Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Funeral goers chase away picketing homophobes

Religion Fred Phelps Demonstrations Funerals

  • Please log in to reply
73 replies to this topic

#21 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 29 August 2005 - 03:36 PM

Of course he has a right to free speech.  What he does not have a right to is speech without consequences, including a community running him right away from a funeral service.  It's called censure, not censorship.

Lil
Posted Image

#22 Tom Sawyer

Tom Sawyer

    Harbinger of The Abyss

  • Dead account
  • 1,166 posts

Posted 29 August 2005 - 03:53 PM

Una Salus Lillius, on Aug 29 2005, 02:36 PM, said:

Of course he has a right to free speech.  What he does not have a right to is speech without consequences, including a community running him right away from a funeral service.  It's called censure, not censorship.

Lil

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


But that's not what she said (I'm guessing Cheille is a she...sorry if I'm wrong).  She advocated his loss of his 1st amendment right because she didn't like what he said.

When someone says "I don't care about free speech"...that certainly catches my attention.

Edit to add: I would also like to point out, as a lifetime member of the United Methodist Church, I'm betting good money the church where the funeral took place in no way advocated or condoned this madman's actions.  While the UMC isn't exactly the biggest supporter of gay rights, by and large we find behavior like this absolutely inexcusable.  A funeral is a funeral...and has definite boundaries of proper behavior drawn around it.  Period.

Edited by The Masked Coyote, 29 August 2005 - 03:56 PM.

The Future...Unless Things Change.

And how am I to face the odds, of man's bedevilment and God's, I a stranger and afraid in a world I never made? A.E. Housman (1859-1936)

#23 Elara

Elara

    Feel the silence of the moonlight.

  • Watchdog
  • 2,905 posts

Posted 29 August 2005 - 04:44 PM

Cheile said:

at this point i don't care about free speech. he has no right to it when he preaches threats mixed in with his nasty words.

The Masked Coyote, on Aug 29 2005, 03:53 PM, said:

But that's not what she said (I'm guessing Cheille is a she...sorry if I'm wrong).  She advocated his loss of his 1st amendment right because she didn't like what he said.

When someone says "I don't care about free speech"...that certainly catches my attention.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


~.~ Well, I cannot speak for Cheile, but I can say that in this instance, I would be for him losing his right, too.
See the difference between free speech and threats is miles between. He has the right to say he hates Gays, but not the right to threaten their lives, nor the lives of their family and friends.
Lil may correct me if I am wrong, but a threat against a life is rather illegal.
I believe that is what Cheile was getting at, he has no right to make such threats, therefore he should lose his right to free speech.
I think I can speak for most anyone when I say, if he threatened a loved one, we would not give a rat's behind about his right to free speech.
El
~ blue crystal glows, the dark side unseen, sparkles in scant light, from sun to planet, to me in between ~


I want a job in HRC's "shadow" cabinet. Good pay, really easy hours, lots of time off. Can't go wrong.

"You have a fair and valid point here. I've pointed out, numerous times, that the Left's or Democrats always cry "Racist" whenever someone disagrees with them. I failed to realize that the Right or Republicans do the same thing with "Liberal"." ~ LotS

#24 Rhiannonjk

Rhiannonjk

    Woof!

  • Islander
  • 1,507 posts

Posted 29 August 2005 - 04:59 PM

I am against taking away any rights, but if he makes a threat, it is not a matter of him being censored, but him being arrested for threatening a person.  

You can't say "You have this right until I don't like it anymore."  That's just wrong.  You can say whatever you would like, but America, as a country, or it's legal enforcements, shouldn't do anything about it unless it is a threat.  
You have to pay for your freedoms, and if that means listening to an idiot, well that's the price we pay for freedom.

Edited to fix my own hypocrisy.

Edited by Rhiannonjk, 29 August 2005 - 05:00 PM.

***Is easily distracted***


#25 Nonny

Nonny

    Scourge of Pretentious Bad Latin

  • Islander
  • 31,142 posts

Posted 29 August 2005 - 05:15 PM

Themis, on Aug 29 2005, 09:30 AM, said:

How is this idiot going to get through Swedish immigration???

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

With any luck, the Swedish officials will politely stamp his passport, let him in, send him off to his hate binge, then arrest his @$$ and put him away for a long, long time.  :)  Or fine him lots and lots of money.  Same same, to a guy like him.  :suspect:  

Nonny
Posted Image


The once and future Nonny

"Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank, give a man a bank and he can rob the world." Can anyone tell me who I am quoting?  I found this with no attribution.

