Westboro Baptist Church Plan to Protest RObin Williams Funeral

[TimberWolf]

Now if only we'd ban dumb speech, or naive speech, or religious speech. I'm cool with government being the thought police too. Take that USA!

We'd lose the CDC if that happened.

[Mr. Ambien]

We'd lose the CDC if that happened.

A noble sacrifice for the greater good.

[Guest]

You either believe in freedom of speech or you don't. If you only pick your spots when to support that belief then it loses any bite.I remember when Noam Chomsky got slammed because he stood up for a holocaust denier in France for writing a book about it. Noam stuck to his guns and signed a petition that was a gross violation of freedom of speech regardless if the subject matter was awful and biased.That's true freedom of speech, not just what you want to hear but also what you don't.Now me personally, I don't like that crap. I believe in freedom of assembly where you have the right to go to court and parliament to get laws changed or have your case heard. Peaceful protest over matters outside your control as well but I am glad we have laws here in Canada that make such orgs. as the KKK and WBC's hate speech and criminal. It defies true freedom of speech but I am cool with that.

It is not that black and white. Notwithstanding an anarchist society, there is no such thing as complete freedom. Chomsky is an anarchist who approaches issues from a highly philosophical perspective. He's an academic, and that's his job.

Freedom of movement within Canada exists, so long as you're allowed (no court order etc). Freedom of assembly, so long as you're not inciting a riot and so on. The same for speech.

I can be for Freedom of speech without being an anarchist. It can exist in a society that adheres to a set of laws.

I suppose from a pure philosophical line of thought, what you say is true. But if we stick to the realm of academia and philosophy, nothing we have is real.

[Mr. Ambien]

It is not that black and white. Notwithstanding an anarchist society, there is no such thing as complete freedom. Chomsky is an anarchist who approaches issues from a highly philosophical perspective. He's an academic, and that's his job.

Freedom of movement within Canada exists, so long as you're allowed (no court order etc). Freedom of assembly, so long as you're not inciting a riot and so on. The same for speech.

I can be for Freedom of speech without being an anarchist. It can exist in a society that adheres to a set of laws.

I suppose from a pure philosophical line of thought, what you say is true. But if we stick to the realm of academia and philosophy, nothing we have is real.

Noam Chomsky? Anarchist? The socialist guy who says democracy can't survive with capitalism?

Not even the American system is anarchist, but where the difference lies is the American system is more dedicated to individual rights, and limitation of those individual rights by the government requires significant justification. The presumption that the government inherently is doing what's best for the masses is not there, like it is here.

Anyways, the point of this is, relative to the discussion at hand, is that WBC has all of the rights to spew their crap and protest funerals from a sidewalk. And thus, their rights are respected, and someone uses their right to ignore them (which, not-so-coincidentally, is the best solution anyways). It's a concept lost upon us Canadians, and especially lost on the British and Australians, who think government should be our social nanny, without considering the slippery slope.

[Guest]

Noam Chomsky? Anarchist? The socialist guy who says democracy can't survive with capitalism?

Not even the American system is anarchist, but where the difference lies is the American system is more dedicated to individual rights, and limitation of those individual rights by the government requires significant justification. The presumption that the government inherently is doing what's best for the masses is not there, like it is here.

Noam Chomsky comes from the anarchism school of thought. And of course the American system is not anarchist. Given the power of the state, it's quite the opposite actually.

That is the USA for you. In my opinion, they hold ideals such as freedom, individuality, work ethic etc. whereas in reality they are a massive state power drawing on its population for its power.

[Mr. Ambien]

Noam Chomsky comes from the anarchism school of thought. And of course the American system is not anarchist. Given the power of the state, it's quite the opposite actually.

His thought process must derive from another country's interpretations of anarchism (and possibly other things). Certainly not the US's version. I mean, I've also seen him talk about socialist libertarians.

