral. It's called a loophole. Is it really that hard for you to decipher? If they were closer, they WOULD be breaking the law.
Dipre
12-04-2009, 07:35 PM
Maybe to you, but the courts say otherwise.
"A court".
Again, please study the current state of the legislation.
redsoxrevenge
12-04-2009, 07:35 PM
You don't even understand what the Phelp's actual argument was.
Hilarity ensues.
I don't even care. That isn't the point. The question was whether the pickets are constitutional or not. The court has ruled that they are. Until it rules otherwise, I am correct.
Whether you think what it OUGHT TO BE, is completely different from what is.
redsoxrevenge
12-04-2009, 07:36 PM
You're using a link to defend your argument. You can't even use your own logic to defend your argument anymore. I'm sorry I haven't Googled ammunition for my argument, but I'm sure I could. However, I'd much rather defend it using logic. It's really simple. Take a breather, don't have an aneurysm:
It disrespects the constitution. You have freedom of religion. They are technically not breaking the law, because they were across the street or whatever. However, that means they technically weren't picketing the funeral, they were picketing an area that's CLOSE to the funeral. It's called a loophole. Is it really that hard for you to decipher? If they were closer, they WOULD be breaking the law.
I am using the law of the land to defend my argument. I am sorry that is too hard for you to get around.
Dipre
12-04-2009, 07:37 PM
I don't even care. That isn't the point. The question was whether the pickets are constitutional or not. The court has ruled that they are. Until it rules otherwise, I am correct.
Whether you think what it OUGHT TO BE, is completely different from what is.
Picketing the funeral is not constitutional. They found a loophole that enables them to picket while saying "We're not picketing THE FUNERAL" it says so in the article you posted. Did you read it thoroughly?
bsox0407
12-04-2009, 07:38 PM
I am using the law of the land to defend my argument. I am sorry that is too hard for you to get around.
You are making me laugh. the Law of the Land. HAHHAHAHAHA THanks i really needed a good laugh. In no way are you using the Law(constitution) of the land to defend your argument. Disrespecting the Law of the Land is all you are doing.
Dipre
12-04-2009, 07:40 PM
I am using the law of the land to defend my argument. I am sorry that is too hard for you to get around.
Just so you know, the same article you posted states that in 2007 they lost an $11 million dollar lawsuit for disrupting a funeral.
How about reading it through?
Fred Phelps, two other adults and four children picketed the March 10, 2006, funeral of Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder, holding signs that said, "Thank God for dead soldiers," and wrote on the church's Web site that Snyder's parents "taught Matthew to defy his creator."
Matthew Snyder, a 2003 graduate of Westminster High School, was 20 years old and had been in the war zone for less than a month when he was killed in a vehicle accident in Anbar province.
Westboro church members believe soldiers are being killed in Iraq and Afghanistan as punishment for what they say is the nation's tolerance of homosexuality. The church has about 75 members, most of whom are related to Phelps.
Albert Snyder sued Fred Phelps and two of his daughters, Rebecca Phelps-Davis and Shirley Phelps-Roper, for invasion of privacy and emotional distress.
In October 2007, a federal jury in Baltimore awarded the father nearly $11 million, ruling that the family's privacy had been invaded. In February 2008, a federal judge reduced the damages from $10.9 million to $5 million, citing constitutional concerns of appropriateness.
redsoxrevenge
12-04-2009, 07:40 PM
Picketing the funeral is not constitutional. They found a loophole that enables them to picket while saying "We're not picketing THE FUNERAL" it says so in the article you posted. Did you read it thoroughly?
Doesn't say that at all. Phelps said that, "Everyone knows that we didn't disrupt a funeral." Takes a lot of fabrication for that to mean, "We're not picketing the funeral."
Did you read it thoroughly?
I am using the law of the land to defend my argument. I am sorry that is too hard for you to get around.
Thank you for providing us with lulz. It's enjoyable. You're not addressing the technicality part of your argument at all. You've made no points with any validity, but that's what happens when your argument is entirely based off of loopholes and technicalities. You look like you're talking out of your ass.