Fatal miscarriages are forever.

Stupid is stupid, this I believe. And ignorance is the worst kind of stupid, since ignorance is a choice.  Suzanne Brockmann

All things must be examined, debated, investigated without exception and without regard for anyone's feelings. Diderot

#26 Nonny

Nonny

    Scourge of Pretentious Bad Latin

  • Islander
  • 31,142 posts

Posted 29 August 2005 - 05:16 PM

darthsikle, on Aug 29 2005, 10:34 AM, said:

the dead guy didn't mind

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And you know this exactly how?  

Nonny
Posted Image


The once and future Nonny

"Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank, give a man a bank and he can rob the world." Can anyone tell me who I am quoting?  I found this with no attribution.

Fatal miscarriages are forever.

Stupid is stupid, this I believe. And ignorance is the worst kind of stupid, since ignorance is a choice.  Suzanne Brockmann

All things must be examined, debated, investigated without exception and without regard for anyone's feelings. Diderot

#27 Tom Sawyer

Tom Sawyer

    Harbinger of The Abyss

  • Dead account
  • 1,166 posts

Posted 29 August 2005 - 06:39 PM

Elara, on Aug 29 2005, 03:44 PM, said:

Cheile said:

at this point i don't care about free speech. he has no right to it when he preaches threats mixed in with his nasty words.

The Masked Coyote, on Aug 29 2005, 03:53 PM, said:

But that's not what she said (I'm guessing Cheille is a she...sorry if I'm wrong).  She advocated his loss of his 1st amendment right because she didn't like what he said.

When someone says "I don't care about free speech"...that certainly catches my attention.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


~.~ Well, I cannot speak for Cheile, but I can say that in this instance, I would be for him losing his right, too.
See the difference between free speech and threats is miles between. He has the right to say he hates Gays, but not the right to threaten their lives, nor the lives of their family and friends.
Lil may correct me if I am wrong, but a threat against a life is rather illegal.
I believe that is what Cheile was getting at, he has no right to make such threats, therefore he should lose his right to free speech.
I think I can speak for most anyone when I say, if he threatened a loved one, we would not give a rat's behind about his right to free speech.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Therein lies a hair for us to split, I suppose.

I'm no expert on Constitutional law, however my understanding of free speech issues is:

1) The limits of free speech vary depending on where you are in the US...you can say things in California, for example, that you can't in Virginia or Indiana.

and

2) IIRC, there's a difference between saying, for example "all blacks should be shot" and  "Someone shoot Jesse Jackson...I'll pay good money."  The first is an opinion...although if it leads to someone shooting a black and it can be proven that you incited it through your speech you may be liable.  The second is direct incitement of a crime.

For the exception I made to point one, here's an excellent example.

I would like to point out that when you start censoring (as opposed to censuring) a particular viewpoint under the auspice of "it might be dangerous" then you are harkening back to the McCarthy era.  That's certainly a cloud I wouldn't want over my head.

I leave you with a quote by Noam Chomsky: "Goebbels was in favor of free speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you're in favor of free speech, then you're in favor of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise. Otherwise, you're not in favor of free speech."

If that one is too deep, here's a deeper one by John Stuart Mill: "...if any opinion is compelled to silence, that opinion may, for aught we can certainly know, be true. To deny this is to assume our own infallibility."

Small point: I said above I was a lifelong member of the UMC...that's not strictly accurate.  I was christened into the Methodist Episcopal Church which folded into the UMC two years later in 1968.  Forgive my discrepancy.

Edited by The Masked Coyote, 29 August 2005 - 06:41 PM.

The Future...Unless Things Change.

And how am I to face the odds, of man's bedevilment and God's, I a stranger and afraid in a world I never made? A.E. Housman (1859-1936)

#28 Elara

Elara

    Feel the silence of the moonlight.

  • Watchdog
  • 2,905 posts

Posted 29 August 2005 - 07:00 PM

The Masked Coyote, on Aug 29 2005, 06:39 PM, said:

Therein lies a hair for us to split, I suppose.

I'm no expert on Constitutional law, however my understanding of free speech issues is:

1) The limits of free speech vary depending on where you are in the US...you can say things in California, for example, that you can't in Virginia or Indiana.

and

2) IIRC, there's a difference between saying, for example "all blacks should be shot" and  "Someone shoot Jesse Jackson...I'll pay good money."  The first is an opinion...although if it leads to someone shooting a black and it can be proven that you incited it through your speech you may be liable.  The second is direct incitement of a crime.

For the exception I made to point one, here's an excellent example.