To a degree, I would actually consider myself just that (libertarian with some very small parts of social policies acceptable).. except that construct only is viable in Canadian politics (when thinking of US or Canada). With US polarity, there is no blending of libertarianism with socialism, just libertarianism with extremely minor acceptance of regulations, or socialism that controls not only the economy, but is very intrusive upon social policies.

There's more gray area allowed in Canadian politics. The US.. not known for gray area.

[Buddhas Hand]

Noam Chomsky? Anarchist? The socialist guy who says democracy can't survive with capitalism?

Not even the American system is anarchist, but where the difference lies is the American system is more dedicated to individual rights, and limitation of those individual rights by the government requires significant justification. The presumption that the government inherently is doing what's best for the masses is not there, like it is here.

Anyways, the point of this is, relative to the discussion at hand, is that WBC has all of the rights to spew their crap and protest funerals from a sidewalk. And thus, their rights are respected, and someone uses their right to ignore them (which, not-so-coincidentally, is the best solution anyways). It's a concept lost upon us Canadians, and especially lost on the British and Australians, who think government should be our social nanny, without considering the slippery slope.

It is is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.

Mark Twain.

[Guest]

It is is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.

Mark Twain.

That was an interesting video - thanks for sharing. I agree withe the gentlemen who is in the opposition party.

[unknown33429]

They're like kids throwing a tamper tantrum. It may be best just to ignore term or else we may condition this behaviour in them indefinitely.

[Dral]

It's good that organizations like the WBC exist, otherwise, I'd never know how much God hates me

[Mr.DirtyDangles]

The irony in the first page of posts is beyond epic !

[unknown33429]

Ignore them?

Remind me how well that worked for the losing side in every African conflict to date, European conflict? Middle East? How about the Khmer Rouge? Pohl Pot?

The issue with ignoring hate is that it almost always finds a fertile ground to breed in. See the US Tea Party, ISIS, Nazi Germany, Italian Fascism.

I think beyond my normal mindset that enough is enough. Burn the compound to the ground, take away the licenses of the 3 family members allowed to practice law and jail or imprison anyone doing this crap for indecency or at the very least offering an indignity to a dead body. Maybe harassment?

Barring that take em all out back and help them meet their maker faster than they deserve.

Lol we are talking about protests not genocide. If they start mass murdering people, I'll be the first to say we should pay attention to them. At this stage, they are going for shock value and what they really want is to get their message out, and we help them by giving them the attention and audience they desire (more specifically, the news does).

The root of the problem is the American romanticism with a bunch of slave owning rapists AKA the founding fathers. As long as Americans believe hate speech is protected speech under the constitution (which needs to be interpreted based on intent of the writers and not common sense), people like this will keep popping up, so americans just have to lay in the bed they shat in.

[unknown33429]

You either believe in freedom of speech or you don't. If you only pick your spots when to support that belief then it loses any bite.

I remember when Noam Chomsky got slammed because he stood up for a holocaust denier in France for writing a book about it. Noam stuck to his guns and signed a petition that was a gross violation of freedom of speech regardless if the subject matter was awful and biased.

That's true freedom of speech, not just what you want to hear but also what you don't.

Now me personally, I don't like that crap. I believe in freedom of assembly where you have the right to go to court and parliament to get laws changed or have your case heard. Peaceful protest over matters outside your control as well but I am glad we have laws here in Canada that make such orgs. as the KKK and WBC's hate speech and criminal. It defies true freedom of speech but I am cool with that.

I think you are wrong there. You can have freedom of speech but that not necessarily preclude other rights like the right to life, or security of a person, which hate speech threatens.

By your logic, anyone that believes in freedom of assembly must be opposed to prisons since prisoners don't have the freedom to assemble. Or that anyone who believes in the freedom of religion must condone stoning of homosexuals (which by the way is not protected by the freedom of religion). I could go on but you must see by now that all freedoms are necessarily restricted in order to protect the freedom of others in your country.

[Dral]

I think you are wrong there. You can have freedom of speech but that not necessarily preclude other rights like the right to life, or security of a person, which hate speech threatens.

