WBC at it again.

[Elijah John]

The scolding, finger-waving hate-filled members of the Westboro Baptist Church from Kansas have announced plans to protest Robin Williams funeral.

Question for debate, does the WBC abuse the first amendment by their disgusting actions?

[Elijah John]

And to honor this good and talented man, and by way of stark contrast to the WBC, here are Robin Williams top ten reasons to be an Episcopalian:


10. No snake handling.

9. You can believe in dinosaurs.

8. Male and female, God created them; male and female, we ordain them.

7. You don't have to check your brains at the door.

6. Pew aerobics.

5. Church year is color coded!

4. Free wine on Sunday.

3. All of the pageantry, none of the guilt.

2. You don't have to know how to swim to get baptized.

And the number one reason for being an Episcopalian:


1. No matter what you believe, there's bound to be at least one other Episcopalian who agrees with you.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 1 by Elijah John]

They are not abusing their first amendment rights. What they are doing is offensive but not nearly as offensive as what the KKK or other hate organizations do. Now they are opening themselves up to a civil suit though by causing emotional distress. Honestly, I am surprised they are not sued more often.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 1 by Elijah John]

They are not abusing their first amendment rights. What they are doing is offensive but not nearly as offensive as what the KKK or other hate organizations do. Now they are opening themselves up to a civil suit though by causing emotional distress. Honestly, I am surprised they are not sued more often.

Hateful as they are, they are a family of lawyers and know how to play the game. But while they may be TECHNICALLY be within their rights, it really seems me they are violating the spirit of the law. I think the whole freedom of speech thing in this country is interpreted WAY to broadly, but of course the Supreme Court would disagree. So I think they are following their rights, but they can also be within the limits of the law and still stretching it in an abusive way.

Regarding who is the bigger hate group? They are all roughly equally disgusting, imo.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 4 by Elijah John]

Well WBC hasn't physically assaulted anyone yet....

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 4 by Elijah John]

Well WBC hasn't physically assaulted anyone yet....

No, they are verbal and SPIRITUAL terrorists. And they are inflammatory, disturbers of the peace.

[bjs]

Hateful as they are, they are a family of lawyers and know how to play the game. But while they may be TECHNICALLY be within their rights, it really seems me they are violating the spirit of the law. I think the whole freedom of speech thing in this country is interpreted WAY to broadly, but of course the Supreme Court would disagree. So I think they are following their rights, but they can also be within the limits of the law and still stretching it in an abusive way.

While I dislike the way they use their free expression, they are not abusing their first amendment rights. There is no need to stress that they may “TECHNICALLY be within their rights.� Either they are within their rights or they are not.

I also disagree with the idea that they are violating the spirit of the law. The spirit of free speech is to protect unpopular speech. Popular speech, by definition, needs no protection.

I am strongly with the Supreme Court on this issue. If we silence any form of free speech, no matter how disgusting we find it, then we put all forms of free speech in danger.

Many ideas that we now take for granted as true were at one time inflammatory.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 7 by bjs]

So you think free speech is OK, even when it inflames and disturbs the peace?

Are there ANY limits to free speech in your book?

[bjs]

[Replying to Elijah John]

Of course there are limitations. If someone is genuinely disturbing the peace – such as playing music at full blast at 2:00 AM – then that is not protected speech. Planning a crime cannot be considered free speech. Certain kinds of expression, such as sexually explicit material, can reasonably be regulated to be kept out of the hands of children. Free speech cannot place someone in direct danger – the classic example of this is that yelling fire in a crowded theater.

However, protecting speech which inflames people, disgusts people, or is culturally unpopular is the very definition of free speech. If we are only free to say that which is popular then we are not free at all. A nation which does not protect this kind of speech cannot rightly claim to have freed of expression.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to Elijah John]

Of course there are limitations. If someone is genuinely disturbing the peace – such as playing music at full blast at 2:00 AM – then that is not protected speech. Planning a crime cannot be considered free speech. Certain kinds of expression, such as sexually explicit material, can reasonably be regulated to be kept out of the hands of children. Free speech cannot place someone in direct danger – the classic example of this is that yelling fire in a crowded theater.

However, protecting speech which inflames people, disgusts people, or is culturally unpopular is the very definition of free speech. If we are only free to say that which is popular then we are not free at all. A nation which does not protect this kind of speech cannot rightly claim to have freed of expression.

Then don't you think the harrasment of grieving families at funerals qualifies as literally "disturbing the peace" and that grieving families at funerals should be protected from such "free speech'?

WBC specializes in that kind of harassment.

As much as I love our country, I just think we go TOO far in regard to free speech here, at least the Obama appointed Supreme Court does.