Login or register
> hey anon, wanna give your opinion?
#50 - nicolbolas
Reply +9 123456789123345869
(08/13/2013) [-]
We live in a country where people are aloud to speak and assemble freely. There is this group most people want that right taken away from them. I agreed for a short time, then I thought about the repercussions. If we take their right away, then that means the government would be able to take these rights away form other groups too until an outrageous law was passed this is an extreme case.

People may not like that they protest funerals and marriages and whatever they feel like but it is their right to do so as long as they harm no one physically. We can protest their protests but we cannot and should not prevent them from protesting because if we do then we become hypocritical. If every tiny group that preached an unpopular opinion was disbanded, we would not have equal rights for every individual and we would not be improving on this concept today.

It's okay to not like them but we still need to secure their rights.
User avatar #65 to #50 - horribleperson
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/13/2013) [-]
I haven't ever looked into the whole WBC stuff very much, so I may be off the mark, but I think that most people that have a problem with them do so because it is essentially borderline hate speech.

Protesting at the funerals of people who they disagree with is going too far. What if I were to protest outside the funeral of a black gangbanger with signs that say "Black people are violence incarnate!' "Blacks are the spawn of Satan!" I would probably be arrested.

Again, I may be off target, but it's another viewpoint for you.
User avatar #66 to #65 - nicolbolas
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/13/2013) [-]
Hate speech is legal, the WBC has to be careful with the words they use and they kind of are. They keep their signs broad and they refer to everyone of particular groups that they consider sinner or whatever. Say they were protesting a funeral and they used the person's name, this may not be protected because it is a direct assault on the person. Also by keeping it broad, they avoid "fighting words" which is pretty much what it sounds like, someone says something to get someone to fight them.

Free speech is hard to regulate because it is hard to determine the meaning behind the words. The WBC is constantly walking on the ice between hate speech and assault, but these things are often determined by successful lawyers.
#55 to #50 - partisan
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(08/13/2013) [-]

But they're right cunts
User avatar #51 to #50 - nucularwar
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(08/13/2013) [-]
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

I can't ******* wait until Phelps kicks it, I'm picketing HIS funeral