Click to expand
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#203 - BGinsanity (01/20/2013) [-]
Not that anyone cares what I think, but I actually really don't like the reaction to this (not that this matters either).

We're all forgetting something, freedom of speech doesn't just protect the people we like. It protects everyone, including these westboro ******** assholes. Just because what they're saying is stupid, doesn't mean they don't have the right to say it. So long as they aren't breaking any laws, they have the right under the United States Constitution to speak out and peacefully protects.

If we force Westboro to stop speaking out with regulations and government intervention what are WE really saying? We are saying that we are afraid of what they have to say? That because we don't like them or their message, they don't have the right to say it.

Why should we be afraid? Any ************ with half a brain can take one look at westboro and see they're ******* morons with no real evidence to their half assed arguments.

Furthermore, what real power do they hold? Do you really think they of all people pose any threat to civil liberties? The only people who support Westboro are people IN Westboro. Meanwhile while we focus on these ********* who have no real power to impact ANYTHING there ARE people in our government who have REAL power to change things and some of these ***** have views similar to Westboro.

And you know what we're gonna do about the assholes like them? Nothing. Nope we're gonna do what we always do in this country, create a ****** solution to the wrong problem then pat ourselves on the back like we've accomplished something.

Congrats on your "victory" against Westboro. You've achieved nothing.
User avatar #236 to #203 - zaiopeperse (01/20/2013) [-]
There is a difference between free speech and hate. Hateful speech is not and should not be protected by law. If I get a ********* for this, I will have you know it's been an honour
#247 to #236 - anon (01/20/2013) [-]
being a jerk has never, is not, and will never be a crime. The minute it is is the minute I move to a non fascist country.
User avatar #250 to #247 - zaiopeperse (01/20/2013) [-]
Being a jerk? Westboro is way beyond jerks, They actiely blame all the world's problem on homosexuals. That's a fine step from hate crime. At least that's how I interpret the law. I may well be wrong but unless american law decides to clear up on the matter we may never see any action against them.

(American law specifically beecause they're based in america, I don't really care much for their laws)
#259 to #250 - anon (01/20/2013) [-]
Hate "crime" implies a crime is committed. Being mean and hurting your feelings, no matter how they do it, is not a crime. And think about it, you're not trying to bar them from doing something illegal, you're advocating rescinding their rights to assembly, protest and speech. That is one hell of a precedence to set for any other group that the majority does not favor the views of.

and anyway, fj blames all the worlds problems on "young people" or "this generation" blah blah, there are plenty here who genuinely hate black people, advocate violence towards various groups of people, harass people and **** up their lives because they said something on Facebook etc. People here commit legitimate crimes and nobody cares. Hell, you guys suck 4chan's dick every time they push a teenage girl to suicide because she was a teenager doing something stupid like every teenager does. By your logic FJ should be shut down too.
User avatar #267 to #259 - zaiopeperse (01/20/2013) [-]
I said i's a small step away from hate crime, look closely. I'm part of "this generation" I like 4chan for entertainment purrposes only, I've tried my best to stand up for people doing stupid things. Besides, funnyjunk is a big community with many voices while WBC is a small group of people who all represent the same agenda.
User avatar #223 to #203 - anondude (01/20/2013) [-]
A church is supposed to take part in modern activities to be recognized as such, WBC does not perform these tasks. A church isn't supposed to be some shelter for people who wish to avoid taxes, WBC is.

For more specific info, visit the link provided.
petitions.white You need to login to view this link ition/remove-westboro-baptist-churchs-501c3-tax-exempt-sta tus-and-make-it-retro active/kmYR4DTL
User avatar #208 to #203 - bokkos (01/20/2013) [-]
In Canada, free speech is only protected so long as you obey the Offense Principle; ergo, your protest or speech cannot invoke hatred or discrimination against an identifiable minority. Makes sense to me, everyone stays happier that way.
User avatar #218 to #208 - mylazy (01/20/2013) [-]
I don't really think that makes sense. You ever heard the saying from Voltaire,"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"? That always seemed to me the point of freedom of speech. If suddenly you can't say something because one group doesn't like it, there is no point to freedom of speech. Just my opinion, but I can honestly say that regardless of how racist, how much of a dick, how much of an asshole someone is, I would never condemn their right to speak their mind. Those minorities can just as easily say things about the majority, and both sides should have the right to say it. The only two times I agree with limiting it is in cases of national security and if it causes some sort of undue panic that could lead to a more dangerous things.

This is of course my opinion, so you may disagree, but I will probably stick with this viewpoint.
#212 to #208 - BGinsanity (01/20/2013) [-]
Then in my opinion Canada is wrong. It's my belief that you don't have a right not to be offended. You do however have a right to speak your mind and opinion. So long as we are not trying to actually take away anyone's civil liberties then discourse and the discussion of ideals should have no limitations. Especially when we get into the nebulous area of "offensive speech".

Again though, just my opinion.
User avatar #216 to #212 - theknikker (01/20/2013) [-]
Yeah if you become a parent and raise a child who dies in the military, and westboro goes to your kids funeral, I hope you have the ******* brain to do something about them then. Many family's already had to. **** freedom of speech when it is just an excuse.

Dick ass ***** .
#233 to #216 - BGinsanity (01/20/2013) [-]
You know what, if that happened to me I would probably be hurt , angry, depressed, and a million other emotions.

But my pain does NOT trumph the rights of every other American citizen.
User avatar #238 to #233 - theknikker (01/20/2013) [-]
Not saying take away any rights at all! I am saying, put limits on these ******* that raid funerals of fallen heroes and others... That is NOT a right! Not in the least!