I would like to point out that when you start censoring (as opposed to censuring) a particular viewpoint under the auspice of "it might be dangerous" then you are harkening back to the McCarthy era.  That's certainly a cloud I wouldn't want over my head.

I leave you with a quote by Noam Chomsky: "Goebbels was in favor of free speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you're in favor of free speech, then you're in favor of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise. Otherwise, you're not in favor of free speech."

If that one is too deep, here's a deeper one by John Stuart Mill: "...if any opinion is compelled to silence, that opinion may, for aught we can certainly know, be true. To deny this is to assume our own infallibility."

Small point: I said above I was a lifelong member of the UMC...that's not strictly accurate.  I was christened into the Methodist Episcopal Church which folded into the UMC two years later in 1968.  Forgive my discrepancy.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


~.~  I feel a threat is a threat, whether it's an entire people or a single person, but you are correct, it is a hair to split.
However, if it was your people, your friends, your family, would you not want something done to this man? And I use the term loosely.

As for this:

Quote

If that one is too deep, here's a

I do hope you were not suggesting I am incapable of understanding the quotes you gave.
El
~ blue crystal glows, the dark side unseen, sparkles in scant light, from sun to planet, to me in between ~


I want a job in HRC's "shadow" cabinet. Good pay, really easy hours, lots of time off. Can't go wrong.

"You have a fair and valid point here. I've pointed out, numerous times, that the Left's or Democrats always cry "Racist" whenever someone disagrees with them. I failed to realize that the Right or Republicans do the same thing with "Liberal"." ~ LotS

#29 White Tiger

White Tiger

    God, The Universe and everything...

  • Islander
  • 2,815 posts

Posted 29 August 2005 - 07:14 PM

I believe in free speech as well...however I do not believe in hate mongering. Should there be a balance? Spreading hate isn't good for anyone...except those with an agenda. And his agenda eems to match those of a paticular German leader in the 40's
It seems to me this man is unbalanced and maniacal. He OBVIOUSLY has no love in his heart for anything but himself. I do not believe he would ever allow himself to learn more about life ad the world around him. He is shelled in a casing of hate.
Now...as for attacking the king of Sweden (I almost put King of spain...danm song) vocally, isn't that considered a threat...especially considering the language he used? Why is he not facing concequenses for his threats?

One more thing....doesn't this feel like a KKK thing?
I mean really. He is a short step away from hanging homosexuals...
As I said...I believe in free speech...but not at the cost of lives or human rights...and that is what this guy is advocating.

Edited by White Tiger, 29 August 2005 - 07:15 PM.

Hatred ever kills, love never dies such is the vast difference between the two. What is obtained by love is retained for all time. What is obtained by hatred proves a burden in reality for it increases hatred.
M.Ghandi.
And the ONE MILLIONTH POSTER ON EXISLE!

#30 Tom Sawyer

Tom Sawyer

    Harbinger of The Abyss

  • Dead account
  • 1,166 posts

Posted 29 August 2005 - 07:25 PM

Elara, on Aug 29 2005, 06:00 PM, said:

~.~  I feel a threat is a threat, whether it's an entire people or a single person, but you are correct, it is a hair to split.

Ok, but you have to...or at least should...understand that one isn't a real threat and the other is.  I haven't examined this guy's statements too closely...I personally don't want to waste the time...but there's a difference between saying something should happen and saying something is about to happen.  See my example above.

We don't condemn ideas here in the US...we condemn actions.  Directly inciting someone to commit a crime is an action.  I strongly suspect you and perhaps others elsewhere simply don't want to hear the guy (understandable) and would rather flush him down the toilet through legalities.  That is a seriously slippery slope you don't want to go down.  History proves this time and again.

Quote

However, if it was your people, your friends, your family, would you not want something done to this man? And I use the term loosely.

Nope, I don't play that "what if it were your __________?" game.

Quote

As for this:

Quote

If that one is too deep, here's a

I do hope you were not suggesting I am incapable of understanding the quotes you gave.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


I was implying nothing.  Whether or not you read something into it is another matter.
The Future...Unless Things Change.

And how am I to face the odds, of man's bedevilment and God's, I a stranger and afraid in a world I never made? A.E. Housman (1859-1936)

#31 Cheile

Cheile

    proud J/Cer ~ ten years and counting

  • Islander
  • 10,776 posts

Posted 29 August 2005 - 07:28 PM

Elara, on Aug 29 2005, 02:44 PM, said:

Cheile said:

at this point i don't care about free speech. he has no right to it when he preaches threats mixed in with his nasty words.

