Westboro Church chased out of town by an angry mob

[Borgholio]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/0 ... 04904.html

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."

Fucking comedy right there. If it wasn't for the cops, the crowd would have beat the shit out of them.

[Channel72]

As obnoxious as they are, the Westboro Baptist Church still has a right to free speech. As Voltaire said, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right...”

Nah... just kidding. Seriously, fuck those guys.

[Simon_Jester]

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.

[Borgholio]

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.

[Mr. Coffee]

I'm just sad our society has come to the point that even some like Westboro are chased from the street for exercising their right to free speech. It mostly saddens me because in an older, better time torches and pitchforks would have been a large factor in the process.

[Scrib]

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]

Are you an American?

Very much so. Lived in Southern CA all my life.

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

Not sure what you mean.

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

As an example, if you're referring to Germany's anti-Nazi bans, then yeah that would probably have issues over here. Personally given their nation's history, I don't blame them for reacting this way to Nazi propaganda.

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.

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.

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

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.

[Scrib]

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.

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.

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.

Hm. On the one hand: good. On the other I really don't know if such things should be protected. Today WBC tomorrow anti-war protesters marching on martial figure.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.

[Borgholio]

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.

Well there are people who consider income tax an attack on their freedom...people who consider a driver's license an attack, etc... You can't please everybody. If you have a law that protects against the worst scum of society while maintaining freedom for the 99% of the rest who are a bit more responsible, then that's a good outcome.

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.

It's always a fine line. A good anecdote is when my dad taught me, "My right to swing my fist ends at the other guy's nose". If you apply that to free speech, nobody would argue that it's ok for the WBC to stick their head in the window of my bedroom and start shouting. It only gets tricky in an "open" area that might be considered "public" property...but the same ideas of decency and protection from harassment should apply. Let them preach hatred all the want, but if they attempt to cause any kind of distraction, trauma, or harm on someone...that should be stopped.

[StarSword]

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.

I think, honestly, xkcd #1357 from a few days ago sums it up pretty well:

[Kuja]

The mousover text is even better: “I can’t remember where I heard this, but someone once said that defending a position by citing free speech is sort of the ultimate concession; you’re saying that the most compelling thing you can say for your position is that it’s not literally illegal to express.”

[Borgholio]

Yeah that's pretty much correct. It even states right in the first sentence:

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]

I'm not Congress, so you can't claim Freedom of Speech if I tell you to shut your fucking hole and get the fuck out of here. If the 1st Amendment actually covered all kinds of speech in all venues, then probably every mod on this board would have been arrested a long time ago.

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?

[houser2112]

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?

Not since the 14th Amendment.

[Borgholio]

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

[StarSword]

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

Yes, but I strongly doubt there's any city council in the United States willing to try it and risk getting sued. Ten will get you a five, the judge it ends up in front of will make it a judicial precedent, therefore law.

[houser2112]

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

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.

[Borgholio]

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.

Right. This means to me that although a City Council could theoretically violate the 1st Amendment, it'd be too much of a pain in the ass to do so.

[PainRack]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the US does have hate speech laws, doesn't it?

Its has a much higher bar to cross than many other countries laws, but essentially, as long as your speech isn't in danger of immediately inciting unrest and harm to another person, its protected.

[Borgholio]

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]

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]

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."

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.

[Simon_Jester]

In cases where a crowd is actually provoked to a violent response (like chasing someone out of town), the more applicable thing is 'fighting words,' not 'hate speech.'

If this happened more regularly, then local ordinances barring offensive protests at funerals just might pass the First Amendment test. MAYBE.

[Come to think of it, one of the big reasons the US does not have broad hate speech laws is that historically that class of speech was included under 'fighting words,' and that exception has eroded pretty far. Protecting our right to say "fuck the police" has endangered our ability to stop people from saying "fuck the ethnic minority."



Of course, the Court has already ruled on the WBC before, to rule that they can't be sued for causing emotional distress.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snyder_v._Phelps

But that is, and they noted this explicitly in an 8-1 decision written by Roberts, a decision that only applies to the WBC because existing ordnances were in place to prevent the WBC from actually disrupting the funeral itself- so the WBC had to protest a thousand feet away at a place basically invisible from the actual funeral sight.

In another town with ordnances that do not forbid such conduct, or if we see empirical cases of riots provoked by WBC's conduct... I do not know what would happen.

Interestingly, the only person who voted to give the damages award to the plaintiff and thus penalize the WBC was Samuel "torture memo" Alito.

[Gandalf]

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]

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?

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.

[Gandalf]

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.

This is where the idea falls apart. What happens when national policy is dictated by personal vendettas? Does the vendetta gain legitimacy?