Dipre
12-04-2009, 07:41 PM
As redsoxrevenge has proven with his article, the interpretation has gone both ways in separate occasions. thanks for providing the information by the way.
bsox0407
12-04-2009, 07:42 PM
Just so you know, the same article you posted states that in 2007 they lost an $11 million dollar lawsuit for disrupting a funeral.
How about reading it through?
:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol: :lol::lol:
redsoxrevenge
12-04-2009, 07:42 PM
Just so you know, the same article you posted states that in 2007 they lost an $11 million dollar lawsuit for disrupting a funeral.
How about reading it through?
Hahaha, I am laughing so hard my sides are starting to hurt. THE FIRST PARAGRAPH
"A federal appeals court ruled Thursday that a fundamentalist Kansas church's protest outside the funeral of a Westminster Marine killed in Iraq is protected speech and did not violate the privacy of the service member's family, reversing a lower court's $5 million award."
Just so you know, the same article you posted states that in 2007 they lost an $11 million dollar lawsuit for disrupting a funeral.
How about reading it through?
I think this is the nail in the coffin. This is the benefit of READING. :lol:
redsoxrevenge
12-04-2009, 07:42 PM
:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol: :lol::lol:
A federal appeals court ruled Thursday that a fundamentalist Kansas church's protest outside the funeral of a Westminster Marine killed in Iraq is protected speech and did not violate the privacy of the service member's family, reversing a lower court's $5 million award."
Dipre
12-04-2009, 07:42 PM
Doesn't say that at all. Phelps said that, "Everyone knows that we didn't disrupt a funeral." Takes a lot of fabrication for that to mean, "We're not picketing the funeral."
Did you read it thoroughly?
"Fabrication?"
You have no idea what their argument was but you attempt to defend it. Now that is fabrication.
redsoxrevenge
12-04-2009, 07:43 PM
"Fabrication?"
You have no idea what their argument was but you attempt to defend it. Now that is fabrication.
A federal appeals court ruled Thursday that a fundamentalist Kansas church's protest outside the funeral of a Westminster Marine killed in Iraq is protected speech and did not violate the privacy of the service member's family, reversing a lower court's $5 million award.
Dipre
12-04-2009, 07:44 PM
As redsoxrevenge has proven with his article, the interpretation has gone both ways in separate occasions. thanks for providing the information by the way.
Hahaha, I am laughing so hard my sides are starting to hurt. THE FIRST PARAGRAPH
"A federal appeals court ruled Thursday that a fundamentalist Kansas church's protest outside the funeral of a Westminster Marine killed in Iraq is protected speech and did not violate the privacy of the service member's family, reversing a lower court's $5 million award."
....
You didn't even defend your argument... At all...
Words can't describe how stupid you look right now. Oh, and Size 50? Really? AND boldened. Way to highlight your stupidity.
bsox0407
12-04-2009, 07:44 PM
"Fabrication?"
You have no idea what their argument was but you attempt to defend it. Now that is fabrication.
The whole phelps case was Fabrication. if the federal judges didn't just look at the wrongs in law instead seeing that the Phelps lied their asses off.
Dipre
12-04-2009, 07:45 PM
A federal appeals court ruled Thursday that a fundamentalist Kansas church's protest outside the funeral of a Westminster Marine killed in Iraq is protected speech and did not violate the privacy of the service member's family, reversing a lower court's $5 million award.
Different interpretations in different occasions.
What happens when it reaches Supreme Court for review?
redsoxrevenge
12-04-2009, 07:46 PM
....
You didn't even defend your argument... At all...
Words can't describe how stupid you look right now. Oh, and Size 50? Really? AND boldened. Way to highlight your stupidity.
You must be joking.
1. A federal jury awarded the family $11 million
2. A federal judge reduced the award to $5 million
3. 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reverses the $ 5 million decision.
bsox0407
12-04-2009, 07:46 PM
Phelps should be in jail not only for perjury but for Disturbing the Peace. How could you disrespect your country like this. Some one has Obamaicitis.
Coco's Disciples
12-04-2009, 07:46 PM
Ok we're done here.
yeszir
12-05-2009, 10:06 AM
I hate this place. Expect changes.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.1 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.