The Masked Coyote, on Aug 29 2005, 03:53 PM, said:

But that's not what she said (I'm guessing Cheille is a she...sorry if I'm wrong). She advocated his loss of his 1st amendment right because she didn't like what he said.

When someone says "I don't care about free speech"...that certainly catches my attention.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


~.~ Well, I cannot speak for Cheile, but I can say that in this instance, I would be for him losing his right, too.
See the difference between free speech and threats is miles between. He has the right to say he hates Gays, but not the right to threaten their lives, nor the lives of their family and friends.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


^ precisely what i meant.

the false "Reverend" (and as far as i am concerned he IS false) may claim gays are going to hell.  he may say "i hate gays because i think they are disgusting."

making threats crosses a line.  therefore in THIS instance i don't care about free speech because he has no rights making threats.

excusing him to have his free speech while he nastily threatens innocent people for how they choose to live is as bad as agreeing with him in my book.

Posted Image


"Andromeda may be over but it's not dead. Not as long as we have fanfic writers dedicated to keeping it alive.  Whether you accept everything as canon or stop at a certain point. Whether you accept and enjoy Nu Drom or only accept Classic Drom, it will never be over.  Not as long as we have each other [and Beka], who binds us all together." ~ Mary Rose

Twitter * Facebook * ExIsle at Facebook

icon by mercscilla @ LJ

#32 Tom Sawyer

Tom Sawyer

    Harbinger of The Abyss

  • Dead account
  • 1,166 posts

Posted 29 August 2005 - 07:29 PM

White Tiger, on Aug 29 2005, 06:14 PM, said:

I believe in free speech as well...however I do not believe in hate mongering. Should there be a balance? Spreading hate isn't good for anyone...except those with an agenda. And his agenda eems to match those of a paticular German leader in the 40's

Agreed, except...one of the ideas behind the preservation of free speech is the promotion of tolerance.  To censor someone for their intolerance of others is intolerance itself.  What have proven by censoring those you don't like because they could perhaps aggravate the situation?  

Quote

It seems to me this man is unbalanced and maniacal. He OBVIOUSLY has no love in his heart for anything but himself.

No argument there.

Quote

I do not believe he would ever allow himself to learn more about life ad the world around him. He is shelled in a casing of hate.

That's his situation.  Incidentally, with that mindset in play, did it occur to anyone that by shutting him up, you'd only reinforce his ideas within his own mind?

Quote

One more thing....doesn't this feel like a KKK thing?
I mean really. He is a short step away from hanging homosexuals...
As I said...I believe in free speech...but not at the cost of lives or human rights...and that is what this guy is advocating.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


I agree, except like I said in the previous post: we prosecute actions, not ideas.  When his words lead to someone dying, then he's liable.
The Future...Unless Things Change.

And how am I to face the odds, of man's bedevilment and God's, I a stranger and afraid in a world I never made? A.E. Housman (1859-1936)

#33 Tom Sawyer

Tom Sawyer

    Harbinger of The Abyss

  • Dead account
  • 1,166 posts

Posted 29 August 2005 - 07:30 PM

Cheile, on Aug 29 2005, 06:28 PM, said:

Elara, on Aug 29 2005, 02:44 PM, said:

Cheile said:

at this point i don't care about free speech. he has no right to it when he preaches threats mixed in with his nasty words.

The Masked Coyote, on Aug 29 2005, 03:53 PM, said:

But that's not what she said (I'm guessing Cheille is a she...sorry if I'm wrong).  She advocated his loss of his 1st amendment right because she didn't like what he said.

When someone says "I don't care about free speech"...that certainly catches my attention.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


~.~ Well, I cannot speak for Cheile, but I can say that in this instance, I would be for him losing his right, too.
See the difference between free speech and threats is miles between. He has the right to say he hates Gays, but not the right to threaten their lives, nor the lives of their family and friends.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


^ precisely what i meant.

the false "Reverend" (and as far as i am concerned he IS false) may claim gays are going to hell.  he may say "i hate gays because i think they are disgusting."

making threats crosses a line.  therefore in THIS instance i don't care about free speech because he has no rights making threats.

excusing him to have his free speech while he nastily threatens innocent people for how they choose to live is as bad as agreeing with him in my book.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>



Censoring out of fear makes the censor no better than the hate monger.
The Future...Unless Things Change.

And how am I to face the odds, of man's bedevilment and God's, I a stranger and afraid in a world I never made? A.E. Housman (1859-1936)

#34 Cheile

Cheile

    proud J/Cer ~ ten years and counting

  • Islander
  • 10,776 posts

Posted 29 August 2005 - 07:42 PM

^ where do you get the idea that i--or anyone else who thinks he should be shut up--FEAR this fake reverend??

