StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Members of the Westboro Baptist Church showed up at Central Junior High School in Moore., Okla., on Sunday to picket -- but the people of Moore were not having it.

As the hate group waved their trademark "God Hates Fags" signs in the rain, hundreds of people lined up across the road to stand together against WBC.

Moore was hit by a deadly tornado last year, and the school has been housing Plaza Towers Elementary students since the natural disaster. On their website, WBC explained that they believe the tornado was an example of "God's wrath."

Amanda Eccles said to KFOR-TV, “It’s just sickening. You know, it’s just innocent kids that lost lives and it’s sickening for them to even think that way.”

Though WBC reportedly had a permit to picket for half an hour beginning at 2:00 p.m., they stayed for a mere eight minutes before hastily getting into their cars and driving away when Moore residents began to cross the picket lines. Police intervened to separate the protestors and counter-protestors as the WBC rushed to leave.

The Westboro Baptist Church posted a Vine video afterwards which failed to mention their hasty departure:

A video posted by a counter-protestor shows what really happened:

“I thought it was hilarious. I mean I really did. We sat there and laughed the whole time,” Tina Johnson, a counter-protester, commented. “They were running, yeah.”

Dan Eccles told KFOR, “They shagged tail, got in them cars and was leaving in a hurry. Oh yeah, they was gone!”

Moore Police reported that no one was arrested or taken into custody after the incident. According to KOCO local news, the police said that despite the high amount of tension, the crowd remained "relatively respectful."

Borgholio wrote:I would tend to agree with the idea that free speech doesn't condone, for example, the KKK burning a cross and chanting "Death to ni**ers". The idea behind Constitutional freedom of speech is to protect people from a government who simply doesn't like what you have to say. In other words, the right to criticize your government without fear of retribution. What the WBC does is hate speech, which is not covered under the blanket "free speech" idea.

Are you an American?

Because it would be funny to see you guys on the other side of this for once.

Most of the ones I've talked to seem to have a great distrust of anything like Europe's hate speech laws.

A simple response to you would simply be that defining hate speech can become quite self-serving and that the right to speak is more important than the right to avoid hate speech.

You really think that your reasoning would fly in an American court? (Speaking purely of the implementation of the law not what people meant)

Borgholio wrote: Indeed but as long as there's a strict definition of what constitutes hate speech, we shouldn't run into that problem. If the WBC hates gays, they're free to say so. However, when they form a loud, angry mob which brandishes signs using foul language and derogatory slurs, and call for or praise the death of people who are fully unrelated to gays...then that crosses a line. Worse is when they picket a funeral which serves no purpose except to antagonize or inflict emotional trauma. At that point, it's not picketing a government building asking for a policy change, it's hate speech.

It already has. Many cities and areas have passed laws that prohibit picketing of funerals that is a direct result of the WBC's actions. While nobody is willing to stick their neck out and say that picketing "God hates Fags" and "Thank God for dead soldiers" is not protected as free speech, courts are recognizing that there's a time and a place for free speech...and a funeral is not it.

Yeah. It seems to have worked for Europe but I see why some people would prefer a stronger guarantee of freedom than something that seems to depend on...well, people and their changing customs. I'll have to look up Europe's hate speech laws to see how stable they've been and for how long too.

I'm not really sure to what degree people should be protected from the latter, as we've seen after the mass shootings the politics of 'decency" is a great way to attack debate. I'm torn.

Simon_Jester wrote:There's a line between "exercising free speech" and "willfully provoking people to violence by delivering a calculated insult." WBC's preferred tactics ignore that line.

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.[1]

Borgholio wrote:Now...that raises an interesting question. Since the 1st Amendment specifically mentions Congress, would other non-congressional governmental groups (City Councils, etc...) be allowed to censor it's constituents in a way the Feds never could?

Borgholio wrote:Sorry, don't see anything in the text of the 14th that guarantees Freedom of Speech against City Councils.

Borgholio wrote:Sorry, don't see anything in the text of the 14th that guarantees Freedom of Speech against City Councils.

Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution wrote:The Due Process Clause prohibits state and local government officials from depriving persons of life, liberty, or property without legislative authorization. This clause has also been used by the federal judiciary to make most of the Bill of Rights applicable to the states, as well as to recognize substantive and procedural requirements that state laws must satisfy.

This clause has also been used by the federal judiciary to make most of the Bill of Rights applicable to the states, as well as to recognize substantive and procedural requirements that state laws must satisfy.

Borgholio wrote:Yeah, saying that "We're glad your son / daughter died." is disgusting, but not "hate" speech. Hate speech is usually reserved for things like, "I'm gonna find me a Jew and kill that sonofabitch." or enticing others to try and do the same thing.

Ralin wrote:

Borgholio wrote:Yeah, saying that "We're glad your son / daughter died." is disgusting, but not "hate" speech. Hate speech is usually reserved for things like, "I'm gonna find me a Jew and kill that sonofabitch." or enticing others to try and do the same thing.

I'm not a lawyer but I believe that's less hate speech and more fighting words/literal threats of violence. "We should go kill this Jew" is illegal. Hate speech is more of a generalized "The Jews are well-known for their habit of manipulating the economy and preying on white women. We should DO SOMETHING about them."

Mr. Coffee wrote:I disagree. Allowing someone to say something repugnant and to say something that clearly incites violence are two different things. One is free speech, the other hate (and an actual call to violence). I can say "You son/husband/brother/ect died because God willed it for him/her/it/they being homos/jews/reptiliods and that's OK" and I am merely stating an opinion. If I were to say "kill all the fags/nigs/eskiomo because God wills it" then I'm making an incitement to violence.

One is an opinion, and the other a justification for concealed carry.

Gandalf wrote:

Mr. Coffee wrote:I disagree. Allowing someone to say something repugnant and to say something that clearly incites violence are two different things. One is free speech, the other hate (and an actual call to violence). I can say "You son/husband/brother/ect died because God willed it for him/her/it/they being homos/jews/reptiliods and that's OK" and I am merely stating an opinion. If I were to say "kill all the fags/nigs/eskiomo because God wills it" then I'm making an incitement to violence.

One is an opinion, and the other a justification for concealed carry.

Fair enough. Here's a question for you and this thread at large. More than a few people have advocated "kill the Muslims because God national security wills it." Would that count as an incitement to violence?

Darmalus wrote:I tend to draw the line where if it's "legitimate" official national violence or angry mob violence. There's a difference between 'We should kill all the X because of Y. We should go to war, vote for Z!" and "We should kill all the X because of Y. Grab your torches and hanging ropes!" Sure, all the X get killed, but it's the difference between national policy and personal vendetta. If killing all the X is justice or not is an entirely different question.