12 Comments | leave a comment | RSS 2.0 for this post | trackback |
| Wednesday, May 22, 2013 |
|
- A Bird's Eye View
- A Motley Vision
- Adventures in Mormonism
- Blognitive Dissonance
- Book of Mormon Blog
- By Common Consent
- Ethesis
- Face of the Other
- Faith Promoting Rumor
- Feminist Mormon Housewives
- Flooding the Earth With the Book of Mormon
- Golden Road to Samarqand
- Head Life
- Just Sayin'
- Juvenile Instructor
- Messanger & Advocate
- Millennial Star
- Mormon Matters
- Mormon Mommy Wars
- New Cool Thang
- Nine Moons
- Old Testament Blog
- Our Mother's Keeper
- Proud Daughter of Eve
- Segullah
- Sunstone Blog
- Times & Seasons
- Wheat and Tares
- Zelophehad's Daughters
I have basic issues with limiting speech on public property (like a sidewalk), no matter how despicable it may be (and it seems like the residents of Tucson have a nice way to counter the protesters anyway). |
Queuno – so there are no limits in your mind? |
This would be a ridiculous and sad event if this group of clowns did protest, but I think limiting free speech would have way more downside than upside. I think this is the evil you have to suffer to enjoy the freedoms that are so important. On a related note, we really need to get a bunch of gays to go down to Kansas and make out on the sidewalk in front of this church. Keep doing it until the pastor promises to not be such an idiot anymore. I’m thinking thousands and thousands of big flaming gays. I’ll even make out with a guy if it helps the cause. Sure it might have the opposite effect of retrenchment and them feeling that it is proof that they are right, but I think after a month or so of them having to wade through guys in pink speedos just to reach the front of their church, their resolve would probably wane. (This comment in no way reflects the idea that all homosexuals wear pink speedos, or are in any way “big” or “flaming”. Simply that if we were to protest, those are the types of homosexuals that would have the greatest effect, if they do indeed exist somewhere in a non-stereotypical non-small minded fashion.) |
“I’m thinking thousands and thousands of big flaming gays.” Aren’t you always? I guess I may be one of the people to whom this post was directed, Devyn, but I’m just not sure what you mean by “when is that line crossed?” If you are asking when speech becomes so objectionable that the government can step in and regulate its content, then that line is almost never crossed, unless you are doing the equivalent of shouting “fire!” in a crowded theater. In other words, unless your words have the effect of creating an unsafe situation by their very nature, the government cannot shut down your right to speak, it can only regulate the time, place and manner of your speech. As a minority religion that wants the unrestricted right to take our message to the public, we ought to be on the side of allowing all minority voices their right to speak. Somehow, though, we never seem to be on that side. |
3. B.Russ – Interesting point that this is the evil side of that freedom. I think that your idea is a good one – there should be a non-stop protest at their Church – however, it does validate them to some extent and then they could be the victims… 4. MCQ -Thanks. So theoretically, one can say any hateful thing and it is fine as long as it is not deemed creating an unsafe environment? Wow, I did not know it extended that far. While I would agree we should be on the side of minority voices having rights to speak, at some point it would seem that a little “pressure” could be exerted to shut down wackos like that group (of course, I know you will say that some will throw that same thing at us as we are a wacko group that should be shut down…) |
(Rimshot) |
Yeah, that’s the probelem: “wacko” is in the eye of the beholder. The whole idea of the first amendment is that we don’t want the government, or even the majority, deciding what is wacko and what is not. By having the first amendment, we allow a lot of true wackos to speak their mind, but we also allow the odd voice that is not yet accepted by the majority but who turns out to be right. Like, you know, Joseph Smith. |
probably in situations like this if youre dead set on deterring the excruciatingly inappropriate, attention whoring, scumbag behavior of those jack**** lowlife, motherless pieces of garbage the best way to handle it without disrupting 1st amendment rights for the rest of society who haven’t sunken to the absolute deepest depths of pond scum would be to use extralegal means… set up a gas leak in their church or something so they all blow up or something, make it look pretty legit, authorities never could find evidence that it was sabotage ruled it an accident. 1st amendment is intact and the scumbags mysteriously reaped what they sowed. It all depends on how confident you are that you could pull it off and not get caught and if your’e OK with blowin that trash up… but pull it off and it’s the perfect solution. |
7. MCQ – hmm…. OK I am more convinced, begrudgingly… 8. SUNNofaB.C.Rich – vigilantism is an option I suppose. Not sure that is in line with the Constitution or Christian values though… |
I am thankful for the concept of free speech. I don’t think it is appropriate for people to disrupt high-profile funerals to raise the profile of said speech. I think AZ’s response was appropriate. For the most part I think that most people aren’t even aware of what the Phelps family actual message is, what they are doing is not beneficial to their stated mission. On some level, I don’t think the Phelps gang really wants what they claim to want. I would bet that if homosexuality was removed from public life tomorrow that they would find some other justification for their “protests.” Apparently the Westboro baptist Church is mostly made up of Phelps, his children and their families. If you really wanted to put a stop to his antics, find the weak link in his family, the disgruntled child/grandchild who knows where the skeletons are. It seems like it wouldn’t be terribly difficult to redirect the vitriol inward and turn them on each other. |
10 MAC – good perspective. What I don’t understand is where they get the money to travel around the country all year long. That must get expensive. |
Devyn, From something that I read, but can’t find, they claim to pay their own way, throw all their discretionary income into a pot to pay for fuel and peanut butter sandwiches. Sounds to me like a environment that is approaching Jim Jones levels of creepiness. I might add that Phelps is also an active Democrat and his actions are almost assuredly motivated by Paul Krugman’s blog posts. |