Posted Image


"Andromeda may be over but it's not dead. Not as long as we have fanfic writers dedicated to keeping it alive.  Whether you accept everything as canon or stop at a certain point. Whether you accept and enjoy Nu Drom or only accept Classic Drom, it will never be over.  Not as long as we have each other [and Beka], who binds us all together." ~ Mary Rose

Twitter * Facebook * ExIsle at Facebook

icon by mercscilla @ LJ

#35 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 29 August 2005 - 07:44 PM

Someone mentioned the KKK.  Well they have a right to march.  They have a right to demonstrate.  If someone can show that some otherwise protected activity of theirs will cause a threat of harm that makes the state's interest in safety outweigh the First Amendment then they'll get censored, or, more likely, regulated.  But "hate mongering" as someone called it is not alone a reason to abridge free speech. As much as I loathe these peoples' message, free speech has to apply to everyone.

Or, as a certain Captain Hunt might have said, "there's no point".

Lil
Posted Image

#36 Cheile

Cheile

    proud J/Cer ~ ten years and counting

  • Islander
  • 10,776 posts

Posted 29 August 2005 - 07:47 PM

^ their hate mongering will end up inciting violence before long.  why do you think the police showed up to their harassment of the funeral goers?  because without them they would have likely struck out at those who dared to dish it back at them.

ETA:  the KKK has been proven to commit murders.  no doubt the fake "Reverend" and his inbred idiots are right behind them.  they are already inciting hate crimes.  one of them is likely to commit the crime themselves before long.

Edited by Cheile, 29 August 2005 - 07:48 PM.

Posted Image


"Andromeda may be over but it's not dead. Not as long as we have fanfic writers dedicated to keeping it alive.  Whether you accept everything as canon or stop at a certain point. Whether you accept and enjoy Nu Drom or only accept Classic Drom, it will never be over.  Not as long as we have each other [and Beka], who binds us all together." ~ Mary Rose

Twitter * Facebook * ExIsle at Facebook

icon by mercscilla @ LJ

#37 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 29 August 2005 - 07:50 PM

The mere speculation of violence is not enough to overcome the First Amendment.  Can you imagine how many things would be censored if that were the standard?  How many movies would be disallowed?  Video games banned?  Television shows edited or simply done away with.

And who gets to decide?

It's a very slippery slope.  

The fact that one doesn't like what someone is saying is not a reason to ban them from saying it.


Lil
Posted Image

#38 Cheile

Cheile

    proud J/Cer ~ ten years and counting

  • Islander
  • 10,776 posts

Posted 29 August 2005 - 07:55 PM

um Lil did you miss the articles Nonny and others quoted?

he is not just spewing hate.  he is making threats he intends to carry out.  that is NOT speculation.

so comparing something that is not dangerous to be censored with something that IS makes no sense.

Posted Image


"Andromeda may be over but it's not dead. Not as long as we have fanfic writers dedicated to keeping it alive.  Whether you accept everything as canon or stop at a certain point. Whether you accept and enjoy Nu Drom or only accept Classic Drom, it will never be over.  Not as long as we have each other [and Beka], who binds us all together." ~ Mary Rose

Twitter * Facebook * ExIsle at Facebook

icon by mercscilla @ LJ

#39 Tom Sawyer

Tom Sawyer

    Harbinger of The Abyss

  • Dead account
  • 1,166 posts

Posted 29 August 2005 - 07:56 PM

Couldn't have said it better, Lil.
The Future...Unless Things Change.

And how am I to face the odds, of man's bedevilment and God's, I a stranger and afraid in a world I never made? A.E. Housman (1859-1936)

#40 Shalamar

Shalamar

    Last Star to the Left and Straight on till Morning

  • Forever Missed
  • 17,644 posts

Posted 29 August 2005 - 08:24 PM

The thing is that there are instances where threats of violence must be taken seriously - theres an entire section of the USSS that is devoted to visitng and interviewing people who make threats,verbal or written against the President of the US.

And there are various laws on the book against the 'terroristic threats' are there not?

And I believe that he makes those statement/ threats in such a manner that looks like they are specific against a group or person doesn't it fall under those laws?

Free speach doesn't mean free from the consequences of that speach.
The three most important R's
Respect for One's Self / Respect for Others / Responsibility for One's Words & Actions.

Posted Image



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Religion, Fred Phelps, Demonstrations, Funerals

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users