They can do whatever it they do otherwise, but leave the funerals and the kids that died at Sandy alone... how can you defend this **** ? Geez mate.
#251 to #238 - BGinsanity (01/20/2013) [-]
Firstly I'm not specifically defending Westboro. I hate them. I think they are ********* and I detest them and all of their beliefs. But this is more than that. I'm not defending Westboro I'm defending the Constitution (ignore the unintended pretentiousness of that sentence). The Constitution, ideally, protects the rights of EVERYONE not just the people we like. Just because someone is a scumbag doesn't mean we can take away their rights.

And whether you admit it or not, that IS what your saying. You ARE saying that we should take away their right by saying that they have no right to peaceful protest. Unless they are breaking laws or physically harming someone against their will they have the right to protest.

Even if their protest is retarded, scummy, ****** up, and evil; which it is.
User avatar #257 to #251 - theknikker (01/20/2013) [-]
Thumb for you... I concede.

I wish I could put it in better words. Exarzero pretty much said what I was thinking/feeling. Still they piss me off so much and I just want them to be stopped somehow from doing the sick **** they do...

Penis Butt. lol
#248 to #238 - anon (01/20/2013) [-]
Funny, Voltaire is considered a paragon of humanity for doing the same exact thing.
#217 to #216 - anon (01/20/2013) [-]
" **** constitutional freedoms when I don't like it"

brilliant precedence
#235 to #217 - anon (01/20/2013) [-]
I think he means,

" **** when people do bad things and use Freedom of speech as an excuse to do so"

"Penis Butt inferior African American"
User avatar #205 to #203 - exarzero (01/20/2013) [-]
You are over thinking.
#206 to #205 - BGinsanity (01/20/2013) [-]
How exactly am I "over thinking".
User avatar #211 to #206 - exarzero (01/20/2013) [-]
This is a post on FJ. About someone who hates people because they act like assholes. Nobody has had the balls to try and stop them yet. So this was a good thing. It did not need a freedom of speech argument defending the assholes in question.

Still... freedom of speech is all and good, but hate speech is still technically not covered by that. Not to mention you gave no solution to the problem of these people causing a lot of pain around the U.S. Something should truly be done, when I go to a funeral of a friend and a bunch of psychos are telling me that he deserved to die and burn or all time.

Plus... these guys are raising their kids in a sick ****** up way, and teaching hate.

**** , I am wasting my time debating on FJ now.

#226 to #211 - BGinsanity (01/20/2013) [-]
A discussion between two individuals is never a waste of time if the issue is important. The setting of the discussion is irrelevant. If two philosophers had a debate at Chuckie Cheese it wouldn't take anything away from the debate so long as it was worthwhile.

And yes protecting ALL speech should be the ideal for freedom of speech. If someone says something racist or homophobic, we should just tell them to shut up and not say that. We should be direct and tell them how and why they are wrong. Sure it may not change THEIR mind but it certainly could change the minds of others who may fall into the same mindset otherwise.

And propose a solution? Who ever said I had to? Who ever said that in order to criticize an idea or position they had to without a shadow of a doubt solve that issue in its entirety.

As for their kids, that a tough situation. On one hand an argument could certainly be made to say that we have no right to tell them how to raise their children. A counter argument could state that they are essentially brainwashing their kids. I don't know how to solve these problems, but I do know that forcing someone to hold back their opinion solves nothing.

It doesn't make them not have that opinion anymore, it just makes them not allowed to say it. It just makes us feel more comfortable without addressing the root causes of the problem.
User avatar #231 to #226 - exarzero (01/20/2013) [-]
"A discussion between two individuals is never a waste of time if the issue is important."
Okay I admit I liked that. You seem to have more brains than I figured at first... my bad.

Still, there should be some sort of repercussion or way to stop what they do at funerals, and or things like that. Protesting needs to have limits when it is just so ****** up like that. I lost a friend in Afghanistan. I dreaded they would show up. They did not, but after watching my friends parents crying even without them, could only imagine the pain they would of caused. Even though I probably would of jumped them at that point.
#243 to #231 - BGinsanity (01/20/2013) [-]
I'm truly sorry to hear about your friend and I'm sorry for your loss. As for the funerals I'm not sure. Its my current understanding (however I could be completely wrong and please let me know if I am) that there are private property laws that prevent them from coming into the actual funeral and restricts them to protesting outside of the grounds. Even so I still feel that a family's grieving, whether mine yours or anyone else's do not override the Constitution. Unless they are physically harming someone or breaking any laws I do feel they have the right to protest, even if I hate them for it. And trust I do HATE them for it.

Please do not think that I mean to detract from the tragedy of your friends death. I truly am sorry for your loss, I mean that.
User avatar #253 to #243 - exarzero (01/20/2013) [-]
I understand your position on the constitution this is for certain. One can only hope that the positional in office share the same ideals. Still, these days that is not for certain.

In the mean time I hope a solution comes...

I appreciate your condolences. My only regret is that due to my spine twisting on me, I could not of fought along side him. Good night, sorry for being so uncivilized at first. The internet does pathetic things to guy's view on others.
#255 to #253 - BGinsanity (01/20/2013) [-]
Trust me I completely understand, goodnight friend.
#229 to #226 - BGinsanity (01/20/2013) [-]
meant to say we SHOULD'T just tell them to shut up and not say that. Sorry for all the typeos( or however you're supposed to spell type-o)
User avatar #240 to #229 - exarzero (01/20/2013) [-]
I figured as much. Type-O I think? Night.
#204 to #203 - BGinsanity (01/20/2013) [-]
*peacefully PROTEST* not protect my bad
 Friends (0)