Our BetterMost Community > The Polling Place
Should Westboro Baptist Church be Guaranteed First Amendment Protection?
Monika:
--- Quote from: David In Indy on March 17, 2010, 02:53:37 am ---I'd love to answer no to your question Kerry, but I must answer yes. They are entitled to their free speech, no matter how hateful or appalling or repellent it may be.
As Milo pointed out, the KKK (Ku Klux Klan) have been guaranteed their free speech - they hold annual rallies here in Indianapolis both on the steps of the state capitol and also down on Monument Circle - and so the Phelps family/Westboro Baptist Church should be allowed their first amendment rights as well.
If we start telling people like the Phelps and the KKK that they are not allowed their first amendment protection then who will be next? It is a very slippery slope, in my opinion.
Let them talk. Every time they open up their mouths they prove to more people just how idiotic they really are. Their first amendment rights will end up dooming them in the long run. :-\
--- End quote ---
I basically agree, but there is a line that has to be drawn somewhere. I´m not sure if Westboro Baptist Church crosses that line or not, but for me the line should be drawn at agitation against an ethnic group/sexual minority etc.
In most west european countries there are laws against it, and it has my full support.
louisev:
what the Westboro nutcases cannot do is invade the privacy of others, and they have been skirting the line by attempting to prevent mourners from getting to funerals for fallen veterans. What will happen is that they will have more and more restraining and protection orders put on them forcing them to stay further and further from the site of memorial services. In the case of Canada, all of the members of that Church when they attempted to cross the border to go to a protest at a funeral, were denied entry as undesirables. They have gotten very close to harassment, and it is up to local authorities to make sure they don't conduct public assemblies that disturb the peace.
The most effective counter I have seen to this was a male Australian TV personality went up to one of the senior Phelpses who was protesting a funeral for someone who was gay and began to flirt with him and make sexual compliments and the man panicked and ran away. THAT is probably one of the most effective counter-demonstrations - they could have a gay kiss-in counterdemonstration and all the Phelpses would get sick and flee.
Kerry:
--- Quote from: louisev on March 17, 2010, 09:37:59 am ---
The most effective counter I have seen to this was a male Australian TV personality went up to one of the senior Phelpses who was protesting a funeral for someone who was gay and began to flirt with him and make sexual compliments and the man panicked and ran away. THAT is probably one of the most effective counter-demonstrations - they could have a gay kiss-in counterdemonstration and all the Phelpses would get sick and flee.
--- End quote ---
Clyde-B:
It's not legal to sit around and plan someone's murder, that is not free speech.
It's not legal to sit around and plan the illegal destruction of property, that is not free speech.
Is it legal to advocate and incite both of these acts? The question is where do you draw the line?
If I were the Westboro Baptists, I would be careful about claiming that "God loves IED's." Someone might just decide to send them one.
Lynne:
I don't like it personally, but I think legally their right to free speech has to be protected if we're going to be the free society our founding fathers envisioned.
That said, I think communities should pass ordinances or do whatever they have to do to keep them a far distance from mourners - their rights end where the rights of others begin. And certainly a family has a right to bury their loved one(s) in peace.
Like someone else said, I think that their hate speech will lead to their own destruction. They've become a joke because of their own ridiculous claims.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version