By your logic, anyone that believes in freedom of assembly must be opposed to prisons since prisoners don't have the freedom to assemble. Or that anyone who believes in the freedom of religion must condone stoning of homosexuals (which by the way is not protected by the freedom of religion). I could go on but you must see by now that all freedoms are necessarily restricted in order to protect the freedom of others in your country.

Tell that to Colorado and Washington! They certainly condone it.

[Heretic]

This past Friday night on the UK television program The Last Leg, Australian comedian Adam Hills brutally called out Westboro Baptist Church for threatening to protest Robin Williams’ funeral.

After Hills made it clear that he was disgusted by the church’s plans, he issued a proposition for the Westboro Baptist members to put their money where their mouth is.

Hills stated that if the Westboro Baptist members are so concerned with those threatening their version of the Christian way of life, he will personally pay for every member to fly first class over to Iraq where the church can picket the people beheading Christians if they don’t convert.

Perhaps if the Westboro Baptist members accepted this challenge, it would give them a much-needed dose of reality.

http://www.ijreview.com/2014/08/169055-comedian-hilariously-rips-apart-westboro-baptist-churchs-plans-raid-robin-williams-funeral/

[Tearloch7]

^ ^ ^ Thanks for sharing that, Heretic .. we are so fortunate to live in this beautiful country that we do, and for all that it has faults, we are blessed, and should be thankful everyday.

[Mr. Ambien]

This past Friday night on the UK television program The Last Leg, Australian comedian Adam Hills brutally called out Westboro Baptist Church for threatening to protest Robin Williams’ funeral.

After Hills made it clear that he was disgusted by the church’s plans, he issued a proposition for the Westboro Baptist members to put their money where their mouth is.

Hills stated that if the Westboro Baptist members are so concerned with those threatening their version of the Christian way of life, he will personally pay for every member to fly first class over to Iraq where the church can picket the people beheading Christians if they don’t convert.

Perhaps if the Westboro Baptist members accepted this challenge, it would give them a much-needed dose of reality.

http://www.ijreview.com/2014/08/169055-comedian-hilariously-rips-apart-westboro-baptist-churchs-plans-raid-robin-williams-funeral/

An Australian that tries to use his money to bully people he doesn't like.. and shows how clueless he is about the American First Amendment. And the sun comes up another day.

[Guest]

An Australian that tries to use his money to bully people he doesn't like.. and shows how clueless he is about the American First Amendment. And the sun comes up another day.

The amendments were written with good faith implied. Idiots have since taken these as gospel, and manipulated them to suit their cause.

I would argue that it is you who does not understand the American constitution. Nothing you have written in this thread has shown me otherwise.

[Mr. Ambien]

The amendments were written with good faith implied. Idiots have since taken these as gospel, and manipulated them to suit their cause.

I would argue that it is you who does not understand the American constitution. Nothing you have written in this thread has shown me otherwise.

Well, the fact that I've suggested they simply be ignored and not:

- Beaten to a pulp

- Sent to Iraq

- Prosecuted for their protests

Should be a clue, but apparently you read the whole thread.

So either you didn't read the thread, or you typed something you can't substantiate.

OTOH, you wrote a rather vague first two sentences, that suggest people manipulate their freedoms to suit their own causes.. and this is somehow a breach of "good faith".. whatever that means.

[Guest]

Well, the fact that I've suggested they simply be ignored and not:

- Beaten to a pulp

- Sent to Iraq

- Prosecuted for their protests

Should be a clue, but apparently you read the whole thread.

So either you didn't read the thread, or you typed something you can't substantiate.

OTOH, you wrote a rather vague first two sentences, that suggest people manipulate their freedoms to suit their own causes.. and this is somehow a breach of "good faith".. whatever that means.

We don't need to read the whole thread to determine you did not read and/or understand my post.

The fact that you brought up the first amendment as some sort of retort to this man's obvious hyperbolic example (which he knowingly did) is clear evidence of my claim that you do not understand the American constitution.

Instead of just referencing it, do tell as to why you believe that is relevant at all.